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.

The Second World War was undoubtedly the most gruesome war ever, but it is the First World War that appeals most to the imagination when reflecting upon the horrors of war. After WWI war has never again been the same. With "Im Westen nichts Neues" Remarque wrote an outstanding account of the misery in the trenches. However, there are many similar novels from that episode. Just from the German side we have "In Stahlgewittern" (Juenger), "Der Mensch ist gut" (Frank), "Der Wanderer zwischen beiden Welten" (Flex), "Jahrgang 1902"(Glaeser), which I read all. The French and English authors have produced similar works. The best possible recommendation of the film is probably, that it closely follows the narrative and the atmosphere of the book. The only critique is perhaps, that it is an English-spoken produce, and so the typical German expressiveness is lost. But what the heck, war is universal. The story is told from the view of Paul Baumer. In 1914 he volunteers together with 20 of his classmates. They are all fine young men, students filled with hopes of a bright future. The chance to spread German civilization fills them with pride, and they glorify the approaching victory. At the front in France they soon discover the gruesome reality. They are confronted with the terrible routine in the trenches. They suffer from the continuous shelling with shrapnel, which kills all living nature, and is invariably followed by the next useless offensive. During the first months they gladly participate in the rush on the enemy barbed wire, shouting "Hurrah!" while being gunned down by the machine gun holes. Soon the school class experiences the first casualties, comrades dying by splinters in their stomach or severed limbs. They fade in the trenches, crawling in the mud and the dirt, hungry and sick in an environment where every sign of beauty has been wiped out. At the end Baumer writes: "Of our group of 20 men, 13 are dead, 4 are missing and 1 has got insane". Anyway, this is about the whole story. The film inspection puts the minimal age for the film at 16, but nevertheless it would be wise to present it in schools. A highly emotional aspect is the proximity of the conflict, since apart from the perpetual anonymous shelling it is still largely a man-to-man fight with drawn bayonets and experimental flame-throwers. You can yet by accident find yourself in a bomb crater, together with an armed enemy volunteer. The offensive is not yet reduced to the status of a computer game. It also helps to place the film into the context of military history. In the nineteenth century the war was still the sovereign right of the absolute ruler. Many intellectuals considered war to be a purifying experience for the people. It was in WWI, that the technological progress began to allow for mass slaugther. Of course the artillery had become highly effective, but there were also the airplanes, the poisonous gas, the first armoured cars and tanks, flame-throwers, machine guns etc. Surgery advanced dramatically. The mass destruction reached proportions, that surpassed the contemporary human imagination. Man lost what had remained of his innocence. It was this war, that ended the remaining absolute monarchies and even caused the birth of an entirely new society system in Russia. It created the first insane forms of art (Dada), and strongly furthered the foundation of pacifism and the League of Nations. You must see this film: not because of the acting or the nice shots, but because you have to know.

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.

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