all quiet on the western front

how good a representation of ww1 western front is this movie?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was a decent ww1 movie, but a horrifically bad adaptation of all quiet. They should have called it something else and made a different movie instead of cutting everything good out of all quiet.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty ok movie, but stupid name. That shit was so fricking loud. My surround sound indoor cinema when the tank shows up was like "SSSSCREEEE-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-PSSSSHHHH-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-CHK-PSSSSHHHH DAKADAKADAKADAKADAKADAKADAKA" Then that one guy was all like "WHHHAAAOOOOAOAAOA" and then he got fricking mushed.

    Yeah, that shit was pretty tight, but not quiet at all. Fricking stupid name.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "All quiet" as in nothing new/notable to report, specifically referring to the report in the end of the story.
      The original title (Im Westen nichts Neues) isn't quite as ambiguous and just means "nothing new in the west".

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Erwin Rommel enjoyed it, not everyone is made for war.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm currently reading infantry attacks, I'm right in the middle, doesnt seem like enjoyed nor disliked it, he just recounts his experience and plans, but yeah I'd imagine he liked it somewhat based on his attitude and the fact he kept going and became a career officer till ww2.
      one thing is he omits details, just talks about the plans l, execution and casualties while leaving out the more human details that I imagine happened, like people getting blow up and screaming and people schizoning out or in general the details of everyday life in the trench and the way things were run and organized

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I read Attacks and Storm of Steel. I think the Rommel and Ernst Junger types are just autists, as in people who are really fricking good at something because they have nothing else that they care too much about, and in this case it's war. Mind you I don't think they're psychopaths, because they still show emotion when shit happens, as in Attacks when Rommel talks about the death of an orderly he cared about (an interesting inclusion in a book dedicated to tactics and observations) and that time in Storm of Steel when Junger cries over losing half his company to artillery while they were marching the front. Not to mention the moment near the end when Junger decided to not bayonet a lone, unarmed Englishman he found while storming a trench. But yeah, they don't really talk or even think about their daily miseries in the same way others do.

        It's easy to say that they liked war and that's why their thoughts and literature are the way they are- relatively uncritical of war in a broader sense and disturbingly resilient to traumatic things like death and misery, especially in contrast to the "anti" war works out there. This is why people like that other anon say that Rommel enjoyed the war. But I think it misrepresents him and those like him as bloodthirsty or enjoyers of the war's horror, overlooking the idea that they're just people who are dedicated to their job, it's just that the job involves absolutely horrible shit and requires a degree of detachment from and/or acceptance of it to be competent.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          agree (I'm

          I'm currently reading infantry attacks, I'm right in the middle, doesnt seem like enjoyed nor disliked it, he just recounts his experience and plans, but yeah I'd imagine he liked it somewhat based on his attitude and the fact he kept going and became a career officer till ww2.
          one thing is he omits details, just talks about the plans l, execution and casualties while leaving out the more human details that I imagine happened, like people getting blow up and screaming and people schizoning out or in general the details of everyday life in the trench and the way things were run and organized

          )

          one thing that I noticed, although I already knew it, is the randomness of how you die, of course you know the way mostly, get shot or blown up or stabbed or die to exposure, either during an attack on your part or a defence etc
          but then once you're in the situation it's just a dude roll, like the adjutant in Romania, that got shot in the head at random from the retreating Romanians in an attacknthay had 0 casualties, or just when they get shelled and hide in the trenches, sometimes it lands near you sometimes it doesn't.
          in fact he got lucky not to die, in the French front during their attacks a lot of people died, and even him got wounded, in Romania it was more chill, in my opinion due to lack of artillery shelling, and partly because the Romanians seem to not have been that good at fighting, often times not putting out screens or just retreating at the first signs of hardship.
          but in any case I think he had alot of luck not being one of the random guys that got dropped or blown up.
          btw it was extremely moronic when they had them go on top of a mountain with no winter gear and almost all became casualties due to the cold and only then let them go back bc they were threatened with court marital if they did.

          I also renew my asking for books, not only ww1 book just modern war books in general

          where can I find some good accounts of war and diaries and memoirs etc, both from random privates that dont know wtf is going on and from NCos and officers that can give a more informed account, for now I've read blood red snow and I'm reading infantry attacks

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I just started Storm of Steel and the edition I have has a foreword by Karl Marlantes that talks about what a warrior is really resonates with the spirit of the book.
          A cruel or ruthless person is not a warrior but instead someone that is really good at war and finds a calling in conflict despite being able to live in peace.
          I do not get that Junger glorifies war because I guess to some people if you aren't demonizing it, then you're supporting it. The way he's so objective about it is something I guess a warrior would have a mindset for. Literally weaponized autism.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This one sucks watch the original 1930 movie. The ending alone mogs the 2022 film.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm a fan of the 1979 version.

      https://i.imgur.com/kb9uzke.jpg

      how good a representation of ww1 western front is this movie?

      The ending was the weakest part of the 2022 version. Having Paul die in a dramatic attack is idiotic compared to dying innocuously, so meaninglessly it doesn't even earn mention in the report. Kind of the whole point of the name of the book.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        but is the way combat and the situation in the trenches is represented realistic?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Some spoilers below:

          There is no recoil when they shoot which pissed me off. A few of the scenes feel too much like an action movie (Paul getting shot through the top of the helmet, that one guy being flamethrower'd, Paul flipping that guy over while being drowned in the mud)

          There are still great scenes that are really intense, like when they storm the trenches or Paul regretfully bayonetting the Frenchmen in no man's land. Worth the watch but certainly not what I expected.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only thing the 2022 version has over the others are the superior battle scenes

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Only thing the 2022 version has over the others are the superior battle scenes
        the 2022 battle scenes are Marvel-tier choreograph tripe. I can't understand how you enjoyed them.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The scene with the pairs of boots being passed from victim to victim.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    on thing I didn't like about it is that the combat is represented as just a guy telling to attack and then they go over and meet wave against the enemy, when in reality they would've had plans, nothing too detailed, but at the platoon level at least theyd be order to attack a certain way, while another platoon would attack somewhere else, maybe be told to move a certain way or wait or whatever

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >how good a representation of ww1 western front is this movie?
    >tanks used as a quick reaction force for counterattacking
    you tell me

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not as good as 1917.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      only good scene in 1917 is the longshot intro.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1917
      >good
      choose one

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I pick both

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this
      1917 was a triumph of a film

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this scene was pure kino

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/jvZF1Qo.gif

      this
      1917 was a triumph of a film

      this scene was pure kino

      I'm glad other people liked it. I really did.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's the point of pretending to do a single take when you do a hidden cut every 3 minutes?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/jvZF1Qo.gif

      this
      1917 was a triumph of a film

      >1917
      It annoyed me that the guy decided to duel the sniper instead of following the canal for a quarter of a mile and taking another street. No wonder you delivered your message late, moron.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The combat scenes are pretty ridiculous, the movie depicts combat on the western front as brainless charges toward the enemy when in reality it was so much more then that, especially in 1918

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >brainless charges toward the enemy
      Which are immediately countered by a line of unsupported tanks, followed by a line of 50 guys with flame throwers. Absolute absurdity.
      That said the costuming and props were phenomenal. I was particularly impressed at converting bmp2 into st charmond

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's a shame, any WW1 movie could easily relay the message of "war is bad" while also remaining historically accurate in their depictions of combat, if only directors weren't so lazy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        where can I find some good accounts of war and diaries and memoirs etc, both from random privates that dont know wtf is going on and from NCos and officers that can give a more informed account, for now I've read blood red snow and I'm reading infantry attacks

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          "The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War" by Peter Hart

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wow that's brutal

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How the frick did he manage that with one arm?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you can still put a mask on with one arm

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it was so much more then that, especially in 1918

      No, it wasnt.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No, it wasnt.
        they literally posted their small unit tactics that shows a much more sophisticated formation than a wave of men, with
        and after hard lessons learned at the somme, where heavy casualties came more from inexperience to coordinate between units rather than an inherent lack of tactics, they would have added artillery support from both field guns and heavy guns
        so units were no longer acting as independent platoons, arguably they never did, but as a combined arms brigade

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous
  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought it was beautifully shot, but not very good.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Read the book.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Paths of Glory and All quiet represents the absolute bullshit you deal with. Quiet goes more into the semi brainwashed you get

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone seen A Very Long Engagement?
    It's definitely a french film, but I think it has some of the best ww1 representations

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Old one was better

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. It's made by people that hate themselves far more than they do anything else. Just watch the 1930 adapation.

    As far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't end with the shot of him dying to reach the butterfly, it's garbage.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not enough artillery. The book is far more realistic in this regard.
    Everyone gets shot in the chest and dies instantly except characters with plot armor. No screaming/moaning wounded in no-man's land.
    Some of the best, most thematically impactful parts of the book are inexplicably changed or left out. For example, Kat's death or Paul's time on leave.
    The anti-leftist general felt shoehorned and preachy. Blatant pandering to the modern left, but I guess you can't expect better from filmmakers these days.

    I did like that they captured the central powers' desperation for resources. It was a war of attrition and you feel it in the film.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't even know the 1930 version was a talkie until fairly recently. The version I saw when I was younger was a silent film.
    No intention of watching the new one, but it apparently just cuts scenes central to the message of the film(and book it was based on) like the home leave and the original ending. German autism at work.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *