All Quiet on the Western Front: A Review.

The biggest compliment I can give the 2022 adaption of All Quiet on the Western Front is that it tries to properly convey the anti war nature of the original material. However, I believe it fails in this regard, and focuses more on action set pieces, rather than live in the quiet moments between the fighting.

So what is All Quiet on the Western Front? All Quiet is a adaption of the World War One anti war novel of the same name written by Erich Maria Remarque, and is one of the most famous novels of the 2oth century, and is one of the most famous war novels of all time. This is largely due to its anti war sentiment, and the experiences of the characters in the novels realistic portrayal based on Remarque's own experiences in the war. It is a profound novel. However, does this translate into the 2022 adaption?

The best compliment I can give it is that the 2022 adaption tries to be the anti war material that it is based on, but falls short in my opinion due to a lack laster cast, and a focus on poor action set pieces. When we meet our initial group of young men, they are spry, and excited to embark on the great crusade that is war. What is notable is that during this time in history, warfare was changing dramatically. Technology had created weapons that were far ahead of the strategies that these nations were utilizing in the first World War. This of course led to the horrifying trench warfare of the conflict, and the archaic strategies employed. War was still a ceremonious thing for these European nations.

This of course would change dramatically throughout the war.

However, this is not a history lesson, but a film review. SO, does this film capture the horror of the battlefield and trench warfare?

In some ways yes, in most ways, no.

The biggest complaint I have about the action is that it feels cheap. The special effects and cgi in this flick are not well done, and all of it lacks a certain weightiness. When a character shoots their rifle, there isn't any kick. Or when someone is smacked with a shovel, it feels like the actor swinging it is holding back his blows, and not swinging with his full might.

It just makes the action feel off. This is also apparent in the blood and gore effects. In my opinion, if you are not going to do good effects for violence, don't make it a violent movie. I thought this with Hacksaw Ridge, and I find this movie to be very similar; cheap, post production cgi blood and gore doesn't look good, and weakens the action.

Due to cost, and saving on budgets, a lot films are moving away from practical blood and gore effects in violence, and I think it is starting to show in these lower budget action movies.

Another complaint I have is that these action set pieces feel like an amusement park ride. It comes off as a grand spectacle, even though these soldiers are charging to their deaths. They also go on for MUCH too long. It also is entirely from out leads point of view, and it some what removes the tension of the movie, as we know that if he dies, the movie is over. It's a lack of tension that kind of sits over the top of all the set pieces, and the film never has any true tension for the main character.

Where the main character lacks personality and tension, there is one well written character in the film, and that is the character of Kat. Kat is much older than Paul and his friends, and we are introduced to him later in the film. He's older than Paul and seems to have much more experienced in the war. He's grittier, and colder at first, but as the film goes along, we are introduced to a more rounded and human character. We learn that he was a father who lost a son, he can't read, he was a cobbler before the war, and hopes to be one after the war.

Kat is really the only character that is explored deeper than the surface letter, and I think it is a great choice, and really some of the only emotional weight in the film. It is really unfortunate that Paul wasn't a more complex character.

My final complaints for the film sit with the score, and the pacing of the film. I personally liked the film more when we were with the characters in-between the battles, where the emotional stuff happens. This is the realm where character develops, what are their fears, their loves, and what do they wish to do with their lives, however, and more importantly, how is the conflict affecting them. We are given a breath of this as the film slows down in-between the battles, but it doesn't sit with it long enough, or on the flipside, it spends too much time in the action pieces. This then leads to pacing. I think if you cut this movie down by a half an hour, and mainly cut from the action, you would have a solid film, with an evening pacing between battles.

Onto the music, I can't tell you a musical note from the movie, except for the weird, techno "dub" that plays as a single note every once in a while throughout the film. It often took me out of the scene as I then focused on this one techno note instead of what's happening on screen. It's an editing choice that I don't agree with. The music isn't adding anything to the scene. Let what's happening on screen do the work.

Now, the review up to this point paints this film as a bad one. It's not, it is something that I would call perfectly "fine". It's not bad, it's not spectacular, its a generic "anti-war" film, and it excels at that. It's no Come and See, Saving Private Ryan, or Thin Red Line, but it is better than Hacksaw Ridge, and Black Hawk Down. It tries to be something more, but in the end, it isn't able to get over that hump and try something different.

3/5

Watch Paths of Glory instead, or the original 1930's adaption.