Stalingrad

Stalingrad

* out of **** 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.

This film is one of the historically most accurate war films ever made in that it displays the reality of soldiers in a battle situation as well as the particular circumstances of the Battle of Stalingrad, obvious when one compares this film to works such as Anthony Beevor's book "Stalingrad". Unlike the better known "Enemy at the Gates" where the plot diverts into a sniper/hunting story, this film shows what war can do to individuals. Although filmed by Germans, "Stalingrad" is anything but a nationalistic apologetic film. It shows that war films can be something beyond flag-waving, jingoistic distortions of the grim truth of war, like so many Hollywood "war" products seem to be. The scripting, acting, direction and other film techniques in "Stlingrad" are of the highest caliber. It's a must-see film for anyone contemplating to join an army and to obey orders from any type of "Fuehrer".

For me as a German, the movie "Stalingrad" was disappointing as it fails to give a three-dimensional image of the Stalingrad battle. The Stalingrad battle is presented only from the German perspective and not once from the Russian one. Thus, ironically, the Germans are indirectly portrayed as the victims whereas the Russians are presented as the faceless enemy. It is almost forgotten throughout the movie that the Germans actually are the invaders and that the Russians are defending their own country. What is therefore missing is a depiction of the suffering of the civilian population and the Russian soldiers. The battle scenes, however, are well-produced and seem realistic from a technical and historical viewpoint and overall manage to portray the futility of the battle. To sum it up, the movie fails to give a three-dimensional image of the Stalingrad battle and therefore to some degree distorts the historical facts.

The people of my generation and those who are older know about the WW II (or as it is called in Russia – the Great Patriotic War) not only from the school textbooks, but from the witnesses and participants of the event. My granddad was a soldier at Stalingrad and when I was a small girl I used to listen to his stories of how he defeated the Germans. He also told me some anecdotes, not all he told me was gloomy. But it was long ago, and no when I have a conscious interest for what happened there in the battle of Stalingrad, I have to turn to books and movies for information. Somehow most films I saw were made in the Soviet Union, only a few in present day Russia. And “Stalingrad” is an exception. In the movie the war is described from the opposite side, and the fact in itself is interesting. All that is shown in the film is quite different from what I’m used to. The film reminds me a great deal of Remarque’s “Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben”, because the war is shown through an ordinary German soldier perception. And this soldier or lieutenant is rather obsessed by repeating he is by no means a fascist. The movie heroes right from neat and enthusiastic Europe, from the Italian coast arrive in the snow-covered hungry Soviet Union. They are doomed to die; it is clear from the very beginning. After the elite detachment had taken part in their first fight at Stalingrad, one of the soldiers said the phrase which reflected the whole idea for me; he said “If you start thinking, you will go mad”. And to my mind it is true for spectators as well. From the one hand, one may think, OK, I’ll just watch this movie and it won’t dissipate me, I needn’t feel sorry for the people on the screen as it were they who attacked my country and not vice versa. However sooner or later but inevitably one starts sympathizing with the characters. Probably when the lieutenant chokes back his tears at seeing Kolya’s execution. “Stalingrad” is hard to watch, all these frostbitten legs, dirt, executions, snow, famine, destroyed illusions. As far as I know, Lt. Hans von Witzland is one of the few films where Thomas Kretschmann played his star roles. I watched quite many Hollywood movies where he was given unimportant parts of small fries, such as “Next” or “Transsiberian” (why did he do it?!). And after I had watched “Stalingrad”, I cannot make out the European actors desire to appear in American movies, even second-rated at any cost. The fact puzzles me deeply. I believe Thomas Kretschmann deserves better parts and much better screenplays than those he is given in Hollywood. And out of what I saw with him, “Stalingrad” is the best, beyond the doubt. In my opinion the worst “Stalingrad” drawback is the way they speak Russian in the movie. I mean of course those who are supposed to be Russian. Say, the boy who spent some time with the Germans or the girl with whom they planned to escape. Was it really so difficult to find actors able to pronounce a couple of phrases without that horrible accent? Initially I set down to watch “Stalingrad” just to listen to native German-speakers because I’m studying the language. I did not expect anything extraordinary of the film. But it impressed me, made me cry when I wasn’t going to at all. I know I’m 15 years late to watch it, but “Stalingrad” is not a run-of-the-mill movie, and after 15 years it is still watchable and shocking.

This is a film that I keep coming back to, for a variety of reasons. As a testament to the suffering of the ordinary soldier on the Eastern Front in the Second World War, it is a powerful one. There are a number of very powerful scenes in the film which help to capture the horror of war, such as the tank battle for instance. Furthermore, from what I can see the experiences documented in the film are by and large 'true' - if you read A. Beevor's book 'Stalingrad' you will know what I mean. The film is also successful in the sense that it doesn't allow character or plot to dominate it - it is simply a tale of survival, that attempts to depict the battle mainly from the ordinary (German) soldier's point of view. I've read somewhere that the original screenplay had to be toned down, which doesn't surprise me at all - if they tried to really show what the battle was like, it would have been almost impossible to make I'm sure. Even so, there are still some moments that are difficult to watch - this was made before Private Ryan but is possibly even harder-hitting in places. Just one word of caution - don't buy the dubbed 'English' version, it's pretty awful and spoils the film - try to get a copy in the original (German) version with English subtitles, it's far more powerful. You may need to buy a Region 1 DVD of the film in this case, as I did.

Stalingrad should be ranked right up there among the top World War II movies ever made. I can't say it's the best but it certainly is a great film and is under rated in its importance. What the movie is about is simple. It shows the German soldiers war on the Russian front, in Stalingrad from the point of view of a few German soldiers. It should not be viewed with the intentions of seeing the battle of Stalingrad or any strategic view of the Russian Front. This is from the eyes of a select few. You won't see the broad picture. Just like the average soldier doesn't see it. He knows and sees the part of the war that is directly around him. That is his world and that is how you will see it. It's often very graphic and brutally honest in its depictions. The cold and the feeling of hopelessness were excellently portrayed. You could just feel it. I did have one major problem with the German English barrier. I watched this on DVD. It was dubbed in English and I chose to also play it with English subtitles. I started to see that frequently the subtitles and the dubbing were different. That was annoying hearing one thing and reading different words for the same lines. I soon shut off the subtitles and started watching it over again from the beginning without the subtitles. I have no idea if the subtitles or the dubbing was the more accurate translation. I'm very glad I viewed this film and I'm sure that I will watch it a second time. Highly recommended. A must see for the historian and war movie fan.

Many of the criticisms levied at this film by other IMDb users take issue with conventional aspects of film-making - and I agree with them. It's true, Stalingrad does offer little that's new in terms of character, screenplay, visuals. And yes, any war buffs coming to this film in hope of some depiction of the battle's broader strategic context will be disappointed. To those people I recommend Antony Beevor's highly readable book, 'Stalingrad'. Viewed from a straightforward standpoint, Stalingrad is a pretty compelling war film that is nevertheless a league below US celluloid depictions of the battlefield: when it comes to depicting the fate of the 'poor bloody infantry', the second half of Full Metal Jacket, the first quarter-hour of Saving Private Ryan, or much of Black Hawk Down is infinitely superior. And yes, its ending is something of a wimp-out. Consider, however, that many people compare Stalingrad to FMJ, Ryan, or BHD at all, however unfavourably, and you see something of the revolution of Vilsmaier's flick. What he achieves is a pretty conventional squad-level war flick - ABOUT THE WEHRMACHT. A film about the German armed forces in WWII which invites sympathy. This, don't underestimate it, is important. At no stage is this a Nazi-apologist film. In fact, its over-willingness to be Nazi-condemnatory is what makes much of its dialogue and scenes weak. But no matter whether you find it tame or not, you do eject this one from the VHS or DVD tray thinking "poor b--tards". As the Holocaust, through the global ceremony of Holocaust Day on January 27 and through the power of global films like Spielberg's Schindler's List, becomes transported away from a specific time and place into a world parable of evil, so we are able to reappraise the role of the German soldier as victim. What attitude you take to this question is your affair - Vilsmaier's film is important for daring to raise it in the first place.

'The Finest Ambition of the Solider is to prevent war from ever happening, but it has always been out of their hands. It is in the hands of men whom they do not even know.' Saving Private Ryan, Das Boots, Thin Red Line, When We Were soldiers…. then there is Stalingrad! A perfect masterpiece. The acting and filming in this movie is top notch! I also think the music in this movie is great and fits the movie perfectly. Stalingrad holds no punches back in depicting the siege of Stalingrad by the German Army… and ultimately their defeat in the cold bitter Russian winter! As far as a 'war' movie goes, I would give honors to Stalingrad over Saving Private Ryan and even Liberal Hollywood's take on the siege of Stalingrad (from the Soviet point of view): Enemy At The Gates. Saving Private Ryan, though a great film, just doesn't bring the horror of war down to the common foot solider as accurately as Stalingrad. Enemy At The Gates is simply an awful movie. Of course with such a movie will come a lot of political overtones. I'll make just a few comments here. One, I am very thankful the allies won World War II. Secondly, when I think of 'Nazis', I think of Hitler and all of his cronies and all the evil villains who executed the millions of innocent Jews in the concentration camps. I believe a majority of Americans believe this way. The German soldiers fighting on the front(s) were simply following orders and bravely fought in this War as did the American, Russians and British soldiers… and to each was their own personal Hell. The sad fact about Stalingrad, in watching this movie, is that all of this really happened. Men froze and starve to death… millions of people were killed and generations were lost. Basically, this is a good War movie that ends with no heroism and accurately portrays the horror of war for the common man regardless of witch uniform they are wearing. 'Freedom is just a word until you lose it.'

I can believe this movie will be a serious disappointment for a person, who is used to and likes to watch Hollywood war movies. Four reasons: 1. It's made in a world, where movie makers tries to have some personality. If you think 'When We Were Soldiers'... well, there are hundreds of directors who you can imagine making a similar war movie with personality and values of a hamburger. 2. Screenplay has a different structure. There's no shocking opening scene like in 'Saving Private Ryan'. This movie starts slowly in a very nice place and ends slowly in a very bad place, without hope or feeling that the characters have achieved something by their heroic actions. 3. It is first a movie about lost causes in the world of war, and only secondly a war movie which takes place in Stalingrad. 4. War scenes portray the horror, insecurity and confusion of a battle, instead of how cool, heroic and exciting fighting looks like. In this sense, this movie is closer to reality than most of the war movies you will ever see. 'Thin Red Line' also had similar "I would probably crap in my pants in that situation"-feeling. Stalingrad, whether you think it as a movie or a war movie has so many good things in it... like honesty. Even the ordinary German soldiers were dreaming about farms in Russia when they were advancing. What a disappointment they must have had in Stalingrad! If you like to watch war movies, meaning also other war movies than When We Were Soldiers or Saving Private Ryan, you should see this one. (9/10)