WilliamMortensenVaughan I should have known I wouldn't like this movie, because Richard Thomas stars in it. I found "The Waltons" too intensely boring to watch a full episode. My wife and I tried to watch this film on VHS, and made it through his character's college graduation, military training, military service in the trenches, hospital stay and arrival, in what we presume was his hometown when his service ended. We couldn't believe the movie wasn't over yet, so we went to bed and decided not to watch the rest of it. It was just too unbearable.Having graduated from two Boot Camps (U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army), I could relate somewhat to the WWI Nazi version. Fortunately for me, my military combat service was less severe.I'm giving this three stars because it shows the tedium ad nauseam of military service realistically, and because I always enjoy watching Ernest Borgnine's performances.

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

kefferpgh This movie I would definitely have to say is not one of my favorites. For me it wasn't authentic enough to what I thought it should bed. For example, the Germans don't even have German accents! That doesn't even make sense! They sounded like Americans. Even if they don't speak German they could at least try to have one. That is why they call it acting. Another reason is it just wasn't exciting. I mean you could at least spruce it up a little bit. I almost fell asleep through some of it. Even if they didn't have great technology back then they could at least do something to make it more real. It didn't seem authentic enough or real enough and that's what killed it for me.

tklaja007 I didn't think "All Quiet on the Western Front" was a good movie at all. It was very boring to me. Parts that were supposed to be exciting from what we read in the book in class were a serious letdown when I saw the movie. Especially the fighting scenes. Another thing that I didn't like about the movie is that parts that were made out to be key, vital points in the story in the book were not made very important in the movie. For example, when Paul and his friends meet the French girls, it was a key point in the book about Paul maybe finding love in his life for the first time ever and him ending up disappointed and right back to where he started. It was very detailed in the book. However, in the movie it was rushed by like it didn't even matter. Another part that I thought would be interesting in the movie is when Paul goes on leave. I thought it would be a good part in the movie because it took up a big part of the book and a lot of things happened- Paul finding out about his mother, visiting Kemmerich's mother, etc.- but it was just another boring part in the movie. Also, when Paul returns to the front to battle, it was way more intriguing in the book because it actually explained how Paul was feeling, but it didn't seem that way at all in the film. I also noticed that events were in a different order from how they were in the book, which I didn't like. All of this is why I think this film should be remade. I don't think these actors played their roles very well. There are talented actors around now that could do a really good job to do it better. There are also wonderful directors who can make scenes more interesting for the viewers.