Historian GETS MAD at All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- Realism got lost to entertainment... is this the best movie directors can achieve after over 100 years of documentation, research and war stories? Especially after 2 previous versions that were already excellent.
Support HistoryLegends
✔ Patreon ► / thehistorylegends
✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/...
✔ Book ► www.thehistory...
► INSTAGRAM: / historylegends2
► TIKTOK: www.tiktok.com...
#historylegends
![[[OFFICIAL MV]] เอิ้นขวัญให้อ้าย- อ๊ะอาย สกุณาพร | ค่ายเพลงเป็นหนึ่ง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/83x6L3X3qh0/mqdefault.jpg)
I also highly recommend you to watch the 1930 and 1979 versions of All Quiet on the Western Front. If you want some real WW1 story, check out Ernst Junger "Storm of Steel"... German movie directors never had the b*lls to make a movie out of it. Ernst Junger kept a diary during the war, and wrote his book immediately after war, when it was still fresh in his mind.
Support HistoryLegends
✔ Patreon ► www.patreon.com/thehistorylegends
✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/historylegends
✔ Book ► www.thehistorylegends.com
► INSTAGRAM: instagram.com/historylegends2/
► TIKTOK: www.tiktok.com/@thehistorylegends?lang=en
Great review brother. I felt exactly the same. 1930’s version was WAY better.
Here’s my review to my friend via text:
No spoilers, but my take…
All quiet on the western was visually well done, but the story and stuff felt lacking to be honest.
Jumped quickly in many regards.
Character development left much to be desired.
They glossed over a bunch of stuff, but for a 2+ hour movie I would have expected more storyline & character development.
I was left wondering what caused it to be so long. Lots of content for trailers & music videos I feel.
Lots of cool, visually stunning shots without a strong foundation to the overall depth of the story.
1930s rendition may have been black & white, but the effects of what the characters were dealing with was more relatable because they felt familiar as we followed them more intimately on their journey.
For both films runtime being identical at 2h 27m, I felt the 1930’s told a tale more lasting in story & substance.
My final opinion - the 1930s film was better.
Side note in the 1930 film. some of the uniforms are combat used uniforms from immigrated German war veterans.
They recruited a bunch of German veterans to be extras in the film and to be technical advisers …
There were WW1 veterans working on that film telling their story…
Junger's "storm of steel" is THE war memoir.
Seen both years ago 1930 original movie is the best tho the 1979 version is also great
@@BaronvonMoorland what do you mean "Immigrated"
@@zaynevanbommel5983 the Germans that found themselves in the United States after the First World War for the 1930s movie.
Taking part in its filming.
To people that say that it isn't an accurate adaptation, at the end of the day, the book's point was to make people understand that war is hell and no movie has come close to eliciting that feeling to me like this.
Yes 100% agree, I told my friends right away that if this movie decides to be inaccurate then I am willing to swallow it IF the Message remains the same. And those crazy SoBs did it.
I would rather have said the contrary. There is no soul to this movie and the characters are empty and unrealistic. Paths of Glory is just so much better at depicting real "hell".
Ukrainians don't think same XD.
Saving private Ryan did it better
The Pacific did a pretty fantastic job if you watch the 10 episode series.
I actually liked everything you didn't.
First the "random" deaths of the various friends, to me they showed very well the movie's point: it wasn't glory, it was pointless death, a pure waste. The kid killing that one guy was genius in my opinion. Overall you're complaining about the movie not being realistic on details and you're missing the point of it all: this is the movie that best depicts the meat grinder that was this war, especially at the beginning with the whole uniforms being washed and reused which in my opinion was total genius.
Basically no movie can show all of world war one realistically in two hours, which is why there is always a focus on some aspects over others. If you show this you can't show that, simple as that. The point here isn't to show realistic day by day trench life, or assault, it's to show senseless carnage which this war indeed was. Anybody can nitpick once you know a little about the subject matter, but it takes an effort to try and take what the movie offers, try and understand what it conveys, instead of standing in front of a picasso and say it's ugly. Just my two cents, have a great day/night, all quiet in Paris tonight.
Edit: Thank you for all the likes and great replies, I will create a channel with content you might like, so if you wanna see it when it comes out subscribe baybeh !!!
I also personally dont agree with his critisisms on "random deaths". But I think his main point is that this film is more inclined towards "entertainment than realism". As in its more interested in telling you its message than providing an ultra-realistic depiction of the first world war. And that is not a bad thing, its just the way the film is. Obviously there is a lot that this film has to offer from a filmmaking stand point but clearly his not here to tell us about that (I mean read the title).
Also, I definitely do agree with him on the 1 dimensional portrayal of general friedrichs character. Thats just simply a lack of depth in writing. Just cause the film set out to best portray the meat grinder that was ww1 dosent make it immune from critisims like this.
I'm surprised it didn't go into dysentery, and trenchfoot, the character's feet were wet the entire movie, hell my feet felt cold and wet the entire movie just watching it.
Yeah this guy is just a hater
@@user-fy6kr7yr9c True! The Last Samurai is a good example of purposefully taking artistic liberties to convey a message (even had a disclaimer at the beginning).
Yeah I agree, I don’t think any of this guys critiques really land at all.
The fact that he’s complaining about how the deaths were random and meaningless shows that he misses the entire message of the movie.
the point of the video is talking about the accuracy of it random people dying for no reason is not accurate
its not a review
@@pepqcat3169 do you know what war is? Literal indiscriminate murder between two rival countries.
@@geese5170 yes do you know what an accuracy critique is
@@pepqcat3169 in war, deaths are random. Soldiers don't get told the name of a specific person they're supposed to shoot. So no, the randomness of the deaths is completely accurate to how the war was. That's why in war there are survival expectations. If you get sent to the front then you are not expected to survive.
But still the movie misses the point of the book so much, that this is still disappointing. The deaths were so random, but why was pauls death so glorified? And the deaths also feel so random, not because of an accurate depiction of the war but because of bad screen writing.
Bro, the guy with the fork killed himself because he didn't want to live as a cripple. They pulled that scene right out of the book, only the guy tried his heart in the hospital and wasn't Tjaden. And then you call it "super gore and unnessecary," yet you mocked a previous scene for not being gory enough and complimented the book for it. Make up your mind.
And I thought that a historian would know about the mentality that people had in the past, such as how the disabled and the insane were seen as lesser beings at the time. Bro, were you on your phone while watching the movie? Because it really comes across like that. For example you thought that the glasses kid died to a headshot when it was the shell that killed him. He leg was torn off by the blast and a bit of shrapnel shot through his head. His insides were likely jelly as well. You might have noticed that if you weren't playing phone solitaire or scrolling through Facebook or just had been more observant.
You also seem to just ignore the human condition, at least so far. Yes, prisoners are useful. But you know what's more powerful than a desire for knowledge? Anger. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the French torched the guy instead of taking him prisoner because that happens all the time, no matter what war it is. It could also be that they were under orders not to for logistical reasons, which also happens and was the unfortunate case for a lot of units in 1944 Normandy.
As for the historical inaccuracies, absolutely fair to call those out, please do. They don't necessarily make a film bad since films are about the writing and acting, but a pattern of behavior shows character and how much the movie makers care and it would be nice to see more accurate representations of history in movies.
Bro, I put this comment down just to resume the video and hear you say that Kat's death was anti-climactic... as opposed to the 1930 version where he just kinda dies randomly to shrapnel? Sure, Kat's death was the climax in the book, but the climax was Paul snapping at his professor and returning to the front in the 1930 movie. Kat's death doesn't need to be climactic for thw movie to be good.
You had me dying at phone solitaire and Facebook 😂 completely agree with you 👍
Based
If you see his previous videos, it's all about analysis of military conflicts all over the world and the war in Ukraine. It just comes as a surprise that he started reviewing war movies all of a sudden.
@@morammofilmsph1540 well he analysed movies and video games about their historic accuracies allready many times in the past.
He seems to look at movies at a literal sense, militaristically his reviews are okay, but he doesn't seem to understand how humans work. Also, I think he might be anti-german 😂
no way in hell this guy is an actual historian
What makes someone a historian?
a stupid degree is the traditional entry ticket, but the world of education has moved on quite a bit.
@@SamuelLanghorn an actual historian that has delved into the topic of WW1 would be familiar with simple factualities like that tanks were a common sight on the Western Front by the end of 1918 and that trenches could easily flood sometimes and did look like absolute shitholes especially once the front become less static by the end of the war. He would also be at least slightly familiar with human psychology under stressful conditions, and see that this movie perfectly shows the insanity soldiers had to go through. He claims at one point it's too gory lmao grow some fucking balls this is what that war was like, and it doesn't even scratch the surface of some of the other accounts we still have. He is talking out of his ass.
@@SamuelLanghorn are you a bot?
@@noneofyourbusiness7350 yes, how did you detect me?
@@SamuelLanghorn by your horrible take.
The thing is with war people die in the most horrible and random ways. This movie portrays that perfectly
I agree, I didn't see many issues with the movie. It's from the soldiers perspective and that was captured in a beautiful cinematic lens. The accuracies when it came to the movie were lacking but everything else was powerful.
@@chopholtz4950 Senseless?
if war was senseless there would not be one.
The problem is that the decision makers are leaning back in their safe and comfortable armchairs whereas the enslaved masses are forced to sacrifice their lives.
It is futile to long for the tribal stone age days where the decision maker was the leader and would be in it with you.
no not really, 60% of deaths in ww2 was from Artillery and it was more in ww1, most of the characters deaths would have been Artillery, and only 15% of german military suffered deaths, a group of 6? people had the chance of survival of 85% for each of them, and yet they all died.
its a great movie from a artist point of view, but not historically.
@@ghjkjjghjk4702 You assume that death is a random distribution. However it makes sense that fights are more intense than in other parts. Also while a single group of 6 friends dying completely as a single event is unlikely there were almost 2 million dead. With such a large sample size the chance that 6 friends died is above 98%
@@chopholtz4950 it’s war what do you expect?
You can't really beat the original, since it was real WWI soldiers telling real stories.
Remarque was only a month at the frontline and the story was fiction.
True, well said.
@@derTaugenix True but he did get brutally shot in the neck. He also worked in the dressing station for a year and interviewed the wounded. So the stories have truth to them. I think that's why he is good at describing the fear of being wounded and amputated.
Well kind of, All quiet on the western front, as reminded in this video, was written like a decade later, it's made of the author's memories and records. Now, Storm of steel by Junger, on the other hand, feel more crude and vivid as you read it, I think because junger himself was in active service longer than Remarque, and had a somewhat different philosopy about battle. If you've never read it, that and Wood 125 are great ww1 books.
@the wise mystical tree 🌳 Oh wait are you talking about the 30s movie? I was talking about the book! 😅 If you talk about the movie I havent seen it but by your description I probably will!
I had a neighbor when I was a little kid, back in the early seventies that was a WW1 vet. Have a vague memory of him telling me it was suicide out there. A meat grinder. Set up for an assault under smoke and artillery to get shot down and repelled most of the time so there were new guys all the time. He said both sides did the same thing. Taking and giving ground. He got shot by a pan gun to the back of his legs. Was what interested me in the first place. To find out how this old guy got the scars. He said they were retreating from a failed assault. Not much was left of the back of his legs, he was lucky. He said there were terrible bombs that would make giant craters and lots of people just disappear. Kind of weird that he told me this. He was pretty graphic. He told me to never join. Think he was the only military person to say that to me.
oh my god that's disturbing
That's cool you knew a WW1 vet. I was too young to know any. I did meet one guy who was born in 1900 and was about to be drafted days before the Armistice, but wound up joining the balloon observation corps after the war was over. He used to come to our primary school every Christmas in the early 90's to act as the Santa for the kids. He died in 1995.
I had a connection with this guy. I know I was just a kid. I had to ask a lot of questions. It sounded pretty miserable. Knew a lot of WW2 vets. And most of them are gone. Not as interesting as the WW1 Vet. Except for my Uncles Dad fought with Rommel in Africa. Said they were once traveling in a sand storm and lost track of their unit. Found them and followed and once it started clearing just a little, realized they fell in line with US troops and slowly slunk back into the storm.
Damn, man.
@@user-pq4nh7wu9eAll war is.
Typically, I don't think photographers in WW1 wanted to get their equipment wet. So that is why I believe there are barely any pictures of men standing in flooded trenches with rain pouring down on them, instead, lots of stories of the conditions they lived in.
Yea also consider the fact that film back then was very fragile, it could easily be damaged by mud/rain to the point where it couldn't be developed.
and the reason there are BARELY any photos of actual battle, is because all sides put a press BAN on footage or pictures, only highlighting 'bravery' or light shell fire. In reality, it was called DRUMfire because it wasnt scattered boom... boom.. it was like a drum roll. Thats horiffying.
Main reason is that photographic machinery were expansive, cumbersome, fragile and needed a pause... That's thé main reason why we have almost no real pictures from the front @@Hankeshon
I've been strongly interested in WWI history for the past 40 years of my life, and I think you're missing a few things. You say you're a historian and I don't know what your credentials are, but you look to be about 25 years old. Take it from me, there's still more time in the books that awaits you.
* Flooded trenches happened, especially at Passchendaele . There's an account of both sides climbing out of their trenches to escape the rising water, then just looking at each other across No Man's Land.
* Allied Artillery could be devastating, and the book mentions whole trees being flung into the air as a creeping barrage moved forward. A unit of Russians caught in the open was more or less vaporized in one battle (not in the novel). Giant craters are still present on Western Front battlefields a hundred years later. You can see drone videos of it, if you care to. I've seen what modern bombs and shells can do to defenses and human bodies, and the level of explosiveness isn't that far removed from the Great War. Mainly, our times have improved on range and accuracy. Indeed, the concept of "defense in depth" evolved partly because packed trenches provided too many victims for shells.
* Situations where no prisoners were taken happened. I've read British and American accounts of this from WWI. Someone I know was in the Vietnam War, and that was part of his combat experience, as it was for a friend's father, whose unit blew up surrendering NVA troops with grenades. Torture was a thing as well, and I've heard about that from veterans. It's ugly, it's horrifying, it's generally against the rules, and it's not always logical, but it's how war works. Human beings are what they are.
* Suicides happened among soldiers who couldn't take it. I heard stories about this from guys who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. One private tried to do himself in by wrapping the electrical cord of some heavy appliance around his neck and throwing it out a window (he lived). Who knows what was happening in his fevered mind, but that's what he did. WWI veteran Siegfried Sassoon wrote the famous poem, "Suicide in the trenches".
* "How can I feel empathy for someone who spared no one?" Again, I'll bring up the guy I know who was in Vietnam, my friend's father, and other veterans I've known -- I spend a day with the former about a month ago. I'm sad that they did some of the things they did, but I get it, given the hellish circumstances they were in. In the movie, the French who murdered Paul's friend had just witnessed the Germans shooting down Frenchmen who had escaped from a tank before it caught fire. To my mind, they reacted as many young men probably would.
Did he really deny that trenches flooded? If he did I'm not watching this and no one else should
I'm too busy to rewatch, but he seemed to scoff at the scene in which they were bailing water. It was early in the movie and his critique.
Underrated comment.
Historians complaining about historical innacuracies while making historical innacuracies sums up this video and this entire comment section pretty well. I have never seen so many people whine about a fictional novel being "historically innacurate"
To be fair, I don't recall seeing online complaints about the BOOK'S accuracy. Some people don't like this movie, for whatever reasons, and may or may not have even read the source material. The book is fiction, but was meant to be read as a lifelike account of a soldier's experience. Over the decades, some have found it TOO anti-war (there's a bit of a fetish for Junger, a German WWI soldier who found his experiences more exhilarating), though I continue to think that "war sucks" is an underappreciated message in a time when most people in industrialized countries have no experience with it outside of video games.
My grate grandfather fought in ww1. His entire “fight” experience was staying in trenches and once he met a german soldier in a forest. He told him to go a way and he another way. He didn’t shot 1 bullet the entire war. :)))
Wow I would’ve thought the soldiers would’ve had shooting practice
he was french or russian, your great grandfather?
My great grandfather was a serbian soldier in WW1
@@Black.Templar_002 or British or American.
and this german soldier was hitler 😲😲
The trench knives, clubs, and sharpened shovels used in trench raids by both sides are well documented.
I find it funny that he complains about historical inaccuracies in many segments of the movie and then when he talks about the bayonets and shovels, which are some of the most accurate depictions he just says that they didn't actually happen. For some reason this guy seems to do this a bunch, if something goes against his point then its fake or exaugurated.
i have a friend who has probably one of the largest collection of clubs in the world. Both italian and austrian had standard issue of clubs as i bet the germans did. "Mazza modello San Michele" for example
Grenades as well. Hand to hand combat did happened but rarely. The thing is EVERY WW1 movie show it while it wasn't common.
@@aidanhewett492 he said it was very rare, learn to listen
@@mrphong536 they also depict it like it is just the regular thing, like every attack and defense ends in some mad mass melee combat
It's better than most Netflix films so a win is a win
Stop being a cuck. Have a spine. Admit that its crap and history revisionism
@@trolltalwar what i just said it's better then most Netflix films I'm not praising it
Net flu is a Deception channel In Optima Forma , go read a book if you dont want to srew your poor brains !
It's all been a real crapshoot the past few years and no hope in the future.
lmao that's really not saying much
19:22, according to the timeline of the film (November 1918), tanks would have been a regular sight on the Western Front, having first been used by the British in September 1916. In one of the few noteworthy and accurate scenes, it is the veteran 'Kat' who using his experience, destroys the tank.
@@goldenhawk352 that's the recommended technique, that's not gonna be the only way they take out tanks
@@heliveruscalion9124 exactly, what they did in the movie made perfect sense considering how close they were to the tank already.
True however for the tank scene I wish that instead of wasting ammunition on the tanks they would have instead bought up the Mauser 13 mm anti-tank rifle, I have yet to see those in film so definitely a wasted opportunity,
@@baldrickthedungspreader3107 After 1916 and The Mark I, the British added more armor so the 1918 Mark IV's would have been largely impervious to that anti-tank rifle. By the way you can see these tanks at the British tank museum in Dorset.
@@baldrickthedungspreader3107 they dont seem to understand what they film portraid. In reality the germans probably knew how to figth vs tanks, but the film tell us that is almost the firth time they see them.
All soldiers fire the tanks with the rifles, so they dont know what they’re doing, but then they know exactly how to disable one with granades… like, wtf, why u stare a mountain of moving metal and decide to shot at it if u allreday know what works?
There was a reason for the directors to chose to have kat’s death be so “anti-climatic.” It shows that it isn’t a happy action movie with grand climatic deaths like iron man in endgame. It’s showing that war isn’t fair at all and life is still fragile, shell or tiny bullet.
it baffles me that someone who doesn't understand cinematic aspects like this can post 20min+ videos talking about cinema. It makes so much sense for everybody to die so quickly without a big lead up or big heroic boom, because that's what life is. It shows the futility of the war effort and the fragility of life as you said. An extra 3000 people died before the signing of the armistice and the end of the war, some people actually died in the last minute of the war. Our character just gets stabbed. Like that. What a moment.
The book was better in every way and had they been more faithful to it, it would’ve been just as anticlimactic and not some dumb teleporting kid. Also, Paul’s death is supposed to be more anonymous and not go out on anti historical suicide charge.
it also makes no sense from a common sense standpoint
You don’t get the point of the video. The fact that they’re even out there raiding a French farm is stupid enough as it is. What? Are they on leave? Why are they not at their posts? This is never explained and Kats death is simply the stupidest thing in the movie. It was so much better in the 79 version where Paul carried kat on his back while he was dead from a shell explosion, he didn’t know. This was much more random and impactful than the silly one in the 2022 version where some crazy looking French boy kills him. Overall the movie was very emotional but other than that it sucked
As someone who not only watched all 3 movies but also is reading the novel, it’s interesting to see the differences in each movie and how it relates to the book. While I love the 1970 version more the 2022 isn’t horrible. It shows the panic in the trenches really well in my opinion. I’m upset that the 1930 is the only movie to use the hands on the wire scene
Why are you a furry?
@@Hamlet2344 why does it matter, this guy is worth his salt. He is reading the book , and has even seen each movie. His comment was constructive and relevant to the video. Yours however, why? No one cares lol
@@tadeuszkolak4937 Furries are bad because they sexualize animals, and that's pretty bad.
@@Hamlet2344 yeah, that guy above me, why does it matter?
It's actually also in the 1979 movie (at one point a Frenchman using wirecutters is killed).
In the German army, trench clearing was called "Aufrollen." It was done with hand grenades, rifle grenades, explosives, and flamethrowers. The men rehearsed the attack in full-scale models of the enemy trench system built behind German lines, and they carried maps into battle. The training was very rigorous and effective.
@@goldenhawk352 In his book "Storm of Steel" German philosopher and war veteran Ernst Jünger depicted on several occasions and in detail how enemy trenches were cleared mainly with handgrenades.
Don't forget gassing the french out
@@maximkretsch7134
If you think about it such concussion weapons would have been very lethal in a trench while the people standing above it would have been in little danger.
@alanpennie Right, Ernst Jünger also described that as the trenches were zig-zagging the hand grenades were thrown over the top into the section behind the next corner. For this purpose some of his men also stayed over the top and advanced parallel.
If you ask me, in both wars, germany has really good training, don’t know how the hell they lost.
this guy thought they made the movie for him, the director made the movie with his own perspective, not for you man.
I think they did touch on them being replacements by showing the uniforms of dead soldiers being repurposed at the beginning. He even goes back and says someone already was assigned them, and he rips of the tag and lies to the kid.
Yeah I’m pretty sure the name tag was from the guy at the start of the movie
That scene was total BS. Think about it. In the midst of battle uniforms are being torn apart and caked in mud (as are people) and hey you're going to stop and strip your dead comrade naked to recycle their uniform. Sorry but as a veteran it is obvious these filmmakers were just making stuff up. In WWI they used to leave dead bodies in No Man's Land for weeks and the rats ate them!! The uniform scene makes my blood boil it so unrealistic. Pure melodrama to dupe audiences.
Half the stuff this guy critiques are completely wrong. I don't know if he is a historian or not, but he definitely didn't pay attention to the movie
Yeah if you miss that detail, you've not watched the film closely enough. It was fairly obvious what was being depicted as soon as they began washing the uniforms in the tubs.
@@redbloodcell4047 He was probably multi tasking while watching the movie. That's how I miss obvious and important parts of a movie
I focused on the horror more than anything else. I think the film succeeded and espousing an anti war message.
Why would this be any more anti-war than Saving Private Ryan. It is just a big blood bath. The nuance and power of Remarque's story is lost.
@@lawrencewood289 the intent of leadership. Saving private Ryan’s plot, even if you don’t agree with the decision to risk many men for one man, has some semblance of moral reasoning to it. You could also call Americas involvement in ww2 moral, though I personally could never look at any war as being good.
This version of the film, like the actual war, leans into the senselessness of the sacrifice involved, especially at the conclusion. It struck me beyond the brutality, though the brutality was also striking. My takeaway watching it was “wow war is horrifying.” Not a profound statement or thought, but a profound feeling in the moment.
Still, the experience is subjective. To each their own.
@@Groovy_Bruce Agreed on your moral framework. That was the essence of the original novel and prior film versions as well. Remarque's work is anti-war and a rebuke to German militarism. Hence it was banned in the Third Reich. Just felt this version was sooo heavy-handed in telling the message as well as butchering the characters and plot line of the novel as well as historical realities.
@Dat Crab WWI is by no means a pointless war if you are...
Belgian
French
Serbian
Czech
Slovak
Polish
Slovenian
Croat
Saudi
etc.
Arguably also for Britain it was necessary to prevent Germany upsetting the balance of power and Italy because they gained the Trentno and the city of Trieste (which they hold to this day).
Germany was an aggressive power deeply threatening the national sovereignty of Belgium and France. Did you think it was pointless for them to resist? Also, many other groups above achieved national self-determination thanks to WWI (albeit some like the Saudis under an absolute monarchy).
So yes WWI was pointless from the standpoint of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary which it essentially destroyed. Not so much for other groups involved.
BTW he's looking at it from a completely historical perspective. He isn't talking about the story and it's depth, simply talking about historical accuracy. U have to understand that before watching his vids. Personally I loved the movie. This isn't a review
On hand to hand combat: I think its fair to say that it happened relatively often. Some museums carry quite to collection of melee weapons, suggesting that at some point it either occurred more frequently or there was a realistic fear of it happening.
Old comment, but its important to point out that most of the melee weapons used were also tools.
Shovels use was obvious.
Knives had uses from cutting various things, to opening cans.
Really the only dedicated hand to hand weapon used was the bayonet, which was really a weapon of last resort.
@@alecshockowitz8385there were lots of DIY clubs too
I totally disagreed with "HistoryLegends" outright dismissal of the Book's accounts of hand-to-hand combat. All military action in the Book seemed very authentic, and often counterintuitive to the popular images of battle. For instance, that rifle-bayonet was hard to use in a confined trench, while a sharpened shovel could be swung or stabbed repeatedly. WWI Museums have many "Trench Clubs", most often used during night raids, where melee weapons would draw less attention than gunfire. Similar use of combat-shovels in the close-in fighting of WWII Stalingrad.
If you just believe that because museums have tons of clubs sitting around, I feel sorry for you. Museums are not run by real
Historians and they fake a lot of what is on display.
It's not really an adaptation of either the previous movies or the book. It is an interpretation, with another look. It would have been boring to see another movie with the exact same story.
About this new version, as a historian by profession, I consider it to be good material, even for students who are studying the first world war in school
I’d highly recommend the 1930s version for students versus this one.
"interpretation" is the out of jail free card for basterizing works of Art, just make an Movie of your own if you intend to wipe your a*** with the source material anyway.
Calling it like the source material just to "interprete" villy nilly is ticket bait
@@blaue_blue "Military Officers bad=social Dems good. Also f*** historical Accuracy, only the Message matters" wow, cant wait for it to played in Schools...
Then they should give it a different name.
@@macsenhayes it’s true. They shouldn’t have said it was related.
What a strange "historian"...
Tanks were a regular sight in 1918. The French had produced tanks in thousands by that time.
Flamethrowers were also used a lot. Typically, 1918 saw combined gaz and flamethrowers attacks by the French mile the one at Ypres
The French had also special units who did this job. They were called "Nettoyeurs de tranchées", trench cleaners. They consisted of the most experienced men of the regiment who had special equipment and weapons to do that.
Maybe he's confused that that title actually means something.
@jonathanbirch2022provide an ounce of proof ‘kid’
@jonathanbirch2022 it’s called supporting your claim with evidence ‘bud’
You are missing the point. Saint Chamond tanks weren't used in trench assaults(I mean just look at their tracks it's obvious) and there were only 400 of them built. Tank for that job as the guy said was the FT-17 of which were 3000 built.
Hand to Hand Combat was rare?
Well, when I was a little child, my grandmother told me, that her father told her one of his personal WWI Stories.
He wanted to take a french soldier who surrendered and looked like Teenager, as a prisoner, telling him in french "This war is not your fault. This is not our war.", just seconds later that french boy got stabbed and killed by the bayonet of a german comrad.
The way my grandmother told me this story made me feel exactly how that must have been very traumatizing to my great-grandfather, because he did not understand why that kid had to die (I had to think about that story the whole movie, because it's one of the few stories my grandmother told me about WWI.)
But needless to say, growing up with warstories like that, made me hate war. Nothing fun about it, just misery and butchery in the name of people, who are far away from the frontlines, to enlargen or maintain their Power, Status and Money...
Well, I guess nothing changed 😥
and how does this interesting story refute his thesis?
@@kpss6711 well, he was stabbed with a bajonet. Or are we talking about the actual use of hands?😅 I was talking about close combat with the use of bajonets or other kinda knives.
@@kpss6711 because old mate is saying that they shouldn't have included melee combat in the movie. It happened, it is well documented, even if not as common as people would have you think.
Anyway it's good film
I agree
My fav ww1 movie so far
1930’s version WAY better imo
@@nuttmc4803 If you loved this I'd highly recommend The Rifleman (2019) (named Blizzard of Souls in some other countries.) Easily one of my favorite WW1 movies of all time
@@SuperSpasticNinja ye i watched it its also good
you're very wrong. you definetly went into this movie wanting to not like it.
What is he wrong about?
@@Theakker3B Tanks were being used quite often towards the end of ww1 and he was complaining that the characters were supposed to be replacements and they were. The young soldiers joined in 1917 and were replacing dead soldiers, even reusing the uniforms of the dead. I didn't watch the whole video because he was being wrong and acting like he is a historian who knows what he is talking about. Couldn't finish the video
@@RamesesBolton "being wrong" Nice use of English there.
@@Theakker3B I speak more languages than you, I'm sure. Give me a break if not all of them are perfect. English is my fourth language
Im sure he never read the book and he isnt a real historian
Yes you correctly mentioned it was a fictional book but based on real events and people. The first version of the book and movie were shocking records of what happened. I have seen the original censored version in " Buchenwald" on a trip through German history, This version is 4 hrs long and holy shit, all scenes are real footageand what you see is how it was. That version is still not easy to get hold of. the 1928 version is actually censored, shortened and only shows half of it! I am German, all my grandfathers fought, WW1 and WW2. My Grandmother grew up with French prisoners of war pulling their plough through the field because the German army had taken all cows and horses. I ve heard stories from survivors myself when i was young. Yes, they fought with clubs, spades, knifes, spears, sharpened anything that wielded well.... especially when raiding at night as to quietly kill so not to alert the whole enemy trench.....
How many grandfather do you have?
I never understood WW1. Why not bombarding the trenches 24/7 with artillery, since all the soldiers are deployed there?
@@denizbeytekin9853 They needed to get rid of massive amouts of people , like they do now with cojona , and a war on top of it . The War against the people ,, Edwin Black , wrote this book about the eugenists who had a big hand in depopulate the working class after they wrecked the big farmers and landowners . A must read !
@@denizbeytekin9853 because the soldiers would just wait in their bunkers and wait until the shelling is over. Thats why the creeping barage was used (mentioned in the video). It forced the defenders in ther bunkers to allow atacking infantry to close the distance to the enemy trenches.
@@denizbeytekin9853 Because of limited industrial capabilities (yes ammunition problems were a big thing during certain points of the war for both sides) and how very very effective a good trench was, which was why the western front stagnated so thoroughly.
I definitely enjoy watching all of your videos! For this movie, I did notice the large difference from its original portrayal in the book and original films.
Personally though, I really liked it. It felt more like an experience rather than a film. You take some young soldiers and you stick them in a war that is so overwhelming that you, as an audience member, feel overwhelmed.
Is it the best film ever? Definitely not. But it does feel different and hits the single purpose that the book wanted: war is hell and should not be celebrated. That theme in itself is what’s important about all quiet on the western front.
As a historian, I say it’s worth watching all 3 versions. You’ll get a different experience each time, like watching 3 entirely different films on WWI.
I would have appreciated coming to know these soldiers, growing with them, through being convinced through school, training struggles, etc. as he noted in the review, I felt the same regarding the lack of character development.
The runtime for this new one is exactly the length of the 1930s movie, which had so much more impact on the overall story.
@@BaronvonMoorland I entirely agree with you! The original has more character development and a better story ark. That’s why I say this new one is more of an experience rather than a film.
I think what the German filmmakers were trying to do with this one is give an alienated take of World War 1. I feel the theme wanted you as an audience member to feel disconnected in ways similar to how the soldiers themselves felt disconnected. Similar to war, we don’t always get the chance or ability to bond with the people next to us. Sometimes we are so shocked by what we see that our ability to have attachment is withered away.
This is of course just my opinion :) I’ve read the book and seen the 30’s and 70’s version too. I like them all. They all perform splendidly in depicting the one thing the book warned us about: do not glorify war.
@@V2rocketproductions certainly a good take and thank you for that. I felt the same in my initial opinion of this one, that it felt like great material for film-trailers and music-videos.
Now, Ernst Jünger’s book - Storm of Steel.
I’m torn between wanting to see that made into film but fearing the rendition it’s created into.
I have to disagree, the most recent one pushes the message too hard, it's too blatant, too cartoonish and too accusitory.
If war is bad, then you don't need to push it this hard, just show us the reality. Instead we get warped propoganda.
Infact I don't think any story should try to make an 'anti-war messege' for this reason, just like they should try and make a gloryful war message. if war is bad just showing it as it is/was will be enough, let us come to the conclusion.
The problem is directors don't want to show us realsitic war. Not only because they think it will be too graphic (which should aide their cause) but because they know deep down there is stuff to glorify in war and they are too scared people will latch on to that part of the reality, many have admitted as much.
@@BaronvonMoorland that’s a book I need to read. I’ve heard it’s pretty intense and gives a powerful description of the war. Probably will pick it up soon for a winter read.
did bro really bring up modern ukraine trench clearing to old german clearing? different time, different nation, different tactics.
Good sir,
1. Before the structure collapsed on Baumar the Commanding officer in the shelter stated that the french were coming and that the artillery moves forward as the french advanced. so all the death is normal. ( Due to grenades, and stuff where thrown)
2. The topic is sensitive to both sides due to the mass unnecessary losses. And for that reason, I believe the cast actually tried their best to make it fictional but accurate. with fiction I mean that not all the words are accurate)
3. The frontline trenches were not always met with a lot of care because they would be destroyed allot, so in the end, they would quickly be rebuilt.
@3 That is wrong. These trenches were kept in the best possible condition as they were the first line of defence. And they were also the temporary "home" for the units stationed there. There was a constant threat of enemy raids trying to take prisoners, capture the rare machine guns and blow up the dugouts. A waterlogged row of craters would offer no protection from harassing artillery fire and standing in mud the whole day would give you trench foot or at least ruin your footwear.
Check original pictures from these trenches or read "Goodbye to all that", the wartime memoirs of Robert Graves. He describes how every night working parties repaired or improved the trenches. Any neglecting would be paid in blood.
@@helmutkogelberger6612 What about the rats, lices, rain, and... you know... Verdun?
@@davielias4404 The troops pretty quickly learned how to build trenches that would not have half a meter of standing water in it. After one week in the mud your boots would fall apart.
The most horrific pictures were usually taken in no mans´ land or after a massive artillery barrage that levelled the front line trenches. When the subsequent attack was repulsed repair of the trenches would start right away.
Besides, there was really not much else to do for the troops, apart from standing watch, night patrols and avoiding the occasional shell being sent across no mans´land.
Yeah good point, how tf is this ‘historian’ mad at the lack of duckboards and concrete bunkers etc?? Yes they existed but not everywhere
@@rhysnichols8608 duckboards existed everywhere lmaooo
Now I want to see a 99% accurate ww1 movie
Try the 1930 version. Its much closer. Paths of Glory is pretty darn good too.
@@lawrencewood289 ok thx
You my friend are not a historian. Sure anyone can identify to be whatever they want these days, but the factual state remains. Really had me at how defenders were at a disadvantage at trench warfare!!! And also how troops DIDN'T charge across open fields.. come on man, there are so many resources out there, as you have said yourself. If you were any kind of historian, you would have done a better job
Dudes just a russian social influencer.
I have seen all 3 films and have read the book, I can tell you that personally I liked the 2022 version the most. I can understand that it’s not as accurate as the other two but when it comes to the artistic side of things, I believe that it truly shines and still retains the overarching theme of All Quiet on the Western Front. I honestly find your take to be disingenuous, perhaps it’s because you don’t have a background in the arts and filmmaking in general. This film has amazing cinematography, sound design, editing and writing to name a few. As a work of art it’s good and deeply impactful, just because a work doesn’t depict an event with 100% accuracy, doesn’t mean that it should be discredited. Otto Dix was a famous German painter that fought in WWI and he created various works based on his memories of the war, they are not a 100% accurate depiction but are still deeply impactful for the viewer and give a glimpse into the mental state of Otto and perhaps most soldiers that served on the front. Hopefully you don’t make a video titled “Historian Gets Mad at Otto Dix’s depiction of WWI”.
I've seen all three and read the book too. Sorry I profoundly disagree. This version is loud and muddy and bloody but its character development is poor, the plot is a wish mash and I'm sorry but there is just egregiously stupid unrealistic stuff. Some banzai charge at the end of the movie? Huh? WTH?!. You talk about a work of art. Well in this case the art is supposed to depict a real event and this film is so far off it is almost ludicrous. Its historical scenes are wrong and it misses the point of the "mundane or ordinary" that is so important to understanding the novel. Think about where the darn title comes from! (Or yes we can go purist and talk about "in The West, nothing new". How does that square with some giant end battle? It doesn''t).
I was thinking that a lot of the scenes in the film felt like they were taken straight out of one of Otto Dix's paintings, really honed in the point that war is a human meat grinder
@@lawrencewood289 Did you watch the same movie as I did? The end battle isn't about depicting a realistic charge or whatever, it's to show how terrible war is, and shows the sadness of how generals like Friedrichs can spill the blood of his men for small personal pride and "honour". There are 15 minutes left until the armistice, and this fills the room with tension as you've seen how far the protagonist has gone, and somehow share his experiences as you the viewer have put yourself in his shoes throughout the movie, for him to ultimately die at the end, showing how war isn't merciful nor cares if you're the "main character". All his experiences were basically for nothing, as the memories shared with his friends die with him. To me this ending, when the boy he saved has to collect the dog tags, shows how life goes on, but very bittersweet as this boy is a representation of the cycle of war. I think the ending is clever cause it references the start of the movie.
Honestly I think that this movie is great because of the how the message and theme is presented throughout the movie, both in symbolism and the script etc., which to me makes the realism part matter less, as this in fact IS cinema.
@@axelemilraith8904 Yes we watched the same movie.
Sorry but IMO you don't just get to make stuff up to make your philosophical point. If I'm some Confederate wackjob in the US who thinks the South was great I can't just make a movie and show Pickett's charge at Gettysburg succeeding and the Confederacy going on to triumph. The director has essentially appropriated a famous title and then fabricated a completely different work; it's almost like clickbait. Also, artistically it doesn't work...look at the title All QUIET on the Western Front. (The title in German is different but same concept). There is nothing about a massive final attack that is quiet. That was the beauty of the real original ending. he dies for....nothingness, nothing particular going on from a macro scale but from a "Paul Baumer scale" it was finis. This director is dense and heavyhanded artistically so yup I despise his lack of realism but my critique goes WAY deeper than that.
How the fuck are you comparing Otto Dix's paintings with this last movie?
Dix was on the front, whoever directed this movide didn't
I still enjoyed it greatly and it still sends the message that war is terrible and that not everyone is a Saint. Either way, this is probably the best depiction of war you are going to get in today's films
Saving Private Ryan was superior to this. I also think Stalingrad (1993) as well.
@@lawrencewood289 Saving Private Ryan is dogshit, but Stalingrad (1993) is indeed great
@@waltuh11121 Not sure I agree but whatever SPR was it was better than this (Yes, its fundamental plot line was pretty silly). This version besides hacking the plot to death has poor character development.
@@waltuh11121 I wouldn't call SPR dogshit, it's a good film, better than this film at least. Stalingrad 1993 does sweep though.
They sacrificed realism for cinematography. It's more of an action movie than an impactful war movie with a lesson.
Still a pretty good action movie.
Yes exactly, well said
Idk I think it still gets it’s point across pretty well
@@Dannyboi-re7vb Perhaps but this point is very simplistic, generic "war=bad" movie. The book is more multifaceted
You can very easily have both
@@Dannyboi-re7vb When you sacrafice realism to get your point across, you do more harm than good regarding your Message
Bro, I'm like 11 years out of the Army, first deployment was in 2007 to Iraq. I remember so much. The good and the bad. Regardless of his time on the front line, he knew enough to tell a true story without obvious embellishments. 11 years later isn't sus to me at all. It takes that long to be comfortable enough to speak on it.
I'm wondering watching this movie do think this a good movie from a veterans perspective?
@@shusterandy I’m still in today and doubtless have less experience than Weaver, but I’d say it definitely gets the point across.
@@AbnAngelo7677 thanks that's good to know.
i enjoyed it a lot. i found it very gritty, and the transition from proud singing to losing all his friends then finally his own life, in the last 3 days of war, are a brutal reminder of the futility. this movie inspired me to acquire the book, and to search for more accounts of ww1 life. it's humbling. the last seen where kat and paul steal from the farmer the 2nd time is metal. the piano starts signaling (thought we don't know it yet) kat's fate, he stared into the sky hearing the quiet for the first time in years, not knowing these are the last hours of his life. i recently watched the 79 version and will get to the 1930s version soon.
i've watched the original german language version with english subtitles and there are some subtle differences that give other cues (clues?) to the scenes context.
I think he is to harsh and he shouldn’t expect a movie to be perfect
I loved the movie, possibly one of the best things Netflix has shat out.
Lol your phrasing made me chuckle. Also overall accurate when it comes to Netflix’s programming. This movie was great though.
😂😂😂
The French DID do mass wave attacks as late as 1916, but had switched over to the small squad level assault teams by the end of that year (at least according to Allistaire Horne in "Death of a Generation", great book)
How dare you have a dissenting opinion AND cite a source to support your opinion! *sarcasm*
@@Michael-on3ku Alex said very clearly, that he tactic used depends on the year and that the movie plays in 1917, thus no mass suicide attacks
What about the Germans?
@@unapologeticpatriot6504 The Germans stopped attacks on the Western Front in 1916 and concentrated on the East front
The Nivelle Offensive of April-May 1917 unleashed mass waves of French infantry. Minimal ground was gained, the French suffered 120,000 casualties, the army mutinied and Nivelle was sacked.
What really annoys me is that you could have acknowledged the context of the story and understood, naturally, that there are limitations in the accuracy department, when it comes to creating a 2 hour movie on a budget.
You could have just provided more context to the film, without disparaging it. It just comes across as geeky and emotionally unintelligent. Everything has to be earned with you guys, you’re all so black and white with your depictions and opinions.
Hate always sells on TH-cam though, a more respectful outlook never gets more views. You’re reminding me of that food buff character in The Menu film
You do not understand one single bit of the meaning and load of this movie
Tactically, you're absolutely correct. Despite the tactics, massive amounts of young men died for nothing more than several hundred yards of ground. This film sufficiently represents the futility of it all.
This . Whole point of the film. And zealous nationalism. Which they did a good job with . ''Oh nooo they didn't have the right floors in the trenches . what an inaccurate film!! ''
Interesting to watch the take of someone who doesn't comprehend narrative, themes, or even storytelling on a fundamental level. Not enjoyable, just interesting
reality is far more important than entertainment
@@BradyMcLean Then watch a documentary. God knows there's enough of those. Documenting "reality" instead of the human perception of the war is exactly how you get history buff losers complaining that "the deaths weren't cool enough!!". This movie never pretended to be the most historically accurate film, the goal was instead to be anti-war. I have never seen a war movie that was as good at being anti-war as this film. Every scene was sickening, it was extraordinarily human.
Films like these accomplish far more than history channel WWI documentaries.
@@thog9501 if your message isn't based in reality than it is useless. This movie is in no way good at showing what war is like or how it affects people so why bother, what does it contribute? Plenty of films have good depictions of the war that shows what soldiers went through (including films made by actual great war vets) and this is definitely not one of them. The movie isn't just bad because it disregards accuracy, its bad because it fails in its purpose by giving a very Hollywood style WWI
The movie sucked I couldn't even get through the entire thing. It's boring people die in stupid ways and doesn't seem like the people making it put a lot of effort into it.
Not really, people like you don't understand what good story is. Journeys end was better then this and more realistic too while guess what being entertaining.
Few things
1. Prisoners on the field were common, but when the POW camps became full, they sent out troops to kill them. Also, what would a few surrendered soldiers on the battlefield help with knowledge? They were useless to the French. The German soldiers were questioned at Mons to see if they saw knights from heaven shooting at them and many others were questioned about other things, but I just don't see how those 3 soldiers would be worth getting an officer's hands dirty for.
2. Hand to hand combat was "extremely rare?" Maybe in 1914 but absolutely not when you're in the trenches. Also, you ride the 1930's and 1970's version of the movie when they both had scenes with hand-to-hand combat. This line made me throw all of your criticisms out the window. Literally look up hand to hand combat weapons. The trench knife? The spiked club? Hell, stormtroopers had body armor to protect them crossing the trenches.
3. What does barb wire disappearing have to do with historical accuracy. You're acting like one continuity error just ruined the entire movie. Not to mention plenty of war movies have continuity errors.
4. You haven't read the book. You've only watched the 1930's version. The fork death was in the book.
5. If you actually listened to the movie, you'd know that the artillery attack was a creeping barrage which isn't just one artillery shell hitting an enclosed area of the trench, it's a line of artillery so of course it would make that huge aftermath. Also don't know where you pulled the nuke thing out of. Clearly, you've never seen a nuke aftermath.
6. There is not a hundred bodies, near 20 at most. Plus, you talk bad about the film for "overreacting" then get mad when the bodies of the German soldiers just have gunshot wounds.
7. Playing Hoi4 a few times doesn't make you a historian.
It's a shame because your ranking WW1 movies video is really good but this video is absolutely terrible
the hand-to-hand weapon scene in question is when he accidentally falls into a shell hole and there turns out to be a frenchman already in the hole. it is a close, personal encounter that unravels less than 5 feet from each other with no chance to react in any other way. To call this like a 'hand-to-hand combat' encounter is totally ridiculous. Just stop trying to justify AQOTWF 2020 it was god-awful.
@@duskworker8469 they were struggling and trying to grapple, then one of them pulled a knife, how is that not hand to hand combat, also there's plenty more scenes of longer hand to hand engagements in the film
Great another "historian" saying that accuracy is always important; bruh accuracy is not the only thing that matters in a war movie. This is no historian, this is a afficionate who only cares about accuracy details and not the whole message.
How can you shit on a movie as horrific and yet so beautiful as this
For same reason as we shit on movies like Patriot and Braveheart , they might be okay as movies but as HISTORICAL movies they suck ass
Bro had nothing bad to say about the movie so he decided to rant about random deaths and barbed wires for views😂😂😂😂😂
He said it wasn’t historically accurate
I’m not gonna bother you saying the amount of gore is cartoonish is ridiculous that was part of war, instantly closed the video.
Amazing how some guy can gather 178k subscribers on a history channel despite clearly not being a historian.
Waaaaaagh.
"how can I feel empathy for someone who spared nobody" he didnt exaclly have a choise in the matter. I mean what was he gonna do, not shoot the enamy and get his own men, or himself killled.
Also when you reacted to the short film "sodatengluck" towards the end a german sargent shoots a soviet who is trying to surrender and you said, "this is exactly waht would happen".
He also did try to save the one French soldiers life after he stabbed him. He's a very empathetic character.
@@demonxkiller1 indeed
The fork incident is from the book, where a patient does not want to live as a cripple, but he survives. Kat's death is also anticlimactic just like the book . All Quiet is my favorite book. Felt like this movie accurately depicted the horror that Remarque describes as well as showed us scenes from the book that have not been depicted on screen such as the "Goose Feast" and took significant artistic license to not be a shot for shot remake. What bugged me was the ending. In the book, Paul is basically a child experiencing this and has a soul and the ending in the book reveals the title. The ending of the movie is not only historically inaccurate, but steals from Paul's nature. Read the book if you haven't. It will truly grip your soul.
I understand this criticism, but to me it feels like you're saying oranges are bad because they don't taste like apples. I don't think it has to be identical. The story functions just as well by demonstrating Paul's descent from humanity. I felt sick watching this movie and it is probably the best "anti war" film I have ever watched. Paul's character development felt very natural
Despite some inaccuracies all quiet on the western front is a good movie for a Netflix movie.
BTW Well done on hitting 175k subscribers bro, being with you since the good old "Fury" videos.
Wow! I see you’re a veteran 🫡
This movie sucked rofl
@@historylegends I am, 😂just never commented much. I remember the channel popping off with COD Vanguard and the Russo-Ukrainian war...... Keep up the great work bro, don't let negativity deter you💪
@@trolltalwar you having a bad day?
@@themolasser9110 no im having a great day. why do you think negative criticism is indicative of a bad day? if the movie was good i would of said its good. but its not, so i said it sucks. i have a spine and am not afraid to point out crap when i see it.
People have pointed this out in the comments already but this analysis is way too petty and nitpicky, yes the film isn't completely historically accurate, but it isn't really supposed to be, you get the broad idea of what's going on on a grand strategic level and the rest of the film is about how awful (putting it lightly) war was and is. This film made me feel like garbage but it's become one of my favorite films, probably never going to watch it again except for maybe with eventual offspring of mine to show them how war really is, and as far as showing how war really is this film is one of the best I'd say ever made.
No
@@historylegends best response ever
@@historylegends shitty response typical
@@historylegends you’re not a real historian you’re a history fanboy
This criticism is not about the philosophy of the movie, it's about the small details those would have made it historically and cinematically more appealing while not changing the ultimate message of the movie, that(message) in itself takes a lots of creative liberties. I absolutely love this movie and I agree with a lot of stuff he says. It's a TH-cam commentary not a scientific paper, take it for what it is.
I'm sorry but watching a "historian" say historically inaccurate things while calling a movie inaccurate is hilarious. Trenches did flood. In alot of cases prisoners where not taken. And your NOT. A historian. Also it's not overly Gorey and the kid with the glasses got hit with a shell. Shrapnel went through his glasses of course you trying to find any fault possible wouldn't note that.
This guy is full of shit
You can tell this guys never been in combat to think the gore is cartoonish
Have you?
@@hrmpug1092 yes, I work with MSF or doctors without borders, I've treated civilians in Yemen whilst our camp was being shelled, I've worked in Syrian hospitals when the government was barraging the area with artillery and treated soldiers in south Sudan whilst our encampment was under fire from rebel groups, I myself have been injured by shrapnel in Syria, my face, I nearly lost my vision, it was very close to my eye.
Wounds from bullets, shrapnel and blasts from explosives, absolutely wreck the body, a high calibre rifle wound like a 5.56 or .308 can literally rip the flesh of the bones, I've seen a what must have been a .50 cal wound that looked like the person had a swallowed a grenade.
This film is incredibly accurate in its gore and how it shows the absolute fear and constant stress effects people, constantly thinking that at any point a shell or bullet can hit you destroys your mental well-being, I'm okay because I get to go back to my nice first world life, these people in war zones don't have that luxury.
@@SergyMilitaryRankings ok. That’s what he said. If you actually paid attention he said the men were far too intact!
@@SergyMilitaryRankings I'm so glad I keep you busy.
I've also seen the effects of a 50 cal, although it wasn't one. It's not even fun until you've gunned at least (250) half a belt.
You're so, so brave, as well as, so, so boring.... !
@@SergyMilitaryRankings Being in combat, as opposed to being in a combat zone are two completely different things.
Chill, it's not a documentary bro.
I have not seen this movie yet but for me the best version of "All quiet on the Western Front" so far was the 1930 version. I have heard that many extras were former German WWI veterans. When working at Barcelona, many years ago, there was that security guard who fancied that old-fashioned moustache and had that short blond hair. I always called him "Himmelstoss"... :) It was very easy to imagine him wearing a Pickelhaube.
Nice!!!!
Funny hearing a Catalan commenting on WW1. Not sure where you guys were at that time?
But you definitely got your share of pain in recent history, civil war and your friendly northern neighbor Mr. Bonaparte telling you where to find happiness a few years earlier.
@@SamuelLanghorn I'm not Catalan , and Catalans remained neutral as the rest of Spaniards. Same as Americans until 1917 when the WW! was almost finished , by the way...
I think you missed the point of the movie! the movie isn't really about accuracy, but instead to show how War is just terrible, and the hell the soldiers have to go through when going to war!
There's an unfortunate trend that's becoming more prevalent in modern war movies that tries to disguise unrealistic action and horror behind the "war is hell" trope. It's the same problem I had with Fury back in the day. Instead of depicting how soldiers actually felt, acted, and behaved in combat, these directors ramp it up to 11 and make warfare look as intense as possible, even if it's not realistic and comes off as silly to anyone who's actually knowledgeable about the subject. I have a feeling if Band of Brothers was made today, younger audiences would probably scoff at how reserved it is with its depiction of combat precisely because they've been taught to believe war looks like an action movie or a video game.
It's a shame too because Netflix's adaptation is well made from a technical perspective.
These movies also make it out as if the soldiers during the world wars hated each other and brutalized each other and never showed mercy. Most troops during both wars didn't want to kill each other, most showed mercy. There's always exceptions of course, there were atrocities committed by both sides. But it does make me wonder exactly why these directors want it to seen like there was so much mutual hatred 🤔
I completely agree. Glad I became interested in WW1 long before Battlefield 1. I don't associate it with video games or movies, and I hate to see unrealistic and overblown movies like this. As far as Band of Brothers, that's one of the best I've seen yet.
Not every war film is an attempt to appeal to armchair military kids who cry about realism, at the end of the day its an anti-war film and its not portraying itself to be an highly accurate portrayal of combat and battlefield tactics. The intended message of the original book comes across more effectively because of it's intense portrayal of war.
@@pianoman-1359 Felt "cheesy" and overly forced to me rather than a good portrayal of the brutal nature of war. My opinion has more to do with that than historical accuracy. But the aforementioned qualities I get from it do make the historical inaccuracies even more pronounced in this one.
@@LaughingMan44 except of course these guys are in battles, hell they even show that sometimes people do stop trying to kill each other and what happens? Someone who does steps in, ahem the ending
In a battlefield the men don't fight because they hate they fight because they want to live, and well you know full well certain troops like flametroopers for bothsides showed and were shown no mercy simply for their equipment (and sometimes taking prisoner was a burden so it was better to kill those who surrendered and kept it hush-hush)
Well this is missing the whole point of the movie
"Random guy that calls themselves a historian forgets the entire point of the movie they're critical of"
Says a guy stabbing him self is super gore and unnecessary but gets upset at the fact bodies weren’t torn to shreds by bombing. Ok then.
You're not even a real historian though. Why put that in your titles?
Paul was killed by a sniper in the 1930 version -- made just two years after the book was published.
And bro literally said that kats death was “to lame” bro doesn’t even sound like a historian. Had me rolling 😂
Yeah the whole point was his and others deaths were just another dog tag put in the bag
Cartoonish gore? The worse gore is missing limbs or blood splatters from artillery. Seems kinda normal for a war like this.
Kat got shot in the liver by the farmer kid. And as stated by the medic in movie. His organs were poisoned because he got shot in the liver.
This dude wanted a happy ending with everyone going home and living a happy life. The movie was great
Doesn't the evidence of various hand to hand weapons such as "trench knives", knuckle dusters, maces and clubs with nails suggest that hand to hand combat was fairly common? No doubt that the majority of deaths were from artillery.
Ikr people act like hand to hand combat didn’t happen??? Like wtf are you talking about lmao
You're a historian? Oh my god please help the future generations listening to you.
Fr
I feel like these film producers hire historical experts but completely ignore most of their advice.
Most of nowadays directors and writers express a certain degree of arrogance that makes them somewhat immune to advice
It's alot better than most war movies nowadays, this is one of the few movies I've watched that puts the reality of war into prespective.
The video game/comic book genre is a low bar. Try the 1930 version.
@@lawrencewood289i keep seeing people say try the 1930s version like this movie is 1000 times more realistic
@@jdjshzhhhsushhszjp8969 and it really isn't
@@lawrencewood289 I don't know how you can compare with the 1930 version. If they had the resources and technology to portray it in the same way as today, sure it may have been better. But the 1930s version also has its fair share of comical deaths and over the top brutality.
@@dr.woozie7500 War has over the top brutality. The 1930 version was way more faithful to the story including important philosophical elements and had a better depiction of WWI soldiers' experience. What deaths from the 1930 version were comical?
I fought war. This movie was an accurate representation of war at large. It was meant to be all encompassing. Not just for one people.
It's not a particularly accurate representation.
@@lawrencewood289 How so? Genuinely curious. With the understanding that war can’t be represented by one movie.
@@pantagruel1066 ignore him. He thinks any brutal depiction of combat is a "video game"
What a bad critique.
There are a lot of points which are pretty easy to look up, and u failed miserably.
9 Oscar nominations... must be a really bad movie.. clueless
I dont Think you understand you the film wasnt Made to be historical accurate or anything it was just there to Show that war is hell and it showed that perfectly
Well these days anyone can call himselfa Historian , I guess. Well so from now on I am a President in spe who is working as a Pornactor.🤣😂
Ok?
Dont waste 20 minutes of your time people. This guy read the wikipedia article of the 1st world war and now calls himself a historian.
How? He’s a real historian, unlike the director who is not.
@hrmpug1092 you mean he called himself a historian
@@Courierman6 no he’s a historian. He specifies on military history, particularly individual soldiers experiences (focusing heavily on WW1 French so far as I can tell) so he lacks a lot of knowledge on some topics. But Whether he is a good or bad historian is up to you: he is a historian.
History legends.
Dude.
I got to talk and hear the storys from a veteran from the western front from 1914 to 1919...
Let me tell you this.
The book, movies.
They are watered down.
It's one thing to read and watch, it's another to see and feel from the person.
Your points are valid but in the end of the day. If you want to learn some real horror for the war. Hit me up.
How long was it since you talk with a Western Front Veteran?
@@chrisss_xp9464 2002, my great great grandmother. She died at 112.
Literally hating just to hate, no other purpose, no critique, no suggesting what’s more accurate, just literal hatred. Sad human being.
It sort of feels like you have a very romanticized version of WW1, and this film challenges that. I honestly think you’ve entirely missed the point of the film. For me, it remains one of my favourites of all time
The fleeing from a tank scene was taken from when they first saw tanks on mass at Cambrai in 1917.
Idk where you got your credentials lol, but I think this movie did an excellent job at selling the brutality of the war and the nightmare that it was
he is self proclaimed historian lol
He’s not very smart, doesn’t understand how reality works, for example ALL TRENCHES HAD DUCKBOARDS, and ALL BUNKERS WERE CONCRETE and NO ONE KILLED POWS etc, he’s dealing in absolutes, like obvs some trenches get damage, flooded etc, duckboards are a luxury at times, things just break down, so complaining about the first trench in the movie not having wooden boards on the floor is silly
Also wooden dug outs were far more common than concrete bunkers, so I don’t get why he insinuated concrete was the standard…..also ofc POWs were murdered by both sides, yes it wasn’t the common trend but it still happened. He’s listing facts but can’t apply them to reality
@jonathanbirch2022 says the dude who was knee deep in the trenches and saw live combat in 1914 , you don't know shit. This movie is as close a depiction of the first world War as we're gonna get. Stfu and go back to your battlefield game
@jonathanbirch2022 everyone listen to the history/ movie expert over here.
I guess you havent seen any more reviews from other historians
This is some serious nitpicking. The scene of the soldier killing himself happens in the book. And the technical errors are really pretty minor, no reason to rip in the film just cause of that
Saying that the attackers were at the advantage is so wrong. One side has to stay in there trenches and shoot machine guns, the over side has to get to them first while under fire and then fight them in the trenches when they can easily be reinforced.
False
@@historylegends that's all you have to say
@@historylegends
It's annoying the way these glaring untruths get repeated.
@@Courierman6
You could read an actual book about WW1.
@@alanpennie I have
"Historian gets mad that the film doesn't portray the movie that he made in his mind"
I'm gonna be really honest this is the first one of the your videos I've watched and I must say I feel you are not only largely wrong regarding some "facts" you present in this video but at times your points are completely ludicrous. While this movie is not 100% historically accurate, I mean none really ever are or can be 100%, It achieves it's goal and Erich Maria Remarques goal of showing the horror of War and its complete and utter futility. I mean it's clear you miss these points by your nit picks of "kats death was lame" or "it's too gorey" THATS THE POINT. Kat isn't supposed to die heroically in battle but tragically and needlessly to something stupid as ultimately that is what many casualties in war amount to, a pathetic and worthless death. Of course I believe the choice of death could have been perhaps done better but ultimately I feel it achieved its goal. The movie is different from the books and the other movies but similar enough to retain the same title and purpose. War is most often nothing more than needless mass murder thats the point and while I could spend the rest of the day critiquing this critique I feel I have gotten my point across.
Non-historians: this movie is so cool
Historians: this movie friggin’ sucks
It's a great movie but compared to the ones that came before it? Doesn't hold a candle. On it's own it is quite a well done film.
It might be inaccurate but it's quite good and I enjoyed it
Keep in mind, he isn't a real historian. He has no credentials. He's just a youtuber/tiktoker who uses that as click bait. You can claim anything on the internet. Still do your own research.
@@hannahwatkins7992 Your right. Also seeming to ride the train of Ukraine is gonna loose and the media is telling us otherwise. Im no expert but Ukraine could win. Would help if there could be peace talks that actualy went somewhere
This dude definitely read 3 words he thought were interesting on a WW1 article and thought he was a historian
I like this version the most. What's wrong with gore, random deaths, and hand-to-hand combat? This film is a cinematographic masterpiece in its depiction of combat, on-par with the beach landings in Saving Private Ryan. It's kind of shallow to blame the movie for lacking "historical accuracy" because I guarantee if you showed this to a WWI veteran (if any were still alive) they would feel this film to their core. I know most of the war didn't involve all these attacks and charges but it sends the same message as All Quiet on the Western Front.
If it’s just using gore to shock you it doesn’t automatically make it a good movie. Would Paths of Glory be even better if is was as gory as a Saw movie?
There is a major problem with many people defending this movie basing it on well it shows gore. The previous two versions didn’t have to go overboard showing gore to get the point across.
Saving private Ryan’s gore was actually realistic. They even used real amputees for the scenes. But even saving private Ryan had some realism issues here and there but overall a masterpiece.
"on-par with the beach landing in Saving Private Ryan" you gotta be joking.
Saving Private Ryan atleast tries to portray the battles with some degree of realism (with varying levels of success) while this movie just shows you core and mindless violence without purpose or direction.
You could say that's an apt metaphore for WW1 and that's fine, but on all levels of realism and authenticity this movie fails.
As a historical movie this is no better then Braveheart
The reason that Tjaden (the guy who stabs himself in the neck with a fork) kills himself is because he can't bare to live in a life where he has witnessed the horror of war. It's not just a random, gory death. It helps get across the message of "war is hell."
My great grandfather was taken at Verdun as a prisoner, then he became translater in the camp, because he did speak french very well (he learned it at school). They could write postcards and they could even take photos at the camp, I have two pictures of him with some of his comrades in the camp. But I seems that there have been some hand to hand fights, because he told my grandmother, that he killed two soldiers eye to eye and he always felt very sorry for it, my grandmother told me.
All quiet on the western front is a great example of what people want to think of during ww1. It was bad and horrible but not as bad as this movie depicts it. It's just a way to push demilitarization and pacifism, which is ok, however that is not good when you have the u.s facing a military manpower crisis
"Only the movie did not deserve the title 'All Quiet on the W. Front'[..]"
You sir dont deserve the title 'Historian'.
P.s. other comments describes why perfectly.
P.p.s. the more i watch the more of a disgrace.
Bruh lol
5:00 isnt that the point of the whole Movie/Book that you die by the most random bullshit. Some lucky some dont.
exactly
Yeah instead of Kat dying from a random phantom explosion behind enemy lines there’s a physical presence that kills him
The irony and tragedy that he’s killed by a civilian and a boy at that right at the end. If him and Paul had just stayed in the barracks both of them could have survived unharmed, but they had to go back to the farm…
@@ieatmice751 the even more poetic part is that Kat gets killed by a kid who is around the same age as his deceased son.