They should remake this movie!
Does anyone agree?
"Tyler is Jack is Tyler"
Yea but I think it would be alot more violent.
shareDefinately, any older war movie can be remade even better with todays technology and cinematography. The new one should be just as dark in tone, more explicit showing the horrors of war and more realistic.
shareI reckon they should do a remake of the movie, mainly because the way the people died was rather pathetic. It seemed very over exaggerated and in other places too long. Like the scene where all those trucks are getting bombed. One guy, his truck gets hit, he jumps off, takes a couple of steps and you think 'this guy is going to live and be lucky', then two seconds later he falls dead.
We were watching it in school last week and that was really what brought the quality of it down. So hopefully better death scenes in the future if re-made.
"So hopefully better death scenes in the future if re-made"
What do you mean better death scenes? That's how people die when they get hit by artillery.
"Tyler is Jack is Tyler"
I just felt that the way they died seemed over exaggerated. I have never seen someone actually get shot or blown up, (and i don't ever wish to), in real life.
I just don't see how someone could stand up and walk for a couple of seconds then drop dead after being bombed. To me it just seemed unreal.
A german remake would be nice, i always favoured the accuracy of the languages in movies.
shareI would love to remake this movie, actually. I really did like it, and it should be made to be seen by a wider audience. I know it could be done VERY well with today's technology.
Savvy
Remake it yes, but but do not try to change anything, ie dialogue, parts of the plot, etc. The remaking should only be strickly for effects, visuals, and to fix up the 'goofs' in the current version.
shareAny remake done by an American or Canadian director would, I'm afraid, change dialogue, plot and meaning, liberally. It's unavoidable. I'm not being racist, or anything, but every single american-made war film I've ever seen has had this awful, sickly slant on it towards the americans. On that note, they would almost CERTAINLY remake it with american soldiers, quite possibly in a different battle or war.
My faith in european cinema has been boosted by Downfall, and I think a german director would do a good job on it.
I think there's something really wrong when people NEED gore and violence to convey the horrors of war, though. This film did so beautifully without gore or violence, simply manipulating characters and the usual themes of friendship and loss. I think tearful deathbed scenes are more affecting than some guy getting his limbs blown off. Gore just makes me raise an eyebrow now, because to be honest I don't think it was as plentiful as modern films make out. This film would work perfectly with nothing more than bullet wounds on screen.
=====
And as things fell apart
Nobody payed much attention.
Umm, the 1930 _American_ version, generally regarded as the definitive version of this story on film, made in Hollywood in the good old U.S. of A., directed by James Whale and starring mostly English and German actors, sans gore but full of quite disturbing imagery, should be right up your alley then.
shareFirst, Lewis Milestone not James Whale directed the difinitive 1930 Academy Award winning All Quiet on the Western Front. Milestone was born in Russia. Secondly, only one of the credited actors was born any place other than in the United States. No German born actors were listed in the credits and very few European-born actors, credited or otherwise, even appeared in this 1930 Universal classic anti-war movie.
I do wish the pundits who pontificate so omnisciently would get their facts straight before mounting the pulpit and berating the views of all who do not agree with them.
Why? The existing screenplay has at least one significant problem. It really plays with the organization/structure of Remarque's novel, cutting out some rather important elements (i.e., Paul never delivers Kemmerich's boots to Muller, Peter never returns from the dying room, etc.). A new script by a strong writer might help restore the "literary" nature of the piece...while the special effects, etc., might help reinforce the terrible nature of war and draw in audiences (thus making it profitable...which is all that matters when it comes to getting a film made).
I have to agree that the manner in which the soldiers died was hokie. Though I would say it's more the fault of the Foley artists than the actors. The sound effects are horrible. There's a woman screaming in the background where Paul falls, injured. Nowhere on screen is there a woman, but worse is the tone of the sscreaming. It sounds like some woman was grabbed off the street, given twenty bucks and asked to scream into a microphone without knowing why she's screaming or how the effect would be used.
If you think the "horrors of war" is all about gore and bloodshed, then you are severly mistaken.
I like both the 1930s version and the 1979 version because they both concentrate on the essentials: that bloodshed is not the key issue.