Stalingrad

Rating:
Summary: Great Ending, Otherwise a Failure.
Review: After hearing about this film for years, I finally got the DVD version and watched it. First the good part. The ending was great. The imagine of the frozen German soldiers perfectly captured the failed invasion. Death was the evitable. Nicely done shot which was extremely moving.

Now, where it failed. First, it may be that Stalingrad is just too big a subject to every be covered by by anything other than some massive epic. I've been there and read many books on the battle. It is difficult to imagine and comprehend the horror that went on there.

But the film failed because any story about German invaders must reconcile that they were part of a genocidial invasion which murdered millions of Russians (not just soldiers), and their individual humanity. German soldiers were not just drafted innocents wondering what the heck it was all about. In watching the film, you get this feeling that the war is generic. It could be anywhere and at any time. But that was not the case. It just wasn't some generic battle. It was the turning point of the worst war in humanity. For the Russians it would be quite frankly genocide, and for the Germans it probably meant holding contintental Europe even now. There is no sense of this in details great or small. Just some generic war to make a generic statement that all war is bad (see last paragraph). Been there, done that.

The film utterly failed in this moral question. Yes, the characters are vaguely sympathetic, but the horrors inflicted by the German army on the Russians is made to seem incidental to some generic war going on out there in the movie. The characters never seem to think what they are doing is wrong. They are disillusioned and angry because they are in a situation they don't want to be--its a matter of inconvience that is jeopardizing their lives. There is the "evil Colonel" who is made to be nothing but a cardboard figure, and not typical or emblematic of the army. It's like the director is saying "oh, see how evil this one person is, and my soldiers are like okay". Again, as some reviewers have noted, cardboard persons, and unfortunately, cardboard morality about war.

I think the director confused making a anti-war film with the fact that a war against the Nazis was moral, right, and necessary to save humanity from a genocidial racist regime. You can't say "oh, war is bad", which means then the war against the Nazis was bad.

All I can say is that when people view such movies or written material, they should ask themselves the following question: "what if the Mexico, or Canada, or whomever, came under the a miltary Nazi regime, and invaded the US and killed millions of soldiers and civilians thinking because they thought we were inferior people". Would anybody say, "oh, gosh, look at the horrors of war and let's be neutral?" This is the point about morality in the film I am trying to make.

As for special effects, not a big thing as the director was after bigger issues, and he just came way too short on those. I admire his effort as he at lest tried to deal with those issues in way like Enemy at the Gates didn't.

Thanks.

Rating:
Summary: Have an Open Mind
Review: I have read many reviews extremely critical of this movie. Some are warranted, many are not. One complaint is no depiction of Tiger tanks, which is a ludicrous one, considering the tank was not seen on the Eastern Front until the following summer!

Another complaint is about a German 37mm anti-tank gun knocking out Soviet Tanks. Another false one, considering the 37mm had no muzzle brake as depicted in the movie. It looks very much like a Pak36r or Pak40 75mm gun, which was very much capable of taking out Soviet 1942 T-34 Tanks. Be sure of your facts, before complaining. This movie is one of the best for authentic equipment. If you want to see fake, take a closer look at the Tiger tanks in Saving Private Ryan. Their suspension is far from WWII German.

Others complain of the lack of realism in the battle scenes. Who knows of battle realism? It is unfair to compare the effects with movies that were made ten years later. Today's movies simply have a greater technology to work with.

My biggest concern is viewing this movie with an American arrogance and bias. Not all good movies are "Made In America". Sure this movie has it's faults, but don't all? Remember to be fairly honest in a review, we must try to view it for the culture it was intended. Just because you don't "get it" doesn't mean it was cheesy. Watch the movie and make your own judgement. Don't let the ramblings of those here, myself included, make a determination for you. Just have an open mind.

Rating:
Summary: Real History
Review: As a war historian this movie shows the true depiction of what war is like. There are no heroes as in Saving Private Ryan or any John Wayne movie. This story leaves you with a sense of empathy for those soliders who were sacrificed at the gates of Stalingrad. By hte way if your looking for a nice, well acted clean movie you probably would not like tis one.

Rating:
Summary: Blood and Guts with no story line to keep it in context
Review: While the technical production was excellent the film lacks continuity and orientation. If you have the urge to see this movie read one of the good books on the same subject first, otherwise this film is just a sensational "Stephen Speilberg" type of flick with dramatic and bloody scenes not particuarly related to each other and certainly not identifiable as the awful story of Stalingrad, probably the most horrific event of the Second World War.

Rating:
Summary: Stalingrad virtually fails on every level it intends.
Review: Joseph Vilsmaier's Stalingrad poses an interesting question: do laughably bad battle sequences ruin an anti-war film? The answer, it depends. Battle scenes take up only a small portion of Stalingrad's running time (two sequences, adding up to just under fifteen minutes total), so these cheesy segments alone can't really bring the film down to complete [garbage]. But considering how the film fails on every other level, the battle scenes are really just another icing on the cake that dooms Stalingrad as a war film debacle.

The story is pretty basic and does little to distinguish itself from most war movies out there. We follow a German platoon as they head into Stalingrad, and follow them through each deadly situation they encounter. Each of these men begin as respectable citizens, but by the end, virtually lose their grip on humanity. Actually, the title might mislead some viewers who think they're going to be seeing a film about the bloody battle of Stalingrad. Like Enemy at the Gates (a mediocre but superior production), the city is used as a backdrop for the catastrophic tides of war.

What's wrong with the movie? Okay, just for a moment, ignore the fact that the violence looks like something out of a 60's spaghetti western (the gore wounds look like rubber, the bullet wounds actually sometimes spew sparks instead of blood, so on and so forth). Now we focus on all the other scenes, which as some viewers have noted, are meant to create a hopeless, downbeat feeling. But director Vilsmaier has yet to learn that for such a depressing edge to work, you have to populate your film with three-dimensional characters that are worth caring for, and Stalingrad has none (keep in mind, one guy comes close).

Stalingrad displays virtually none of the same qualities as immeasurably superior character-driven war films such as The Killing Fields or Gallipoli, though it certainly aspires to. The acting is second-to-third-rate, with characters who do little to define and differentiate themselves from everyone else. Let's see, there's the up-and-coming Lieutenant, the Guy Who's Afraid His Wife is Cheating on Him, and a few other guys who make zero impressions. The actor who plays the Lt., Thomas Kretchsmann, comes close to creating a genuine persona, but he's hampered by a screenplay that replaces real personalities with cliches.

Stalingrad features many other terrible aspects, such as the cheap and obvious sets, the grating musical score, and the general feeling that this is a movie, and not a genuine, harrowing experience, probably the most damning flaw the film bears. Rarely for a moment did I actually feel I was in the the thick of the war-torn city streets or the snow-covered tundras, a detachment caused by all the problems I listed throughout the entire review.

Despite all that's incredibly wrong with the film, the conclusion almost works. The ending alone, a horrifying display of how seemingly inescapable the second world war was, almost creates visceral emotion on the basis of just how cruel and ironic it is (once again, could have been even more effective with great characters)(see Gallipoli for a truly nightmarish, heartbreaking finale). It's during these last few moments that, finally, Vilsmaier shows a competent hand at direction and shows us what he intended the whole time. It's just too bad it took over two hours to get there, and the trip beforehand isn't worth it.

Rating:
Summary: Das Boot on land
Review: A gut wrenching depiction of the German army's defeat at Stalingrad. The film focuses on an elite unit of German strom troops. It starts with the unit on R&R in Italy. Ten minutes into the film the unit has suffered 90 percent casualties and their plight goes down hill from there.

There are numerous scenes that portray the brutality of that particular battle, and by inference all of the war on the eastern front. As in Das Boot, all pretense of glory and honor is blown away. The scene where the protagonist, formerly an idealist , fakes injury in order to be medially evacuated really hits hard. The film seems to lose its way after that.

The scenes with the well supplied officer and his captured love slave (who is the same gal the protagonist encountered earlier in the sewers) really goes overboard.

The film makes no apologies and offers no rationalization. This is a common theme of blaming the insanity of combat on the officers, but in this case it rings false. The wehrmacht captain who floats in and out of the story is probably more realistically portrayed. His line that "he owed us that" after one of his soldiers is sacrificed for marginal gain reflects a grim pragmatism that the wehrmacht faced as they experienced defeat upon defeat.

All in all a depressing but important work on the second world war.

Rating:
Summary: Chilling in more ways than one
Review: This movie should be watched by anyone wishing to learn what combat on the Eastern front was like. The battle scenes are extremely well done and accurate, and this is years before Saving Private Ryan. The movie focuses on the German side of the battle, so the horrible conditions also experienced by the Soviet army are not portrayed much, which if this movie has a major failing is its only major failing. It would have been even more amazing had the film focused on both sides of the battle.
In addition to the superb battle scenes, the movie also takes on the horrible war crimes comitted by the German army such as shooting civilians and looting and burning their homes. The fact that it is a German film makes this accurate portrayal even more important.
The anti-war moralizing scenes also at times grow weary. In reality, the vast majority of historical studies, such as those done by Omer Bartov, suggest most German soldiers on the Eastern front believed in their Nazi inspired cause and used as much propaganda as they could to reinforce this belief throughout the war. Most German soldiers on the Eastern front were not like the fictional ones portrayed in this movie and knew their cause was worthless.

Rating:
Summary: Nope, it doesn't [stink]
Review: A harrowing and rather nihilistic look at war, 'Stalingrad' is one of the finer anti-war films of recent years. Going into this and having heard little about it, I assumed the film would be a pretty perfunctory take on the battle, maybe a more depressing 'Gettysburg' or something along those lines. The end result was a heartbreaking film that doesn't leave any room for hope.

There's a fundamental problem with many war films, and that is that the vast majority of them are from the point of view of the victors. In the end, there's always some sort of justification for the battle. But ultimately, the most interesting tales of war come from the side that falls. The total horror of war and the meaninglessness of it all is manifested when your side has lost, and at a terrible cost. Which is why most of the truly fascinating war films from this country are Vietnam films.

I've never seen that depicted more brutally than in 'Stalingrad', a film that begins much like a typical war film would, with young soldiers preparing to head off to war, filled with visions of victory and the righteousness of their cause. In war films these sunny early scenes are inevitably undercut by the realities of combat, but in this film those scenes are cut off at the torso and buried under ten feet of snow. The final half hour of this remarkable film depicts war for what it really is: a futile exercise initiated by terrible men with little regard for those who have to perish on the front lines.

... No, it's not as aesthetically high tech as 'Black Hawk Down'. No, it's not a high budget exercise. Sorry about the gore, it's not as realistic as 'Saving Private Ryan'. Who cares? See this film, there are some who just don't get it.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointed
Review: After buying and viewing "Enemy at the Gates" (2001), I was really looking forward to watching this German film, which was originally released in 1993.
However, after inital viewing, I realized that "Stalingrad" is not in the same league as "Enemy..." from a critical perspective.
"Stalingrad" is simply a foreign "B" movie, where "Enemy..." is a top notch Hollywood blockbuster.
Even most of the combat scenes in "Stalingrad" are disappointing.
Like the instance when GG "accidently" shoots his comrade inside the factory? Veteran Wehrmacht Stormtroopers couldn't be that stupid! Ah, but of course the filmakers want to teach us a lesson...
And later in the film, the attacking platoon of Soviet tanks and infantry should have completely routed the German "homeboy" platoon hastily dug in the frozen Russian steppe (with only one 37mm anti-tank gun!).
Instead the ill-equiped Germans destroy every single T-34 tank and enemy soldier. Oh, it probally isn't time for all the German characters in the movie to die miserably just yet...
And thereafter until the movie's end, not another "Ivan" platoon or even soldier is shown. What happened to the 3 Soviet Armies that encircled the city? Disappeared due to a low budget, I guess.
"Stalingrad" is missing the good drama that an essential war film should have.
Instead, I think this movie was produced with the main intent to help erase facist political problems which still plague the German people.
Film's Political Message: NAZI = Bad.
Too Bad the German people didn't realize this 60 years ago.

Rating:
Summary: Yup, it sucks.
Review: There's really no other way around it. I viewed this film with very high expectations, and once I was through, I was wondering whether or not I'd seen the Ishtar of German war films. Everything about this film reeks of camp quality, from the horribly comical gore effects to the cheesy acting. The battle scenes are truly among the worst I've ever seen, no thanks to Joseph Vilsmaier's incompetent direction.

There have been a lot of comparisons between this and Enemy at the Gates, but really, there's no competition. While I never considered Gates a great movie, it was a decent one with two exceptional performances (Jude Law and Ed Harris) and riveting sniper hunts amidst the ruins of Stalingrad. Still, the best film to feature urban warfare is Black Hawk Down.