The primary reason that I enjoy this film is because it paints a rather realistic view of warfare as opposed to the modern day war thrillers that glorify war and make it look cool or fun. One way the producer did this (and Erich Maria Remarque did before him) is that the main characters are on the LOSING side. Add this to the fact that none of the main characters survive the film, and you have a rather unique film. And that's what draws me and undoubtedly many others in to it: It's unique. Have a look at nearly all war movies and you'll find that the hero or main character survives through it all. Sure, they may have lost a good friend in the middle, but apart from that they invariably survive and live happily ever after. A modern exception to this general rule that I can think of is Cloverfield. Like All Quiet On The Western Front, Cloverfield's heroes did not survive the film. They got to the end, but were killed there.
The underlying values that the film expresses are to care for your fellow men, and this is best shown in the scene where Paul Baumer is trapped in the shell hole with a dead enemy soldier that he killed. Paul soon feels regret at his actions, saying that if the soldier had come charging into the hole again, he would not attack them. Paul became distressed about the ordeal, and would have kept freaking out over it had he not had enough sense to return back to the German lines where Kat could calm him down. The film also condemns war as it turns men into monsters. This is not expressed as obviously in the film as it is in the novel, but the message is still there albeit in a more subtle way.
People who the film might not interest would include those who like movies that glorify war, those who think that any old movie is boring and people who do not like movies that jump around a lot. This film does this all of the time. When it has finished with one portion of the story, it jumps to the next major part, eliminating a fair few minor details by doing so. This makes it a nightmare for those like me who try and follow the storyline with a book in hand. There is a bit of an upside to this though. It allows the director to make the scenes that do make the cut more in depth and involving not to mention realistic. But in this case, the negatives outweigh the positives in this area. It would not be as bad if it was filmed with modern technology, but because it was filmed with 1920's equipment, the quality is pretty sketchy. And that's another thing that could turn people off of this film. The fact that it's black and white and has comparitively poor sound quality is bound to turn many people off of watching it. A 1930's film simply cannot compare with the films of today, with their computer annotations and enhancements.
The underlying values that the film expresses are to care for your fellow men, and this is best shown in the scene where Paul Baumer is trapped in the shell hole with a dead enemy soldier that he killed. Paul soon feels regret at his actions, saying that if the soldier had come charging into the hole again, he would not attack them. Paul became distressed about the ordeal, and would have kept freaking out over it had he not had enough sense to return back to the German lines where Kat could calm him down. The film also condemns war as it turns men into monsters. This is not expressed as obviously in the film as it is in the novel, but the message is still there albeit in a more subtle way.
People who the film might not interest would include those who like movies that glorify war, those who think that any old movie is boring and people who do not like movies that jump around a lot. This film does this all of the time. When it has finished with one portion of the story, it jumps to the next major part, eliminating a fair few minor details by doing so. This makes it a nightmare for those like me who try and follow the storyline with a book in hand. There is a bit of an upside to this though. It allows the director to make the scenes that do make the cut more in depth and involving not to mention realistic. But in this case, the negatives outweigh the positives in this area. It would not be as bad if it was filmed with modern technology, but because it was filmed with 1920's equipment, the quality is pretty sketchy. And that's another thing that could turn people off of this film. The fact that it's black and white and has comparitively poor sound quality is bound to turn many people off of watching it. A 1930's film simply cannot compare with the films of today, with their computer annotations and enhancements.