All Quiet on the Western Front (1979 TV Movie) User Reviews

Great adaptation of superb anti-war classic

[faraaj-1 · 8/10 · 16 November 2006]

The made for TV and 'remake' labels have tended to devalue All Quiet on the Western Front. With successors like Das Boot and Saving Private Ryan, it also seems less visionary now. However, All Quiet on the Western Front is a superb adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque's classic novel. The novel, published in 1929 by the 31 yr old Remarque was an instant classic. I remember reading it nearly two decades ago and its still one of the best books I've ever read. The Hollywood adaptation starring Lew Ayres - director Lewis Milestones greatest achievement - was very good as testified by its IMDb status. The remake is better! The remake is more intelligent, the cast is great and the period detail is extraordinary. The director - Delbert Mann - is an experienced veteran with classics like Marty to his credit. All Quiet is his magnum opus, released on TV because theatre owners didn't see it making any money. Naturally very few people watch message movies. Fewer still would make the effort to rent a "made for TV" film. Hardly anyone would watch this when they can see the original instead - a film with a more famous pedigree.

This adaptation is very faithful to the novel. Even with minor changes in the ending, the basic spirit of the book is retained. The cast is uniformly excellent with Richard Thomas playing the central role of Paul. Donald Pleasance, Ian Holm and Ernest Borgnine all give uniformly good performances in character driven and memorable roles. It could be said that Ernest Borgnine is too old and too fat to be a corporal. True, but on an emotional level be fits brilliantly into the role and his physicality really lends an element of humanity to him. The war scenes would rank very high in anyones list but for Saving Private Ryan's gritty realism. I loved the old German town from where Paul and his friends come. It looks straight out of the 1910's. All the period details are top notch. I strongly recommend watching this unheralded classic.

Very good

[fadedGlory · 8/10 · 5 February 2005]

This is a very good anti-war movie. It shows how the young and naive are being brain-washed to think that somehow it is their duty to kill and die. Big words like Fatherland, Kaiser, God, Patriotism. But it is always the young generation that does the dying, whilst the old men discuss strategy over a beer. War has lost whatever legitimacy it ever may have had when the leaders left the front line to lead from the back, safe in their headquarters miles away from the killing. Sending young boys to their death whilst claiming it is eventually for the Good is the ultimate cowardice. Some get their come-uppance, such as Cpl Himmelstoss, but most live their lives in the comfortable cocoon of their self-righteousness – the school teacher, the father, the Kaiser himself.

But sometimes a young soldier sees through the scam, as when Paul kills a Frenchman by sheer instinct, only too late realising what he has been forced to do to someone who might have been his brother. But even then the cultural impregnation is too strong for him to follow his true human feelings and draw the only logical conclusion. And of course in the end he pays the price himself. Destroyed - for what?

That is the lesson that we all should take to heart, to this very day.

A very good film based on an exceptional book.

A Double Rarity: A Good Remake & A Good Made For TV Movie

[Wayner50 · 8/10 · 20 June 2006]

This version may not be as good as its great predecessor, but it's definitely a fine show on its own. Richard Thomas is very good, if about ten years too old, as the central character, Paul Baumer, who grows from glory seeking school boy to crusty veteran to, finally disillusioned, weary, almost hopeless pawn. Ernest Borgnine is terrific as Kat, the cagey survivor, who takes the youngsters under his wing, teaching them ways to make trench warfare almost tolerable. Ian Holm has a nice turn as Paul's town's postman turned training NCO, who later is transferred to the trenches. The great actress, Patricia Neal, shines in a cameo as Paul's mother. Donald Pleasance is excellent as Paul's patriotic teacher who exhorts Paul and his classmates to enlist. Gradually the grinding attrition of war eliminates Paul's classmates and the old sweats, until the famous final scene, when so little happened that day that the war entry was "All quiet on the Western Front." Most of the scenes in the original are presented here, a few additions and a couple deletions. The color cinematography is nicely done. Well worth a look as either a comparison or companion to the 1930 original.

Anti-War Movie From A Classic Novel.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 20 June 2010]

It took author Erich Maria Remarque two years to find a publisher for his novel about the defeat of the German Army in World War I. Remarque himself had fought in the trenches and been wounded, so he knew whereof he wrote. It's curious that that horrifying and mis-managed war and its humiliating peace agreement generated disparate reactions in Germany. "Stabbed in the back" by politicians, said Hitler, who had also fought and been wounded, as he rose to power. Then there was Remarque, who represented the other path, which could be roughly summarized as, "It was pretty lousy. Let's not do it again." Hitler's attitude won, of course, and it was then claimed that Remarque's real name was Kramer, a Jewish name, which Remarque had spelled backwards to disguise his ethnic identity.

It's not surprising that this should be called an anti-war movie. What's surprising about it is that it actually IS an anti-war movie. Remarque was a German and Germany lost the war. Not through treachery, like Pearl Harbor, and without heroic last stands, like Bataan or Wake Island or the Battle of Little Big Horn, and without miraculous last-minute escapes, like "Dunkirk". It was written by a member of the army that lost and it depicts the declining élan and eroding resources of the civilization sponsoring that war.

Few producers are willing to bet on a genuine anti-war movie, one that lacks glory and makes viewers feel sad and uncomfortable. That's why we see movies like "Private Ryan" (we won) and not movies with titles like "The Java Sea" (we lost).

We're pretty generous with the term "anti-war" when applying it to movies, but there's a relatively simple way to judge whether it applies aptly. If we lose, without any excuses, it's "anti-war." "Blackhawk Down" is anti-war but there are few others, and for good reason. Producers like the audience to leave the theater glowing with satisfaction, as if they'd just seen their home team win a football game.

This is a television remake of the 1930 original with Lew Ayres. Richard Thomas has the lead. I never found Richard Thomas particularly appealing. His demeanor and appearance suggest a spoiled prep school kid, but he's quite good here. Make up has wisely left him and the rest of his infantry company pasty faced and ill groomed. In an adaptation of another of Remarque's novels, "A Time To Love And A Time To Die," the protagonist at the front is uber-handsome John Gavin whose bare, heroic figure sports a sun tan bespeaking Malibu, not Stalingrad. The supporting cast here is equally good.

In fact, as TV remakes go, Delbert Mann and his cast and crew have done an unexpectedly good job. Unlike the 1930 original, this is stretched out over several hours and the writers have declined the opportunity to pad it out with a love story involving Thomas and some luscious babe who was his high-school sweetheart. Instead the writers have included more of Remarque's incidents, including a terrifying and wrenching scene of a dozen wounded horses screaming and dying. Modern audiences rarely cringe when they watch a stranger blown apart on screen. But HORSES? Now that's REALLY anti-war.

Fine remake of classic.

[yenlo · 8/10 · 9 July 1999]

This 1979 remake of Lewis Milestones 1930 classic anti war film tells the story of German youths who enlist in the Kaisers army to fight for the Fatherland in the great war. Based on the masterful novel by Erich Maria Remarque the youths who join at the encouragement of their schoolteacher with dreams of glory quickly learn the horror of war. Some parts of this version are better than the original and in others the 1930 version still stands out

Ian Holm's portrayal of Himmelstoss the sadistic drill instructor comes off somewhat better than in the original. In this version he is not the boys hometown postman so the viewer only sees him as the stern and cruel D.I.. His cowardice scene is also handled better. Veteran actor Ernest Borgnine as Kat the group leader is only a tad off as being as good as Louis Wolheims. Richard Thomas as Paul Baumer the central figure is about neck and neck with Lew Ayres original. Donald Pleasance is convincing as Kantorek the boys schoolteacher who tells them their plans for the future must be put on hold in favor of serving the Fatherland. Both this and the 1930 recently restored version should be watched back to back if possible.

Many films that are remade often times do not stand up to their original counterparts but this 1979 film does. Considering it was a made for TV film makes that quite an accomplishment. If you enjoyed Saving Private Ryan you'll enjoy this one as well.

Pretty darn good!

[grahamsj3 · 7/10 · 28 September 2003]

This is the story of a young German soldier named Paul (Richard Thomas) and his classmates, who join the German Army in World War One. They're befriended by and old hand, ably played by Ernest Borgnine, who teaches them how to stay alive in that awful conflict. Paul eventually spends the night in a shell hole with a dying French soldier (whom he stabbed). The Frenchman's death affects Paul profoundly. This is the story of innocence lost, of life and the unbelievable changes that occur when a person is exposed to death on the scale that World War I produced. It is also definitely an anti-war film. This film makes no attempt to glorify war and is brutally honest about it's effect on those who are left alive after months or years of bitter fighting. Overall, a very good remake of the old classic. I believe the old 1930 original is a *slightly* better film, but this is overall an excellent remake. Well worth a watch!

This is one of the best (anti-)war movies ever!

[philip_vanderveken · 10/10 · 16 September 2004]

I know that many people over here think this movie isn't as good as the original one from 1930. I believe you, but I can't help asking myself how many of you really have seen the original version? Or is it because you know this is 'just' a remake?

I only know the version from 1979, but I'm really impressed with it. I already saw it several times, but I never got bored with it once. I keep enjoying it time after time. It gives you a view on how it was at the time. The inspiring, but childish patriotism at the beginning of the war, the hard training, the awful conditions at the front and the loss of innocence and the disillusions at home... It shows it all.

This movie gives you an accurate view on what being an ordinary soldier during World War One was like and is therefor alone already worth a 9/10. But the acting, the good script, the feeling which it leaves you behind with... make that I give it an even higher score. 10/10 is the only correct score according to me. I believe this is one of the best (anti-)war movies ever.

This movie is one of the things which sparked my interest in everything that has something to do with the First World War. All over the world there are only a handful of veterans of this war left. Soon, accurate movies like this one, history books, cemeteries and museums will the only things left about it. That's also why this movie is so important to me.

Well worth your time

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 27 September 2016]

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is the second adaptation of the famous novel about German soldiers fighting in the trenches during WW1. This one goes for the lengthy epic route and has to be commended for featuring authentic-looking battle sequences on what must have been a tight budget. What I most liked about this film is that most WW1 movies feature the big battles in the middle of the night, using the cover of darkness to hide limitations, whereas all of the big scenes in this one take place in broad daylight and they're all the better for it.

An ensemble cast has been assembled in this movie and most of them do a decent job. I wasn't too keen on Richard Thomas's hero, as I found him oddly muted and difficult to root for. Thomas was much better a decade later in the likes of IT and STALKING LAURA (still his finest moment as an actor, I reckon). Still, Ernest Borgnine is fine as the old lag buddy, and Ian Holm has an excellent supporting role as a postman who becomes a conscript. Watch out for Dai Bradley, the kid from KES, all grown up and fighting it out on the battlefield. British viewers may get a kick out of Michael Sheard (GRANGE HILL's Mr. Bronson) playing the father while old-time starlet Patricia Neal is the mother.

Powerful and moving... the definitive anti-war war movie

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 8/10 · 31 October 2004]

After putting off watching this film for a while, mainly due to seeing a few bad war movies and quite a few mediocre ones(The Thin Red Line, The Eagle Has Landed), I finally decided to watch this. I had heard that it was realistic and powerful, but I wasn't quite sure that I actually believed it. I barely glared at the first few seconds of it, uninterested and expecting a mediocre, dull and cliché-ridden war film, but was immediately captured by the purity of the film and the lack of pretension. The director doesn't shove the belief of war being pointless and devastating physically, spiritually and psychologically down our throat... he merely shows it as it is, and lets us decide/discover for ourself. The plot is very good, and the way it's told is great. The first half or so has a good bit of flashbacks, with the main character thinking back to the past, in a very disturbing and worrying fashion. Many of the major tragic events in the first half are made even worse when you see the flashback related to it. The pacing is good, but it drags a little at some points, and there are too many scenes that seem less important than they should. The acting is very good, none of the major roles disappoint. The characters are well-written, credible and human. None of them are heroes or villains. Everyone is equal, which is exactly what it is like in real life, in war. I was incredibly moved by this film, and deeply affected. It shows exactly how rotten, pointless and devastating to humanity and creativity war really is. I didn't cry, watching this movie, but had I not looked away during the most disturbing sequences and possessed an almost insurmountable amount of self-control, I would have. This shows that you don't have to display graphic violence, deafen your audience with loud, noisy heavy metal or throw in plot twists to shock your audience; you can show something that the general public is oblivious of, such as war in it's purest and most uncensored form. This movie is so close to being a masterpiece that it's too bad that it falls just a little short. The cinematography is good, but there were times where it could have been better(see The Thin Red Line for a good example). It's very, very close to a perfect rating, but it has just enough low points to pull it down. I recommend this film to just about anyone who believe they can manage to sit through it... everyone should see it. Everyone. The very end is so devastating and horrifying that no one can possibly see it without being affected. Beautiful symbolism. 8/10

Excellent

[wrudd · 7/10 · 12 April 2005]

This was very, very good. Considering it was made for TV I thought the action and special effects were great. Richard Thomas was perfect as the boy who finds out what war is really like. Ernest Borgnine fantastic, what a great actor. It does a very good job of capturing the book which is to show the war from a common man's point of view. Hungry, dirty, seeing all your friends die, etc. The guy that wrote the book lived through the war but all his friends were killed. He drifted from job to job, had trouble sleeping, etc, what they call now post-trauma, then to get the stuff out of his head he wrote it down in 1929. Then boom! It's a bestseller, he has money, goes to Hollywood, marries a move star (Paulette Goddard) and travels around the world. The Nazi's hated him so he couldn't go back to Germany until after WWII but as you look at the movie it's amazing the guy's life turned out like it did. His life would make a great movie.

A refined classic

[donutheaven-59366 · 9/10 · 8 September 2020]

This 1979 remaster of the 1930 classic, "All Quiet on the Western Front," does great justice to the original narrative. A cinematic representation of the war through the eyes of the aggressors gives the audience and history buffs a contrasting viewpoint that aids us in understanding the war from all sides. This film focuses on the grueling effects of trench warfare and the psychological war that soldiers were facing as a result of hellish battle sequences and harsh conditions. This film emphasizes the significance of nationalism in the development of Germany and the outcome of the war, furthermore the disdain the Germans began to feel against their leaders and their role in the war. This film is genuine and provides the audience with an in depth progression of German soldiers and their outlook of the world around them.

Horrors of Industrialised War

[The-Sarkologist · 7/10 · 7 December 2020]

There is so much about this film that it can be difficult to actually know where to start. Well, okay, I could mention that it is based on a book that has been touted as being the 'greatest war story ever told', though that pretty much goes without saying. This is one of those books that seems to find its way into pretty much every high school reading curriculum, and if my schools were anything to go by, the movie is trotted out as well, though of course much of what is in the book is lost in the film.

Mind you, it isn't as if they didn't try, namely because there is a lot of exposition going on, which is done in the form of Paul Bremmer's thoughts. However, the whole point of the book is to not only help us understand the horrors of industrialised warfare, but also that the people that we happen to be fighting are no different from us.

This probably why it is just a great book, because all of the characters are German, and we are seeing the story from the other side, or at least from the otherside where I am concerned. We are all brought up being told that Germany was the bad guy in World War I, but the reality is that not only were we being brainwashed, but they were too. You could say that it is the end result on unbridled nationalism, though of course that was to actually come later.

In a way what we are seeing in this film is the classic definition of insanity, and that is doing the same thing over and over again with the hope that we will get a different result. On the Western Front, we spent the good part of five years simply bombing the otherside with artillery and then sending the troops over the top to pretty much get mowed down by machine guns. Why nobody actually realised that relentless shelling pretty much told the otherside that an attack was coming is beyond me.

It also shows how industrialised warfare simply turns human beings into figures. In fact, once you become a number, a statistic, you simply cease to have any character or life. This is probably why some newspapers in the United States are actually putting some faces to the people who have died of the rona. It is probably why here in Australia, whenever somebody died, more details were given about the death than just the daily numbers. That is the thing, there is just something dehumanising about statistics, and when we are just numbers, then it starts to feel as if a death is meaningless.

I guess that is why the ending is so confronting because we spend the entire movie getting to know Paul, only to have his death at the end seems to be, well, inconsequential to the powers that be. It was all quiet on the Western Front, yet we got to know Paul, a boy who spent the formative years of his life in the trenches, a boy that had hopes and dreams, and a desire to become an artist, only to have that taken away from him.

It is also interesting to see him at home on leave. It seems that back home nobody truly understood the horrors of the war, yet ironically he decided to return. I guess by that time there was nothing else that defined him, other than simply sitting in the trenches doing the same thing over and over again. Yet, nobody seemed to realise what it was like, people in Germany where simply going about their daily lives.

As I mentioned, there is so much more, such as the three French girls in the farm, or the French soldier in the crater. What the movie attempts to do is to put a human face onto both sides, and to help us realise that what we are being told by the powers that be isn't actually the truth. Look, it is a pretty good film, and a confronting one at that, but in the end it certainly doesn't beat the book.

Not Quite on the Western Front

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 21 February 2010]

There are moments when this re-make of Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front" evokes the original movie masterpiece, and there are certain images which are up to the level of the (then) nearly 50 year old classic. For example, this version's early battle scenes and its sequence involving rats are nicely staged. The sound, especially the "mosquito" gunfire, also recalls director Lewis Milestone's 1930 film, which was much admired for its use of sound (something new in motion pictures, at the time). But, this award-winning "Hallmark Hall of Fame" production falls far short of the original film, which you really should see first. Also, the earlier film had an extraordinary ending, which this version alters.

War-bound Richard Thomas (from "The Waltons") plays the sensitive German teenager "Paul Baumer" without accent; he is particularly incongruous in scenes with heavily-accented instructor Donald Pleasence (as Kantorek). His six war buddies do, like Mr. Thomas, grow on you. Co-star Ernest Borgnine (as Stanislaus Katczinsky) always strengthens a cast; herein, however, Mr. Borgnine is miscast. It is strange to watch Thomas (and stand-in) carrying Borgnine's weight during the last act. Superior officer Ian Holm inexplicably stomps Thomas' feet, and Patricia Neal appears briefly. David "Dai" Bradley (as Albert Kropp), best remembered for playing "Kes" (1970), is notable in one of the good, but lesser, buddy roles.

***** All Quiet on the Western Front (11/14/79) Delbert Mann ~ Richard Thomas, Ernest Borgnine, Ian Holm, David Bradley

The greatest war novel of all time

[sfoxly · 21 July 2006]

The 1979 TV movie is true to the novel, whereas the 1930 movie is not, although they are both very powerful films.

I read All Quiet On The Western Front while serving in the U.S. Marines in Vietnam, 1966-1967. It is without question the greatest war novel ever written. It is the universal story of the "grunt", all those who have ever fought on the front lines and experienced battle and death. Remarque served in the German army and lived through the hells he describes. Do not mistake his plain style of writing for a lack of literary ability - his simple telling of the events is one of the things that make this book so great. For example, after the company has been called back to the rear for reinforcements, the captain calls the roll several times. Half of the names are not there - they are dead, wounded or missing. Paul (the story teller) says "A line, a short line, trudges off...". Remarkable, this terse imagery of the depth of violence that happened at the front. Another line comes from one of soldiers while discussing how to stop the war (referring to the generals and politicians): "Give 'em all the same grub and all the same pay, and the war would be over and done in a day." Still true today. When describing what happens to common men fighting for their lives in battle, Paul says: "...this wave..that..turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils...". As Colonel Kurtz would say: "The Horror, the horror". This novel will forever speak across the years for all soldiers in combat everywhere.

Classic anti-war movie

[midori_mkv · 7/10 · 11 April 2022]

I don't believe "All Quiet on The Western Front" can ever be adequately adapted into film form without either making the movie look overly poetic or simply an action (anti-)war film. The book is in "memory" form. It is about Paul's recollections and reflections on the war. Those reflections had to be presented as dialogue or monologue in scenes that didn't quite match them in emotion or chronology. Alternatively, it can be delivered in the form of a series of flashes back while a narrator tells stories.

I acknowledge that selecting parts to display and parts to leave out must have been a challenge. Some parts inevitably had to be left out. But I could still feel their necessity. For example, Paul's observations of nature and the earth were missing. I think those were momentous in the book. (I believe "1917" did a good job about "nature".) I also found the hospital praying scene in the book symbolic and of special focus. The same with Behm's story. But these were either dismissed or altered.

Some other minor things bothered me with the film besides the fact that I was hoping for the characters to speak German! (Too high of an expectation?) The portrayal of some characters was not faithful to the book. For instance, the book merely mentioned that Leer was the first among the group to have intercourse. At one point, Paul says that Leer was a good mathematician in school but the film simply portrayed him as a lover-boy. There are more examples like this all of which are less significant. So to avoid being fussy and spoilers, I shall stop here.

I could not withstand comparing this film with the 1930 version which is rated higher. (I have only watched a few scenes of the 1930's and am to edit this review when I fully watch it.) I find the acting in the latter a bit over-the-top and kind of melodramatic. Maybe that's just how movies were made back then but it didn't quite sit well with me. The 1979 version certainly looked more realistic.

Nonetheless, believe that anybody who enjoys historical films should watch "All Quiet on The Western Front". It is different in character than most war films. It's truly a classic when it comes to anti-war literature. However, these characteristics are inherited from the book so I would put the book 1st.

Very Effective Remake

[Theo Robertson · 8/10 · 21 January 2010]

It seems folly when a television company remakes a well regarded film but ITC Films have made a considerable achievement with their remake of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT . I saw the original many years ago and the scenes that stuck out in my mind most are recreated here . Where as in my memory the scenes of a wounded comrade missing a limb not realising his friend wants his boots and where Paul lies in a shell hole with a dying enemy seem clichéd due to similar scenes being reused down the decades the same scenes here stand up very well on their hind legs

Delbert Mann directs in a flat manner and the performances are also somewhat flat but not a moment are these criticisms . Sharp editing and fast , fluent camera work would have actually spoil the film since it would distract from the characters and the situation they find themselves in . It's a hell but not the biblical hell they've been brought up in ( Interstingly their fighting for God as well as nation and monarchy ) but a hell composed of mud , rats , rain as well as the man made hell that weapons such as shells , gas , bullets and bayonets bring

There are a couple of flaws to the film . Ian Holm plays Himmelstoss , a bullying corporal who was the protagonists drill instructor before the platoon was sent to the front line . It's a good part but after finding himself sent to the front Himmelstoss shows cowardice but then effectively disappears from the story . He made an interesting character and I would have liked to see the charchter explored more . There's also the myth that " All the young men being brainwashed to fight for God and their country " which does marr most stories set during the first world war though the myth was probably started by none other than Erich Maria Remarque himself

All in all this is a very impressive TVM , more so since Lewis Milestone original film is considered to be an all time classic . Despite the flaws I've outlined it held my attention and felt a great empathy for the young men involved . They might be Germans but they're not " the enemy " because Remarque is making the point that it's the war itself that is the real enemy

Not bad, but not in the same league as the original 1930 film

[grantss · 6/10 · 25 March 2018]

World War 1 and a young German, Paul Baumer, enthusiastically joins the Army. With romantic notions of war and idealistic dreams in his head he undergoes training and then is sent off to the Western Front. In due course the romantic notions are replaced by the harsh reality of war and he becomes disillusioned with it all.

The original movie, made in 1930, was brilliant. Based on Erich Maria Remarque's 1929 novel, it was grim and gritty and probably the first anti-war movie ever made. So good it won the 1931 Best Picture Oscar.

This 1979 adaptation is not in the same league. Retains the same plot but doesn't have the same grittiness, feeling quite tame in comparison. Performances also feel quite subdued. Overall, not bad, but not great either.

Watch the 1930 version instead.

A Review of "Western" Number 2 (The TV Movie)

[happipuppi13 · 10/10 · 12 August 2006]

Two things that are very tricky to do in Hollywood:

Remake a classic movie and make a great TV movie. In the case of the 1979 version of "A.Q.O.T.W.F." both of these challenges have been met. The most incredible casting to me is Richard Thomas (John Boy on "The Waltons"). Most definitely shedding that image in this movie Thomas gives an incredible performance.

He even uses God's name (in a way I never would) in a hospital scene. To do that on TV back then was "really" taboo and the only other time was Carrol O'Conner on "All In The Family".

What we see is that Thomas' character, over time, becomes destroyed internally by killing. Even after going home on leave (after getting shot) he later returns to the fighting! He feels that,he's not the man that he was going in.

His classmates are either killed or lose their minds or disappear,which is nothing like the picture the class instructor at their school painted about "fighting for the fatherland".

Ernest Borgnine (89 this year)is great as Kat the front line soldier who's seen it all over the last 2 years (1914-1916). He shows the new fighters what they really need to know at the front and that they should forget everything they learned at training camp.

For a TV movie in the 1970's,this is about as real as they could get and while today some of the images are common,back then it was a daring piece of film-making and normally,TV network executives frown on being "too real".

Just like my rating for the original,it's ten stars. For all of it. Scene 1 to the final shot. See this movie,both of them! (END)

make no mistake...

[pbalos · 7/10 · 3 September 2000]

this is strictly made for TV.However, having said that, one would have to put it up there among one of the finest that the tube has had to offer over the last 25 years or so.

Technically, there are some flaws in the directing.Flashback scenes are thrust upon the viewer without the slightest warning, which in parts, makes it confusing to distinguish past and present for a few moments.Yet, the positive far outweighs any small negatives.This little flick can captivate a person. The acting by all, especially by Holm, is commendable to say the least.Borgnine is Borgnine as usual.

Overall, aside from some glitches, it's well worth seeing. 7/10

Great anti-War TV Adaptation

[Umar Mansoor Bajwa · 9/10 · 23 March 2020]

This is poised to match any full length war feature film. Nice and accurate coverage of WW1 frontlines. This remake is worthy to be ranked as a first grade film. The screenplay, direction and war setting is impeccable. The plot and acting is first rate. The tragedies of war are vividly shot in their complete ruthlessness.

Patchy Remake

[gcd70 · 6/10 · 25 March 2010]

Patchy remake of the classic Academy Award winning film of the 30's. Delbert Mann's feature fades in and out from the inspired to the flat, and back again. Mostly though, it is the latter of these two levels that it sticks to.

Mann, along with screenwriter Paul Monash, was unable to recreate the simple, understated force of Lewis Milestone's anti-war picture. The first movie was years, perhaps fifty years, ahead of its time. The second is merely a reminder of how good the first one was.

As the easy going, compassionate Paul Baumer, Richard Thomas does a good job. Cleverly cast in the Louis Wolheim role, and even more eye-catching, is Ernest Borgnine as war-weary veteran Katchinsky. Hopelessly miscast though, is the immensely talented Ian Holm as the heartless Corporal Himmelstoss. Donald Pleasance and Patricia Neal also star.

A shame that this, a reasonably good film, had to be overshadowed by its predecessor. John Coquillan photographs Czechoslovakia and some convincing sets very well.

Friday, January 29, 1999 - Video

Ducks some of the issues raised in the 1930 version, but better technically

[steiner-sam · 8/10 · 31 December 2021]

This was a TV film of the book of the same name by Erich Maria Remarque. It was interesting to contrast this "modern" remake of the film first done in 1930 that won an Academy Award. It is set in the front lines between Germany and France during World War I in 1916-1918.

When the film begins, we see Paul Bäumer (Richard Thomas) and his friends fighting the trenches in 1916. Then through flashbacks, we see their sendoff after graduating from the Gymnasium (High School) in 1916 and hearing a patriotic speech by Prof. Kantorek (Donald Pleasence). Next, we see the mistreatment in boot camp by Corporal Himmelstoss (Ian Holm), whom they mocked as a stuffy little man in pre-war life. And we see their joining the front lines and encountering a grizzled veteran, Stanislaus Katczinsky "Kat" (Ernest Borgnine), who becomes a father-figure and survival mentor to the "boys."

The film follows experiences through two years, including flamethrowers and poison gas encounters. There are costly charges by one side, soon followed by costly charges by the other side. Paul has a close and personal encounter with one French soldier. On one brief leave, three of the soldiers have a fling with three French maidens. Gradually Paul's friends are killed or seriously wounded. Paul is wounded, but not too seriously, and can return home for two weeks. His father (Michael Sheard) is proud of Paul's service but misunderstands the reality of war. Paul's mother (Patricia Neal) is ill and very worried about her son.

As in the 1930 film, the main message is the futility and pointlessness of war. The 1979 version is in color and is more graphic in its battle scenes, though it is not as bloody and gruesome as some modern films. The technical quality of battle scenes is understandably better, as is the dialogue generally. The 1979 version does not blame arms manufacturers for the war and is less direct in discussing the war's causes.

I watched the "uncut" Blu-ray version that is longer than what was televised. It may be available in the U. S. on some streaming services.

I gave the 1930 version 9 of 10 because it was amazing for a 1930 film. However, I'm giving this one 8 of 10 for ducking some of the issues raised in 1930.

Im Westen nichts neues

[stamper · 7/10 · 16 September 2000]

What is there to say about this adaptation of the best (in my opinion) and one of the most famous German anti War books ever written (Im Westen nichts neues by Erich Maria Remarque)? Well not much I must say, for the film is pretty much the same as the book, excluding some minor additions and alterations. I, as a great fan of the book must state here that the book is much better than this film, for it has more depth, more brutality, more intriguing images, which (the latter) were not included here for it is a TV movie and therefore could not be too brutal. Also I must say, the English speaking ‘Germans' annoyed me a little, for the use of the German language in the book, had much more impact on me. Maybe cause I'm German, maybe not, but if you saw Saving Private Ryan (as an American) spoken in German, what would you think??? The bottom line is that, if you have got the time read the book (big 9 out of 10). If you ain't got it, watch this film, for it is pretty good, despite it's flaws (lack of depth and brutality, only OK acting, directing and special effects).

7 out of 10

With such a great story, how could you miss

[simonrheath · 5/10 · 23 December 2005]

This is one of the best war novels ever written - by Erich Maria Remarque, a German soldier after the war and from the German perspective. If you look closely, other movies such as Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, Jarhead etc. all borrow from the theme that was first fully developed in this movie - a generation transformed by and then lost from war. The book provides vivid details of teenagers transformed into solid soldiers from basic crule basic training at the hands of a sadistic drill seargent to hand-to-hand combat on the front line to an inability to relate to the society they defend.

Unfortunately, the made-for-TV movie fails to exploit the source material of the book (most likely as a result of a low budget). While the scenes at basic training are done well enough, the movie does not do justice to the horror that was present on the Western front - in terms of loss of friends and the futility of the war and the schisms between the soldiers in the true meaning behind the cause of the war (pacifists vs. war mongers). In fact, the scene where Paul kills the French soldier in the trench falls short in terms of depicting the raw, human emotion and the philosophical questions of whether its better to have war or peace that are clearly articulated in the novel.

While movies often do more justice than their source material, this movie missed the mark. If you haven't done so already, read the book.