L'avis des consommateurs

Stalingrad

not worth $45 but read on, Fév 17 2005

Par	J. Tymchyshyn (Calgary, Alberta Canada) - Voir tous mes commentaires

All in all, not worth the $45.00 asking price. The only reason why this DVD is priced that way is because war buffs (like me and you) would actually shell out this amount for this substandard quality product.

I would suggest a trip to your local big box electronics store to buy a cheapo DVD player (I spent $60 CND) that will play PAL and other region encoded DVD's. Then go to Amazon.UK and but this DVD for 5 pounds sterling (it will cost about $15 CND with shipping) At the same time you can buy Waterloo (not released in North America) and a better (but not much cheaper)version of Cross of Iron (1977). As well you can also order the excellent "Battlefield" series.

Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles   Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?

Signaler ce commentaire

About as much fun as being there., Jui 25 2004

Par	M. G Watson "Miles Watson" (Los Angeles) - Voir tous mes commentaires

Made by the same producers who gave us the seminal "Das Boot" I found it not in that league. The film is overlong, sterotypical, and spends too much time cramming postwar German conscience pangs down the viewer's throat. Moreover, the last hour or so reminds me of those interminable scenes from "Born on the Fourth of July" that seem more interested in punishing the audience than advancing the story. The battle for, and siege of, Stalingrad, was no doubt an experience of horror and misery beyond the power of words or images to describe it, but what I was hoping for here was a German version of "Saving Private Ryan" -- high on combat and confusion, short on moralizing. Unfortunately, all postwar German cinema is filtered through the same revisionist political opinions; this explains why all German war movies inevitably leave you with the feeling like you've been punched in the stomach or clubbed over the head. After about an hour I was hoisting my own flag of surrender; but the pummeling continued.

The scene at the airfield, for example, when the wounded men are trying desperately to get out on the last transports, is very hard to watch. From what I've read, however, it seems that discipline in the Stalingrad pocket was maintained until the bitter end, and the airfield scene may more resemble how the producers of the film wanted history to unfold rather than the actual way it did. In fact, the 90,000 men who lived to surrender (all but 5,000 of whom died in captivity) did so only when they were completely out of fuel, medicine, and ammunition, and had no other means to resist; but the producers, of course, permit to trace of pride in military accomplishment to enter into their film.

Most American movies and television portray the Germans in World War II as heel-clicking cartoon idiots ("I know nutink! Nutink!"). Most German war movies portray the Germans as either villainous martinet Nazis, or cynical disbelievers who carry arms only for Germany and not for Hitler or the Party. In fact, the record shows that the Germans overwhelmingly trusted Hitler and were deeply inspired by his ideology. It is this fact, and not what was done in the name of National Socialism, that seems to sit very hard in the modern German stomach.

Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles   Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?

Signaler ce commentaire

RUN FOR COVER, IT'S VILSMAIER AGAIN !!!!, Fév 9 2004

Par	K. O. Korthaus "K" (Europe) - Voir tous mes commentaires

Vilsmaier has proven to be pretty superficial and painfully politically correct with his latter work "Comedian Harmonists", a film that is also just a shadow of what it could have been.

Fact is that what we see in "Stalingrad" is technically well done considering it's year of release, but does NOT portray the average German soldier on the Eastern front.
What is sickening is the "self hatred" of the Landser shown in this film. Which soldier who is right in his mind admits that "he is a beast trampling on Russian soil" and then cintinues to fight ???? Even more, which soldier who is right in his mind admits that he hates the Nazi regime but continues to fight with all he has got ????
Fact is that many German soldiers simply belived that what they were fighting for was a just cause. Either blinded by propaganda, driven by feelings of revenge or simply naive obedience, no army would have continued to fight so viciously against incredible odds if it was full of "self haters".

Fact is that nobody wants to portray "heroes" of a story who obviously are fighting for a bad cause but do not realize it and therefore give it all they got.
Something the numerous Vietnam War films out there tried to do and ended up portraying Nam Vets as drug abusing psycho maniacs and mental wrecks, a trend heavily criticized by vet organizations.The same idiotic trend applies to German soldiers in GERMAN war flicks.
No , the "good guys" are so morally "good" that they preemptively admit their guilt, whereas the copy book nazi officers try one more time to win the "who looks like the Gestapo guy from Raiders of teh Lost Arch"-contest. Nuff said about cliche. The whole movie has a bitter taste to it, and that is the feeling of the German Social Democrat Party (Yes the one's who recently ruined the German economy and send a whole generation out on the dole)having written the script and Jossi Vilsmaier gets the one million Euro German Film Award (Deutscher Filmpreis).

When will someone pick up Guy Sajer's "Forgotten Soldier" and put in on the screen ???? That would be a movie that could leave u shattered without any illusions about war.

Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles   Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?

Signaler ce commentaire

Great Ending, Otherwise a Failure., Nov. 26 2002

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.

Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles   Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?

Signaler ce commentaire

So So, Fév 28 2002

Par	Tom Munro "tomfrombrunswick" (Melbourne, Victoria Australia) - Voir tous mes commentaires

The problem was that the German forces were poorly supplied and poorly supported by inadequately equipped Romanian armies. The Soviets were able to initially holt the German advance at Stalingrand and to then destroy the supporting armies trapping the German Sixth Army in a pocket. The Germans had no strategic reserve and had to withdraw their forces in the south leaving the sixth army to be captured. The German Sixth Army held on for some time in appalling conditions. Huge numbers of soldiers succumbed to starvation and to the cold.

This film is about the battle of Stalingrad. It tells the story from the point of view of a small number of soldiers trapped in the pocket.

The difficulty of making a film about the battle from the German point of view is what do you say. In years gone by the approach of Germans to their history was to suggest that the evils of the Nazi regime were limited to the SS and to organs of the ruling party. The army by comparison had performed in a brilliant way and maintained its honour. It is clear now days that in fact the German Army was involved in a range of brutal crimes against the general Russian population.

This film tries to sidestep the historical issues by concentrating on a group of soldiers at a low level. They are mildly rebellious and one of them loses a combat decoration for insubordination. The main characters are shown to have served with the Africa Korps and are transferred in the beginning of the film to the Russian front. The film charts the early optimism of the Stalingrad campaign and shows how after the Soviet winter offensive the position of the Germans grew more and more desperate.

The technique of the film maker is to suggest that the characters are basically decent. This is shown by their kindness towards Russian captives and civilians. The exist in a world in which the villains are the officer Corp and the leaders. The film is a tragedy in which the common soldiers try firstly to survive and then to escape. In the end they fail and become some of the countless casualties of battle.

The film is reasonably easy to watch but it fails really to deal with the subject in a reasonable way. It is not an action adventure film and it is not a very realistic film either.

Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles   Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?

Signaler ce commentaire

It could have been a lot better, Aoû 25 2000

Stalingrad does feature two decent combat sequences, one in the streets of the city itself and another that features a German platoon taking on Russian tanks. The street battles are fairly well choreographed and the snow battle against the tanks is excellently done, but I was surprised that I felt absolutely no sense of dread or tension. My heart never beat any faster while watching these scenes, very much unlike the infantry battle scenes featured in other anti-war films like Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, and Cross of Iron.

I think the main problem for that is because I didn't feel much for the characters. The problem of that aspect stems from both the screenwriting and the actors. During all too many scenes, the characters talk about what's wrong with their personal lives but all of it feels so stereotypical, it's just "heard it all before" kind of material. Of course, if delivered well, the material could feel fresh and innovative, but in this film, the actors fare no better than the script. They either have exaggerated scared looking expressions on their face or are so flat that they're boring.

It's not easy to categorize Stalingrad as what kind of war film it is. It's not particularly filled with a lot of action and combat sequences and it's not focused enough to be a character driven drama. Instead, it's just a poor and quite bad concoction of both.

Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles   Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?

Signaler ce commentaire

Où en sont mes commandes ?

• Suivez l'état d'avancement de vos commandes récentes
• Consultez et modifiez vos commandes dans "Votre compte"

Livraison et retours

• Lire nos tarifs & options de livraison
• Voir aussi comment nous retourner un article.

Besoin d'aide ?

• Vous avez oublié votre mot de passe ?
• Offrez des chèques-cadeaux
• Consultez nos pages d'aide