i shall say that this movie is so loathsome that i have stopped watchin it after 15 mins. Except for cinematography the movie has nothing to offer. War actions seems decade old in execution and the characters sucked. Dont know how its so highly rated in imdb - 7.5, my foot.... yawk
shareYou complain over the combat scenes and claim you stopped watching after 15 minutes. The first combat scene is 20 minutes into the movie... Either you lie or you are an idiot. Or both.
shareOk i did watched the whole movie but in fast forward and stopping at some scenes mode. If u consider that as watching then yeah i was lying.
Btw i would have you judge me less and give ur intelligent opinion about the movie.
Well, you didn't give me much to judge you by, but thanks for being up front about how you viewed the movie. You got to admit that most movies lose something if viewed while fast forwarding...
Anyway, "Stalingrad" is one of the best Eastern Front movies, but it isn't without problems. AFAIK, it was planned to be shown as a mini series as well (much like "Das Boot"), but that didn't come to be. This is reflected in a couple of scenes where it is evident that something's missing. Another problem is that with the increasing cold, the soldiers have scarves and other items making it hard to recognize the faces, which are grimy and stubbled as well. Now, this isn't unique for "Stalingrad"; most people who have watched e.g. "Band of Brothers" have had trouble telling more than a handful of soldiers apart at the first viewing, but it certainly makes it harder to follow the story.
As for the story, there are some allegorical moments that doesn't work 100%. The military police officer represents the Nazi regime, and sort of absolves the PBI (poor bloody infantry) from their part in the war. The Russian female soldier is there to show how "Mother Russia" is abused, at least in the scene where she is found in the warehouse. It might seem a bit contrived, but it isn't unrealistic.
The movie's strenghts are the battle scenes and the downward spiral from sunny Italy to the breakout attempt in late January/early February 1943. The first battle, with the attack in the factory ruins, is very well staged, and as a former communications corporal, I was gratified to note that there was one guy lugging a reel with phone wire. The battle against the tanks is pretty epic, too, and captures man vs tactics well. Then there are scenes like those at the airfield, when desperate soldiers try to catch the last plane out. The German soldiers are left out to dry, which was pretty much the case on the Eastern Front as a whole, with fights against superior numbers of opponents as well as the climate, and with a supply situation that was precarious at best.
"Stalingrad" might not be a truly great war movie, but with the dearth of movies from the German point of view, it has it's place. I rank it among the 40-50 best war movies ever made.
Owing to the fact that it is a rare ww2 movie from German point of view about one of the most significant battle in the eastern front many viewers are attracted to check it out. But what starts as a good movie with pictersque sea side view of italy and then the russian fields while the german troops are on train to Stalingard fails miserably in an overt attempt to show humane side of German soldiers and richly staged but poorly executed battle scenes. Anyway, i lost my interest in this movie early on to observe anything good and felt my evening has been spoilt renting it home.
Infact i enjoyed reading your take on it more (coming from a former corporal) than the movie itself and i wish it was the other way round.
BOTTOM LINE:
If you are looking for spectacular War action in the way of Saving Private ryan, Enemy at the Gates, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket ... This is Not it.
If you are looking for convincing war drama in the way of No Man's Land, Bridges on the River Kwai .... This is Not it.
"Dont know how its so highly rated in imdb"
I gave it a 9. Great Movie.
I gave it a 10 because of how realistic it actually is, which makes it an extremely good movie.
I compaired the movie to the extra material that also follows the movie on disc 2, which is actual interviews with both Russian and German soldiers who took part in the battle of Stalingrad. What they tell about their personal experiences comes extremely close to what you actually see in the movie.
based on all first hand accounts I've read of the Eastern Front, this comes pretty damn close. It was complete mayhem and consistent with the actions of soldiers on a collapsing front. Self preservation can make people act irrationally. Not everyone wants to be a hero.
shareGetmey you just listed some good movies that were completely fictional, whereas this film depicts quite accurately what happened, the way you type is that of a child and your attitude is also the same, I suggest you see some of the world before you even think about what war actually is, because if you think Saving Ryan's Private's is what war was like your sadly mistaken.
shareTalk about smug and full of one's self!
shareEnemy at the Gates? That was a good Hollywood-style war movie but not in the same league as Stalingrad 93. The others are agreed classics but the best part of FMJ is arguably the first half during boot camp. The actual war action in FMJ is fairly limited and certainly not of the scale of Stalingrad 93.
For someone who clearly stated that you never watched the movie (15 minutes clearly does not mean anything), sorry to inform you but your view on this film does not actually matter, since it is based on guesswork and assumptions.
Perhaps it is because I am German, but I have seen this film several times over the years and I am still moved to tears for the suffering of all those involved at every viewing. That to me is the measure of a truly great war movie. God forbid that anything like that could ever happen again.
shareBtw i would have you judge me less and give ur intelligent opinion about the movie.
You are a child Getmey, you don't watch ww2 movies, or even war movies to understand, you don't look at them as something to take an image away, you don't let movies sculpt you. You're an infantile viewer who doesn't care for art, doesn't care for honesty, all you want is pornographic production values and good action scenes. You don't care about what's on screen, you only care about how cool it looks.
You're not into ww2 movies, you're into action movies, you care little to nothing about characters so don't be so laughable and try and say you didn't like the characters, your opinion is worthless, slim, and wet like a paper bag. You don't care, you don't understand, so your opinion doesn't matter, it truly doesn't.
You missed out on a good war movie, hell you missed out on Saving Private Ryan, you missed out on Full Metal Jacket, you just missed out, I'm sure you didn't care about those movies or it's characters, you just like seeing some person blown in half, you're the worst thing about movie going, if you just watched the movie and took what was needed to be taken, you'd understand. But you didn't, you just skimmed through it, trying to snort another line of "EXPLOSIONS, EXPLOSIONS, ACTION SEEEEN MAAAAN!"
If you had just watched the movie and didn't get it, fine more power to you, but the fact you actually think of your opinion as being valid enough for you to make a thread, and spout your ignorant opinion, shows not only are you dumb as hell but you have an unwarranted sense of self importance.
Stick to Call Of Duty or something, that's more keen to your sensibilities, and keep your opinion to an unheard one, especially about movies, because it's wrong and poison. I can see why you only made it to corporal
For the record, the worst WW2 movie is without a doubt: "Inglourious Basterds"
"If God did not want them shorn, he would not have made them sheep."
Oh he'll yes
shareyou are right and "fury" is the next worst.
share[deleted]
I thought Fury was actually not bad!
Not a Cross Of Iron admitedly but far batter than Inglorius basterds which was utterly vile - Peckinpahs movie is IMO THE BEST WARFILM EVER MADE!
Looking forward to this one as just watched the new 2013 version and it was ok but not great!
Its uncle Frank Kirsty!
Its time to play!
Bingo we got a winner
shareIB was awesome. Yes, pure fiction at the end but awesome nonetheless.
shareDon't sweat it: I gave 1/10 because it's a German film on WW2 and I don't give a sh*t what the Germans "think" of it.
It's like Der Untergang: Kudos to Bruno Ganz who is a great Swiss actor, but I'd rather watch Fassbinder, Wenders, Haneke and other German film-makers whose work I find more interesting.
what the hell r u talking about? SO i guess u dont watch vietnam war movies since u probably yanquee, belong to the country which is to blame for it?, hell this place is full of retards.
shareNo, I'm not American.
But for the nazis my father's family were subhumans, Untermenschen.
u are not getting my point sir, what i mean here is that the people who wrote & were involved in the movie , might be Germans but they are most definitely NOT Nazis! SO how can u judge a movie by thinking that? its an insult for german people as well as for the ones who worked hard here to create the movie.
share"I gave 1/10 because it's a German film"
someone just went full retard
"on WW2".
I don't care about their point of view on this war, that's all.
I may appreciate an "allied" film based on a German book, like Sam Peckinpah's Cross of Iron.
Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to watch Interstellar.
The Germans in this movie were portrayed in a really bad light. And the Russians in a good light. I am Russian, I was actually surpriced by this as Russian soldiers were huge *beep* too.
shareIt certainly is better than Enemy at the Gates. I must have missed the part of the battle of Stalingrad where the English speaking Russians went up against the English speaking Germans in battle. I will have to do more research on that.
shareI completely agree with you about Jean-Jacques Annaud's Enemy at the gates. Annaud made a huge mistake first because he chose a story which has been in many ways totally mounted up by the Russian propaganda although the Russian guy has existed; moreover Annaud made a huge historical mistake because there has never been any SS soldiers during the battle. And to add to this the romance and happy end is the most stupid thing in a situation where so many soldiers on both sides died not only from their wounds but also of extreme cold and starvation during the months following the end of the battle. Communications were disrupted in Russia and even the Russians had problem to get the proper rations of food. Of the German POW only 5000 survived and got back home from the 100000 prisoners.
The movie is a masterpiece just as Das Boot by Petersen was. His purpose was to show how the human being can resist or not to extreme suffering and be totally destroyed by propaganda and lies.
As for your comment Bluedusk sorry to tell you that you are making the most stupid remark on this subject. One must make a difference between the young guys in the army, generally 18 or 20 and the officers or higher ranks who were responsible for the horrors of the Nazi regime. Those boys were driven to the front like cattle to the slaughterhouse. One must also reflect on the huge responsibility England and France (I'm French) had by ruining totally Germany after WWI with the stupidity of the Versailles treaty. You never gain by humiliating your former enemy. The German economy's collapse in the early 20's was the perfect target for lies and nationalism propaganda such as the one Hitler put in place. Let's face facts, Europe as a whole has always been anti-Semitic at that time and before. So the terrain was ready to accept the lies and scapegoats of Hitler. As for the attitude of the Russians at the time, it was also disgusting and Stalin found there a perfect way of finishing his work to get rid of Jews and other minorities he did not want in his way and did it.
The lesson was not learned as we know and the way Roosevelt dealt with Stalin at the end of the war is also responsible for the continuation of this barbarian state until now. Never forget the present Russian president is a former member of the KGB.
you are obviously very very young..... by the way how did you like fury? did it had more hollywood style action to your liking? cause war doesnt look anything like that
sharewell man, thanks for you forgetable comments and thread. Heres an advice. try to avoid next time to create threads like this because you sound like a total unintelegent piece of *beep* moron who has no sense at all what makes a movie good.
you are one of those *beep* who just like cool explosions and CG in a film.
Go watch a michael bay movie you *beep*
regards
I wouldn't say it's the worst WW2 movie. Certainly not that great though, due to pacing, some corny dialogue and choppy acting. It was decent though.
shareWell you obviously don't know too much about the subject or the the movie. They did an excellent job with the small budget that they had. It's also better than the majority of all the Hollywood WWII movies that are so far from fact it's not funny.
share