You have to be in the right frame of mind for this. It isn't a heroic epic where everything turns out all right.

It is a graphic and real depiction of the horrors of war from the eyes of those fighting on the front lines in ww1. It is meant to make you question the motives of leaders. It is meant to make you think about how much the normal people putting their lives on the lines to kill each other, actually differ from the ones they are killing. And it's meant to show you/make you viscerally feel the shift that happens when you move from only hearing the media/govt rhetoric - to seeing first hand the conflicts of interest / cruelty in your own / illogical decisions - to finally becoming a numb, automaton following orders blindly to stay alive.

It is a very well made film. You care about the characters. You feel the emotions. You really understand the implications of the fruitless efforts at the western front. You end feeling how tragic it was. I ended feeling anger for how people were treated like throwaway chess pieces. You've got to be in the right frame of mind!

It's crazy to think that film has been around long enough that a remake can arrive almost a century after the original. With a gap that long, it's unsurprising that most younger audiences (including myself) have never seen the 1930 adaptation of this novel. Of course, I like to go into movies blind anyway, so it was my preference to judge the film without any bias driven by comparisons to the Best Picture winning original.

The aspect of the film that I enjoyed most was that it comes from the less explored German perspective. When compared to the Allied perspective that audiences are more accustomed to, there are the obvious high level differences (e.g. driving toward a looming defeat versus a triumphant victory), but there are also many little details that I really enjoyed (e.g. the dog tags that snap in two). The opening was clever and well executed, with the [spoiler]life cycle of a German uniform really driving home the scope and human cost of the war[/spoiler]. The filmmaking is also excellent, with plenty of striking visuals and memorable moments. And while it may not be the most elaborate musical motif, the deep, ominous bass riff that repeats throughout was incredibly effective.

Regarding the story, it combines a classic "war is hell" narrative (i.e. [spoiler]naive young soldier joins up with his buddies only to lose them one by one as he discovers that there's nothing heroic about war[/spoiler]) with a clever big picture narrative ([spoiler]the pending armistice acting as a ticking clock to the end of hostilities[/spoiler]). It's a powerful source of dramatic irony that adds a lot of weight to every death. The central performance by Felix Kammerer was also fantastic, with his eyes and demeanor sinking as the war dragged on.

All of that said, I think I've become a bit numb to the actual war sequences that comprise the major beats of the story. Especially with 1917 being only a couple years old, the spectacle of trench warfare just didn't hit as hard. There's only so many ways to show soldiers charging through no man's land, or getting evaporated by artillery shells, or run through by bayonets. That's not to say the movie does a bad job with any of these things. I think it's all visually and technically well executed. But it all feels familiar. The movie was at its best outside of those moments, with trips to steal a goose or eggs standing out above the actual fight on the western front.

**All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)**: ***7.5/10*** *(Impressive, yet it doesn't quite hit the mark in every respect)*

---

A fascinating film with potential that was never fully achieved. “All Quiet on the Western Front” does not rely solely on shock value to disturb its audience; instead, it uses the horrors of war to sober them with facts and dismal realities. The film's story was worth telling; it left an impression long after the credits rolled. It dealt with many weighty themes, including a young man's journey through war, the difficulties of combat, the cruelty of desperation, and the value of friendship and camaraderie, all of which were handled with grace and artistry. Furthermore, it boasted first-rate production values, breathtaking visuals, a terrific score (although maybe a tad bit over the top), and stellar acting. Although there is much to praise about the film, “All Quiet on the Western Front” is ultimately hampered by its drawn-out length, the plot dragging in spots, and several confusing moments. All the pieces were in place for “All Quiet on the Western Front” to be the best picture of the year, and in some respects, it is. Fans of the genre, or anyone who appreciates a well-made film, should not miss this film despite its limitations.

@csbarker - Hindsight is always 20/20, especially in the eyes of young men, looking for adventure, and wanting to prove themselves heroic, gorged on the propaganda of duty, honor, and the notion of fighting for the "Father or Mother-land". However, do not misunderstand my position. Pacifism cannot fly in the face of those who would bring havoc and ruin upon ourselves, our loved ones, and our cherished way of life, as "greater love has no man than this, that he would lay down his life for a friend". (John 15:13) But, being volunteered for the Cuisinart of war at the behest of those "in the rear with the gear", or worse, politicians sitting fat and sassy in their ivory towers, while the blood and treasure of others is spilled in their behalf makes little sense either. After all, "suppose they gave a war...,and NOBODY came?"

All Quiet on the Western Front exposes the devastating insanity of "Modern" warfare, where new instruments of death such as the machine gun, tanks, flame throwers, poison gas and heavy artillery made old tactics like digging a trench and then going "over the top" straight into a hail of bullets to gain a few meters of ground a futile exercise. Nor was digging in and holding ground any better of an option, as eventually, tanks, poison gas, or even enemy tunnellers could eventually breach the held position and kill you anyway. Not to mention the mud, rats, diseases or, as shown, plain old starvation and deprivation, driving men to desperation and madness.

Yet, what was the individual soldier to do, when, refusing an order to run headlong into almost certain death, would result in summary execution. That is the conundrum these men faced. Yes, there are always those who are "professional solders" who would rather go out in a "blaze of glory" than negotiate the peace, but what of those who finally realized they've been hoodwinked, and just want to get back to the wife and kids, or just WANT the CHANCE to have a wife and kids?"

For me, the most poignant moments were those where for Paul, if only fleetingly, the fog of war briefly lifted, and, he regained his humanity, in the one instance, after hand to hand fighting and stabbing the French soldier, then apologizing and trying to save him, and then of course, when he was sent on the final charge, ending up fighting in the trench, and then, face to face with his fellow, yet enemy soldier, knowing the armistice is to take effect in a few minutes, he pauses, and his "warface" slowly relaxes, and they BOTH realize they no longer want to do this, sadly, all for naught.

And yet, 104 years later, it seems we STILL haven't learned.......

A very strong cautionary tale about people being misled by propaganda in order to fight for useless causes that only lead to emotional self harm and pain. A timeless message, you could make that movie during any time period and it’ll probably strike a chord with audiences, but now especially it seems extra relevant with the worldwide rise of neofascism. The directing and cinematography are both extremely well done. It’s clearly inspired by _1917_ colour, lighting and composition wise, though it’s not all edited to look like one take (there are a few great long takes in it, however). I also appreciate the eye for detail and authentic choices its willing to make, I like that everyone in this movie has shitty teeth, which is something often omitted in American war movies. When it comes to the story, I like the contrast the script provides between the soldiers and commanding officers, both parts felt equally as interesting to me. The action sequences are impressive, but so are the armistice negotiation scenes with Daniel Brühl. Emotionally, it packs a strong punch, though its extent is lessened by the fact that most of the emotional beats are build around the arc of the protagonist, who’s simultaneously meant to be the audience surrogate and kind of a wet blanket as a result. It reminded me of _Dunkirk_ in that regard, though a lot of the side characters here are generally more colourful and interesting. I also think the music could’ve been more gripping, but those are the only real complaints I have. An essential war movie for the modern age.

7.5/10