|
|
|
Évaluation du client type
Partagez votre opinion avec les autres clients
|
|
|
Le commentaire favorable le plus utile
Le commentaire critique le plus utile
2 internautes sur 2 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Unconventional, anti-war epic will stay with you....
Film director Sam Peckinpah's career was winding down in 1977 when he shocked international critics with his primitive, unconventional anti-war epic "Cross of Iron." To this day, critics and authors alike don't really no what to make of this ferocious film. At times inspired, at others pretentious, Peckinpah's "Cross of Iron" is kind of the black sheep of classic cinema...
Publié le Juil 4 2003 par Chris K. Wilson
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 5 étoiles, 4 étoiles |
 |
Not exactly a classic, but better than most WW2 films
I would rate it 3.5 stars, because it's better than average as compared to other ww2 films however there are a few small problems I have with this movie. First off, the opening minutes contain scenes of implied homosexulaity between the german soldiers. I'm not sure the accuracy of this, although no doubt it probably did happen, but seems to be a fairly important point...
Publié le Jui 21 2004 par R
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 3 étoiles, 2 étoiles, 1 étoiles |
|
|
2 internautes sur 2 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Unconventional, anti-war epic will stay with you...., Juil 4 2003
Film director Sam Peckinpah's career was winding down in 1977 when he shocked international critics with his primitive, unconventional anti-war epic "Cross of Iron." To this day, critics and authors alike don't really no what to make of this ferocious film. At times inspired, at others pretentious, Peckinpah's "Cross of Iron" is kind of the black sheep of classic cinema war flicks - it is difficult to like, but equally deserving of respect.I suppose the legend behind "Cross of Iron" has been told many times. Immediately after viewing this film, Orson Welles fired off a letter to Peckinpah calling it "the greatest anti-war film ever made." I agree with Welles' stance. One can never really relax while watching the muddy carnage of "Cross of Iron." Explosions constantly rattle the sets, dialogue is difficult to hear due to the cries of dying men in the background. Peckinpah's trademark rapid-fire editing, perhaps used a bit too much in this film (if not many of his post-"Wild Bunch" films), will leave viewers shellshocked. Battlefield distractions reign supreme. As a viewer, we are living with these filthy soldiers in the rat and lice infested bunkers. In Peckinpah's "Cross of Iron" universe, told from the viewpoint of German soliders on the Russian front in 1943, there is no glory in war. Cynical men are trying to survive poor leadership, dying German philosophies and the constant thunder of Russain bombs and bullets. James Coburn gives the finest performance of his career as veteran sergeant Steiner. He leads his weary platoon from one skirmish to the next, knowing all is for a lost cause. He rebels against the German leadership, shown in the form of two opposite commanders - one seeking glory (Maximilian Schell), the other survival (James Mason). Due to politics and resentment, Coburn's men find themselves forgotten behind enemy lines. Left for dead, they have to fight their way back to the German front before being completely wiped out by advancing Russian soldiers. What they encounter along the way is unexpected, harsh and eventually tragic. "Cross of Iron" is a superior war film to such classics as "Platoon," "The Big Red One" and "Saving Private Ryan" simply because there is never a moment of true heroism during it's 130-minute running time. Flowery ideals for such bloodshed never become clear. Most importantly, there is never an instant when viewers can relax with the smug comfort that war has purpose. In "Cross of Iron," human life is worth a wooden nickel. There are no heroes. And most terrifying of all, the war which takes place in Peckinpah's unforgettable film is not a war anyone would ever want to be a part of.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Do We Watch War Movies?, Janv. 5 2008
Some people want blood and gore...an government sponsered slasher movie.
But for the rest of us....
Take a common rock. A common rock. Put it in the right environment. It glows like a light. It flows like water. It reaches the outer edges of our atmosphere. It even conducts electricity.
Take a normal person. A common teacher. A farmer. The cable guy. Put them in the proper environment....all of a sudden life loses all of its superficiality.... Why do institutions create propaganda that compels us to kill one another? Why do others try to gain status in that structure? Who are we really? A mere reflection of that institution/ government? What is really important to us? How do you preserve your identity in hell? What are our duties in a declining culture, a dying age.
This is a war movie! And these German soldiers are in hell! And survival is all so slim against a truely overwhelming and powerful and crushing enemy. No Panzerfaust here-- a mere mine on the tracks will have to do...
But there is, even here, a second front, a lust for status in an ugly dying world, that is willing to kill absolutely anyone for its goals.....
Who will survive and how long? And given the reality of the truths they have found, what should the survivors do?
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
True..while not criterion quality it still shines, Sep 22 2006
While the movie quality is not criterion quality, it is the uncut european version in english and while it could have been worthwhile if Peckinpaugh is still alive today to give commentary on his movies, the film historian gives an excellent commentary on the making and the backround to this excellent movie.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Henstooth redeems itself, but is not 'Criterion' quality., Avril 29 2006
After much anticipation, I received my DVD copy of Henstooth's
second DVD release of Sam Peckinpah-directed "Cross Of Iron."
This is well worth the wait.The 'Widescreen Special Edition' is superior in video quality
and presentation. Had Henstooth 'gone the extra-yard' and released an 'unrated'
version and remixed the sound-track in '5.1 surround-sound',
then "Cross Of Iron (Widescreen Special Edition) would be
worth its weight in gold.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peckinpah's last triumph, Juil 19 2004
Par Un client
Sam Peckinpah, in his 1977 effort "Cross of Iron", darred to look at the war throught German eyes. Thus becoming one of the handful of directors with the audacity to view the German soldiers as a humans, and not as faceless barbarians. Based upon a novel by Willi Heinrich, Cross of Iron is the tale of Steiner, and his troops fight for survival on the Taman peninsula in 1943. Thought it is not near the final stages of the war as many believe, the film depicts the turning of the tables in favor of the Soviets; after the losses at Stalingrad and Kursk. This gritty, unflinching and realistic portrail of combat on the eastern front, seems more stunning if you keep in mind the budget restraints. Authentic in almost every aspect, all the vehicles, weaponry and uniforms all flawless. The Wehrmacht soldiers are dirty and unreasted as they would be during uncessant battle, unlike many a war film which have the soldiers clean and proper. Also during filming, Soviet T-34 tanks acquired from the Czech Republic, were administered during a skirmish. At the time Peckinpah was addicted to coccain and was an alcoholic, yet through all the self-inflicted harm of his reckless life style, his directing capability remained unscathed. The Sam we know from the "Wild Bunch" and "Straw Dogs" is still here, with the slow-motion seens of carnage and his trademark "zooms". But aside from his usual hallmarks, he also give use a personal view of combat. Sam doesn't want to be a spectator, he wants to be a participant, and in doing so he lets us experience the noise, confusion and horror of the Russan front. The film though however great, is not without flaws. First off the casting is questionable, James Mason, David Warner and James Coburn seem somewhat out of place. Being either American of British they could have made a more conscious effort to sustain a fluent german accent. There also is some scenes, a lack of light, which can cause some confusion. Still Sam Peckinpah has left us with an enduring and powerful statement about war, honor, survival and friendship in a world gone mad.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Idiot: Simon Gurney, Juil 7 2004
Par Un client
I disagree entirely with what that idiot simon gurney said. I read the novel and have seen the film, and not only is it a faithful adaptation, but the few changes which are made only ameliorate the story. I find your comment on the quality of the action scenes offensive. Perhaps you could offer me an example of better ones in a war film. Maybe if you werent so ignorant to history, you could tell just how well done those scenes are, they convey perfecly the madness, and confusion of the desperate days of the Third Reich. I do not think it is proper for you to to critize a film which you yourself have yet to watch in its entirety. I hope others will not be fooled by your groundless comments, thus missing one of the few great war films.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not exactly a classic, but better than most WW2 films, Jui 21 2004
I would rate it 3.5 stars, because it's better than average as compared to other ww2 films however there are a few small problems I have with this movie. First off, the opening minutes contain scenes of implied homosexulaity between the german soldiers. I'm not sure the accuracy of this, although no doubt it probably did happen, but seems to be a fairly important point thoughout parts of this movie. If this is supposed to further convince the audience of the depraved nature of the soldiers, it works in that regard but it is quite obvious that they are depraved anyway and that added nothing to the storyline nor to the plot.The other problem I have is, although most of the battle scenes contain close to accurate german and russian weapons, the overhead bombing scenes contain shots of U.S. navy corsairs dropping bombs. These were probably stock footage taken from a navy film and look horribly out-of place here. But despite those two issues, most of the rest of the movie is good and portrays an accurate, interesting and engaging portrait of battle in the russian theatre during ww2. I especially liked the use of light as most of the battle scenes were shot as daytime attacks and that indeed was the way it happened on the russian front. The sneak attack at the bridge by Steiner's platoon was filmed and sequenced to show all of the moves by the attackers, leaving nothing hidden or off camera. Certainly an interesting way to portray this kind of sequence and it came out quite effectively. Sam Peckinpah uses the slow motion to good effect and has indeed changed the face of war films circa 1977. Every war movie that was released after this movie tends to show a more grimmer and graphic view of war and that is certainly how it should be done as there is nothing glorious or heroic about war. Those are the words used by the politicians that order people to fight each other to the death. Great casting, excellent camera work and a good story combined with music that adds a sense of innocence lost and horror to the subject, all ad up to not quite a classic but a very good depiction of ww2 battle action in the Russian theatre.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Runs circles around Saving Private Ryan. Great antiwar film., Mai 7 2004
I would argue that this is the best war movie around, followed closely by Peter Weir's Gallipoli.
Peckinpah is such a brilliant director, and so much more subtle than is immediately obvious.
By chosing Germans and Russians as protagonists, classical bad guys, the viewer does not really root for any side. He also chooses Crimea 1943 as the setting. Therefore we enter the film with very few preconceptions.
To add gravity to his message he does not use typical war music in his score; he mixes it with children's rhymes!
The soldiers on both sides are just soldiers, not particularly bad, not particularly good. They are rather portrayed as beeing trapped in a game played by the people behind the front. Most just try to survive, the only exception is the German front line commander who still clings to the, more decent, values of a bygone era.
Even the "bad guy" is not really a typical film "bad guy". He is weak and egotistic, he does not want to be at the front, he does not want this war. In the end sergeant Steiner ackowledges that
and gives him a chance to redeem himself ('Take this submachine-gun and win your iron cross like a man.').
Where Peckinpah's other films are hyperrealistic this one has a more dreamlike (nightmarish!) character. The Russian tanks have a quality of angels of vengeance, and the devastation after the battles are more reminiscent of Brueghel's visions of hell than of the "great day out for the lads" type vision we have from the usual Hollywood fare.
This is great action, but it has a very strong anti-war message. I think that people who only want to see a war movie will feel oddly disturbed after watching it. I think that is the reason for some negative reviews.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cross of Iron succumbs to Bottle of Booze, Janv. 9 2004
Increasingly erratic Sam Peckinpah had a reputation for being drunk on the set during in the 70s. Cross of Iron is highly uneven; at times professional and thrilling, other times just dull and pointless.
What made the Wild Bunch so compelling was the tension among the tightknit group of men who determined their own values, decided on their own actions. Peckinpah was at home in the lawless Western setting. However, WWII was much bigger than cowboys and Indians in every way, yet Cross of Iron simply settles down to western formulas of gunslingers shootin' and tootin', in this case on the Eastern frontier.
Coburn is good but hardly convincing as a German. Other men are a hodgepodge of British, German, and Yugoslavian actors and no organic chemistry develops among them.
This was sold as an anti-war movie but the very notion of such by Peckinpah is absurd.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dirty Harry -- in feldgrau., Janv. 2 2004
"Cross of Iron" is a bad movie, made with preconcieved notions that do not fit history or reality. It makes the double mistake of A) cramming an American-style character (the lone wolf anti-hero) into a German uniform and B) tacking the director's well-known appetite for blood and graphic violence to a silly antiwar message. The movie follows the conflict between an embittered and defiant combat soldier named Stiener (played by James Coburn) and his new CO, a glory-seeking martinet named Stransky (played by Maximillian Schell). From the git-go, the movie follows every stale antiwar convention in the book: the bitter, insubordinate sergeant with an unspoken love for his men vs. the bloodthirsty killer-officer who wants to win a medal and doesn't care how many men die in the process. We've seen this in numerous American war movies, but it never quite works in German unfiorm. This wasn't a democracy; discipline in the Wehrmacht, particularly during the period in questoon, was severe and the slightest defeatism or insubordination were ruthlessly punished. The scene, for example, where Stiener berates and threatens a replacement soldier who is a Party member would probably never have happened. By late 1943 even officers were being degraded and sent off to suicide-squad 'punishment battalions' for minor transgressions or seditious statements. In reality, a soldier like Stiener would have most likely been shot, sent to a military prison or killed off digging up land mines in a penal outfit. The "lone wolf" mentality was simply not tolerated in the German army of 1943 (in Sajer's "Forgotten Soldier" a lieutenant is demoted to corporal and sent to the punishment squad for losing his field telephone when he swam the 900-yard Don River...what would have happened to Stiener for mouthing off to the colonel?). Additionally, we have more sterotypes: the loveable but doomed men of Stiener's squad, including the "I have dead meat written all over me" teenage boy, the evil Party member, the cowardly lieutenant, the well-meaning but ultimately hapless senior officers (played by James Mason and David Warner) and the obligatory scene where we find out that the Russians are people too. Really, the film is very similar in structure to a Dirty Harry movie: the lone-wolf anti-hero who scorns medals and glory, the pencil-pushing politician/boss, and nice-guy dead-meat partner, the ultimate hollow victory....blah blah blah. "Cross of Iron" is undermined by the love of cruelty that Sam Peckinpah was rightly infamous for. Graphic violence certainly has its place in a war movie, but as usual, Peckinpah felt the need to cram the viewer nose-first into buckets of human gore. This cheapens the antiwar theme of the movie; viciousness is fine so long as it is committed by the hero, but dastardly if if perpetrated by the villain. Morally, the massage of the movie is unclear: Stiener does not avenge the death of the innocent young soldier by the Russian POW women, but later brutally kills his own lieutenant for shooting others of his squad. Then, when confronting Stransky, who actually gave the order by blackmailing the cowardly lieutenant, he does not kill him but gives him a chance to "show that Prussians can fight." Okay, Stiener is probably insane by the end of the film, but none of this made sense to me. In Peckinpah's mind, the trembling lieutenant deserves to die more than Stransky, because he's afraid and "just wants to go home" wheras Stransky, while evil, deserves to live because he is not a hypocrite: he is willing to kill and allow others to be killed for his Iron Cross, but is also willing to fight himself. Maybe Peckinpah's theme was that war is unfair. So it all balances out, I guess? I guess not. "Cross of Iron" is a chronically over-rated war movie that bludgeons the viewer with Americanized themes, graphic violence, and a hypocritical antiwar message, brought to you by a director who idolized violent men. As entertainment it is a matter of taste, but as historical fiction, it is nonsense.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ce produit
|
|
CDN$ 34.99 CDN$ 29.99
En stock
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Les clients qui ont vu cet article ont aussi vu
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Accueil Amazon
