Rating: 
Summary: Waiting for something better?
Review: It's been ten years since the release of Schindler's List. Some good films have arrived since then but I think there is no doubt there's hasn't been anything else better.It's plain simple. And watch out what has taken XXI century. Has any other film moved you or made you think? Soundtrack, photography, art direction and sound are of the highest quality ever. You will say Neeson and all actors don't make an excellent play. But is it a matter of actors? Who cares about films like Training Day or Leaving Las Vegas? And their actors won an Oscar... "Schindler's List" is by far the best film of 90's. Only "Gladiator" is a bit closer than other mediocre films. Keep waiting for something good...
Rating:
Summary: Sad tale
Review: I watched this movie in history class. There is no word that can describe the movie the black and white really pointed out the different in the movie and the history seems realistic. The tragedy of this movie is pointed out in a man who became rich because of the holocaust. There not much to say about this movie but watch it with out your kids and maybe bring a tissue box.
Rating:
Summary: movie
Review: I had to watch this film for school, I was very young and I didn't understand everything that happened in the film, but it had a profound impact on me. It is a very sad story but I definetly think all ages/races should see this film so something like this will never happen again.
Rating:
Summary: Schindler's List
Review: I cannot help but cry whenever I see this movie. However, I feel very strongly that historical movies (no matter how shocking), MUST be told so that they may be REMEMBERED...
Rating:
Summary: One of the most important films of any generation...
Review: It is hard to state the importance of this film, either socially or morally, but to call it anything less than that would be a mistake. Schindler's List was not the kind of film I had at first expected to come from Steven Spielberg, having grown up with E.T. and Close Encounters. To say that I was surprised by the power of this film would be a gross understatement, never before I have found myself so moved by a work of cinema. The subject matter is so disturbing, the images haunt you long after the film has ended and Spielberg's use of black and white is a stark contrast to what we expect from movies today. If there is any movie that I would recommend, any film that I would beg my friends and family to witness... it is Schindler's List. It will stand throughout the ages as a testament to the horrors of the Holocaust, and the power that we each, as individuals, have to change the world even in the face humanity's worst. With a little help, and powerful reminders like this, maybe one day we truly will make certain that such a horrific act will never again take place.
Rating: 
Summary: Fair review ??? Nobody can remain fair with the film's topic
Review: I am not a fan of Steven Spielberg, in fact I do consider him childish and unable to deal with serious topics in a mature complex matter. In fact , there is always his annyoing childlike view of the world underneath the surface of the technical brilliance that characterizes his films. It would be unfair to call Shind'ler's List biased against Germans. That would be idiotic as the very hero of the story is German himself.
Yet one has to look pretty deeply to see Spielbergs resentments.
- The role of Amon Goeth, the Austrian SS Commanderof Plaszow was to be casted with a German Actor at first, Spielberg wanted Goetz George, who is a known acto in Germany and who until today openly admitted his suffering from his fathers (Heinrich George) appearance in Nazi Propagande flicks during the 1930s. George declined Spielbergs offer vehemnetly as he knew that working with a notorious German hating dircetor like Spielberg who is known for bitching around on the set is nothing a serious actor would want. Strangely though the "good German" Oskar Shindler himself is played by an American, how authentic.
So instead an "ugly Brit" like Ralph Fiennes has to do the job.
Goetz George had no problem whatsoever to play the Auschwitz war criminal Mengele in "After the Truth", a film that was made five years after SL. - Spielberg many times admitted that he felt repulsion for the German actors who played the SS. Well, it was Spielberg who wanted them to wear the uniform, not themselves. Also again, why not use Americans for them as well ??? How about Ed Harris or Clint "Granite Face" Eastwood as the guy who shoots the kid ??? No that job needs to be done by the Germans of course. Every German actor with a bit of self esteem should turn down any offer from Spielberg. The biggest insult was that Spielberg received the Bundeverdienstkreuz (Federal Cross of Merit) from the German government. - Recently the German TV channel VOX broadcasted a two hour special about the real Shindler. The had shown the original footage of Amon Goeth's execution by the Russians. Goeth did neither lift his arm for a last Sieg Heil nor did the Russians had to kick the bucket three times underneath his feet. He was hanged at a makeshift gallow without any emotional reaction.
The survivors of Plaszow themselves said in the interviews that the movie treis to bring the horror close to the viewer yet does not come even close to the real atrocities commited by Goeth.
Also GOeth had two housemaids called Helene. On said in the interview that Goeth's affcetion for her in portrayed in the film was just another Hollywood invention. In reality he just would mistreat his slave workers without warning and with absolute cruelty.
Spielberg could not resist to add Hollywood cliche to the film.
Something he did in every "serious" film he ever directed (and ruined). Except for that Shindler's List is one of the better films about the Holocaust, although there is no film that can bring the Holocaust "close" to the viewer. As film always creates a "safe distance". The best would be to visit one of the Concentration camp memorial sites at Auschwitz or Belsen. That is a haunting experience.
Rating:
Summary: Think twice
Review: For the first time in nearly 100 Amazon reviews, I am giving a product a five-star rating while more or less suggesting that it may not be worth buying. The thought occurred to me just after my heart jumped a bit upon realizing that Schindler's List was about to be released in DVD, something that has been a long time coming. This is a rare example of a film that met with great commercial success and well-deserved critical acclaim, and it may be the film that hugely talented and prolific director Steven Spielberg will be remembered for. This is one of the greatest motion pictures ever made, and when I started building my DVD collection a few years ago I always considered the film's absence a glaring one. But now that now that I can finally add it to the collection, I wondered: do we buy DVDs of great films, or of films we want to watch again and again? If the answer is the former, Schindler's List is a perfect fit. But it it's the latter -- and I think it is -- then I am not so sure. This is not the kind of film one can watch without becoming involved, and involved in a profound way. It is important and difficult and uncomfortable and a masterpiece of modern cinema -- but is not enjoyable. Can anyone who has seen this film imagine watching it again to pass the time on a rainy night? Is it the motion picture you'd select to watch after ordering out for pizza when friends stop by? Not from my perspective, and that is why this great film won't soon be on the shelf with the rest of my DVDs.
Rating:
Summary: A very important film.
Review: I find myself compelled to take issue with the "viewer from San Jose", and his/her review titled "good movie, bad research" dated January 23 2004. While I do not suggest that Mr. Spielberg was 100% spot on regarding the historical accuracies of the film, I believe that this reviewer has completely missed the point. Oskar Schindler was a flawed man, no one will deny that. It is however historical record that that he personally saved some 900 Jewish lives. Mr. Spielberg has simply chosen his story to inform a wide audience of a limited number of events from a period that was probably the lowest point in human history. I guess the reason why he chose Schindler above, say, Rauol Wallenberg, is simply due to the existence of the excellent Novel by Thomas Keneally. (I personally believe that the one real flaw of Schindler's List is to portray a story with an essentially happy ending, but of course this is the problem with almost all holocaust films, since they portray "survivor's tales". The true horror of the holocaust lies in the stories of the those that did not survive, but conventional wisdom suggests no one would pay money to sit through a film that depressing, and they are probably right) While the reviewer is correct to point out that tens of millions of other people were killed during the Second World War, comparing 20 million Russians and 8 million Germans dying as the consequence of the war, mainly through fighting and starvationas a result of war, to the industrialized wholesale slaughter of the Jews is misleading. Hilter set his sights on one particular people above all; the Jews. At the end of the war, cattle trains transporting Jews to the gas chambers were given priority above trains transporting troops and supplies to the front lines. The entire War finally boiled down to a psychopathic desire to rid Europe of Jews once and for all. (lets not forget that had the Nazis succeeded in North Africa, the same fate would have awaited Jews there).
As for the 5 million Poles he mentions, 3 million of them were Jews for crying out loud. A typically misleading statistic commonly used by Holocaust deniers. Now, for the reviewer's suggestion that Poland was full of people trying to help the Jews, the only reason why Poles make up a large proportion of the list of "righteous gentiles" is because half of the Jews in Europe happenned to live in Poland. They were therefore afforded far more opportunities to save Jews than any other nation. Why does the reviewer think that the camps were located in Poland? The reason is twofold - firstly, it was logistically the closest location to the largest Jewsish population, secondly, it was well known that Poles would tolerate the camps since they were among the most anti semitic people in Europe. A non Jewish friend of mine while visitng the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem (Yad Vashem) upon viewing the 13000 names of the "righteous gentiles" commented that there should in fact be millions of them, that every European should have tried to save Jews. It should be the rule, rather than the exception, shouldn't it? As for the reviewer's comments of the brutality of the Jewish police, this purely and simply an indication of being influenced by Holocaust deniers. While I will not deny that these people did not act in a despicable manner by cooperating with the Nazis (they did this out of a sense of self preservation mostly) it is ridiculous to suggest that they were as evil as the murderers of the SS. There are no stories (except perhaps concosted lies) about "Judenrat" stomping on pregnant women's stomachs or shooting children in front of their parents. And to complain that Schindler's List is too focused on the Jews is like complaining that 9-11 documentaries and books are too focused on American losses when there were dozens of other nationals that died. In the end, the most important point about this film is that it has drawn the attention of many people to the most shameful event in history. To paraphrase a character from the last Woody Allen film, if the punishment for the occurence of the holocaust would be the ceasation of mankind's continued existence, it could be argued that this punishment would be deserved and fair.
Rating:
Summary: Spielberg¿s masterpiece
Review: I avoided seeing this film for years, feeling I just couldn't take the angst and pain of yet another Holocaust experience. I mean, Sophie's Choice nearly did me in. But I was wrong. While there's plenty of horror and violence in Schindler's List, the movie is really a character study of one man's transformation. Schindler, for reasons probably inexplicable even to himself, rose above his privileged, hedonistic, self-serving lifestyle to become a hero from within the system.
Oskar Schindler risked his life and bankrupted himself but managed to save more than 1000 Jews from death in the Polish and German concentration camps. He employed them in his factory and convinced the German Army that their services were essential to the war effort - while at the same time making certain that no product that emerged from his factory would function properly.
Schindler, a womanizer, hard drinker, and relentless party-goer prior to his epiphany, was able to use his social skills, his arts of deception, his diplomacy and glib tongue to make his vow to save Jewish lives become a reality.
If you haven't seen this film for reasons of squeamishness, get over it. See it now.
Rating: 
Summary: good movie, bad research
Review: Schindlers List is a by-product of a society wrapped in guilt because of what another nation did sixty years ago, and the "feel sorry for me" propaganda that has followed it ever since.
From a purely cinematic standpoint it is, without a doubt, a fine film. The direction, photography, score and script are all first rate. The cast assembled includes excellent Hollywood as well as Polish actors and the performances they give are solid throughout. It is a tale well told by an experienced filmmaker.
As far as the historical accuracy the film leaves a lot to be desired. From the opening minutes it is evident that the filmmakers are products of an American educational system. The first words to appear on the screen "...German forces defeated the Polish Army in two weeks" are historically wrong, as Polish army actually surrendered in four weeks and isolated commands held out as long as 37 days. This is a prelude to many inaccuracies, half-truths and "blind eyes", which haunt this movie. The film tries to portray a Nazi party member who exploited jews, using them for SLAVE labour to HIS profit as a humannitarian. This is very interesting. Even more interesting is the fact that the polish "Council of Assistance for Jews" (RPZ)which assisted some 100 thousand jews to escape the final solution is never mentioned. The movie portrays Schindler as the only person willing to help the Jews, which is a far cry from the truth. (for those with any citicism of the Poles I invite you to visit the holocaust museum in Washington DC and see the list of names of those who saved Jews during WW2. You will see that there are more Polish names than all other nations combined.) What really upsets me about this picture is Spielbergs insistance on eluding audiences into believing that Jews were the only ones mistreated by the Germans. Lets talk about the 20 million russians who died during the war, or the 8 million Germans or the 5 million Poles. Sure Russians had Stalin to thank for more than half that number and Germans could always count on allies carpet bombing their cities but the Jewish holocaust was not the only one is my point. There was a Polish holocaust as well, this is never mentioned, nor is the fact of French collaboration in the final solution, nor the role of the Jewish police which was almmost as brutal to their brethren as the Germans.
In the end "shindlers list" is a good film very loosely based on fact and historically rather inacurate, intended for us to grieve the Jewish losses during WW2, but not intended to tell the whole truth.
| 
