In particular, if I'm a fan of Stalingrad, both the 1959 and 1993 films, do you think I'd enjoy this one? As an American who's seen tons of films set on the Western front and usually told from an American perspective, I'm interested to see German and Russian perspectives of the war. Thanks!
shareWell it's directed by Sam Peckinpah; even though he has no love for militarism & uses the "Kuban Bridgehead" battles as a metaphor for Vietnam (funny they never seem eager to use metaphors for the 'aftermath' of the war in Southeast Asia-but I digress...), this movie does not have any of the 'shame' & 'self consciousness' that German made war movies have; The landsers pay a high price but they kick some serious ass...so it's a pretty good & well acted action pic.
Filming in the former Yugoslavia is also an upside because there were plenty of World War II 'kit' from both Germany & Russian that was useable.
[deleted]
Not nearly as much as German made war movies are; I feel the items you mentioned before are valid but, like the Brecht quote at the start of the movie, are mostly lip service. And while Stransky the "prussian aristocrat" can't reload his MP40, Col. Brandt can & as a professional soldier, he puts on his helmet & 'steps up'...
shareI think what makes it different to any german movie (of the older or newer ones), is the attitude of Steiner.
When he talks the last time to Eva the nurse, its clear that he likes to be a soldier, and prefers to go back to the front instead of having more safe time in the hospital.
I thought it was a really cool film. The first half was pretty boring and slow, although it did introduce all the characters and let you understand them. And then the second half was full of action and intrigue, and was really great.
It's funny how stuff like Saving Private Ryan gets so hyped and everyone talks about it just because it's the big budget modern smash hit, but decades ago there were films like this which were arguably better. I thought it was better because it was doing the same thing as Private Ryan, telling a small-ish scale personal story. And it also has epic battles with tanks and trench warfare that is horrifying and frightening. They did it all, and they did it ages ago and with a lower budget. It was also less cheesy too, there is no sappy stuff and no God Bless 'Murica *beep* in this film. It's very real and very gritty.
There were a lot of good war films in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and this surely ranks amongst them, or deserves to. The crap we get today like Inglorious Basterds don't hold 1% of what a film like this does.
It's ironic that a 'Murican director can create an outstanding War Movie featuring the Germans as the protagonists...I don't know if it's more 'gritty' than SPR (given the differences in budget & the fact that poor Sam had substance abuse issues at the time the brilliant red blood & awesomely steady cam multiple angle shots.
shareYep but quite accurate because there were a lot of Germans who didn't support the war and knew Hitler was a nut, but usually they couldn't do much about it and better keep quiet about it. But I bet the experiences of troops on all sides shared lots of similar aspects.
I love war films, there's not much else that can compete with it in terms of emotional content. So many stories to be told, heroic, sad, frustrating, all kinds of stuff. SPR is one of my favourites too, although this one takes a special place in my mind now. And I hated Inglorious Basterds and this film reminded me of why that is.
It's probably the most realistic WW2 movie ever made by the west. It has some marvellous dialogue , action scenes and it's laced with plenty dry humour particularly from the James Coburn character. I think James Coburn is outstanding in his role and should have won an oscar. Overall this film is a great (albeit hollywood) insight into the second front, you will like it and it warrants repeated viewings.
share