couldnt get through it.


Maybe Ive been corupted by the improved acting and realism of modern war films, but I couldnt take anymore of the stage over-acting im this movie. I know when this movie was made and I was fully prepaired to watch and old flick, but I couldn't handle it. I wanted to like it but I cant stand the old stage acting brought to film. People talk about the realism of this film but i was waiting for someone to break into song during some of the scenes. I understand why it received an oscar back in the day when the film industry was just taking off. But by todays standards, this movie sucked.

reply

i think you should try watching it again. ive just finished it and i enjoyed it thoroughly, my score for it at this stage would be an 8. this is because the battle scenes were horrific and conveyed the fear of the men, the characters were well defined, we saw all sides of war, from the teacher preaching about the glory of dying for ones country to the injured soldiers in the medical wards.

the acting really is not over the top, in fact i liked how real it felt and the dialogue helped that by being understated and thoughtful.

"gentlemen make your lives extraordinary"

reply

This movie makes the dictum 'less is more' WORK! I was...I think 19 when I saw this movie, watched it at night after everyone else went to bed, in bits and pieces for about a week...the hospital scenes especially, they still give me gooseflesh just thinking about, and this was in 1930s with very limited special effects and they make the amputations seem VERY real.

reply

I couldn't get through it either, because it was so overdone. I don't believe it's a bad movie, though, just not one for me.

reply

This is one where you have to revel in the nostalgia and look at it from teh perspective of someone who hasn't seen many films before. Pretty much like the audience of the time.
That, or pretend you're attending your nephew's school play.

Either way, look beyond the 'bad' acting and see the story beneath. If I can do it with Kevin Costner's films, anyone can do it with this one!!

I thought the chap playing Kat was a pretty decent actor, actually!



The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/

reply

I can understand reacting to the acting style. But to say the movie sucked because of it shows a shallowness I hope you one day overcome.

reply

None of the OP's statements are valid, yes some (maybe 25%) of the acting is over dramatic, so what just go with it, remember this is 1930 sound on film was only a year old (filmed in 1929) some of the actors hadn't made the transition over yet. AQOTWF tells a very engaging story as realistic as anything made today, and the special effects are tremendous! Absolutely fantastic, the explosions are really on par with any contemporary Fx, they rival "Paths of Glory" even "Saving Pvt Ryan" I can't see how anybody could not be thoroughly captivated, imagine what the 1930's audience saw and felt watching this, they had to be sitting there thinking "holy f'ing jesus - war is for real!". Saying "by today's standards, this movie sucks" is positively untrue, "All Quiet" is as realistic as movies get, saying this sucks shows immaturity, give this movie another try, watch it until the end, then come back and apologize.

reply

A lot of schools to cut down on doing actual work just have kids watch movies during class, this ought to be one of them for the high school crowds. Let them see these young boys talked into joining the army, by their TEACHER of all people, help round them up and send them out to the slaughter, let them see these young boys blown apart and cut up, and for what, for nothing, they tell the boys back home what's really going on, nobody cares, they only see the stars and glory, not the reality.

reply

It's a waste of time to try and explain film history to some young idiot who somehow likes the obvious acting of so-called "method actors" of today.

The fact is actors today are interchangeable. They sure as hell aren't better than those of the golden age of Hollywood. I have seen literally thousands of movies over my lifetime, and I can vouch that today's actors are utterly colorless.

There's plenty of "overacting" by today's actors, by the way.

reply

Just watched it, I loved it. Some of the acting is not what we're used to, I can see how it would suit stage productions. It's like they're all about to come out with "why I oughta" and stuff like that. The two old salts are amazing - the tall gangly one looks like he's straight out of Wizard of Oz or something.

The actors are all so folksy and mid-west American like some Kansas farm boy has just joined the German army. Lew Ayres does get a bit grating, but the film is "of its time", probably quite a risk at the time to film from the enemy's point of view and portray humour and sympathy. All I keep thinking while watching is "all these people are now dead" - bit of a downer I suppose but what a great legacy to leave.

Some of the combat sequences are great but it's the little things about films of this time - I don't think there's any soundtrack at all (?) haven't noticed any music, and sometimes long periods of silence where all you hear is a faint hiss. It reminds me of Laurel and Hardy films with these long non dialogue bits and just the crackling of the film. Great stuff!!

reply

Film scores weren't typically done in early talkies.

It wasn't until 1933's King Kong that movie scores in the talking picture era became important.

reply

The acting isn't better today. Quit acting like a fool. I pity you because you love profanity, blood and guts, and sex scenes.

Modern films are largely junk.

reply

The film was released in 1930, given that its over 80 years old, it actually stands up very well and you can see it has directly influenced movies like Saving Private Ryan!

Its that man again!!

reply

I don't know your age, but I'm assuming you're young. Try it again when you're middle aged.

reply