Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Majestic_Ferrett t1_iu4k02r wrote

As a movie it's not bad. But it should have a different title. I'm about an hour and 20 into it and it's similar to World War Z in that it has nothing in common with the book other than the title and names of the characters. And in both cases the movies are massively inferior to the novels.

Both the 1979 and especially the 1930 movies do a much better job of telling the story.

The movie is OK, but it shouldn't be called All Quiet on the Western Front.

Edit: almost done the movie and keeping the same name is an insult to the book.

−7

OG-Mate23 OP t1_iu4p79r wrote

This version has the best battle sequences out of all the three, but it deviated more from the story than the first two. Still showed the nonsensical warfare that is ww1. It has that German touch of somber, cynicism and regret with their movies and tend to be more realistic than romantic in the face of carnage as with the 1930 and 1979 version

4

Majestic_Ferrett t1_iu4smb1 wrote

It did.

But >!every character that died in the film died differently in the book. Characters who lived in the book died in the film, they joined the war 3 years later in the film than the book, there's the random subplot with Daniel Bruhl that wasn't in the book and Paul dies in October 1918 in the book, which is where the title comes from, not some random attack after a bossfight on the last day of the war some officer ordered which has no basis in reality (for the Germans anyway).!<

4

OG-Mate23 OP t1_iu4u3hz wrote

I agree, its like they are trying more for an historical fiction drama angle trying to contextualise the audiences to the situation of November 1918 rather than putting it on Paul's point of view which is central to the story. But nevertheless, it still captured the most important details of the book, the insanity, the growing resentment, Paul's bitterness from reality after the death of his friends and his tranquil end in the midst of chaos as one of the many who gave for a few. Although not a major part of the book, it's historical authenticity is to be applauded.

2

Majestic_Ferrett t1_iu4ww8p wrote

I think those points are accurate. It's a good WW1 movie. But it's not All Quiet on the Western Front.

4

ExquisiteRestroom2 t1_iu57bi6 wrote

Honestly the thing that mostly bugged me was >!how Paul's death differed from the original. It's just Paul going "Oh boy here I go killing Frenchmen again!" then die and we get a "It's like poetry, it rhymes" moment. The fact that the title lost it's original meaning is really annoying.!<

Maybe it's because I just finished watching it but it's still a damn good movie. Not a good adaptation but a good standalone movie.

2

Majestic_Ferrett t1_iu5d063 wrote

>The fact that the title lost it's original meaning is really annoying.

Yes. It reminds me of what they did with the ending of I Am Legend.

>Not a good adaptation but a good standalone movie.

100% agree. Good movie, bad adaptation.

1

Lythene- t1_iu4oghd wrote

100% agree. Just finished watching it now…

2

Majestic_Ferrett t1_iu4p2jf wrote

Almost done. The 1979 movie is better than this, the 1930 movie is better than the 1979 one and the book is better than all 3.

4