I don't believe "All Quiet on The Western Front" can ever be adequately adapted into film form without either making the movie look overly poetic or simply an action (anti-)war film. The book is in "memory" form. It is about Paul's recollections and reflections on the war. Those reflections had to be presented as dialogue or monologue in scenes that didn't quite match them in emotion or chronology. Alternatively, it can be delivered in the form of a series of flashes back while a narrator tells stories.
I acknowledge that selecting parts to display and parts to leave out must have been a challenge. Some parts inevitably had to be left out. But I could still feel their necessity. For example, Paul's observations of nature and the earth were missing. I think those were momentous in the book. (I believe "1917" did a good job about "nature".) I also found the hospital praying scene in the book symbolic and of special focus. The same with Behm's story. But these were either dismissed or altered.
Some other minor things bothered me with the film besides the fact that I was hoping for the characters to speak German! (Too high of an expectation?) The portrayal of some characters was not faithful to the book. For instance, the book merely mentioned that Leer was the first among the group to have intercourse. At one point, Paul says that Leer was a good mathematician in school but the film simply portrayed him as a lover-boy. There are more examples like this all of which are less significant. So to avoid being fussy and spoilers, I shall stop here.
I could not withstand comparing this film with the 1930 version which is rated higher. (I have only watched a few scenes of the 1930's and am to edit this review when I fully watch it.) I find the acting in the latter a bit over-the-top and kind of melodramatic. Maybe that's just how movies were made back then but it didn't quite sit well with me. The 1979 version certainly looked more realistic.
Nonetheless, believe that anybody who enjoys historical films should watch "All Quiet on The Western Front". It is different in character than most war films. It's truly a classic when it comes to anti-war literature. However, these characteristics are inherited from the book so I would put the book 1st.
I acknowledge that selecting parts to display and parts to leave out must have been a challenge. Some parts inevitably had to be left out. But I could still feel their necessity. For example, Paul's observations of nature and the earth were missing. I think those were momentous in the book. (I believe "1917" did a good job about "nature".) I also found the hospital praying scene in the book symbolic and of special focus. The same with Behm's story. But these were either dismissed or altered.
Some other minor things bothered me with the film besides the fact that I was hoping for the characters to speak German! (Too high of an expectation?) The portrayal of some characters was not faithful to the book. For instance, the book merely mentioned that Leer was the first among the group to have intercourse. At one point, Paul says that Leer was a good mathematician in school but the film simply portrayed him as a lover-boy. There are more examples like this all of which are less significant. So to avoid being fussy and spoilers, I shall stop here.
I could not withstand comparing this film with the 1930 version which is rated higher. (I have only watched a few scenes of the 1930's and am to edit this review when I fully watch it.) I find the acting in the latter a bit over-the-top and kind of melodramatic. Maybe that's just how movies were made back then but it didn't quite sit well with me. The 1979 version certainly looked more realistic.
Nonetheless, believe that anybody who enjoys historical films should watch "All Quiet on The Western Front". It is different in character than most war films. It's truly a classic when it comes to anti-war literature. However, these characteristics are inherited from the book so I would put the book 1st.