WeAreBrainPolice

I have to question why the title of Remarque's novel was used for this film. I cannot overlook that this is the third film adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front, and unfortunately the weakest version of the three.

Disappointingly, this film writes out so much of the source material to such a degree that it threatens the themes central to Remarque's book. Present in the first two adaptations but almost non-existent in the present was the main ensembles' lives before the war. While mundane, these portray their innocence before it was taken away by war. Removed too was when Paul returned home on leave, changed by the war and alienated from his former life. This version seems occupied only by the spectacle and realism they could create in its combat scenes. Horrific sure, but the losses of characters are less impactful when the audience knows far less about them, if anything at all.

Even more confusing were the decisions to add entirely new scenes. The only purpose of showing the armistice negotiations appears to be to engage in historical revisionism by painting the French as merciless, unreasonable villains driven by revenge and the German ambassadors as desperate peacemakers concerned with limiting bloodshed. It was also deemed necessary for whatever reason to have not one but two scenes of stealing food from a French farm, the second including an emotionless child that apparently had less qualms with killing that veteran soldiers. In one act of irreverence to the source material, the ending is outright replaced by yet another grandiose action scene. With all these revisions one has to wonder why not just make an original WW1 film if the book it is allegedly adapting is only an afterthought?

Despite all the critiques directed at how Remarque's work was interpreted-or in this case misinterpreted-here, the film did at least have engaging fight scenes. The action looked gritty and authentic to WW1. They succeeded in at least not glorifying war and death. Cast member went above and beyond in invoking terror and hopelessness by their verbal and physical acting talents. Had this been made apart from All Quiet on the Western Front, comparisons would be unnecessary and I would have far less qualms with it. But it was not and I just cannot place this above two far superior films and the book itself.

The one thing I can attest for Peele is that he is certainly original with his movies. But like with all his ideas since Get Out, he just do not seem to understand how to gel all of his thoughts into a coherent film.

Nope is teaming with symbolism and allegory. Most of these are facetious. Peele relies on the pretentiousness of his audience to neatly insert all these ham-fisted plot devices into something that can be loosely relatable to the story. The devices simply do not make sense in the story. He needs viewers to go beyond reasonable limits of interpretation otherwise his part family drama, part giant living alien spaceship, part 50 other things movie becomes as disjointed as many other works he has been connected to.

All that can be forgiven if the film was entertaining. It's not. Nothing happens for most of it, and the characters are not interesting enough to supplement that. Calling it a "slow burn" is a cop out. Again, Peele clearly has many ideas, but he lacks understanding on how much he can direct into a story or whether they belonged in his story to begin with.

One example, the alien needing its victim to see it is the dumbest thing I have witnessed in a film in recent memory. Why? How? Through its mouth? Oh, but it is an allegory to the horse and chimp, so it is okay. An allegory as deep as a puddle in the desert.