I also highly recommend you to watch the 1930 and 1979 versions of All Quiet on the Western Front. If you want some real WW1 story, check out Ernst Junger "Storm of Steel"... German movie directors never had the b*lls to make a movie out of it. Ernst Junger kept a diary during the war, and wrote his book immediately after war, when it was still fresh in his mind. Support HistoryLegends ✔ Patreon ► www.patreon.com/thehistorylegends ✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/historylegends ✔ Book ► www.thehistorylegends.com ► INSTAGRAM: instagram.com/historylegends2/ ► TIKTOK: www.tiktok.com/@thehistorylegends?lang=en

To people that say that it isn't an accurate adaptation, at the end of the day, the book's point was to make people understand that war is hell and no movie has come close to eliciting that feeling to me like this.

The fact that he’s complaining about how the deaths were random and meaningless shows that he misses the entire message of the movie.

no way in hell this guy is an actual historian

The thing is with war people die in the most horrible and random ways. This movie portrays that perfectly

I actually liked everything you didn't. First the "random" deaths of the various friends, to me they showed very well the movie's point: it wasn't glory, it was pointless death, a pure waste. The kid killing that one guy was genius in my opinion. Overall you're complaining about the movie not being realistic on details and you're missing the point of it all: this is the movie that best depicts the meat grinder that was this war, especially at the beginning with the whole uniforms being washed and reused which in my opinion was total genius. Basically no movie can show all of world war one realistically in two hours, which is why there is always a focus on some aspects over others. If you show this you can't show that, simple as that. The point here isn't to show realistic day by day trench life, or assault, it's to show senseless carnage which this war indeed was. Anybody can nitpick once you know a little about the subject matter, but it takes an effort to try and take what the movie offers, try and understand what it conveys, instead of standing in front of a picasso and say it's ugly. Just my two cents, have a great day/night, all quiet in Paris tonight. Edit: Thank you for all the likes and great replies, I will create a channel with content you might like, so if you wanna see it when it comes out subscribe baybeh !!!

Bro, the guy with the fork killed himself because he didn't want to live as a cripple. They pulled that scene right out of the book, only the guy tried his heart in the hospital and wasn't Tjaden. And then you call it "super gore and unnessecary," yet you mocked a previous scene for not being gory enough and complimented the book for it. Make up your mind. And I thought that a historian would know about the mentality that people had in the past, such as how the disabled and the insane were seen as lesser beings at the time. Bro, were you on your phone while watching the movie? Because it really comes across like that. For example you thought that the glasses kid died to a headshot when it was the shell that killed him. He leg was torn off by the blast and a bit of shrapnel shot through his head. His insides were likely jelly as well. You might have noticed that if you weren't playing phone solitaire or scrolling through Facebook or just had been more observant. You also seem to just ignore the human condition, at least so far. Yes, prisoners are useful. But you know what's more powerful than a desire for knowledge? Anger. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the French torched the guy instead of taking him prisoner because that happens all the time, no matter what war it is. It could also be that they were under orders not to for logistical reasons, which also happens and was the unfortunate case for a lot of units in 1944 Normandy. As for the historical inaccuracies, absolutely fair to call those out, please do. They don't necessarily make a film bad since films are about the writing and acting, but a pattern of behavior shows character and how much the movie makers care and it would be nice to see more accurate representations of history in movies. Bro, I put this comment down just to resume the video and hear you say that Kat's death was anti-climactic... as opposed to the 1930 version where he just kinda dies randomly to shrapnel? Sure, Kat's death was the climax in the book, but the climax was Paul snapping at his professor and returning to the front in the 1930 movie. Kat's death doesn't need to be climactic for thw movie to be good.

The trench knives, clubs, and sharpened shovels used in trench raids by both sides are well documented.

On hand to hand combat: I think its fair to say that it happened relatively often. Some museums carry quite to collection of melee weapons, suggesting that at some point it either occurred more frequently or there was a realistic fear of it happening.

You can't really beat the original, since it was real WWI soldiers telling real stories.

I had a neighbor when I was a little kid, back in the early seventies that was a WW1 vet. Have a vague memory of him telling me it was suicide out there. A meat grinder. Set up for an assault under smoke and artillery to get shot down and repelled most of the time so there were new guys all the time. He said both sides did the same thing. Taking and giving ground. He got shot by a pan gun to the back of his legs. Was what interested me in the first place. To find out how this old guy got the scars. He said they were retreating from a failed assault. Not much was left of the back of his legs, he was lucky. He said there were terrible bombs that would make giant craters and lots of people just disappear. Kind of weird that he told me this. He was pretty graphic. He told me to never join. Think he was the only military person to say that to me.

There was a reason for the directors to chose to have kat’s death be so “anti-climatic.” It shows that it isn’t a happy action movie with grand climatic deaths like iron man in endgame. It’s showing that war isn’t fair at all and life is still fragile, shell or tiny bullet.

Typically, I don't think photographers in WW1 wanted to get their equipment wet. So that is why I believe there are barely any pictures of men standing in flooded trenches with rain pouring down on them, instead, lots of stories of the conditions they lived in.

19:22, according to the timeline of the film (November 1918), tanks would have been a regular sight on the Western Front, having first been used by the British in September 1916. In one of the few noteworthy and accurate scenes, it is the veteran 'Kat' who using his experience, destroys the tank.

I've been strongly interested in WWI history for the past 40 years of my life, and I think you're missing a few things. You say you're a historian and I don't know what your credentials are, but you look to be about 25 years old. Take it from me, there's still more time in the books that awaits you. * Flooded trenches happened, especially at Passchendaele . There's an account of both sides climbing out of their trenches to escape the rising water, then just looking at each other across No Man's Land. * Allied Artillery could be devastating, and the book mentions whole trees being flung into the air as a creeping barrage moved forward. A unit of Russians caught in the open was more or less vaporized in one battle (not in the novel). Giant craters are still present on Western Front battlefields a hundred years later. You can see drone videos of it, if you care to. I've seen what modern bombs and shells can do to defenses and human bodies, and the level of explosiveness isn't that far removed from the Great War. Mainly, our times have improved on range and accuracy. Indeed, the concept of "defense in depth" evolved partly because packed trenches provided too many victims for shells. * Situations where no prisoners were taken happened. I've read British and American accounts of this from WWI. Someone I know was in the Vietnam War, and that was part of his combat experience, as it was for a friend's father, whose unit blew up surrendering NVA troops with grenades. Torture was a thing as well, and I've heard about that from veterans. It's ugly, it's horrifying, it's generally against the rules, and it's not always logical, but it's how war works. Human beings are what they are. * Suicides happened among soldiers who couldn't take it. I heard stories about this from guys who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. One private tried to do himself in by wrapping the electrical cord of some heavy appliance around his neck and throwing it out a window (he lived). Who knows what was happening in his fevered mind, but that's what he did. WWI veteran Siegfried Sassoon wrote the famous poem, "Suicide in the trenches". * "How can I feel empathy for someone who spared no one?" Again, I'll bring up the guy I know who was in Vietnam, my friend's father, and other veterans I've known -- I spend a day with the former about a month ago. I'm sad that they did some of the things they did, but I get it, given the hellish circumstances they were in. In the movie, the French who murdered Paul's friend had just witnessed the Germans shooting down Frenchmen who had escaped from a tank before it caught fire. To my mind, they reacted as many young men probably would.

Interesting to watch the take of someone who doesn't comprehend narrative, themes, or even storytelling on a fundamental level. Not enjoyable, just interesting

Hand to Hand Combat was rare? Well, when I was a little child, my grandmother told me, that her father told her one of his personal WWI Stories. He wanted to take a french soldier who surrendered and looked like Teenager, as a prisoner, telling him in french "This war is not your fault. This is not our war.", just seconds later that french boy got stabbed and killed by the bayonet of a german comrad. The way my grandmother told me this story made me feel exactly how that must have been very traumatizing to my great-grandfather, because he did not understand why that kid had to die (I had to think about that story the whole movie, because it's one of the few stories my grandmother told me about WWI.) But needless to say, growing up with warstories like that, made me hate war. Nothing fun about it, just misery and butchery in the name of people, who are far away from the frontlines, to enlargen or maintain their Power, Status and Money... Well, I guess nothing changed 😥

My grate grandfather fought in ww1. His entire “fight” experience was staying in trenches and once he met a german soldier in a forest. He told him to go a way and he another way. He didn’t shot 1 bullet the entire war. :)))

As someone who not only watched all 3 movies but also is reading the novel, it’s interesting to see the differences in each movie and how it relates to the book. While I love the 1970 version more the 2022 isn’t horrible. It shows the panic in the trenches really well in my opinion. I’m upset that the 1930 is the only movie to use the hands on the wire scene

I'm sorry but watching a "historian" say historically inaccurate things while calling a movie inaccurate is hilarious. Trenches did flood. In alot of cases prisoners where not taken. And your NOT. A historian. Also it's not overly Gorey and the kid with the glasses got hit with a shell. Shrapnel went through his glasses of course you trying to find any fault possible wouldn't note that.

Few things 1. Prisoners on the field were common, but when the POW camps became full, they sent out troops to kill them. Also, what would a few surrendered soldiers on the battlefield help with knowledge? They were useless to the French. The German soldiers were questioned at Mons to see if they saw knights from heaven shooting at them and many others were questioned about other things, but I just don't see how those 3 soldiers would be worth getting an officer's hands dirty for. 2. Hand to hand combat was "extremely rare?" Maybe in 1914 but absolutely not when you're in the trenches. Also, you ride the 1930's and 1970's version of the movie when they both had scenes with hand-to-hand combat. This line made me throw all of your criticisms out the window. Literally look up hand to hand combat weapons. The trench knife? The spiked club? Hell, stormtroopers had body armor to protect them crossing the trenches. 3. What does barb wire disappearing have to do with historical accuracy. You're acting like one continuity error just ruined the entire movie. Not to mention plenty of war movies have continuity errors. 4. You haven't read the book. You've only watched the 1930's version. The fork death was in the book. 5. If you actually listened to the movie, you'd know that the artillery attack was a creeping barrage which isn't just one artillery shell hitting an enclosed area of the trench, it's a line of artillery so of course it would make that huge aftermath. Also don't know where you pulled the nuke thing out of. Clearly, you've never seen a nuke aftermath. 6. There is not a hundred bodies, near 20 at most. Plus, you talk bad about the film for "overreacting" then get mad when the bodies of the German soldiers just have gunshot wounds. 7. Playing Hoi4 a few times doesn't make you a historian. It's a shame because your ranking WW1 movies video is really good but this video is absolutely terrible

It's better than most Netflix films so a win is a win

In the German army, trench clearing was called "Aufrollen." It was done with hand grenades, rifle grenades, explosives, and flamethrowers. The men rehearsed the attack in full-scale models of the enemy trench system built behind German lines, and they carried maps into battle. The training was very rigorous and effective.

i enjoyed it a lot. i found it very gritty, and the transition from proud singing to losing all his friends then finally his own life, in the last 3 days of war, are a brutal reminder of the futility. this movie inspired me to acquire the book, and to search for more accounts of ww1 life. it's humbling. the last seen where kat and paul steal from the farmer the 2nd time is metal. the piano starts signaling (thought we don't know it yet) kat's fate, he stared into the sky hearing the quiet for the first time in years, not knowing these are the last hours of his life. i recently watched the 79 version and will get to the 1930s version soon.

How can you shit on a movie as horrific and yet so beautiful as this

I think they did touch on them being replacements by showing the uniforms of dead soldiers being repurposed at the beginning. He even goes back and says someone already was assigned them, and he rips of the tag and lies to the kid.

I focused on the horror more than anything else. I think the film succeeded and espousing an anti war message.

Kat got shot in the liver by the farmer kid. And as stated by the medic in movie. His organs were poisoned because he got shot in the liver.

It's not really an adaptation of either the previous movies or the book. It is an interpretation, with another look. It would have been boring to see another movie with the exact same story. About this new version, as a historian by profession, I consider it to be good material, even for students who are studying the first world war in school

Amazing how some guy can gather 178k subscribers on a history channel despite clearly not being a historian.

The fork incident is from the book, where a patient does not want to live as a cripple, but he survives. Kat's death is also anticlimactic just like the book . All Quiet is my favorite book. Felt like this movie accurately depicted the horror that Remarque describes as well as showed us scenes from the book that have not been depicted on screen such as the "Goose Feast" and took significant artistic license to not be a shot for shot remake. What bugged me was the ending. In the book, Paul is basically a child experiencing this and has a soul and the ending in the book reveals the title. The ending of the movie is not only historically inaccurate, but steals from Paul's nature. Read the book if you haven't. It will truly grip your soul.

Im sure he never read the book and he isnt a real historian

Good sir, 1. Before the structure collapsed on Baumar the Commanding officer in the shelter stated that the french were coming and that the artillery moves forward as the french advanced. so all the death is normal. ( Due to grenades, and stuff where thrown) 2. The topic is sensitive to both sides due to the mass unnecessary losses. And for that reason, I believe the cast actually tried their best to make it fictional but accurate. with fiction I mean that not all the words are accurate) 3. The frontline trenches were not always met with a lot of care because they would be destroyed allot, so in the end, they would quickly be rebuilt.

What a strange "historian"... Tanks were a regular sight in 1918. The French had produced tanks in thousands by that time. Flamethrowers were also used a lot. Typically, 1918 saw combined gaz and flamethrowers attacks by the French mile the one at Ypres The French had also special units who did this job. They were called "Nettoyeurs de tranchées", trench cleaners. They consisted of the most experienced men of the regiment who had special equipment and weapons to do that.

All the people in the comments who are saying you're a hater obviously did not read the book. It's glaringly obvious that this comment section is filled with film buffs, not WW1 buffs.

I feel like these film producers hire historical experts but completely ignore most of their advice.

The French DID do mass wave attacks as late as 1916, but had switched over to the small squad level assault teams by the end of that year (at least according to Allistaire Horne in "Death of a Generation", great book)

Some of these criticisms... People are never happy. This is the best movie of its sort. Period.

did bro really bring up modern ukraine trench clearing to old german clearing? different time, different nation, different tactics.

"how can I feel empathy for someone who spared nobody" he didnt exaclly have a choise in the matter. I mean what was he gonna do, not shoot the enamy and get his own men, or himself killled. Also when you reacted to the short film "sodatengluck" towards the end a german sargent shoots a soviet who is trying to surrender and you said, "this is exactly waht would happen".

Yes you correctly mentioned it was a fictional book but based on real events and people. The first version of the book and movie were shocking records of what happened. I have seen the original censored version in " Buchenwald" on a trip through German history, This version is 4 hrs long and holy shit, all scenes are real footageand what you see is how it was. That version is still not easy to get hold of. the 1928 version is actually censored, shortened and only shows half of it! I am German, all my grandfathers fought, WW1 and WW2. My Grandmother grew up with French prisoners of war pulling their plough through the field because the German army had taken all cows and horses. I ve heard stories from survivors myself when i was young. Yes, they fought with clubs, spades, knifes, spears, sharpened anything that wielded well.... especially when raiding at night as to quietly kill so not to alert the whole enemy trench.....

I still enjoyed it greatly and it still sends the message that war is terrible and that not everyone is a Saint. Either way, this is probably the best depiction of war you are going to get in today's films

More like a self-proclaimed historian 😂

this guy thought they made the movie for him, the director made the movie with his own perspective, not for you man.

I loved the movie, possibly one of the best things Netflix has shat out.

Now I want to see a 99% accurate ww1 movie

It's alot better than most war movies nowadays, this is one of the few movies I've watched that puts the reality of war into prespective.

Anyway it's good film

I have seen all 3 films and have read the book, I can tell you that personally I liked the 2022 version the most. I can understand that it’s not as accurate as the other two but when it comes to the artistic side of things, I believe that it truly shines and still retains the overarching theme of All Quiet on the Western Front. I honestly find your take to be disingenuous, perhaps it’s because you don’t have a background in the arts and filmmaking in general. This film has amazing cinematography, sound design, editing and writing to name a few. As a work of art it’s good and deeply impactful, just because a work doesn’t depict an event with 100% accuracy, doesn’t mean that it should be discredited. Otto Dix was a famous German painter that fought in WWI and he created various works based on his memories of the war, they are not a 100% accurate depiction but are still deeply impactful for the viewer and give a glimpse into the mental state of Otto and perhaps most soldiers that served on the front. Hopefully you don’t make a video titled “Historian Gets Mad at Otto Dix’s depiction of WWI”.

Awsome video. I learned alot of valuable knowledge, I really loved to part were u explained the part with the forward attacking trenches

I dont Think you understand you the film wasnt Made to be historical accurate or anything it was just there to Show that war is hell and it showed that perfectly

Bro, I'm like 11 years out of the Army, first deployment was in 2007 to Iraq. I remember so much. The good and the bad. Regardless of his time on the front line, he knew enough to tell a true story without obvious embellishments. 11 years later isn't sus to me at all. It takes that long to be comfortable enough to speak on it.

I definitely enjoy watching all of your videos! For this movie, I did notice the large difference from its original portrayal in the book and original films. Personally though, I really liked it. It felt more like an experience rather than a film. You take some young soldiers and you stick them in a war that is so overwhelming that you, as an audience member, feel overwhelmed. Is it the best film ever? Definitely not. But it does feel different and hits the single purpose that the book wanted: war is hell and should not be celebrated. That theme in itself is what’s important about all quiet on the western front. As a historian, I say it’s worth watching all 3 versions. You’ll get a different experience each time, like watching 3 entirely different films on WWI.

And bro literally said that kats death was “to lame” bro doesn’t even sound like a historian. Had me rolling 😂

This criticism is not about the philosophy of the movie, it's about the small details those would have made it historically and cinematically more appealing while not changing the ultimate message of the movie, that(message) in itself takes a lots of creative liberties. I absolutely love this movie and I agree with a lot of stuff he says. It's a KZfaq commentary not a scientific paper, take it for what it is.

Saying that the attackers were at the advantage is so wrong. One side has to stay in there trenches and shoot machine guns, the over side has to get to them first while under fire and then fight them in the trenches when they can easily be reinforced.

Despite some inaccuracies all quiet on the western front is a good movie for a Netflix movie. BTW Well done on hitting 175k subscribers bro, being with you since the good old "Fury" videos.

There's an unfortunate trend that's becoming more prevalent in modern war movies that tries to disguise unrealistic action and horror behind the "war is hell" trope. It's the same problem I had with Fury back in the day. Instead of depicting how soldiers actually felt, acted, and behaved in combat, these directors ramp it up to 11 and make warfare look as intense as possible, even if it's not realistic and comes off as silly to anyone who's actually knowledgeable about the subject. I have a feeling if Band of Brothers was made today, younger audiences would probably scoff at how reserved it is with its depiction of combat precisely because they've been taught to believe war looks like an action movie or a video game. It's a shame too because Netflix's adaptation is well made from a technical perspective.

I fought war. This movie was an accurate representation of war at large. It was meant to be all encompassing. Not just for one people.

The fleeing from a tank scene was taken from when they first saw tanks on mass at Cambrai in 1917.

5:00 isnt that the point of the whole Movie/Book that you die by the most random bullshit. Some lucky some dont.

Tldl: this guy saw a movie but expected a documentary

You can tell this guys never been in combat to think the gore is cartoonish

I have not seen this movie yet but for me the best version of "All quiet on the Western Front" so far was the 1930 version. I have heard that many extras were former German WWI veterans. When working at Barcelona, many years ago, there was that security guard who fancied that old-fashioned moustache and had that short blond hair. I always called him "Himmelstoss"... :) It was very easy to imagine him wearing a Pickelhaube.

The bloodthirsty general looks cartoonish as hell, but it is true that some fought to the last minute before 11am. On that very last day of the war, there were more than 11000 casualties, 3k of them killed and the rest wounded / mia.

The reason that Tjaden (the guy who stabs himself in the neck with a fork) kills himself is because he can't bare to live in a life where he has witnessed the horror of war. It's not just a random, gory death. It helps get across the message of "war is hell."

Well this man is an official party pooper

For those interested in WWI from the german perspective, I recommend reading "Storm of Steel" by Ernst Jünger. Fascinating book. He fought through the entire war so it's interesting to notice how the German Empire started strong then gradually, Jünger mentions the hunger, how outgunned they are by allied artillery, tanks, etc. Remarque only fought for 1 month and a half before being wounded so his experience of the war is more of a snapshot (all quiet on the western front remains a great book nonetheless)

i agree. stories in ww1 of groups of soldiers on the opposite sides coming across each other and hurling insults and stones, not even thinking about shooting each other. even after ww2 militaries realized most soldiers almost never shoot to kill, was too brutal in terms of executing prisoners.

"Random guy that calls themselves a historian forgets the entire point of the movie they're critical of"

I don’t think the all the death in the trench in the trench you mentioned near the beginning of the video was due to artillery, but possibly a trench raid. While they are in the bunker, someone, I can’t remember who, states that the artillery being dropped is a creeping barrage, and the infantry would be behind. And Paul did miss the entire night. It is possible that the trench was taken and then recaptured by the Germans, which happens vice versa later in the film

It might be inaccurate but it's quite good and I enjoyed it

Cartoonish gore? The worse gore is missing limbs or blood splatters from artillery. Seems kinda normal for a war like this.

1:45 I found the movie did this perfect. It hinted at it for us, the viewers through reusing cloths of fallen soldiers and other stuff, but portrayed successfully to us the fassade of joy and hope these young boys would be motivated with.

Great another "historian" saying that accuracy is always important; bruh accuracy is not the only thing that matters in a war movie. This is no historian, this is a afficionate who only cares about accuracy details and not the whole message.

My great grandfather was taken at Verdun as a prisoner, then he became translater in the camp, because he did speak french very well (he learned it at school). They could write postcards and they could even take photos at the camp, I have two pictures of him with some of his comrades in the camp. But I seems that there have been some hand to hand fights, because he told my grandmother, that he killed two soldiers eye to eye and he always felt very sorry for it, my grandmother told me.

Well these days anyone can call himselfa Historian , I guess. Well so from now on I am a President in spe who is working as a Pornactor.🤣😂

"Only the movie did not deserve the title 'All Quiet on the W. Front'[..]" You sir dont deserve the title 'Historian'. P.s. other comments describes why perfectly. P.p.s. the more i watch the more of a disgrace.

Thank you, I find your review helpful and funny. I don't know as much about WW1 as I do about WW2.

It's a great movie but compared to the ones that came before it? Doesn't hold a candle. On it's own it is quite a well done film.

the training wasn't portrayed but it explicitly said that new retruits take 6 months to train if i remember correctly

Im gonna place one complaint from this guy below.. "The bodies arnt mangled enough from artillery"

Can you call yourself a historian even though you never studied it?

I'm gonna be really honest this is the first one of the your videos I've watched and I must say I feel you are not only largely wrong regarding some "facts" you present in this video but at times your points are completely ludicrous. While this movie is not 100% historically accurate, I mean none really ever are or can be 100%, It achieves it's goal and Erich Maria Remarques goal of showing the horror of War and its complete and utter futility. I mean it's clear you miss these points by your nit picks of "kats death was lame" or "it's too gorey" THATS THE POINT. Kat isn't supposed to die heroically in battle but tragically and needlessly to something stupid as ultimately that is what many casualties in war amount to, a pathetic and worthless death. Of course I believe the choice of death could have been perhaps done better but ultimately I feel it achieved its goal. The movie is different from the books and the other movies but similar enough to retain the same title and purpose. War is most often nothing more than needless mass murder thats the point and while I could spend the rest of the day critiquing this critique I feel I have gotten my point across.

They sacrificed realism for cinematography. It's more of an action movie than an impactful war movie with a lesson. Still a pretty good action movie.

This is a very interesting video! I do wonder if there is a bibliography, scenes such as 20:33 where one man even uses a crossbow would be fun to seek out, but there really only is a single video mentioned, by name.

When it comes to replacements, I think "Band of Brothers" has the best view on how they were received by the vets, as we can see in the chapter "Replacements". Same with "The Pacific" and some excerpts from "The Thin Red Line".

The movie wasn't supposed to be historically accurate it was just supposed to show the horror of war

My only real gripes are the side plot of the armistice negotiations and not including Paul’s leave home. I’m here to watch the infantry lives not random politicians I hate.

I lost it when he said the defenders are at a disadvantage

Ok, I am more than glad that the German film business has finally gotten an international platform again, let alone after adapting a classic like Erich Maria Remarque's masterpiece. And I fully agree that the art and science of this film deserve every award it has won this season. However, I get part of the criticism this adaptation of the novel has received here in Germany, since one of the main reason for the success of Remarque's novel has been the prosaic, even melancholic style in which he depicted the fate of his WWI generation. It's unsparing yet subtle. This movie has not only changed that unique atmosphere but also every key moment, especially the finale (in the other Oscar-winning adaptation, Paul dies with almost peacefully while reaching for a butterfly - a final glimpse at the beauty of this world, they were ordered to destroy). I guess those of you who have seen this new adaptation but not yet read the book or watched the films from 1930 / 1979 must be thoroughly confused why the author would even call his work "Nothing New On The Western Front". Here's the final paragraph ( *spoiler alert* ): _"He fell in October 1918, on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to the single sentence: All quiet on the Western Front. He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over, one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come."_ (Ch. 12)

As a combat vet, I expected the soldiers to ventilate the man that forced them to die when the war was over

as a movie break down enthusiast, i really enjoyed this movie. i do think realism and taking into account what actually happened, but i loved the film no matter what people say abut it. the way they portrayed the characters was amazing, also showing that each soldier was a human beings with hopes and dreams getting shot and crushed to death was really heart breaking, even more so since it happened. the movie/movies were remakes of the original book and less about what actually happened. if i really wanted to know what exactly happened i would have watched/ read a documentary. the movie was a piece of art and a showcase of good filmmaking

Paul was killed by a sniper in the 1930 version -- made just two years after the book was published.

Y’all never happy 😂😂😂

I agree that this movie is consciously portraying WW1 experience over the top. They are desperately trying to put every known horror into the scenery, tanks and flame throwers even though these weapons were not mentioned in the novel. Scene writing with the wrecking bar, as we say in Germany. The aim was to produce a dazzling overwhelming shocker to impress the audience and also to wipe out any glorification of war that is present in so many so-called anti-war movies. Although the main character should be in a group, he is often shown isolated in he horror of battle which makes the feeling of horror even harsher. Maybe this was inspired by the running-through-hell-scenes in the movie '1917‘". But maybe everything is portrayed too dark and shocking. You wouldn‘t understand why so many participants estimated comradeship as the supreme good because they could trust their comrades (and had to rely on it). For Adolf Hitler this experience was extremely important because here he as the loner he once was, now he was one with all parts of the nation, rich and poor, high society, peasants and workers who lived, fought and died side by side. Here he felt for the first time in his life that he was part of a greater cause. And maybe he was so traumatized by this that he led a whole nation into exactly the same hopeless trench situation that had left an inextinguishable mark on him. At this point I wrote about my concerns about people being stabbed through the heart and surviving this for too long. But rewatching the relevant scenes we can see that these stabbings went through the upper lungs. So, an instant death must not be expected. Anyway, with so many ideas and concepts they should have made a new movie on it's own instead of a remake which wasn't necessary.

Bro watched it blindfolded💀

This is some serious nitpicking. The scene of the soldier killing himself happens in the book. And the technical errors are really pretty minor, no reason to rip in the film just cause of that

Bro this dudes channel is underrated asffff

Historian...LLMFAO! 🤣😅😂