The Most Overrated Movie of This Oscars Season

The write up pretty much explains why I did not bother to watch it. Most of the detractors claim it was bad because it deviated from the book too much, the fact is, the original movie deviated from the book quite a lot too. But this movie deviated from history too much to interest me. The explosions, blood, mud and gore may have been filmed very realistically, but the story was too far from the truth to be a good movie based on history, basically the same complaint I had of 1917. It is much like George Carlin on TV and live. On TV, he could not resort to vulgarity and had to present great humor, but live it was just a *bleep* fest.
 
I have an Atlantic subscription and read the article. I have also seen this version and read the book several times. I agree with Gus, the real message behind Remarque’s book and the personal struggles of the characters were lost in all the modern day blood and gore put on the screen. I also disliked the new scenes and characters which were added that never appeared in the book.
 
b.loree said:
I have an Atlantic subscription and read the article. I have also seen this version and read the book several times. I agree with Gus, the real message behind Remarque’s book and the personal struggles of the characters were lost in all the modern day blood and gore put on the screen. I also disliked the new scenes and characters which were added that never appeared in the book.
Click to expand...
And as James noted in another thread about this most recent movie version, I really hated listening to the very loud and bizarre deep buzzing sound music which they played at various times throughout the movie when something bad or ominous was about to happen.

I agree with what you're saying as well Brian. This last version strayed considerably from the book, which is unfortunate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top