Wooden Crosses (1932) User Reviews

Better than most modern war films and a must see

[dbborroughs · 9/10 · 23 December 2007]

Based on a biographical novel concerning life during WW1 this is included in the Raymond Bernard Box set from Eclipse (ie. Criterion). Made in 1932 the film seems to have been made years later. The technical aspects of the film are astounding. a blending of silent and sound techniques with images that foreshadow the Hollywood films of the 1940's, the war documentaries of the second world war not to mention modern films such as Saving Private Ryan and the Thin Red Line this film for the most part doesn't feel 75 years old.

The plot follows a company of men from enlistment to the end. After a slow start where the film introduces everyone and we get a feel for the characters the movie moves to the trenches and battle where we are placed into harms way with the men we have been introduced to. What follows are essentially a series of set pieces that move the men further and further in to war's nightmare. There is a sequence where the men wait in the trenches and in one bunker in particular, where they can hear the German tunneling below them to place charges which will, when detonated blow them to kingdom come. Its an unnerving sequence since the men know whats coming but are unable to do anything about it- except hope that their rotation comes before the bombs go off. The centerpiece of the film is an never ending attack, on ward and onward and onward. How could anyone do such a thing? As a title card say the attack lasted for ten days. I was exhausted by the sequence and it lasted only for twenty or so minutes. Its an amazing piece of film making.

If there is a flaw in the film its that the dialog sequences seem more Hollywood convention (if you'll allow me to say about a film made in France). The group of men are your standard bunch and they all seem to get lost. Not that it ruins the film, it doesn't, it just keeps the film from having that complete emotional connection.

Rightly considered a classic film, this is must viewing for anyone who loves the cinema.

The worst of the first world war from a more objective French point of view.

[clanciai · 9/10 · 8 January 2015]

What makes this film so impressive is its sinister direction, always kept at a calm distance but firm control by Raymond Bernard in visualizing a hell on earth worse than any hell imaginable, as it gives an all too convincing impression of never ending. The central battle scene in the middle of the film gives its definite stamp of a relentlessly realistic documentary in which category it outshines almost all the other first world war films including "All Quiet on the Western Front" (more personal), Rex Ingram's "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" (more sentimental), Stanley Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" (more theatrical) Renoir's "The Grand Illusion" (more romantic) and "Oh What a Lovely War!" (musical). Not just the long great battle scene, but many scenes give the impression of going on forever, as they are so implacably sustained resulting in an overwhelming impact, like the dying corporal scene with Charles Vanel, who continued a long distinguished career in films with above Henri-Georges Clouzot in the 50s, and his death scene here is only a prelude to what follows - one can understand the veteran from that war who in 1962. when seeing the film on TV, committed suicide afterwards. It's all about ordinary men, good faithful soldiers, who keep on cheering and making the best of it as if the reality of the timeless horror was just something to accept as the ordinary, their natural cheerful moods and the irony of the absurd military self-deceit accentuating the superior quality of this film as the most realistic of first world war films.

Terrific dark anti-war WWI film

[runamokprods · 9/10 · 30 June 2012]

Terrific dark anti-war WWI film, light years ahead of it's time stylistically, with battle scenes that rival (and clearly inspired) Kubrick's great 'Paths of Glory'.

More cynical, cutting, and real than 'All Quiet on the Western Front'. The film focuses on the various members of a battalion who are basically canon fodder. There's no real lead, just an observation of these slowly hardening men, as a group, and no real plot, just a series of episodes.

Not every episode is as strong as the other, but enough are so powerful they make this a special and important film, amazingly directed for its time.

The best forgotten classic I've ever seen

[lewisbeer · 10/10 · 4 September 2007]

Comments on this film are bound to centre around comparisons to All Quiet On the Western Front - reasonably enough, since Wooden Crosses was specifically made as a rival to that film. It isn't as engrossing as Milestone's classic, perhaps because it never really characterises the soldiers strongly enough, and also because it lacks the variety of incident which makes All Quiet so entertaining despite its grim subject matter and episodic structure.

But both these flaws are also strengths: Bernard's skill in conveying the de-humanising effects of war, as well as the sheer repetitious tedium of the ordinary soldier's experience, lend to his film a bitterness and realism which its - occasionally naive - American predecessor lacked. There are one or two scenes in this film so bitter and horrifying that no war film matched them until at least the 1950s.

For this reason, the film may find more sympathy with today's audiences, who - after Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Thin Red Line, Jarhead etc - expect a war film to immerse them in sheer violent futility for two hours, and are likely to regard lack of incident as a mark of authenticity.

This film is nothing if not authentic (the cast was made up entirely of war veterans), and the documentary realism of the battle scenes was a real shock to me. Complaints that, unlike most war films, it makes no reference to the wider context of the war, are understandable...but I think they miss the point. The film is indeed a violent mess: what else must it have felt like for the men in the trenches? Wooden Crosses faithfully plays out Lew Ayres' famous speech from All Quiet (maybe paraphrasing here): 'We live in the trenches and we fight. We try not to get killed. That's all.'

I thought I already knew how inventive and daring early '30s film-makers were, but just on the strength of this film (haven't watched Les Miserables yet...) Bernard deserves to stand with the best of them - Lang, Milestone, Vidor, Eisenstein. The lyrical beauty of so many of the images in Wooden Crosses, and the intense horror of some others, left me gaping in disbelief at the screen, and will always stay with me. Perhaps because it's 76 years old, and because it's such an unsung pioneer, this film makes me revert to clichés and superlatives. But it really is one of the very best war films ever made.

I say it again:horror is timeless.

[dbdumonteil · 10/10 · 28 July 2005]

The precedent user wrote that he saw old men crying while watching this film.Such is the strength of these pictures.Raymond Bernard's movie compares favorably with "All quiet on the western front" (Lewis Milestone)"Westfront 1918" (Pabst) or even more recent works such as "paths of glory" .

Bernard 's approach (transferring a best-seller for the screen) was almost documentary.We know almost nothing about the three leads.The intermixing of the social classes (there is a baker,a worker and a law student)was not,as it has often been mooted,the main subject -as it was in Renoir's "la grande illusion" - of "les croix de bois" .Its purpose is,as the precedent user wrote,to show that horror is timeless.

"If you do not get the military Cross ,you'll get the wooden cross " the soldiers sing.The prologue tells it all: ranks of soldiers become ranks of crosses.In "J'accuse"(Abel gance,1938),a soldier says that pretty soon there will not be enough wood to make crosses for the graveyards.

Admirable sequences:

-A soldier is singing a peaceful "Ave Maria" in a church but a terrifying camera movement reveals an improvised hospital with disabled soldiers .

-A dead soldier has received a letter.One of his mates lays it down on his grave with a rose.

-The central battle scene which lasts about 15 minutes.On the screen ,a line appears "it lasted ten days" ,then another one "ten days" ,then in large characters "TEN DAYS".

-The soldiers taking refuge in a graveyard (!) where one of them (Charles Vanel) is dying, cursing again and again his unfaithful wife,then breathing his forgiveness.

-The student's death ,with death rattles and cries of terror all around him (I want my mum!I do not wanna die!).The ending does not use any music,which was rare at the time, and it increases tenfold strength and emotion.

After watching this movie on TV,in 1962, a WW1 old campaigner committed suicide.It speaks volumes about the strength of these pictures.

A Source for other films (possible spoiler included?)

[walrus-38 · 10/10 · 2 June 2007]

I found this film both powerful and moving with some interesting touches, such as the 'old soldier vanities' in the estaminet scene, where, having started the film in the 'pantalons rouge' uniform of 1914, the cast have changed into the "Horizon Blue" of majority of the war, but, in the estaminet, the 'old sweats' sit drinking with their old 'coloured' kepis on the table, perhaps as an indication to 'late comers' that they had (in a more modern parlance) "Been there, Done that".

Is it worth pointing out that "Les Croix de Bois" was mined for scenes by Hollywood (for "Road to Glory" amongst others)? It says much about the power of this film that the scenes had to be toned down for the American market.

The scene which springs most easily to mind is the chapel/hospital scene mentioned in the previous post. In the Hollywood version, the camera swings over the screen to a busy field hospital with much groaning and crying, in the original, the pan to the hospital centres on a screaming (genuine) quadruple amputee - I am given to understand that he, as with the majority of the cast, was a war veteran (presumably stretching his pension a little).

A Different Perspective of War

[billheron53 · 1 September 2011]

This is a film about the human cost of war. It opens with a beautifully crafted scene: a shot of soldiers standing in rank and file on parade dissolves to rows of crosses in a military cemetery in identical alignment. After a close-up of a marble cross engraved "In Memoriam" there is a dissolve to rows of fresh grave mounds, each headed by a rough wooden cross. There follows a scene of crowds of walking men and crowds of marching soldiers who have responded to notices of general conscription. We have been taken back in time.

From this point, the film follows the experiences of a particular squad in the French army during World War I, as a young law student joins their ranks. This is a familiar way to depict war. We know we will get to know this small group of soldiers. We expect some will die, because that is what happens in war. We also might expect to see their efforts and sacrifice in some kind of context.

What is striking about this film is its especially narrow focus. We might expect that, since it is so easy to do in film, our perspective would widen at some points to show us "the bigger picture." This film never does. There are no wide sweeping shots of a battlefield. As it would be for the ordinary soldier, our view is low and limited. In the most open field in broad daylight we never see more than a few dozen men. Many scenes occur at night. (The effect of light from falling flares is very effectively captured in the photography.) Artillery shells come unexpectedly, seemingly at random, from nowhere. Orders arrive, and, like the soldiers, we do not know what led to them being given or what larger purpose the action will serve. At one point the soldiers shout "We saved the town!" But we have no idea what town it is— only that they are referring to a complete ruin.

What we do see are the occasional breaks from the stress of the battlefield. Even those are filled with uncomprehended occurrences: distribution of new helmets and knives, calls to parade when what is needed is rest, expected leave suddenly cancelled.

We are aware individual deaths. They die beside their comrades. They fail to return. Two men realize they can use their dead comrade as a parapet. One effective scene has a soldier go outside the bunker as lookout. A nearby shell explodes, and the soldiers call their comrade's name. A soldier goes out to look, returns. "Well?" "We need another lookout." The soldier who goes out takes his post next to the dead comrade. He listens for a moment to the groans and appeals of the wounded on the other side of the parapet, and has to cover his ears.

We are reminded of the dead in an effective shot used twice in a scene of the soldiers marching on parade during one of their breaks. In the background is a church. Superimposed in the sky above is the silhouette of a similar line of soldiers climbing uphill, as if to heaven.

The film ends with the death of the young law student. Wounded during the day, he must keep awake until dark, when medics might be able to reach him. As he becomes delirious, we again see soldiers climbing uphill in the sky. This time, they are all carrying wooden crosses, and this time, there is more than one file. Some of those passing close to us are German soldiers.

So, in a sense, this film does include a wider perspective. It just isn't the wider view we are used to seeing in films about war.

Great direction, but the lack of distinct characters makes it a bit of a bust

[zetes · 7/10 · 26 April 2009]

Amazingly well directed and produced WWI flick made in France. Bernard is an extremely talented director. Unfortunately, the film doesn't stand up too well compared to so many other WWI pictures, notably the earlier All Quiet on the Western Front and the later The Grand Illusion. What Wooden Crosses lacks is strong characters. About the only one who stands out from the rest is the "loudmouth", as he is described bluntly by another solider. "There's one in every company," he says; or at least, I think he says that. If no one said that, someone probably should have. Instead, Bernard concentrates almost wholly on extremely long battle sequences. One lasts nearly 40 minutes. Great, but if I don't care about the characters, I'm not going to care much when one gets killed.

"The stretcher-bearers will come once it gets dark,I have to wait for nightfall without losing consciousness."

[morrison-dylan-fan · 10/10 · 2 May 2019]

Reading Empire magazine in 2014, a detailed review for Wooden Crosses stood out and stuck in my memory,due to the title sounding so different to all the slick blockbusters reviewed in the DVD/Blu-Ray section of the magazine. Discovering auteur film maker Raymond Bernard over the following years,a poll on ICM for the best films of 1932, led to me finally placing down a cross.

View on the film:

One of two titles they have put out (up to now) from the film maker,Masters of Cinema present a superb transfer, with the image retaining the original grain, whilst remaining smooth during more rapid camera moves,and the layered soundtrack being kept in tact.

Holding a bond with Pathe studio head Bernard Natan over examining war on film "In such a way to get people to hate and despise it." Co-writer/(with André Lang) directing auteur Raymond Bernard & cinematographers René Ribault and Jules Kruger (who'd reunite with Bernard on Les Miserables (1934)) go to the front line with ground-breaking techniques. Filmed at real No Mans Land locations (Bernard said in an interview that bodies of WWI soldiers were found as they dug trenches for the production) Bernard makes the heavy cameras of the era move with an astonishing fluidness,in Bernard targeting an atmosphere of documentary rawness,from the scatter-gun whip-pans and tracking shots treading along the unfolding horror on the battle fields.

Continuing to build on his recurring visual theme of shots drenched in long,imposing shadows, (which would continue being explored in his titles such as the Film Noir Maya (1949-also reviewed) Bernard crawls the viewer over ever inch fought for on No Man's Land with a breathtaking battle set entirely at night time,lit by the lone flares cast across the sky and the flickering of flames from the pounding guns. Blowing out countless microphones over attempts to get "The real sound of war" , Bernard finally hit his target via lining the microphones in various levels of distances from the fired weapons, create a distinctive wave sound design, where the reverberating jolt of gun fires ring out from the battlefields,and shakes the walls of the trenches. Attempting to find shelter in a grave yard, Bernard and Lang's adaptation of Roland Dorgeles takes a deeply thoughtful, humanist touch to the screenplay, with all the classes deep in the trenches being treated as equals, all held together by the loss of hope and humanity that sings out across the No Man's Land of wooden crosses.

A very clear storyline of devastation and the uselessness of it all

[annuskavdpol · 5/10 · 15 October 2013]

The film "Wooden Crosses" 1932 was a pretty good film. It was about a handful of soldiers who fought in the second world war. The conversation did not go deep into the psyche of the individuals instead the images and the silence seemed to tell the story. The banging of machine gun fire, the tension between the two countries (Germany and France) and the friendships being made in the trenches where lasting communications prevailed.

The sequencing of images was amazing. I remember sitting watching the movie and experiencing the absolute continuity of the camera frames. The sound of the pull-back on the mechanical canon was like a metal thug rejecting and re-surging. It was a very unique sound that seemed to bring me into the battlefields.

The pain and agony in the eyes of the actors was something that I found to be very real. There was no senseless blood pouring out - instead there was raw emotion and pain present.

The despair was stealth with bravery, courage and hope.

At the end of the film the lead character has a hallucination - one of wealth and success versus one of white wooden tombstone crosses. The final hallucination was what makes this film last the test of time. The hallucination captured the patriotism and ends with the disillusionment of one individuals life. It captures the attempt at happiness and ends with the realization of death and nothingness.

A great movie to watch on an Autumn evening in Canada. A time when the leaves are falling off the trees and when the nature from the summer seems to fade away like apples on a tree.

Annuska. Canada.

The tedium of war

[samhill5215 · 9/10 · 7 December 2009]

My summary seems to imply I found this film tedious. No, that's not the case. If anything it's very close to a masterpiece. There's not enough space to recount its memorable sequences. In fact everything about it is memorable. What stands out is the way war reduces individuals to cogs in a machine of death and destruction. A person's background, education, social standing, his worth as a person, counts for nothing. All that matters is his ability to run headlong into a volley of bullets in what is surely diametrically opposed to his instinct for survival. The politics of war are useless, nobody really cares why they're fighting. They only want to stay alive. This is best portrayed in the scenes of the tunnel dug by the Germans to place explosives under the French positions. The French soldiers know full well what is about to happen but their superiors do nothing to protect them and in scene after scene they wait for the sound of the digging to stop. When they're relieved they rush to shoulder their packs and hurry out of their now compromised safe-place seemingly unconcerned for their replacements. They're safely away when the explosion takes place. All we see is the plume of smoke and are left to imagine the horror above, like the soldiers, who continue on their way, only too glad to be alive. And this is only one vignette of the many that make up this film. But if there's one thing it brings out most vividly is how tedious war is. As a civilian I have a distorted view of war as ceaseless combat. Intellectually I know this to be false but our arts concentrate on the action in war and ignore the endless hours in-between, when nothing happens and soldiers just wait and wait and wait. "Wooden Crosses" portrays this tedium better than any other I know of. We, the viewers, get caught up in it, are oppressed by it and want to turn away but can't because we have become involved in the nearly anonymous soldiers and want to see them come out alive even though we have come to expect the worst. This is not an easy film to watch. But it should be required viewing.

Amazing and Devastating French Anti War Classic.

[t-dooley-69-386916 · 10/10 · 20 May 2015]

May contain mild plot spoilers. 'Les Croix de Bois' was made in 1932 by Raymond Bernard who had an eye for the epic going on to make 'Les Miserables' two years later. We start at the beginning of that terrible conflict that was 'The Great War' and see the exuberance of a nation going to fight the old foe - Germany. Then to the front line where all the classes are thrown into the mix. The main protagonists here are a baker, a worker and a law student – the 'Marne retreat' has just taken place and there is a feeling that the war might soon be over.

Then the men move to the front and the horrors of war start to become more defined. The pointless and suicidal patrols, the laying of underground tunnels to lay mines under their positions and the digging of them like a metronome of doom that becomes instantly more scary when it stops. The camaraderie that barely forms a veneer of hope over the ever present fear that lies beneath. The dirt, the; lice and the bad leaders are all here. We also get to go on leave with the men and the temporary respite found in song or wine or the eagerly awaited letters from home that bring as much joy as they can do heart ache.

There are so many memorable scenes here and it has a realism that belies the time at which it was made, using camera techniques and light to paint a picture that is both beautiful in the detail and filthy with horror as to what is actually taking place. One scene that stands out is a scene of a church service where a lone soldier sings a beautiful 'Ava Maria' as the camera hangs over the makeshift field hospital next door with the terrible wounded, the amputees and the dying all seeming to accept their fate.

There are nods to 'All Quiet on the Western Front' here too which may have been inevitable where both films are essentially dealing with the utter futility and waste of war. I read that when this was shown on television in 1962 that a veteran of the War was so moved that he took his own life – a truly sad tale. This is one of those films that people ought to see and probably one that should be better remembered, it has been restored but the quality does vary in places. That said the one thing that has stayed intact down all these years is the powerful message and the strength of the story, the acting, the cinematography and the vision that brought this to the screen – absolutely recommended.

The Best French film ever made about any war.

[fbarthet · 8/10 · 29 July 2014]

One reviewer accuses "Les Croix de Bois" of not giving any reason/explanation/philosophical whatever for the Great War.

He terribly missed the point.

"Les Croix de Bois" is adapted from one of the most famous French novel written about WWI. Roland Dorgeles was a veteran and his main purpose was to talk about his own experience and not "to make a point" against war.

The movie is just about that. Recrating an experience. A terrible one.

Raymond Bernard was himself a veteran and it shows. The depiction of the life in the trenches is vivid. We feel under our skin the misery of the soldiers, their small moment of joy and their fear in front of something to big to be comprehended. You do not think of philosophy when machine guns are screaming at you.

Raymond Bernard employed a lot of actors and crew members who actually were in the trenches and he managed to show war on a daily basis from the smallest event to the major assaults. The 10 minutes battle in the middle of the film is so realistic that it looks like a war documentary. In the early thirties the former battle sites were not just memories. The scars were still there. Waiting for the next ones.

The acting is a bit dated, particularly Pierre Blanchar who has a tendency to overplay and is far too old for the role. But he fought too during the war and his fixed eyes are the result of a gas attack.

This movie is to be put alongside "Battleground" or "A Walk in the Sun". The Zero Level of War. Just Men alone and scarred. No reasons, no explanations, and certainly no Philisophy.

A Powerful French Anti-War Film

[timcon1964 · 10/10 · 25 September 2020]

The initial scenes in Wooden Crosses--soldiers marching in formation and myriad wooden crosses on a field--convey a sense of foreboding. Then we see enthusiastic crowds welcoming the coming of the war, cheering as troops march by, and waving happily at soldiers on a train heading for combat. Large crowds of eager men surge toward a recruiting station. Thereafter, the movie follows the soldiers in one unit of the French 39th Infantry Regiment. At first, they are in a jovial mood. Thinking the fighting is over, they indulge in wine and celebratory dancing. But soon they are marched off to the front, singing confidently. From their bunker at the front, a night patrol is sent to inspect the German positions. They hear a German soldier singing. There is a German attack, and Vairon, a member of the patrol, is killed. Later, a letter addressed to Vairon arrives, and Gilbert Debachy (a law student and a principal character in the story), who is from Vairon's home town, takes the letter and tears it in pieces which he places on Vairon's grave.

Even before they have much experience of combat, the men hear the sounds of German sappers digging under their bunker. They conclude that the Germans are about to lay explosives that will destroy the bunker and its inhabitants. One soldier nearly has a nervous breakdown. A relief group arrives and this unit moves out, minutes before the German explosives go off. In a church, we hear a man singing Ave Maria, as the camera cuts to a hospital where seriously wounded men are being treated. A soldier offers a simple prayer: Let us live. There follows a ten-day battle, as French soldiers go over the top facing machine gun and artillery fire. Two soldiers use the body of a deceased comrade as a parapet. The film of these scenes, with gun and artillery fire under a dark and overcast sky, is remarkably like actual wartime footage. It is after this battle that a soldier sings, "Oh yes, you'll get your cross. If not the Croix de Guerre, then a wooden cross." Later, as the soldiers put on a military parade, we see ghostly images of soldiers crossing the sky.

In the ensuing battle, Demachy, who was about to go on leave, is wounded in no man's land. In great pain, he calls for a medic. But a responding medic is hit by an artillery shell. Other soldiers are also calling for medics. Demachy tries to stay conscious, hoping a medic will come after dark. A double exposed image reflects his recollections of happier times--singing marching songs, and dancing at home. But the medics never reach him.

Although the various soldiers were from different social classes, they were not important as individuals. They all were simply components in a military machine. All the actors had seen combat in the war. Pierre Blanchar, who plays Gilbert Demachy, had been gassed at Verdun. It is not clear if the film depicts actual battles. Early in the war, there were two major battles in the area where it was filmed. In their initial attack, the Germans made their encircling movement too soon, and thus suffered a major defeat when the French attacked their exposed right flank at the First Battle of the Marne. It is evidently at this time that Demachy joins the unit, along with other reinforcements, expecting combat. The other soldiers laugh at him and tell him that the fighting is over. They are quickly disabused of this notion, and marched off to the front to engage in what was apparently the First Battle of Champagne, which lasted from late 1914 to early 1915, with the French seeking to break through the German lines and cut the railroad which brought their supplies. This attack failed, but the French attempted the same tactic a year later in the Second Battle of Champagne. The Germans detected French preparations, and called up reserves and established a second defensive line (the first in this war). The French broke through the first line, and were slaughtered by the second, which had not been affected by the initial French attack. This battle seems to be the second one portrayed in Wooden Crosses.

Wooden Crosses follows the story and the dialog in the novel by Roland Dorgelès, who fought in the war. Filmed in the Champagne region of France, the film is noteworthy for its innovative cinematography and powerful sound effects. The filming took place on World War I battlefields, and explosives intentionally set off for the film occasionally triggered unexploded shells buried in the area. The film had a great impact when it was released. Significantly, it was first screened for delegates at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. It was next shown to veterans of the 39th Infantry Regiment, and then to the public "at a gala performance" attended by the President of France. After viewing the film, one veteran asked,"will any one dare, after this, dupe us and abuse us with falsely heroic daubings intended to depict the war?"

Excellent, but not the best of its type...

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 2 July 2010]

1930 saw two great anti-war films about WWI--"All Quiet On the Western Front" and the German-made "Westfront 1918". Both were unrelentingly grim and accurate in their portrayal of war as a never-ending hellish existence. These were certainly NOT the glorious depictions of war you usually see for WWII. This is for several reasons. First, WWI was unusual in its brutality and pointlessness for the average soldier--far,far worse than wars before or since. Second, the 1930s was an era when the reality of the past war had finally sunk in--that many millions had essentially died for nothing. As a result, the anti-war movement was exceptionally strong. Third, unlike the films made during WWII which were made to bolster the war effort, this WWI type of film was made to show how war sucks and should not be fought--or perhaps how not to fight it.

While "Wooden Crosses" is one of the great anti-war films of this era, it's not one of the very, very best (such as the two mentioned above). The biggest reason is that the characters are more ill-defined--and so one person looks pretty much like another. This makes for a less satisfying film--but also perhaps reiterates the anonymity of war. And, I must point out, it does a terrific job of showing what war is like--with gobs of explosions and death. But, because other films had come out before it that were just a bit better, this film somehow got lost in the process. A truly exceptional film--but try the other two first. And, if you'd like, also try "The Eagle and the Hawk" as well as "Ace of Aces"--two excellent American anti-war films that truly personalize the awfulness of war.

to compare this meaningless mess with "All Quiet on the Western Front" is sacrilege

[karlericsson · 1/10 · 26 August 2007]

The Horrors of war - need we be reminded of them? The reasons for war -yes, that is important to point out and especially that all wars that are fought today between countries are toy wars, because if they were real, they would be nuclear and not allowed.

Now, civil wars, that's different. Those have to be fought with smaller weapons and not atom bombs, since they are fought on common territory and not on foreign land, where an atom bomb or two doesn't matter much for your own survival.

"All Quiet On the Western Front" did try to explain a little the reasons for war and we realized what is meant by canon-fodder. This mess of a film delivers no attempts on explanation and just show the horror as if that would go away by showing it. And it is really not much horror which is shown, instead there is plenty of stupidity, which, I admit, is more horrible than maybe the worst horror. This film reminds me of the reports from the Balcan War. We got reports of all the horrors but not even one decent discussion about the conflict.

Explanations and philosophy demand mental work. This film is mental laziness.