ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT B
While the acting in this is dated with a vengeance, and the dialogue is really corny, this adaptation of the pacifist novel is still very effective. As others have pointed out, pacifist novels and movies are usually made between wars, and it's harder to make them since WW2.
But the straightforwardness of the moviemaking here--as opposed to some of the dialogue--really wallops you. The scene where the pro-war teacher whips the students into a frenzy and they march off to join up is a howler in terms of realism, but it works as propaganda. When we get to the war scenes, you want to shout "ENOUGH!" at some points. This isn't PVT. RYAN realism, but it's cinematic and powerful, using long takes and long pans to show the skirmishes and the pointlessness of them.
There are tons of things to pick at in this, and it definitely is dated. Yet for a movie that was made in 1929-1930 it is visually compelling. And while the centerpiece scene of Lew Ayers talking to a soldier he's just killed is over the top and embarassing, there are moments like the one showing how a soldier's boots end up going to two other soldiers after he has a leg amputated, and the late scene where Ayers, who's on leave from combat, is called a coward and traitor by some students when he tells them the harsh reality of war. And of course the famous ending shot--like so much of this, it's a bit corny, but makes up for it in its undeniable impact.
It's not a realistic film by any means, as it was made in 1929 and simply on a technical level there was nothing like the realism of RYAN. It did a good job in the vein of the superior PATHS OF GLORY in showing the futility of WW1 fighting, where a trench is yours and then it's the enemy's and then it's yours again.
You don't find realism in films of this type. It's a pacifist film with lots of scenes like the one with the guy screaming "I'm blind!" and stumbling out into the battlefield where he gets shot, and Lew Ayers constantly going on about how much he hates war. You'd think they only sent philosophy students to war.
Having said all that, purely as a fiction, it held my interest.
It's just a shame that it didn't have better acting and dialogue.
rate the last movie you saw
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9748
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
JS-nice comments on ALL QUIET.
A few comments: for a film of its period, the acting and dialogue are still outstanding. For me, Louis Wolheim as Kaz is still one of the best performances of the 30's-nothing stilted or overdone about that character. Ayres is about 50/50-the scene where he comes back from the doomed ward is too much by half, but the scene where he comes back from the front to the school is still powerful, as is the scene with the French girl and I love the damning looks he gives Himmelstoss in the trench. The scene with the dead French soldier would be tricky even today, but I think he did a good job with it.
Of the first decade of the Oscars, this is the only one that I would not change. Milestone's direction is outstanding (the camerawork in the battle scenes is comparable to what was being done with the moving camera and composition at the end of the silent era-as far as I'm concerned that time period has never been equalled) and compared to many dramas of the "talkie era" ('27-'32), I would still call it very entertaining. Too bad that the scenes of Ayres and his mother had to be reshot-they originally had ZaSu Pitts in the role and preview audiences laughed because of her work in comedies, so her American scenes were reshot, but the foreign language versions kept her scenes.
This film was the SAVING PRIVATE RYAN of its day-that shot of two severed hands hanging on the barbed wire is still pretty gruesome even today, and the film was banned in Germany until 1950.
And Monterey Jack-Brando is nothing compared to Mickey Rooney in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANYS or the end scene of Jerry Lewis' WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT!
A few comments: for a film of its period, the acting and dialogue are still outstanding. For me, Louis Wolheim as Kaz is still one of the best performances of the 30's-nothing stilted or overdone about that character. Ayres is about 50/50-the scene where he comes back from the doomed ward is too much by half, but the scene where he comes back from the front to the school is still powerful, as is the scene with the French girl and I love the damning looks he gives Himmelstoss in the trench. The scene with the dead French soldier would be tricky even today, but I think he did a good job with it.
Of the first decade of the Oscars, this is the only one that I would not change. Milestone's direction is outstanding (the camerawork in the battle scenes is comparable to what was being done with the moving camera and composition at the end of the silent era-as far as I'm concerned that time period has never been equalled) and compared to many dramas of the "talkie era" ('27-'32), I would still call it very entertaining. Too bad that the scenes of Ayres and his mother had to be reshot-they originally had ZaSu Pitts in the role and preview audiences laughed because of her work in comedies, so her American scenes were reshot, but the foreign language versions kept her scenes.
This film was the SAVING PRIVATE RYAN of its day-that shot of two severed hands hanging on the barbed wire is still pretty gruesome even today, and the film was banned in Germany until 1950.
And Monterey Jack-Brando is nothing compared to Mickey Rooney in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANYS or the end scene of Jerry Lewis' WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT!
I agree, for all its flaws--and I find more than you do--I'd still let this have its Best Picture Oscar. It must have blown away some people who were wound up in the glory of going to war and all that. I do think it was quite unrealistic in its depiction of soldiers. I know a Vietnam War combat vet who has really educated me about the reality of war vs. the movie depictions, and how you never find people like that in war zones, and how when you're being shot at you don't yammer on like that. He claims the best war movies in terms of depiction of soldiers are PLATOON and HAMBURGER HILL.
John
Vicky Christina Barcelona - 4/10
Sorry, but this was just a silly movie. His musings on the different guises of love are kind of...weird? Maybe I'm weird and this stuff goes on every day in life, but the film seemed so....weird. And why did PC get an Oscar? I know the answer, and it's not that she necessarily was better than anyone else. Tempestuous, tortured artist who is interested in perversions...let's give her the Oscar! Lol...someone else should comment on whether or not she should have won. In either case, I don't honestly know if Allen has one good masterpiece left in him. Too bad- his work as of late has been very average.
Sorry, but this was just a silly movie. His musings on the different guises of love are kind of...weird? Maybe I'm weird and this stuff goes on every day in life, but the film seemed so....weird. And why did PC get an Oscar? I know the answer, and it's not that she necessarily was better than anyone else. Tempestuous, tortured artist who is interested in perversions...let's give her the Oscar! Lol...someone else should comment on whether or not she should have won. In either case, I don't honestly know if Allen has one good masterpiece left in him. Too bad- his work as of late has been very average.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7067
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
I just watched Wall-E. I was very disappointed. I'd heard all about what a great movie it was, but I found it really rather boring and predictable. Instilling cute robots with human characteristics isn't a particularly new idea.
As far as the film's "message"...well, there is is a lot of truth to the notion of humanity being transformed into lazy couch potatoes by corporations that spoon-feed them junk food, fluffy entertainment (and even their likes and dislikes). But such a message is infufferably hypocritical coming from DISNEY of all people. Disney IS one of the those megalithic corporations that is turning humanity into couch potatoes with fluff entertainment (and the accompanying toys, soda cups and other merchandising they use to hook toddlers).
As far as the film's "message"...well, there is is a lot of truth to the notion of humanity being transformed into lazy couch potatoes by corporations that spoon-feed them junk food, fluffy entertainment (and even their likes and dislikes). But such a message is infufferably hypocritical coming from DISNEY of all people. Disney IS one of the those megalithic corporations that is turning humanity into couch potatoes with fluff entertainment (and the accompanying toys, soda cups and other merchandising they use to hook toddlers).
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34289
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
That's exactly what I thought.But such a message is infufferably hypocritical coming from DISNEY of all people. Disney IS one of the those megalithic corporations that is turning humanity into couch potatoes with fluff entertainment (and the accompanying toys, soda cups and other merchandising they use to hook toddlers). Evil or Very Mad
I liked the movie but...I didn't love it. Did you also notice Wall-E's resemblance to the little robot Phil in HEARTBEEPS?
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9748
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34289
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7067
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
I watched 2010 last night. I'd shown some friends 2001 a couple of weeks ago (they just got a 42" set and I brought over my HD-DVD player so they could experience it in true HD) and thought 2010 would make a good follow-up (especially as they felt 2001 was kind of vague).
Making a sequel to 2010 was a valid concept, but 2010 is so far removed, stylistically, from 2001, it often doesn't feel like a sequel at all. Kubrick's approach to 2001 had a dispassionate, almost documentary style, whereas 2010 is a much more traditional "dramatic" type of film. 2010 lacks the often "abstract" style of 2001, but I'm sure MGM would not have permitted anyone to make another film as abstract as 2001.
The last time I saw 2010 it was on VHS (which gives an idea of how long ago that was!). In some ways the film holds up well -- its beautifully shot (Peter Hyams was DP as well as screenwriter/producer/director). The character relationships are the strongest element of the film -- the scenes with Scheider and his family have a cosy but plausible realism. Later, the way the relationship between Scheider and Helen Mirren goes from contentious to one of friendship was also nicely dramatized, as was the friendship between John Lithgow and the cosmonaut (sorry, forgot his name!), and Dr. Chandra's "father-son" relationship with HAL. (At the same time, I do think Scheider's character was basically "Chief Brody in space".)
Of course some elements are dated (in particular the low-resolution interlaced computer displays, the rather cumbersome-looking "futuristic" laptop Scheider uses, and of course the "CCCP" patches on the Russian uniforms) but that can't really be helped.
One of the first film's most impressive sets -- the centrifugal living quarters on board Discovery -- is conspicuously absent. (I assume MGM would not pay for it.)
The scene where Dave Bowman's spirit appears to his widow is quite effective, at once spooky and awe-inspiring, in particular Bowman's cryptic revelation that "something wonderful" is going to happen. (Of course by the third time Bowman says "something wonderful" late in the film, much of the effect has worn off.)
The "political" angle of the film is a little annoying, characterizing the US and Soviet governments as equally aggressive (and the US president referred to -- by an American character -- as "reactionary").
As far as the music, I like David Shire's score, tho it was completely butchered by Hyams -- Shire gave the music to Hyams on multi-track tapes; when dubbing the film Hyam's proceeded to arbitrarily remove harmonies, percussion effects and even entire melody lines. (The cue for the first shot of the Leonov is stripped down to nothing but the bass line in the finished film!) Hyams also uses Ligeti's "Lux Aeterna", tho it is treated more like a sound effect than music. Shire's big cue for the finale does much to instill a sense of awe and hope (and it is too bad that Hyam's wanted the rest of the score to be synthesized).
2010's use of music is more traditional in its moment-specific "mood-leading", unlike the classical selections in 2001 which mostly bypass the characters' feelings but play up the scale of the film -- and make the viewer feel small (in effect, dwarfed by the cosmos).
I also think that the effects in 2001 are actually better-looking, more smoothly executed (and more convincing) than those in the sequel.
2010 had the good fortune to be released at the same time as the risible Dune, the comparisons to which no doubt boosted 2010's image!
In the end, I still liked 2010, and it is an effective film, but inevitably it will always be compared to 2001. One the one hand 2010 is a more "accessible" and comprehensible film than 2001, yet it lacks the sense of epic scale of the original film. 2001 changed the entire perception of what a science fiction film can be (and was hugely influential in the entire visual style of the genre).
Making a sequel to 2010 was a valid concept, but 2010 is so far removed, stylistically, from 2001, it often doesn't feel like a sequel at all. Kubrick's approach to 2001 had a dispassionate, almost documentary style, whereas 2010 is a much more traditional "dramatic" type of film. 2010 lacks the often "abstract" style of 2001, but I'm sure MGM would not have permitted anyone to make another film as abstract as 2001.
The last time I saw 2010 it was on VHS (which gives an idea of how long ago that was!). In some ways the film holds up well -- its beautifully shot (Peter Hyams was DP as well as screenwriter/producer/director). The character relationships are the strongest element of the film -- the scenes with Scheider and his family have a cosy but plausible realism. Later, the way the relationship between Scheider and Helen Mirren goes from contentious to one of friendship was also nicely dramatized, as was the friendship between John Lithgow and the cosmonaut (sorry, forgot his name!), and Dr. Chandra's "father-son" relationship with HAL. (At the same time, I do think Scheider's character was basically "Chief Brody in space".)
Of course some elements are dated (in particular the low-resolution interlaced computer displays, the rather cumbersome-looking "futuristic" laptop Scheider uses, and of course the "CCCP" patches on the Russian uniforms) but that can't really be helped.
One of the first film's most impressive sets -- the centrifugal living quarters on board Discovery -- is conspicuously absent. (I assume MGM would not pay for it.)
The scene where Dave Bowman's spirit appears to his widow is quite effective, at once spooky and awe-inspiring, in particular Bowman's cryptic revelation that "something wonderful" is going to happen. (Of course by the third time Bowman says "something wonderful" late in the film, much of the effect has worn off.)
The "political" angle of the film is a little annoying, characterizing the US and Soviet governments as equally aggressive (and the US president referred to -- by an American character -- as "reactionary").
As far as the music, I like David Shire's score, tho it was completely butchered by Hyams -- Shire gave the music to Hyams on multi-track tapes; when dubbing the film Hyam's proceeded to arbitrarily remove harmonies, percussion effects and even entire melody lines. (The cue for the first shot of the Leonov is stripped down to nothing but the bass line in the finished film!) Hyams also uses Ligeti's "Lux Aeterna", tho it is treated more like a sound effect than music. Shire's big cue for the finale does much to instill a sense of awe and hope (and it is too bad that Hyam's wanted the rest of the score to be synthesized).
2010's use of music is more traditional in its moment-specific "mood-leading", unlike the classical selections in 2001 which mostly bypass the characters' feelings but play up the scale of the film -- and make the viewer feel small (in effect, dwarfed by the cosmos).
I also think that the effects in 2001 are actually better-looking, more smoothly executed (and more convincing) than those in the sequel.
2010 had the good fortune to be released at the same time as the risible Dune, the comparisons to which no doubt boosted 2010's image!
In the end, I still liked 2010, and it is an effective film, but inevitably it will always be compared to 2001. One the one hand 2010 is a more "accessible" and comprehensible film than 2001, yet it lacks the sense of epic scale of the original film. 2001 changed the entire perception of what a science fiction film can be (and was hugely influential in the entire visual style of the genre).
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34289
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
2010 is coming out on Blu-Ray in April, so I'm looking forward quite a bit to seeing it in HD.
The movie's dated political content aside, I'm a fan of 2010. Following the Kubrick movie was insanely tough -- I think the only way for them to go was to make a "realistic", science-oriented sequel to 2001, which is what Clarke did in his book. Obviously as you say Paul, the movie's metaphysical aspects and such are stripped away, so it's much more of an "ordinary" film, and yet I think it's a very solid, well crafted piece of entertainment -- and one that has held up quite well.
Interesting about Shire's score, it's been years since I've seen the film or heard the album, but are Shire's original intentions on the CD? I loved his music for the end of the film, that climactic cue is tremendous and moving. I also liked how Clarke and Hyams turned the HAL computer around so that it wasn't a villain, either, and the performances were solid across the board, even if Chief Brody or...sorry...Dr. Floyd basically tells you "were gonna need a bigger ship" at one point, lol.
The movie's dated political content aside, I'm a fan of 2010. Following the Kubrick movie was insanely tough -- I think the only way for them to go was to make a "realistic", science-oriented sequel to 2001, which is what Clarke did in his book. Obviously as you say Paul, the movie's metaphysical aspects and such are stripped away, so it's much more of an "ordinary" film, and yet I think it's a very solid, well crafted piece of entertainment -- and one that has held up quite well.
Interesting about Shire's score, it's been years since I've seen the film or heard the album, but are Shire's original intentions on the CD? I loved his music for the end of the film, that climactic cue is tremendous and moving. I also liked how Clarke and Hyams turned the HAL computer around so that it wasn't a villain, either, and the performances were solid across the board, even if Chief Brody or...sorry...Dr. Floyd basically tells you "were gonna need a bigger ship" at one point, lol.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7067
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Yeah, Shire's music is at least intact on the CD. He was interviewed by CinemaScore shortly after the film was released and expressed his misgivings about how the score was used.AndyDursin wrote:Interesting about Shire's score, it's been years since I've seen the film or heard the album, but are Shire's original intentions on the CD? I loved his music for the end of the film, that climactic cue is tremendous and moving.
Incidentally, Shire's music was also a replacement score -- Tony Banks (formerly of Genesis) did the original (and ultimately rejected) score.
Hyams also commissioned Denny Yaeger (The Hunger) to create a version of Strauss' "Zarathustra" which was entirely electronic but would convincingly recreate the sound of a real orchestra. Yaeger spent weeks of painstaking effort creating the track, only for Hyams to reject the synth version and use an actual orchestra recording in the end.
I don't really understand why they thought it was worth spending all that time and money using synths to recreate the sound of an orchestra, when they could have just used an orchestra in the first place.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34289
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
THE WIND AND THE LION - 5/10. The acting is great, but I found it really unbelieveable and kind of corny, though in a fun way. Great score by Goldsmith.
THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN - 5/10. Great premise, and it was suspenseful at times, but the acting was too B-movie-ish for what I thought was more of an A-movie production (in concept) It definitely had that unsettling 70s movie feel to it and effectively built suspense. Dated but I wish the acting was better.
THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN - 5/10. Great premise, and it was suspenseful at times, but the acting was too B-movie-ish for what I thought was more of an A-movie production (in concept) It definitely had that unsettling 70s movie feel to it and effectively built suspense. Dated but I wish the acting was better.