I wonder how many AQOTWF viewers will make the connection with the war in Ukraine. I don’t watch war movies because they make me remember the Vietnam War. The part of the book that stays with me most strongly is Paul’s visit home, where the non-combatants fail to understand the reality he has been immersed in. Is it virtual signaling to say, I didn’t have to go to Southeast Asia to know and reject what America was doing over there in the 60’s? So much of the country’s fascist devolution, in my opinion, arose from deciding we should glorify that inexcusable war - sort of like 1930’s Germany, no? If real war doesn’t convince everyone it’s a moral disaster, how can a film.
This reminds me of Vonnegut's comment in "Slaughter House Five" that writing an anti-war book is a lot like writing an anti-glacier book. And perhaps just as pointless, I guess was his idea, and then he went off and kind of did it.
We are, sadly, a war-loving people. The country was founded in war, and we've been fighting pretty much ever since. From Jefferson's war against the Barbary pirates to the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Indian Wars, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippines War, WWI and II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq I and II, Afghanistan, Panama--I think the number of years the US has been at war far outnumber the years we have not been fighting somewhere.
What the actual fuck? The moral message of the book is encapsulated in the contrast between the war glorification of the boys’ teachers and civilian non-combatants vs the actual experience of the meaningless violence of war. I’m reminded of Sam Peckinpah trying to claim “The Wild Bunch” was an antiviolence film in the face of the audience literally cheering the violence on the screen. Some artists understand morality, some don’t, and the difference is clear in what they choose to show and what they don’t.
Coincidentally, I've been reading the book, picked it out of the neighbor's Little Free Library a couple of weeks ago. What struck me most strongly is the sense of a generation betrayed by their elders, a message so timely it could be coming from Greta Thunberg.
Oh no. The only rationale for doing that I can see is as an assumption that German audiences, "anti-war" for seventy-five years, won't need that message.
That said, the Lewis Milestone version, using long shots of windows and doorways, shows how separate Baumer is from his family and school.
OK, now I definitely have to see the 1930 version. Come to think of it, this is how it always goes with Roy's Oscar reviews, the movie he's reviewing I never see, but somehow I'm inspired to watch something that was made 30 years before I was born.
In the wake of 9/11, my teenage stepson was making noises about enlisting. I set up a private film festival in his room. We watched "Duck Soup" and "Dr. Strangelove" to illustrate how major political decisions are arrived at. After screening "All Quiet," I said, "And this is what's in store for guys like you."
I won't say that's what stopped him cold, but I'd at least done due diligence.
One of the grossest displays I ever encountered were the whoops and cheers from a few people at the conclusion of the (over the top) immersive film at the WWII museum in New Orleans. Then again, the end music swelled like a Hollywood production, so maybe I’m wrong to criticize them for celebrating the damn thing. It gave them the cues and they reacted.
Yeah, music triggers emotions that way. The Wild Bunch scenario was as follows: Peckinah had a private screening of the Wild Bunch at our college as part of a series of "privileged Ivy League students meet the artists, movie edition." Afterward, he started bloviating about how the exploding bags of blood, etc., were his way of shocking the audience into realizing that violence was bad, don't you know. Of course, real violence isn't like that and more importantly, to me, he had obviously failed because the audience was hooting and hollering at exactly those scenes. He evidently didn't like a snooty college kid getting up and pointing that out, so I didn't get invited to the apres-cinema cocktail hour. I had more luck discussing with Jonathan Miller the actors he chose to play the creatures in Alice in Wonderland (Rentable on Amazon) - he got them to agree to accept minimal pay for his British TV production but when he decided to bring it to American theaters, they wanted their usual full pay, so he was left with screening it to privileged Ivy League students. Oh, well, you can't expect the likes of Peter Sellers, John Gielgud and Leo McKern to work for pennies.
Hmm, I haven't seen Wild Bunch in 25 years, but I remember it delivering at least one gut punch and that the violence never felt like it accomplished anything good (the way it always does in an action movie). Possibly the audience did fail, not the director; I do believe good art depends on a good audience.
I am reminded of the time I went to party thrown by the ROTC guys. They played Full Metal Jacket and sat hootin and high-fivin and shouting the dialog with glee, never seeming to notice that the movie is not... pro-army. I don't think I can blame Kubrick for that, he made it as clear as crystal pepsi. (I should rewatch Wild Bunch.)
There were veterans in the audience both times I saw Full Metal Jacket when it came out and I was flabbergasted that they cheered when Joker shot the young Vietnamese woman when, to me, the point was obvious that a squad of heavily armed men (America) had so much trouble against a tiny, lightly armed young woman (Vietnam). But on reflection I came to think of it as a testament to Kubrick's art and craft.
Yeah, I watched this a few months back and it was…fine? It’s all well-done (acting, cinematography, score, etc.) and I forgot about it five minutes after it ended. It seems like it ought to be the kind of film that leaves you a bit shaken or at least makes you think. I was just mildly entertained for whatever the runtime is and that was that. I was bit surprised to see it get a nom, thought maybe I’d missed something, but maybe not.
I was put off by the changes from the original source material. This is admittedly shaped by my per-existing prejudice. I've read the novel several times, and the 1929 movie completely blew my twelve year old mind. I never looked at a war movie the same way after that.
Anyone making an adaptation has to weigh what to cut or add or outright change. They want to make a coherent film that hopefully keeps the audience engaged. In this case, they managed to miss Remarque's main points. Paul's death is set a few weeks before the end of the war, and is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. No big deal to anyone, not worth mentioning in the daily reports. And that is what impacts the reader or the viewer. In the novel, the first person narration simply stops. A final paragraph notes that he fell, but gives no cause. In the 1929 version gives us the wrenching butterfly scene, a masterclass in understated horror. Again, the banality of Paul's demise makes it's impact stronger. The filmmakers decided that a huge battle in the final moments leading up to the armistice would have more impact than Remarque's quieter original ending. They read abut the use of irony in school, and bludgeoned us with it. They forgot the maxim, "Sometimes Less Is More."
The new version gives us a stereotypical evil Prussian Officer sending his starving men out to die while he picks at his gourmet meal. We've seen this guy a thousand times. I guess they decided to use him to replace the much more effective Corporal Himmelstoss. The more life experience on has, the more one recognizes Himmelstoss as a real person. Or even someone like ourselves - what would we do if we suddenly had absolute power, backed by the state? Yesterday I was the village postman, smiling and nodding to people I despise. Now, I have a room full of kids on whom to unleash years of pent up sadism.
Another quibble, which I may have ranted about here, was the farmhouse raid. I just can't see farmers who want to survive the war taking potshots at occupying army troops, no matter how many chickens get stolen.
I'll give credit where it's due. The opening sequence of the uniform getting salvaged, patched, and handed to the next cannon fodder was masterfully done. Then I realize that it was a re-imagining of Remarque's tale of the expensive, (and cursed), boots everyone envies.
Haven't read the book but take your points. I've seen the Milestone a few times -- it's excellent, and shows what you can do with film, even in the earliest era of sound, when you have your mind right.
Himmelstoss isn't in the movie? He may be the most currently-relevant character, a small, powerless man who sees war as a golden opportunity to practice his sadism. He's a thousand Proud Boys salivating at the prospect of Civil War.
There's a great filmed interview, I think it was with Milestone (or maybe one of the screenwriters?) talking about coming up with the idea for the "butterfly" scene. Riding in a car at night in the rain, the wipers making a rhythmic thunk-thunk sound, and the German word "der Schmetterling" going round and round in his head in time with the wipers.
Yeah, I thought the final battle in the hours before the armistice was a bit too much. Reversing the order, where they attack and Paul is killed followed by them signing the pact would have been more effective.
Your "farmers who want to survive the war" reminded me of a post by Brett Deveraux(sp?) talking about Roman troops at war. He lays out how and why an army at the time had to survive by "foraging" which included taking stored grain and cattle (pretty much anything they could carry). The locals knew their only hope of staying alive and avoiding starvation was to hide some food and let the army take and leave. I doubt things had changed all that much by the 20th century.
The fact that they kept zooming out to the larger political situation about trying to get the armistice done was a weird choice. I haven't read the book, but there's none of that in the 1930 version. And the way It plays out in the new one seems to reinforce a lot of very old and bad German ideas about how badly they were swindled by the sneering allied armies. Some real 'stabbed in the back'-adjacent stuff. That said, the scene in the huge shell crater with the French soldier could have been the whole movie almost.
The crater is literally the only thing I remember from the book, which I read like 40 years ago in high school. Definitely overdue to pick it up again. But yeah, just a wrenching scene.
Neither the book nor the two previous filmed versions have those scenes. They kept the entire focus on Paul and his fellow enlistees. Even officers appear fleetingly. (One quells a near riot when a cook hasn't got the word that half the company was wiped out, and doesn't want to dole out the extra rations.)
The great movers and shapers of history remain off screen. That was a conscious decision on the part of Remarque and the producers of the earlier versions. We don't even get the cliched shot of a junior officer saying, "But that's suicide, Major!" We don't need that extra thirty seconds of film, and the earlier producers trusted the audience to figure it out.
The current producers should have just made the movie they wanted, and given it another title. Any movie about WWI will automatically be compared to "All Quiet" anyway.
Quick clarification, the crater scene is central to Remarque's and the earlier filmed version. What we don't see are generals and politicians. They get to write their self serving memoirs and attend symposiums.
"I’ll add that while the violence is disturbing and its persistence grinds, it is remarkably tasteful considering what a meat-grinder the war is." This reminds me of a scene A.J. Liebling described in Mollie and Other War Pieces after a plane went down: “When we arrived where the plane had fallen, we found three trucks and at least fifty men already there. The plane had been a Messerschmitt 109 belonging to the bombers’ fighter escort. Flames were roaring above the portion deepest in the earth, which I judged was the engine. Screws, bolts, rings, and unidentifiable bits of metal were scattered over an area at least seventy-five yards square. Intermingled with all this were widely scattered red threads, like the bits left in a butcher’s grinder when he has finished preparing an order of chopped steak. ‘He never even tried to pull out,’ a soldier said. ‘He must have been shot through the brain. I seen the whole thing. The plane fell five thousand feet like a hunk of lead.’ There was a sour smell over everything — not intolerable, just sour. ‘Where is the pilot?’ Norgaard asked. The soldier waved his hand with a gesture that included the whole area. Norgaard, apparently for the first time, noticed the red threads. Most of the soldiers were rummaging amid the wreckage, searching for souvenirs. Somebody said that the pilot’s automatic pistol, always the keepsake most eagerly sought, had already been found and appropriated. Another soldier had picked up some French and Italian money. How these things had survived the pilot’s disintegration I do not know. While the soldiers walked about, turning over bits of the plane with their feet, looking for some object which could serve as a memento, an American plane came over and everybody began to run before someone recognized it for what it was."
My family lore included the post-WWI incident in France wherein my father's uncle (and my favorite old) went AWOL with his pilot buddy in the plane they stole from the base to try to get to Paris for some R&R. They crashed the plane by hooking the undercarriage in a treetop. Walked back. Good time was had by all.
I haven't seen any version of the movie or read the book, so I really shouldn't comment. But I feel that being a character writing in someone else's blog's comment section practically compels me to write about topics I know nothing whatsoever about. Funny how that works, eh?
But I guess I know a little something about why I didn't see the film, even though I really wanted to in hopes of actually having something interesting to contribute. Unfortunately, it came out long enough ago that I read some reviews before I had any idea it would be nominated for an Oscar and the reviews made it sound like homework more than any kind of quality cinematic experience. And Roy's review does little to alter that perception. The film seems to be all about the message and the message, it seems, couldn't be more obvious. I tend to prefer a bit more ambiguity in my art, and lacking that, at least some subversive humor. From what I can tell, All's Quiet on the Western Front contains neither. When I was younger I might have been up for a bit of the old ultra-violence, but those days are long gone, and even then I liked my ultra-violence with a bit of the old ambiguity and subversive humor.
Anyhoo, I enjoyed the review. Looking forward to the next one.
Haven't seen this movie, and probably won't, but thanks for callback to Famous Monsters of Filmland. That magazine (and the movies it championed), along with comic books, got me through my miserable childhood.
I wonder how many AQOTWF viewers will make the connection with the war in Ukraine. I don’t watch war movies because they make me remember the Vietnam War. The part of the book that stays with me most strongly is Paul’s visit home, where the non-combatants fail to understand the reality he has been immersed in. Is it virtual signaling to say, I didn’t have to go to Southeast Asia to know and reject what America was doing over there in the 60’s? So much of the country’s fascist devolution, in my opinion, arose from deciding we should glorify that inexcusable war - sort of like 1930’s Germany, no? If real war doesn’t convince everyone it’s a moral disaster, how can a film.
Well said.
This reminds me of Vonnegut's comment in "Slaughter House Five" that writing an anti-war book is a lot like writing an anti-glacier book. And perhaps just as pointless, I guess was his idea, and then he went off and kind of did it.
We are, sadly, a war-loving people. The country was founded in war, and we've been fighting pretty much ever since. From Jefferson's war against the Barbary pirates to the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Indian Wars, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippines War, WWI and II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq I and II, Afghanistan, Panama--I think the number of years the US has been at war far outnumber the years we have not been fighting somewhere.
They left the home visit scenes out.
What the actual fuck? The moral message of the book is encapsulated in the contrast between the war glorification of the boys’ teachers and civilian non-combatants vs the actual experience of the meaningless violence of war. I’m reminded of Sam Peckinpah trying to claim “The Wild Bunch” was an antiviolence film in the face of the audience literally cheering the violence on the screen. Some artists understand morality, some don’t, and the difference is clear in what they choose to show and what they don’t.
Coincidentally, I've been reading the book, picked it out of the neighbor's Little Free Library a couple of weeks ago. What struck me most strongly is the sense of a generation betrayed by their elders, a message so timely it could be coming from Greta Thunberg.
I did the twofer back in the (impressionable) day: All Quiet followed immediately by Johnny Got His...
After that the only war book that held my interest was Homage to Catalonia...
Oh no. The only rationale for doing that I can see is as an assumption that German audiences, "anti-war" for seventy-five years, won't need that message.
That said, the Lewis Milestone version, using long shots of windows and doorways, shows how separate Baumer is from his family and school.
OK, now I definitely have to see the 1930 version. Come to think of it, this is how it always goes with Roy's Oscar reviews, the movie he's reviewing I never see, but somehow I'm inspired to watch something that was made 30 years before I was born.
Wouldn't be more effective if Roy was secretly on the Kanopy payroll!
AKA the Deep Focus State
In the wake of 9/11, my teenage stepson was making noises about enlisting. I set up a private film festival in his room. We watched "Duck Soup" and "Dr. Strangelove" to illustrate how major political decisions are arrived at. After screening "All Quiet," I said, "And this is what's in store for guys like you."
I won't say that's what stopped him cold, but I'd at least done due diligence.
I’m going to Fredonia in May.
One of the grossest displays I ever encountered were the whoops and cheers from a few people at the conclusion of the (over the top) immersive film at the WWII museum in New Orleans. Then again, the end music swelled like a Hollywood production, so maybe I’m wrong to criticize them for celebrating the damn thing. It gave them the cues and they reacted.
Yeah, music triggers emotions that way. The Wild Bunch scenario was as follows: Peckinah had a private screening of the Wild Bunch at our college as part of a series of "privileged Ivy League students meet the artists, movie edition." Afterward, he started bloviating about how the exploding bags of blood, etc., were his way of shocking the audience into realizing that violence was bad, don't you know. Of course, real violence isn't like that and more importantly, to me, he had obviously failed because the audience was hooting and hollering at exactly those scenes. He evidently didn't like a snooty college kid getting up and pointing that out, so I didn't get invited to the apres-cinema cocktail hour. I had more luck discussing with Jonathan Miller the actors he chose to play the creatures in Alice in Wonderland (Rentable on Amazon) - he got them to agree to accept minimal pay for his British TV production but when he decided to bring it to American theaters, they wanted their usual full pay, so he was left with screening it to privileged Ivy League students. Oh, well, you can't expect the likes of Peter Sellers, John Gielgud and Leo McKern to work for pennies.
Hmm, I haven't seen Wild Bunch in 25 years, but I remember it delivering at least one gut punch and that the violence never felt like it accomplished anything good (the way it always does in an action movie). Possibly the audience did fail, not the director; I do believe good art depends on a good audience.
I am reminded of the time I went to party thrown by the ROTC guys. They played Full Metal Jacket and sat hootin and high-fivin and shouting the dialog with glee, never seeming to notice that the movie is not... pro-army. I don't think I can blame Kubrick for that, he made it as clear as crystal pepsi. (I should rewatch Wild Bunch.)
There were veterans in the audience both times I saw Full Metal Jacket when it came out and I was flabbergasted that they cheered when Joker shot the young Vietnamese woman when, to me, the point was obvious that a squad of heavily armed men (America) had so much trouble against a tiny, lightly armed young woman (Vietnam). But on reflection I came to think of it as a testament to Kubrick's art and craft.
Yeah, I watched this a few months back and it was…fine? It’s all well-done (acting, cinematography, score, etc.) and I forgot about it five minutes after it ended. It seems like it ought to be the kind of film that leaves you a bit shaken or at least makes you think. I was just mildly entertained for whatever the runtime is and that was that. I was bit surprised to see it get a nom, thought maybe I’d missed something, but maybe not.
I was put off by the changes from the original source material. This is admittedly shaped by my per-existing prejudice. I've read the novel several times, and the 1929 movie completely blew my twelve year old mind. I never looked at a war movie the same way after that.
Anyone making an adaptation has to weigh what to cut or add or outright change. They want to make a coherent film that hopefully keeps the audience engaged. In this case, they managed to miss Remarque's main points. Paul's death is set a few weeks before the end of the war, and is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. No big deal to anyone, not worth mentioning in the daily reports. And that is what impacts the reader or the viewer. In the novel, the first person narration simply stops. A final paragraph notes that he fell, but gives no cause. In the 1929 version gives us the wrenching butterfly scene, a masterclass in understated horror. Again, the banality of Paul's demise makes it's impact stronger. The filmmakers decided that a huge battle in the final moments leading up to the armistice would have more impact than Remarque's quieter original ending. They read abut the use of irony in school, and bludgeoned us with it. They forgot the maxim, "Sometimes Less Is More."
The new version gives us a stereotypical evil Prussian Officer sending his starving men out to die while he picks at his gourmet meal. We've seen this guy a thousand times. I guess they decided to use him to replace the much more effective Corporal Himmelstoss. The more life experience on has, the more one recognizes Himmelstoss as a real person. Or even someone like ourselves - what would we do if we suddenly had absolute power, backed by the state? Yesterday I was the village postman, smiling and nodding to people I despise. Now, I have a room full of kids on whom to unleash years of pent up sadism.
Another quibble, which I may have ranted about here, was the farmhouse raid. I just can't see farmers who want to survive the war taking potshots at occupying army troops, no matter how many chickens get stolen.
I'll give credit where it's due. The opening sequence of the uniform getting salvaged, patched, and handed to the next cannon fodder was masterfully done. Then I realize that it was a re-imagining of Remarque's tale of the expensive, (and cursed), boots everyone envies.
Haven't read the book but take your points. I've seen the Milestone a few times -- it's excellent, and shows what you can do with film, even in the earliest era of sound, when you have your mind right.
Oh yeah, the opening's great.
Himmelstoss isn't in the movie? He may be the most currently-relevant character, a small, powerless man who sees war as a golden opportunity to practice his sadism. He's a thousand Proud Boys salivating at the prospect of Civil War.
There's a great filmed interview, I think it was with Milestone (or maybe one of the screenwriters?) talking about coming up with the idea for the "butterfly" scene. Riding in a car at night in the rain, the wipers making a rhythmic thunk-thunk sound, and the German word "der Schmetterling" going round and round in his head in time with the wipers.
Yeah, I thought the final battle in the hours before the armistice was a bit too much. Reversing the order, where they attack and Paul is killed followed by them signing the pact would have been more effective.
Your "farmers who want to survive the war" reminded me of a post by Brett Deveraux(sp?) talking about Roman troops at war. He lays out how and why an army at the time had to survive by "foraging" which included taking stored grain and cattle (pretty much anything they could carry). The locals knew their only hope of staying alive and avoiding starvation was to hide some food and let the army take and leave. I doubt things had changed all that much by the 20th century.
Ah yes. The Secret of Santa Vittoria gambit.
“a high-budget Black Forest Chainsaw Massacre without any of the horror genre’s usual pleasures”
might not describe the film to Roy's taste, but you KNOW Roy could not resist posting such a tasty phrase. Professional courtesy illustrated.
“it takes [an] artist to give hell a unified visual structure”
Hieronymus Bosch and a flock of bird-lizard demons clap in approval.
The fact that they kept zooming out to the larger political situation about trying to get the armistice done was a weird choice. I haven't read the book, but there's none of that in the 1930 version. And the way It plays out in the new one seems to reinforce a lot of very old and bad German ideas about how badly they were swindled by the sneering allied armies. Some real 'stabbed in the back'-adjacent stuff. That said, the scene in the huge shell crater with the French soldier could have been the whole movie almost.
The crater is literally the only thing I remember from the book, which I read like 40 years ago in high school. Definitely overdue to pick it up again. But yeah, just a wrenching scene.
Neither the book nor the two previous filmed versions have those scenes. They kept the entire focus on Paul and his fellow enlistees. Even officers appear fleetingly. (One quells a near riot when a cook hasn't got the word that half the company was wiped out, and doesn't want to dole out the extra rations.)
The great movers and shapers of history remain off screen. That was a conscious decision on the part of Remarque and the producers of the earlier versions. We don't even get the cliched shot of a junior officer saying, "But that's suicide, Major!" We don't need that extra thirty seconds of film, and the earlier producers trusted the audience to figure it out.
The current producers should have just made the movie they wanted, and given it another title. Any movie about WWI will automatically be compared to "All Quiet" anyway.
Quick clarification, the crater scene is central to Remarque's and the earlier filmed version. What we don't see are generals and politicians. They get to write their self serving memoirs and attend symposiums.
Great review!
And "Thibault de Montalembert " is a great name!
Give it up for Wayne Thibault & Thibaut Pinot!
Hmmm- cake!
Probly my favorite painter...mostly for the landscapes.
"I’ll add that while the violence is disturbing and its persistence grinds, it is remarkably tasteful considering what a meat-grinder the war is." This reminds me of a scene A.J. Liebling described in Mollie and Other War Pieces after a plane went down: “When we arrived where the plane had fallen, we found three trucks and at least fifty men already there. The plane had been a Messerschmitt 109 belonging to the bombers’ fighter escort. Flames were roaring above the portion deepest in the earth, which I judged was the engine. Screws, bolts, rings, and unidentifiable bits of metal were scattered over an area at least seventy-five yards square. Intermingled with all this were widely scattered red threads, like the bits left in a butcher’s grinder when he has finished preparing an order of chopped steak. ‘He never even tried to pull out,’ a soldier said. ‘He must have been shot through the brain. I seen the whole thing. The plane fell five thousand feet like a hunk of lead.’ There was a sour smell over everything — not intolerable, just sour. ‘Where is the pilot?’ Norgaard asked. The soldier waved his hand with a gesture that included the whole area. Norgaard, apparently for the first time, noticed the red threads. Most of the soldiers were rummaging amid the wreckage, searching for souvenirs. Somebody said that the pilot’s automatic pistol, always the keepsake most eagerly sought, had already been found and appropriated. Another soldier had picked up some French and Italian money. How these things had survived the pilot’s disintegration I do not know. While the soldiers walked about, turning over bits of the plane with their feet, looking for some object which could serve as a memento, an American plane came over and everybody began to run before someone recognized it for what it was."
My family lore included the post-WWI incident in France wherein my father's uncle (and my favorite old) went AWOL with his pilot buddy in the plane they stole from the base to try to get to Paris for some R&R. They crashed the plane by hooking the undercarriage in a treetop. Walked back. Good time was had by all.
I haven't seen any version of the movie or read the book, so I really shouldn't comment. But I feel that being a character writing in someone else's blog's comment section practically compels me to write about topics I know nothing whatsoever about. Funny how that works, eh?
But I guess I know a little something about why I didn't see the film, even though I really wanted to in hopes of actually having something interesting to contribute. Unfortunately, it came out long enough ago that I read some reviews before I had any idea it would be nominated for an Oscar and the reviews made it sound like homework more than any kind of quality cinematic experience. And Roy's review does little to alter that perception. The film seems to be all about the message and the message, it seems, couldn't be more obvious. I tend to prefer a bit more ambiguity in my art, and lacking that, at least some subversive humor. From what I can tell, All's Quiet on the Western Front contains neither. When I was younger I might have been up for a bit of the old ultra-violence, but those days are long gone, and even then I liked my ultra-violence with a bit of the old ambiguity and subversive humor.
Anyhoo, I enjoyed the review. Looking forward to the next one.
Haven't seen this movie, and probably won't, but thanks for callback to Famous Monsters of Filmland. That magazine (and the movies it championed), along with comic books, got me through my miserable childhood.