It did change some things around from the story and omit others to make it fit into the two and a half hours, but overall I think they still did a solid job.
It did remove the segment where Paul goes home on leave, and while I feel like the movie's weaker for it, I'm genuinely not sure how they could have fit it in without either taking out a bunch of other things or just awkwardly shoving it somewhere into the script and turning it into a 3+ hour movie
Whoever reviewed this for Roger Ebert is also a goddamn moron.
Not for giving it two stars- though I strongly dispute that it deserves a score that low- but because their reasons for doing so are the most vapid and insipid nonsense I've ever read.
Film: <repeatedly shows that German leadership is living in their own little reality, completely disconnected from the horrors of the actual fighting, and even has an actual scene showing the German delegation to negotiate the ceasefire noisily eating full meals in a posh dining car cut between scenes of mud and carnage>
That's not to say Storm of Steel has no historical value, but...given the global resurgence in ultra right wing nationalism and fascism in general this is NOT the time
that's a dumb reason to give it a low score. most of the negative sentiments I've seen about it were about how it cut out important plot beats, especially Paul's visit home, and making the armistice a big part of the ending and having him die just before it comes into effect rather than random misfortune on a random day
yeah. I can at least understand why they went the way they did with the changes, and it doesn't really change the core message at all so I can't be too mad at them for it.
Like this thing was just so goddamned goofy looking, but you definitely don't feel that way staring at the front of the thing with no way to stop it
Not for giving it two stars- though I strongly dispute that it deserves a score that low- but because their reasons for doing so are the most vapid and insipid nonsense I've ever read.