Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

grantss World War 1 and a young German, Paul Baumer, enthusiastically s 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.

Phil Hubbs Remake of the classic 1930's masterpiece which of course these days is very very old itself. Never really given the respect it deserved and not classed as good as the original but I found it just as hard hitting.First thing I noticed was the story has been mixed up a bit, its not in the same order as the original, everything seems to have been translated across but in different stages of the film. This does actually work because it doesn't just seem like a carbon copy. There are also a lot more details in some sequences with different ideas for settings and locations, new angles and edits upgrading the whole film somewhat. Basically upgrading most aspects giving them a new modern spin (for the time).On the whole it does look better in places, a good example I prefer being the bleak ending in this version over the original. Its still the same but with a slightly differently approach and NOT showing the sniper. All that is heard is the fire of a rifle and then a cut to Baumers hands as they react and his body slumps into the mud, possibly more effective and harrowing than the original 1930's sequence.The cast are again solid for this adaptation with Borgnine playing the role of Stanislaus Katzinsky perfectly and maybe better than the original actor in 1930. Donald Pleasance is the German teacher whom regales the young German boys with propaganda and the glory of war. Holm as the over the top Corporal Himmelstoss giving him a slimy, backstabbing, cowardly glow and finally Richard Thomas looking just the part in his WW1 German uniform although coming across a little bland.The scope isn't quite on par with the 30's version, its still very good and very bleak but its missing that epic feel which I guess is down to it being a TV movie. A shame really because this story deserves a much wider scope, none the less this version is still the business. The whole production is very authentic with good costumes, vehicles, landscapes, weapons etc...The battles are good but not overly grand whilst the waste of life, cheapness of life, desolation and despair is well conceived throughout. No shying away from the grim horrors of war when it came to the mud soaked trenches.Its a shame this has been overshadowed somewhat as its a very good war film and manages to recreate WW1 just as well as its predecessor. Its still rough, gritty and somewhat shocking as it offers new perspectives from the last movie version of the story. Its easily a must see if you liked the 1930's film, its just as interesting, memorable and poignant. 7/10

quantum_22 This movie is clearly underrated when compared to THE moral beacon of war movies: "Full Metal Jacket". For several reasons, I find this masterpiece on par with the latter film by Stanley Kubrick.First, there is the clear notion of the "dehumanization process" at the start of both films, but in my opinion, the viewer is better reminded of this process towards the end of this film, when we see the main character reflect on the past years and concludes that he has been transformed into a broken man, only to realize that he will never fit into normal life again. In this respect, the final scene is almost merciful.Secondly, when watching the film I was reminded of an HBO documentary I saw last week about PTSD and war trauma. "All quiet on the Western front" managed to capture the very essence about this condition in a time where the term "PTSD" hasn't even been coined (as far as my sources are accurate, that was only in the next year, 1980, and it was still very much of a mystery at that time).Add to that the superb performances and compelling screen play, and I can only conclude that this film is an absolutely must see!

Michael DeZubiria It is strange that a made-for-TV-remake (and yes, this is definitely a remake) of the Best Picture winner from 1930 should be so easily as good, and probably better, than the original. This is a special situation because most of what needed improvement in the original was not things that required special effects or much movie magic (the battle scenes, for example, are outstanding in both films), but the realism of it all, specifically things like life on the battlefield, realistic dialogue, and clumsy thematic delivery.FIrst of all, the movie starts right out on the battlefield and is pretty impressive right away. Donald Pleasance is wonderful as the German propaganda teacher buttering the young men up for enlistment, and very soon you'll notice that a lot of the scenes are taken directly out of the original except, as I mentioned, now the realism is updated, which is extremely important.All Quiet on the Western Front, love it or hate it, is one of the most famous anti-war films/books of all time, and because of that, most of the more memorable scenes in the film are meant to deliver this message, but some work and some don't work so well. There is a scene, for example, where the new recruits line up in front of the train and see the wounded being brought back before their very eyes. It's a moving scene, to be sure, but I imagine removing the badly wounded soldiers right in front of the new soldiers heading to the front lines would have been considered bad taste even during World War I. Especially in propaganda-heavy .Speaking of which, the fact that the movie is told from the German perspective is a bit of a difficult area for the film, since it stars almost entirely American and British actors, and we only know they're German, other than from a background knowledge of the story, because it's mentioned a few times through dialogue.The point of the story is to illustrate the difference between gloriously fighting for your country and the reality of trench-warfare. As soon as the new recruits arrive at the front, Ernest Borgnine, in an exceptional performance as Kat, the most experienced private on the front lines, quickly lets them know that even after all of their training, they don't know a single thing about war ("In training camp they fill you full of fancy information on how to be a soldier. We're going to work hard to forget all that."). While most of the more clunky scenes are smoothed out in this remake, some of them are still pretty obvious. I was happy to see that the scene where Paul Baumer, one of the main characters, kills a Frenchman in hand-to-hand combat and then bitterly remorses the act afterwards is changed, but it's not changed much. He mortally injures the man and is then stuck in a hole with him until morning, when he finally dies. He does give a bit of a ham-handed speech, but at least it's more realistic than the original. More importantly, this time it takes the focus away from the pointlessness of war deaths and turns it to the politicians, who come across as warmongers ("We could be brothers. But they never want us to know that. They never want us to know..."). Makes you shudder to think of them generating hatred among young men like puppet-masters so they can send them over to further their agendas. The end of the film faithfully re-creates the end of the original, with Baumer taking a trip home due to an injury, only to be confronted with the reality that his country is completely removed from what is really happening on the western front. It's strange though, that when he embarks on his 16 days of convalescent leave, he does so in full battle gear - helmet, grenades, rifle and everything. Seems like that might be a little unnerving to the public.Nevertheless, the movie certainly gets its point across, but it still leaves me with the feeling that it can still be so much more. It is a very effective piece of anti-war cinema, but even with all of the improvements since the 1930 version, it is still not authentic.