Great performance, slow paced but with full of meanings and dramatical moments during the First World War. I saw more the psychological and terrific aspects from this nonsense event where more than three millions lost their lives . Especially at the west front. Here is shown the German side with the destiny of soldiers in this combat against the French. Cinematography is fine and the costumes were accurately done. The sceneries and atmosphere were well created to feel the audience in this nightmare.

Congratulations to all the staff. 8/10.

If you like war movies check the mini series Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan.

The original was an absolute classic and such a well-done war movie. The battle scenes were fantastic, the acting great. This is almost completely and action movie with very little content besides the fighting, and it did have the original material to draw upon, but it still failed to really provide the feeling of the war. Considering that the original was done only a few years after the war, and so many of the people watching the movie would have been in the war, and it was so well received should have been indicated that it had to fairly well represent the conditions. But yet is seem that again the people creating this film failed miserably in creating a movie that was representative of the war.

The charging would have been in lines, not so spread out, the craters would have been small (75mm guns), the machines guns would have not been firing when the men were not also firing. Basically, really badly done. And where are all the horses, the artillery. And for the troops there must have been a deadness with death surrounding them and did not feel this in the movie. And the forest scenes with none of the scars of war within close proximity of the front lines. Think I am being generous with my 4 stars.

Finally, a decent WW1 movie; these are few and far between in cinema. It's not quite as perfect as I'd heard, and I wasn't a fan of the dullish political scenes with Daniel Bruhl, which I felt dragged down the pacing and made the whole thing feel quite overlong at times, taking away from the immediacy of the trench warfare. However, focusing on the action, this film constantly impresses. The colours are exceptional, the cinematography excellent (far surpassing Nolan's 1917) and it's as realistically brutal as you'd hope for. Numerous adaptations of the novel have been made over the years, but this modern interpretation might well be the best of them.

From its brutally minimalist staccato soundtrack, its consistently excellent cinematography and numerous memorable scenes, this movie is an impressive attempt to envisage the hellish existence of the average soldier on the Western Front.

My only regret is I didn't watch this at the cinema.

For the participants and victims, no war can be said to be better or worse than another, yet there is something about the combination of devastating machinery and almost medieval hand-to-hand combat; the mind-boggling numbers of people involved in the war of attrition; the constant inhuman degradation, suffering and industrialised slaughter of WW1, that makes it stand out.

This was the war that should have ended all wars.

Daily life in the trenches must have been awful enough: exposure to extreme temperatures, lack of sleep, hunger, disease, boredom, loneliness and despair, literally stuck in mud for days, months, even years. Add to that the constant threat of poisonous gas, artillery bombardment, snipers, drowning in the collapse of trenches or the dreaded command to 'go over the top' and face almost certain death, injury or loss.

Imagine living day-to-day in this hellscape - often side by side with the rotting corpses of your friends.

To many of us, living in relative comfort, these experiences are unimaginable.

Watch it for the visceral experience. Contemplate it whenever you catch yourself feeling sorry for yourself.

From its brutally minimalist staccato soundtrack, its consistently excellent cinematography and numerous memorable scenes, this movie is an impressive attempt to envisage the hellish existence of the average soldier on the Western Front.

My only regret is I didn't watch this at the cinema.

For the participants and victims, no war can be said to be better or worse than another, yet there is something about the combination of devastating machinery and almost medieval hand-to-hand combat; the mind-boggling numbers of people involved in the war of attrition; the constant inhuman degradation, suffering and industrialised slaughter of WW1, that makes it stand out.

This was the war that should have ended all wars.

Daily life in the trenches must have been awful enough: exposure to extreme temperatures, lack of sleep, hunger, disease, boredom, loneliness and despair, literally stuck in mud for days, months, even years. Add to that the constant threat of poisonous gas, artillery bombardment, snipers, drowning in the collapse of trenches or the dreaded command to 'go over the top' and face almost certain death, injury or loss.

Imagine living day-to-day in this hellscape - often side by side with the rotting corpses of your friends.

To many of us, living in relative comfort, these experiences are unimaginable.

Watch it for the visceral experience. Contemplate it whenever you catch yourself feeling sorry for yourself.

While the production values are excellent, this version still can't compare to the Lewis Milestone original. It did not have the character development and narrative of the 1930 film, and instead goes from scene to scene so rapidly and randomly that the viewer never fully sees the gradual erosion of idealism that the original version has.

It is the gruesome depiction of combat that in my opinion is this film's greatest strength. Nothing is held back in depicting the absolute filth that soldiers on both sides had to endure in the trenches. The random violence and sheer terror of trench warfare is intelligently done and is no way gratuitous. The strain that these men endured in this living hell is shown so convincingly that by films' end the viewer understands the disillusionment of the "Lost Generation."

Personal note- As a former Marine, I myself felt a lot of empathy with many of the ordeals that the Infantry of that day had to face.

Well, this is the third installment of the famous novel. While the 1930 Academy Award winner and the 1979 Emmy winner stay close to the novel and are capable to bring its specific feeling to the audience, this one goes the other way. Focus of the original story was the soldiers perspective only, and how a simple soldier turns from encouragement to horror.

This movie rewrites the story into an action/war movie that simply picks up some famous scenes and characters from the book. The movie is quite OK, but everythings special to the story is lost in the process, sadly. The additions contain some factual errors, don't add to the story and bring up plots only required to water down the core statement of the novel: against war and military.

Compare all versions yourself, this one first as a war movie, continue with the 1930 authentic version, which feels a bit outdated nowadays, and finish with the 1979 TV approach, which is more accessible and for me the most suitable for a younger audience.

This was probably the most spectacularly shot war film I've seen in a long time. It felt very real and gritty with the amazing cinematography, realistic sets and landscapes, and spot-on visual effects, prosthetics and carnage.

The big problem that I had with this film is co-writer and director Edward Berger's overzealous constant display of useless, and dragged out shots. The entire film is stuffed with style over substance, with many useless scenes that needed to end up on the cutting room floor. It's like this film wasn't even edited/cut down. An example is the French ruler on the train asking if the croissant was made today; who cares. It's ok to throw in the odd metaphor here and there, but there were far too many - in addition to the constant shots of an empty forest, the sky, etc, that added nothing to the film except annoyance. Sure there were undeniably powerful moments, but they were overshadowed by all over-stylization and lesser involving narrative that we've all seen in more inspiring war films. All three writers seemed to enjoy long sequences where very little of interest happens, and the little interest there is, is milked to the maximum time.

If this was cut down to about a 90 min runtime, the tension and suspense would be more appreciated and the narrative more engaging. And that's a shame, because this was so beautifully and realistically shot, with outstanding casting and performances, but had the writing and directing been better, this film would've been great, instead of just good. The score was very fitting - with the exception of the random outbursts of ear-pounding loud sound effects. It's a decent one-time watch if you have 148 mins to invest with nothing better to watch - even if just to appreciate the scope of the production values and excellent performances.

This movie did something I didn't expect from a World War movie...it makes you feel empathetic for the Germans. To an extent.

I'm no war buff so I'll leave the realism to the experts but what this movie does is show you the first World War from the view point of people who've never experienced or even conceived of war and bloodshed on this scale. It starts off with new recruits full of patriotism for their country expecting to be sent on a grand adventure only to have those expectations quickly shattered. Turns out war isn't fun, and not even initially due to the actual fighting. Just training and constantly being screamed at and controlled while marching your days away is brutal. Remember, while vehicles existed, they weren't common use at this period of time...these soldiers had to walk, walk, and walk some more to get to where the war effort was taking place. And even if they had vehicles most of those places didn't have roads yet to drive them on. Then there's the constant lack of food and water, rough sleeping conditions, being exposed to the elements. Just GETTING to the war is brutal. That's a good 3rd of the movie right there.

Then close to the half way point, after a few minor skirmishes, we see the war front and the trenches and get to see what that's like. Well...it's terrible! You pop up out of a trench and boom...you're shot. And that's just life in between charges. There was no strategy to the charges either, they relied on waves of bodies to gain even 100 meters, hoping to out pace the bullets constantly coming your way. Millions of young men died in this fashion, their bodies littering the field.

The most brutal part of the film is the weapons of war never before seen. Tanks, flame throwers, planes dropping bombs. Men screaming in pure terror while the bullet proof tanks drive over them, while flames fill their trenches, or planes blow them up while they flee.

And the odd thing is since we're seeing it from the eyes of the young German soldiers, who are truly clueless as to why they're really even fighting, you do empathize and feel sorry for them. You find yourself even rooting for them. This movie humanizes them but importantly shows the politicians who are truly to blame for the atrocities. The powerful men behind the scenes, bloated from being overfed on rich foods, hundreds of miles away from the pain and suffering they cause.

I have no idea how accurate this movie is but it's a pretty straight forward piece showing just how awful, terrifying, and destructive this period of time was. I really enjoyed it and recommend it to any fans of this genre.

The 1930 and 1979 adaptions of the book are way better, you should watch them instead if you are looking for a true to source experience.

This is very sad because production quality wise this movie is made very well and shows the horrors of ww1 in a gruesome and very graphic fashion that leaves no one unharmed after watching this.

All in all the movie suffers greatly from the bad adaptation of the source material, despite its cinematography being very good. Still it feels like a wasted opportunity.

One thing that really bothers me though and i will never understand it fully is the laziness in some of the details, for example rifles having no recoil in the battle scenes. In the opening scenes i asked myself why the german soldier is racking the bolt of his rifle because i didnt get that he was supposed to be shooting. Once you see it you can never unsee, and details like these ruin whole war movies for me personally.

Let me start by saying the original is a masterpiece and would rate it 10/10 like I have done for this second re-make. The difference is that the cast is German and the story is different (if not the same!!). There is so much that is great in this movie that I have decided to concentrate on just a minor detail and that is teeth. So often in war movies the cast go through hell and still have milky white teeth which would be almost impossible in combat but here even that detail is covered. Minor detail as I say but still covered. Everything else is done so well that there is little not to quibble about. The opening sequence alone is as moving an anti-war sentiment as has ever been put on screen.

Stunning and shockingly convincing latest version of Remarque's famous anti-war novel All quiet on the western front, which is able to compete with strongest predecessors of the genre like Kubrick's Paths of Glory or Full Metall Jacket, Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan or Mendes' latest 1917.

It's visually stunning due to strong realism, sometimes crossing the border into disturbing surrealistic sequences, which make the brutal senselessness of any war even more graphic, sometimes almost unbearable to watch at. Strong camerawork, soundtrack and convincing actors throughout. Definitely Oscar-worthy material here.

The main fault of this movie is the focus on graphic violence and scenes of horror thru special effects, and almost no attention to the human element of what it was like. WWI was the industrialization of war which is impossible to convey in 2 1/2 hrs. The front extended for hundreds of miles and the typical image most people have are the trenches but though these extended for hundreds of miles, the scenes in this movie were the exception. The film has all the cliches of trench warfare that we identify with WWI even though it wasn't anything as depicted in this film, but none of feeling from the perspective of trying to survive. Instead of focusing on the characters its as if they made an inventory of everything they think people correlate to the war and made sure to include it, time allowed. You don't really get the scope of the battles, the suffering and the aftermath of years of battle, and surviving horrific conditions. So why not focus on the characters instead which is what the '79 version accomplished. This version took the time to develop the characters without using all the typical cliches, and without covering the whole scope of the war. This new version has all the cliches and almost none of the human connection that the story is really about. But it's want audiences want, right. They want the visceral effect so they can claim they relate to the characters. They can pretend to understand because they survived the images thrown at them. So would 'paths of glory' be successful if it was replayed exactly today, even though it doesn't have the big budget special effects? I think so because people aren't stupid. They may not be able to explain art but they know it when they see it, mostly. But, while 'paths of glory' has an artistic expression of human condition this film is just an expose of the mechanics of war, not an indictment of the beginning of mass destruction that was the 1900s. Based on what was accomplished to produce suffering in the 1900s, we didn't learn very much from WWI and you won't learn anything from watching this film either. There's no art to it so don't pretend you can understand. It's not a terrible film but will it hold up to time. I don't think so.

Good enough for an audience that does not know the book written by Mr. Remarque nor the first two movie adaptions. This "based" on movie got some well done battle scenes, but that's about it - the implementation of the new stuff (scenes of peace negotiations and debates between politicians and officers) destroys to a certain degree the intentions of Remarques book (who focuses on the grunts and common people at home only). And no doubt, there are some parts that felt lengthy to me - whereas I did watch the movie adaptions of 1930 and 1979 with awe - a couple of times. I dare to say that anything that the script writers implemented new or changed from the book are inferior and unnecessary detours. Also - despite that long running time - the characters are not well introduced, I did not care for one of them. Bad is also the music, score - those drones and music do not fit well to the scenario given. Last note: all those reviewers claiming that this is the best WWI movie do for sure not know those other movie adaptions or e.g. Kubrick's Paths of Glory. Anyway, for a Netflix production not bad but for sure nothing remarkable.

In the excellent 1930s original, war is seldom better summarised than by: 'It's dirty and painful to die for your country, when it comes dying for your country it's better not to die at all. There are millions out there dying for their countries, and what good does it do?'.

It's a statement that applies just as well today, and complimented by this outstanding piece of film making too, which leaves us under no illusions of man's inhumanity to man. The performances are truly incredible, the technical achievement recreating scenes of war outstanding, and the messages as clear as any about the futility of armed combat and the inability of the human race to learn its lessons - even to this day. Not really a film to enjoy, but certainly a film to reflect on how far we haven't come since 1918, especially in a world that often seems so intent on pulling itself apart.

With the exception of the title and character names, it bears very little resemblance to its well-known source, Remarque's novel.

Characters and significant portions are absent. The teacher glorifying fighting for the Fatherland and the confrontation with said teacher later in the story. Basic training and Himmelstoss. The story suffers because they are missing.

Remarque had numerous goals in mind. Convey the experience of him and his fellow soldiers during the war. Critique both German society before and during the war in his story. Human nature is examined philosophically. The majority of those are absent.

Things that are not in the book are presented to us, like a tank attack. Music that is inappropriate. And let's not even begin to discuss the sound that indicates a tense situation: "TAH TAH TAAAAAAAAAM!" It actually destroys the anticipation and quickly becomes very unpleasant.

Then there comes the conclusion, which deviates from the original. Furthermore, it left me with a foul taste in my mouth. The most significant aspect of the story is the original ending. Even the title makes a hint about it. Everything hinges on that conclusion. But they rejected it because of a poorly thought-out finale that renders it meaningless.

Nothing positive to say? Well the battle scenes are very accurate, gruesomely well done.

On the whole this is a generic war movie set in world war 1, that appropriated its title from a brilliant novel. Brilliance it never gets near. Instead, watch the 1930 original film and 1979 version for an accurate portrayal of the novel.

As "All Quiet On the Western Front" (2022 release; 148 min.; original title "Im Westen nichts Neues", or "In the West Nothing New") opens, we are somewhere on the front, as dead bodies are all over, and the Germany side launches another attack from the trenches, only to suffer massive losses. We then go to "Northern Germany, Spring 1917", as we are introduced to Paul and several of his friends. Not yet being 18, Paul lies about his age to sign up for the war without his parents' knowledge. Soon thereafter Paul and the others arrive at the war front, where things are not what they expected. At this point we are less than 15 min into the movie.

Couple of comments: this is the latest movie adaptation of the (in)famous German novel of the same name, but it is the first to be brought by a German production starring a German cast. I have not seen the 1930 Oscar-winning movie adaptation, nor the 1979 TV movie adaptation, and am going strictly by was I watched in this version, and I'll just throw it out there: this is a stunning anti-war war movie that makes for a sobering yet must-see movie experience. The opening scenes on the battlefield remind of the opening scenes of "Saving Private Ryan": very intense, and then some. This German production set is remarkable in the details, both on and off the battlefield. I wasn't familiar with anyone in the cast or even with the German producer-writer-director Edward Berger. The timing of this film couldn't be better, as Europe is dealing with its worst and largest war since WWII when Putin invaded Ukraine earlier this year, all because this deranged dictator wants to "Make Russia Great Again" into something that hasn't existed in decades, causing immeasurable human loss and suffering. Beware: there are multiple scenes in "All Quiet on the Western Front" that are outright brutal and savage, so just be prepared...

"All Quiet on the Western Front" premiered last month at the Toronto International Film Festival to immediate critical acclaim, and started streaming on Netflix last night. This was on my radar screen for months, and I couldn't wait to see it. It certainly was worth the wait, even if this at times makes for difficult viewing. All that said, this is for me one of the best movies, if not the very best, of 2022. If you have an interest in understanding the human aspects of what war is really like, or simply want to see a transfixing anti-war war movie, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

If there EVER was a war-movie to match Saving private Ryan, it would be this one! Since this movie takes place during WWI, it might be the most brutally realistic from that time period! This movie pulls NO punches and gives you a good glimpse of how horrorfying war is, just like Saving private Ryan did a little over 20 years ago with "The beach scene"

This movie depicts WWI perfectly, with soldiers being mercelesly slaughtered, and senceless and meaningless it all felt! The movie is graphic and there are moments that will disgust you and make you look away!

Other than that the movie looks great with amazing cinematography, directing and acting!

With Everything that is happening in the World with Ukrain etc, this movie feels even more relevant! Deffinetely a MUST watch!

There are war movies and war movies. This is one of the great ones that treat war for what it is: that there are no winners, only losers.

I have watched films about WWI from the point of view of the victors. This is my first time to watch it from the perspective of the other side.

But, always, it's young people who have to fight it underscoring, at it emphatically does, a great loss for an entire generation.

Felix Kammerer and Albrecht Schuch vividly portray the angst, despair and fear that soldiers feel in the trenches amid all the incessant violence.

The story itself is heart-rending as it tackles, in no uncertain terms, the tenuousness ofliving and the swiftness of death.

A counterpoint is the frenetic effort of the peacemakers to end the war. Matthias Erzberg is a real person. His efforts to end the war is juxtaposed with the irrational desire of generals to continue the fruitless war.

It has been said by other reviewers that it is a timely piece of cinema given the war in Ukraine. Man never learns. As pundits say, it's not history that repeats itself; it's man who repeats himself.

We have to thank a great cinematography that brings to vivid life the gore of war. Ditto a musical score that ushers in the impending doom.

Watch it soon and be disturbed.

Germany, May 1917. 17-year-old Paul Baumer enthusiastically enlists in the German army and heads off to war. His head is filled with patriotism, honour, visions of heroism and the confidence that Germany will win the war. He soon learns that his impressions of war are far from the reality.

Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front" was first published in 1929. It was quite revolutionary, depicting the horrific reality of war rather than the glamourous, sanitised version. In a sense it was the first anti-war novel. It was so unflinching in its portrayal of WW1 that the Nazi party regarded it as treasonous and had the book banned and stripped Remarque of his German citizenship, causing him to flee to Switzerland and ultimately the US.

In 1930 Hollywood made the book into a movie. It was superb, capturing well the horrors that Remarque depicted in his book. It deservedly won the Oscar for Best Picture (and Best Director) in 1930.

In 1979 it was adapted again, this time as a made-for-TV movie. Despite being directed by Delbert Mann and boasting a star-studded cast (Richard Thomas, Ernest Borgnine, Ian Holm, Donald Pleasance) this version was far from being in the same league as the 1930 version and didn't do the book justice. It is quite tame and the performances are quite subdued.

This, the 2022 version, once again captures the essence of the book and is quite unflinching in its portrayal of war. Graphic scenes and realistic plot show the wastefulness and horror of war.

Not as good as the 1930 version though: the characters aren't as fully developed, limiting engagement, and the plot feels a bit padded. A few drawn out scenes could easily have been shorter without losing any detail. Some style-over-substance elements too as the director went overboard with the special effects he had at his disposal (the French counter-attack with tanks and flamethrowers is a good example). The droning sound didn't help either (clearly the director has watched Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk").