I liked both the previous versions and note that the original black and white version was grittier than the 1979 remake which was also good.

Vague memory of the original being based on the "actual combat footage done by the Signal Corps" that was actually shot by the SC after the war.

Thanks, that makes sense.

As part of the marketing of the new movie they should add :Banned by hitler and the nazis.

I hope this is a good version, at least as good as the 1st two.

I would prefer they dub it into English. Artsy types think you should read the subtitles if you don't understand the language.

I saw Das Boot when it came out with subtitles. I also saw the version that was dubbed into English. I got just much if not more out of the English version.

When voices are dubbed into English it has to be done well. My wife watches a show from Spain that is dubbed into English. I noticed the second year it was done much better.

So I have just finished watching this version for the second time and I am impressed.

While its quite a departure from the previous two version's (and the novel it gets its name from) it should be considered a complete different movie in its own right.

Vivid and well shot scenes with quite a visceral and hopeless edge to nearly every scene its an amazing WWI movie.

Well done.

And, I quite enjoyed the ending and Paul's death compared to the other movies however found the scenes with the German leader General Friedrich's a bit overdone.

So as far as WWI films go, I feel this should be considered in the top 10 recommended films about WWI.

Discussion is welcome.

Cheers

Here comes the “ but”……

To have depicted combat of that scale and intensity on the last day of the war - indeed, in the last minutes- was preposterous. Men did of course die right up to the last minute, but the fighting had degenerated into affairs of outposts and rearguard actions, with mobile warfare replacing the huge static battles that had raged in the earlier years of the war.

Even by 1917, battlefields had been defined by crater fields and concrete strongpoints, and the images of men crammed into deep and well revetted trenches were an invention of folklore and movie makers.

So I got a bit agitated by the film’s depiction of an apocalyptic battle raging between obsolete trench lines in the last minutes of a war that had developed some “ modern “ attributes by that time.

Regards, Phil

Who do you think that caricatured German general was meant to be, Trevor ?

Regards, Phil

As visceral drama, depicting the harrowing aspects of war - and that war especially- I think it was a triumph.

Humanity and horror on parade, the camaraderie between soldiers, the banter and humour that kept men afloat in dreadful circumstances : these were well depicted, and the quality of the acting and the visual impact were of a high order.

Here comes the “ but”……

To have depicted combat of that scale and intensity on the last day of the war - indeed, in the last minutes- was preposterous. Men did of course die right up to the last minute, but the fighting had degenerated into affairs of outposts and rearguard actions, with mobile warfare replacing the huge static battles that had raged in the earlier years of the war.

Even by 1917, battlefields had been defined by crater fields and concrete strongpoints, and the images of men crammed into deep and well revetted trenches were an invention of folklore and movie makers.

So I got a bit agitated by the film’s depiction of an apocalyptic battle raging between obsolete trench lines in the last minutes of a war that had developed some “ modern “ attributes by that time.

Regards, Phil

I do wonder though if the film was more concerned with making the point that war is madness brought upon the masses by cushioned ignorant leaders and prosecuted by a professional soldier class that only know war as means to make a living as depicted by the German General that was mentioned. Im not sure if historical accuracy was the films intention in the end of the film but making a point how easy it is to manipulate the masses for god and country into violence even when knowing its hopeless.

As visceral drama, depicting the harrowing aspects of war - and that war especially- I think it was a triumph.

Humanity and horror on parade, the camaraderie between soldiers, the banter and humour that kept men afloat in dreadful circumstances : these were well depicted, and the quality of the acting and the visual impact were of a high order.

Here comes the “ but”……

To have depicted combat of that scale and intensity on the last day of the war - indeed, in the last minutes- was preposterous. Men did of course die right up to the last minute, but the fighting had degenerated into affairs of outposts and rearguard actions, with mobile warfare replacing the huge static battles that had raged in the earlier years of the war.

Even by 1917, battlefields had been defined by crater fields and concrete strongpoints, and the images of men crammed into deep and well revetted trenches were an invention of folklore and movie makers.

So I got a bit agitated by the film’s depiction of an apocalyptic battle raging between obsolete trench lines in the last minutes of a war that had developed some “ modern “ attributes by that time.

Regards, Phil