Rating: 
Summary: How the other half lived........and died.
Review: From "Saving Private Ryan" to "Enemy at the Gates", World War Two films are a genre which does not allow many diversions from the dominant pattern which has been set up by the Left-wing American cinema. It is an almost un-spoken rule that the Nazis are not to be portrayed as humans. But what can one expect from a dominated industry? Which is why, if for no other reason, a film like "Cross of Iron" is worth watching. So I tip my hat to Sam Peckinpah for not making his first (and only) war film the typical WWII crap that's green-lighted by ... Hollywood. Indeed, the film is something of a parable about Peckinpah's embattled position within the film industry. Based on the novel by Willi Heinrich, "Cross of Iron" emphasizes much more than what originally meets the eye. As with "The Wild Bunch" the director focuses on the actual process by which the individual is called to face events which he cannot control, this time as part of a German platoon somewhere in Russian during the Nazis' massive retreat in 1943. The threat of extinction places the lives of the men in precarious balance, while the alien environment brings a strong sense of disorientation which along with the blunt struggle for survival threaten to blow the group to pieces...Peckinpah succeeds in making us care for his characters; they aren't faceless Nazi's but men who, in another time and place, could be you or I. In aiming for this memorable veracity, however, Peckinpah doesn't fall into the documentary trap. Yeah, the film has flaws, but, not unlike "Das Boot", it's a nice change from Speilberg world.
Rating: 
Summary: more fantasy than reality.
Review: I admit, when I watched this film as a teenager on video in High School, I loved it. I was just learning the German language and was in JROTC and this gritty film was the COOLEST movie I had ever seen. The soundtrack was outstanding.But looking back at age 30 with a Master's Degree in German Studies, and having learned to speak Russian...and having freed my mind from the Cold War mindset circa 1991...I have grave misgivings nowadays about this film. Like the reviewer of the original novel elsewhere on Amazon.com who wrote that it (the novel) was "not history" hits the nail rather on the head, I'm afraid. In college I read a book titled _Hitler's Army : Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich_ by Omer Bartov, that smashes the myth of the "apolitical" Wehrmacht. Bartov's critque is, I think, fairly devastating to the myths that CROSS OF IRON tries to promulgate. _CoI_ is a depiction of the German experience on the Eastern Front the way the Germans WANT to remember it, the way they WANT Americans to see it (and for a Cold War mindset, anti-communist, anti-Russian, the film is seductively appealing in that regard). Let's not forget that there were thousands of "volunteers" from other European nations such as Norway, Denmark, etc. who joined the German armed forces in the great Nazi crusade. Bartov's book argues rather forcefully that the chummy comraderie depicted in _CoI_ simply wasn't historically possible--why?--the casualty rates were far too high and destroyed unit-integrity to a mind-numbing degree. Bartov argues that, contrary to the prevailing myth of conveyed by films like CROSS OF IRON and believed uncritically by some (though by no means not all) Germans and many more Americans, the Nazi ideology was in fact part & parcel of why the Germans were able to keep on fighting with such ferocity right down to 1945. CROSS OF IRON's "I'm just fightin' for my buddies and nuthin' else" belies the grim realities of the brutality of the high casualty rates on the Eastern Front in WW2. By 1943, "your buddies" usually weren't alive long enough to build close personal attachments. What else did they have to fall back on, then, if not the Nazi ideology to keep them going? Personal accounts of veterans arguing to the contrary should be taken with a large dose of salt. I'm not sure what to believe anymore, really, and I know I'm in the minority here with views like this, but I can't view this film uncritically anymore. We would like to believe Sgt. Steiners really existed, but...I'm just not so sure...plus I feel part of the American obsession to believe MYTHS like this stems in part from our own 20th century horror, The Vietnam War. And the fact that (West)Germany joined NATO and became our new Allies against the Soviet Union...the temptation to believe these myths as an American are very powerful indeed...and this is partly what the film _Dr. Strangelove_ pokes fun at in a satirical way. And that a film like _ZENTROPA_ subtly rips apart. I for one am glad of the new film _Enemy at the Gates_, told from the RUSSIAN point of view, with the Russians as heroes and human beings. Now THAT's unique. But _Enemy at the Gates_ also falls into the same erroneous "apolitical" trap that CROSS OF IRON does, unfortunately. I may yet buy this film...I can't deny that its aesthetic acheivements are excellent. The acting is superb. But history, this isn't, anymore than _THE PRODUCERS_'s "Springtime for Hitler" was.
Rating:
Summary: Good Film - Poor Mastering
Review: All the qualities of this extraordinary story about brave men risking their lives to the glory of their coward leaders on the battlefield should be sufficient for a buying decision by anyone who likes war movies, specially for those who saw both "Stalingrad" and "Paths of Glory". The problem is that the picture quality of this DVD is horrible. Full of noise and artifacts, this film is a long way behind the traditional features like crisp images, deleted scenes and superb sound we are used to see on DVD versions. The lack of closed caption is also unforgivable. If you liked this film before and want to complete your "Best War Movies's list" you should order this title but if you still have your VHS copy, keep it ! You wouldn't note the difference.
Rating: 
Summary: Great War Movie!
Review: This was one of the best War Movies I have seen. It shows the horror of war on the Eastern Front and does not try to make the German Soldier to be the hateful, lunatic Nazi of most war films. It probably is as close to the truth we will get.
Rating:
Summary: Vintage Peckinpah!
Review: "Cross of Iron" is a film that has all the makings of a classic war movie. However, it does have one big weakness--the editing! Still, the acting of James Coburn, Maxmillian Schell and James Mason help make this an enjoyable movie that's fun to watch over and over again. CoI has a lot of action and great pyrotechnics and the panzer battle scene in particular is really awesome. However, there are also some surreal scenes which, in my opinion, are a bit too bizarre. But what really makes this film is the strength of the characters themselves. James Coburn plays the gritty Sgt. Rolf Steiner who has nothing but contempt for his government. Yet, he is intent on fighting and bolstering the spirits of his platoon. James Mason is the enlightened Colonel Brandt who cuts Steiner a lot of slack. Although Brandt realizes the war is nothing but an effort in futility, he does what he can to keep his men motivated. Maxmillian Schell is the arrogant and incompetent Captain Stransky who is long on bravado but short on substance. For all his posturing, Stransky is nothing more than a spit and polish aristocratic Prussian officer who wants all the glory of combat but doesn't have the guts to earn it on the battlefield. Stransky is also something of a strange if not comical character. For instance, in one scene, he chastizes his orderly for swatting his pet rat ("STOP THAT! Careful of my JJ...Have it treated correctly). David Warner is the cynical Captain Keisel who has become numb to the world around him. Like Steiner, he is disenchanted with his government and even ridicules the very army he's fighting with. Although Keisel's senses have become dulled by the non-stop fighting and destruction, he still manages to be insightful. At one point Brandt asks Keisel a rhetorical question, "What will we do when we lose the war?" To which Keisel replies, "Prepare for the next one." Though "Cross of Iron" does have a few minor shortcomings, it's too good to pass up. There's a lot to this movie; you'll definitely want to add to your video/DVD collection.
Rating:
Summary: The Mental and Physical Anguish of War
Review: An impressive film by one of Hollywood's greatest action directors, Sam Peckinpah. This movie is arguably the best war film to come out of the 1970s. The only other film of that decade that comes close in both grit and epic setting is Richard Attenborough's A Bridge Too Far, which was released the following year. Peckinpah deserves praise for being bold enough to tackle this Eastern Front story by author Willi Heinrich. The film is set in 1943 and finds the Germans in slow retreat before the Russians. The opening scene is riveting. A squad of veteran German soldiers led by Sgt. Steiner (James Coburn) infiltrates the Russian forward position and knocks out a fortified mortar battery. When the squad returns to camp, Steiner meets his new commanding officer, Capt. Stransky (Maximilian Schell). In perhaps the most compelling performance of the film, Schell plays a dishonorable soldier who cares not at all for the safety of his men, but only for his personal glory. Stransky requested to be transferred to the Russian front from France so that he might earn the Iron Cross (medal of valor), which Steiner already has received. The task before Steiner from that point forward in the film is to do his job without getting killed by Stransky's orders. Although there are some slow moments in the film that show what life was like in the trenches and the scheming of Stransky and his lackeys, there also are several long action sequences in which Steiner and his squad must stand their ground against Russian human-wave attacks and move with stealth behind enemy lines. Although Peckinpah's use of slow-motion action is not used quite as sparingly and with as great effect as director Akira Kurosawa in Seven Samurai, it is nevertheless a useful stylistic enhancement for this movie and war movies in general. I believe this film ranks among the best war films ever made and can hold its own alongside Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Saving Private Ryan. Viewers should compare this film to 1993's Stalingrad, also available on videotape.
Rating:
Summary: Hell on the Eastern front. Again.
Review: "Cross of Iron" is not a groundbreakingly original picture. Just about everything about the film has been done before and afterwards. But then again, that's a fact with most movies. The story is about the classical honest and heroical soldier fighting not only the war, but also a corrupt, lying and backstabbing officer. The picture gives you a realistic view of the war where there was no going home. Attention has been payed to detail, which is a great plus. All over it's a pretty good movie. It's definately worth the money if you're interested in WWII.
Rating:
Summary: Hollywood's view of the Russian Front
Review: The suspension of disbelief required in accepting that James Coburn is a war-weary Wehrmacht sergeant on the Russian front is equivalent to the incredulity one might face in imagining John Wayne to be a Waffen SS general. Wrong casting, period. The Russian front was one of the most degrading, dehumanising conflagrations in the entire history of warfare. As with any campaign of racial extermination, the depridations and abominations perpetrated by both sides driven by equally uncompromising ideologies (the Germans had their SS, the Russians their NKVD battalians) resulted in unimaginable conditions of cruelty and savagery. Cross of Iron barely even scratches the surface. Far more accurate (though still flawed) is the German language film, 'Stalingrad'. Sam ought to have stuck to westerns.
Rating: 
Summary: really bad digitallization,definitely not from original film
Review: I share with other people with the good quality of the movie. But totally dissapointed by the poor quality of DVD, which is supposed to offer better resolution and contrast than the video tape. This version, by Hen's Tooth Video, seems to be digitallized from a video tape, but of even poorer quality. It is blurry, has ghost shadows(quite visible in the credits part, with characters on screen), and let me suspect that this DVD is digitallized from a video tape that had been in video rental store's circulation for months and the digital signal picked up from a worn out VCR! Such a good movie deserves better. The so called Hen's Tooth Video shouldn't have treated it so carelessly. I am really against any DVD that is not a true digitallization of the original film copy and strongly suggest that information about the reproduction source be available to the customer.
Rating:
Summary: For a German view of WW2
Review: ... get this movie. It's not the best war movie, but it's different because it is set on the Eastern Front - which is all but unknown to Americans. Also, it depicts German infantry, weapons and tactics - and that is interesting as well. anyone who is interested in war movies should see it, but anyone who is interested in WW2 must see it.
|
