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.
182 Reviews
The filmmakers of "Enemy at the Gates" should have seen this.
bergma15@msu.edu24 February 2006
The film is about the battle of Stalingrad. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it was the worst battle in the Second World War. Over 1 million people died in the course of the battle. This is the only film that I've seen that seems to have actually captured how bad things were in the war between Russia and Germany. What I really liked about it is that the two ideologies (Nazism and Communism) were nowhere in the film. Unlike most American films, the Germans are not seen as blood thirsty murderers, but what the average German foot soldier was, a person.
The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.
Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike "Enemy at the Gates" the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II.
The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.
Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike "Enemy at the Gates" the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II.
Hell Frozen Over
Mitch-3830 January 2001
Absorbing, horrendous descent into the nightmare of combat. Focusing on the invading German army (into the Soviet Union) in the second world war, the impact no less awful. These men are enlisted men, who had no more control over their government's criminal actions, than US troops had over their government during the Vietnam War. Or any government sending their military in any war, for that matter. To assume they could belies a certain lack of acquaintance or experience, with the structure of a military organization.
These men are trapped like rats, and survival at any cost, to preserve ones life is paramount. Politics and lofty notions fly out the window, as the veneer of civilized behavior is stripped off.
STALINGRAD is gripping, grotesque, poignant and pitiful in its graphic presentation of war time experience. Highly recommended.
These men are trapped like rats, and survival at any cost, to preserve ones life is paramount. Politics and lofty notions fly out the window, as the veneer of civilized behavior is stripped off.
STALINGRAD is gripping, grotesque, poignant and pitiful in its graphic presentation of war time experience. Highly recommended.
A harrowing tale of young men being betrayed and slaughtered
countryway_488649 January 2006
This film affected me on many emotional levels. I saw the results of the war in East and West Berlin in 1957. While in Berlin I lived with a girl my age who lost her father in the battle for Stalingrad. Her tales made my hair stand on end as he was one of the many young Germans send there to fight as a punishment for errors,(read that as failure to win), in other battle zones.
It isn't well understood, but the Eastern Front was used as a threat and as a punishment by Hitler. Even Schindler in the film Schindler's List used that threat on the train station in order to get his bookkeeper released from the death train.
There are two scenes that will haunt be for the rest of my life:
The scene where Lt. Hans von Witzland, played by a very young and splendid Thomas Kretschmann, and the Russian actress Dana Vavrova who plays Irina.
That scene is so emotionally charged that it left both actors physically shaking. I can't imagine having to repeat that scene more than once. To have to hold that raw, totally exposed feeling/expression and body language while lights are adjusted and a different angle is used must have been physically and mentally exhausting for these two brilliant actors. They perform a brutal Dance Macabre that is both horrific and fascinating.
This scene is no longer about an enemy and the one who has been conquered. It is about a young man desperate to find one moment of humanity on an endless nightmare and a young woman who hates him and herself and yet can not resolve her situation. That he is a German and she is Russian is not as important as that they are both souls in torment with no way out.
The human agony of that scene is superior to anything I have seen in over 60 years of watching movies.
The other is the final scene between Dominique Horwitz and Kretschmann as Fritz and Hans clinging to each other overwhelmed and miniaturized by the vast Russian winter.
That final scene reminds me of Napoleon's death march from Moscow in 1812. The results were to same. No enemy can come marching into Russia and live to march out again.
I began watching this film firmly committed to cheering the Russians and hating the Germans.
By the end I was crying for them all.
That is the message of this fine film. War is a waste...a waste of human lives, of property, and of moral and religious focus.
This is a classic anti-war film not unlike All Quiet on the Western Front or What Price Glory.
It isn't well understood, but the Eastern Front was used as a threat and as a punishment by Hitler. Even Schindler in the film Schindler's List used that threat on the train station in order to get his bookkeeper released from the death train.
There are two scenes that will haunt be for the rest of my life:
The scene where Lt. Hans von Witzland, played by a very young and splendid Thomas Kretschmann, and the Russian actress Dana Vavrova who plays Irina.
That scene is so emotionally charged that it left both actors physically shaking. I can't imagine having to repeat that scene more than once. To have to hold that raw, totally exposed feeling/expression and body language while lights are adjusted and a different angle is used must have been physically and mentally exhausting for these two brilliant actors. They perform a brutal Dance Macabre that is both horrific and fascinating.
This scene is no longer about an enemy and the one who has been conquered. It is about a young man desperate to find one moment of humanity on an endless nightmare and a young woman who hates him and herself and yet can not resolve her situation. That he is a German and she is Russian is not as important as that they are both souls in torment with no way out.
The human agony of that scene is superior to anything I have seen in over 60 years of watching movies.
The other is the final scene between Dominique Horwitz and Kretschmann as Fritz and Hans clinging to each other overwhelmed and miniaturized by the vast Russian winter.
That final scene reminds me of Napoleon's death march from Moscow in 1812. The results were to same. No enemy can come marching into Russia and live to march out again.
I began watching this film firmly committed to cheering the Russians and hating the Germans.
By the end I was crying for them all.
That is the message of this fine film. War is a waste...a waste of human lives, of property, and of moral and religious focus.
This is a classic anti-war film not unlike All Quiet on the Western Front or What Price Glory.
Top Ten war movie in my list
xaggurat25 January 2005
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)
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)
I knew a man who was there
bbusch22 May 2003
I had the honour of knowing a German soldier who fought in the streets of Stalingrad and was one of the few (about 9,000) who got out, on an aircraft. He was the father of one of my boyhood schoolmates, a quiet decent man, his face would light up in a kind of animation whenever the subject was raised, but he wouldn't talk about it to us boys.
He's gone now, poor old fellow. He spent the last years of his life living in a Caravan/humpy on the foot of a mountain in Southern Australia, estranged from his wife, who never forgave him after she discovered he'd fathered a child to another woman during WW2 and was secretly supporting the child financially.
A kinder, more honorable man would be hard to find. I think this film succeeds in depicting the decency of the people on both sides of the conflict as well as the obligatory sadism of the Officer who ordered the firing squad shootings of Russian civilians.
It's pity the Germans still feel no WW2 Film is complete unless traces of the 'evil Nazi' are included. On the other hand it was not lost on myself at least, that the prayer scene, in which the German Army chaplain made a long point of the fact that each Wehrmacht soldier had 'God with us' imprinted under his belt buckle. While the Godless communists enemy did not.
Maybe this is a sly inclusion by the filmaker showing how European peasantry has been propagandised to hate and kill the enemy for centuries.
Stalingrad was the largest battle ever fought in human history. The Germans lost 300,000 frontline combat troops and later, the second World War. This is the best Film ever made on the subject. It is fitting that it was done by Germans.
Bernhard
He's gone now, poor old fellow. He spent the last years of his life living in a Caravan/humpy on the foot of a mountain in Southern Australia, estranged from his wife, who never forgave him after she discovered he'd fathered a child to another woman during WW2 and was secretly supporting the child financially.
A kinder, more honorable man would be hard to find. I think this film succeeds in depicting the decency of the people on both sides of the conflict as well as the obligatory sadism of the Officer who ordered the firing squad shootings of Russian civilians.
It's pity the Germans still feel no WW2 Film is complete unless traces of the 'evil Nazi' are included. On the other hand it was not lost on myself at least, that the prayer scene, in which the German Army chaplain made a long point of the fact that each Wehrmacht soldier had 'God with us' imprinted under his belt buckle. While the Godless communists enemy did not.
Maybe this is a sly inclusion by the filmaker showing how European peasantry has been propagandised to hate and kill the enemy for centuries.
Stalingrad was the largest battle ever fought in human history. The Germans lost 300,000 frontline combat troops and later, the second World War. This is the best Film ever made on the subject. It is fitting that it was done by Germans.
Bernhard
Compelling In Parts But Let Down By Clichéd And Contrived Elements
Theo Robertson23 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The battle of Stalingrad is beyond human imagination . It is an event in history that sends a shiver down the spine . Nazi Germany lost one quarter of its total strength on the Eastern front during this one battle . That's if you can even call it a battle , the number of forces involved meant it was more of campaign . And if the scale of the battle wasn't mind numbing enough it's the conditions and ferocity of the fighting that sticks in the mind . As a young schoolboy in the 1970s I vividly remember reading accounts " that every brick in every house in every street was bitterly fought over " . Even in the 21st century with the invasion of Iraq military experts have to emphasise that the capture of Baghdad wouldn't resemble Stalingrad in anyway . In short if you want to visualize war at its most cruel and brutal pick up a history book on Stalingrad . You almost feel sorry for the bad guys . I did say " almost"
This is a slight problem with this cinematic account of the battle . STALINGRAD is a very well regarded German film and being a German film it feels the need to make a very clear line between good Germans who are portrayed as the ones who are conscripted in to the Wermacht who do all the fighting and dying in pursuit of Nazi ideals and bad Germans who blindly follow Nazi genocidal laws and never serve in the front line. Even the classic DAS BOOT suffers from this viewpoint . The only film that doesn't portray villains as Nazis is the Anglo German production CROSS OF IRON which has a Prussian aristocrat as the bad German . Would it not be a nice change that Germans murdering innocent people weren't necessarily goose stepping Nazis ? The truth is there were plenty of ordinary Wermacht units implicated in crimes against humanity on the Eastern front in the early 1940s
For the majority of the film director Joseph Vilsmaier and screenwriter Jurgen Buscher tend to ignore politics and concentrate on making an anti-war film on a grand epic scale . They succeed too as a battalion of 400 men is quickly drained to a troop of 62 men carrying out full frontal assaults against desperate Soviet defenders . The film makers also make a very important point that Nazi Germany was a Christian nation and include a scene where a padre addresses a congregation emphasising that the Germans have God on their side where as the Bolsheviks are Godless atheists . This scene alone meant I could easily forgive the slight clichés that creep in to the film
Slight clichés are easily forgiven . Unfortunately the more the film goes on the more clichés come firing at the audience quicker than a Soviet counter-attack . What become even more unforgivable is the introduction of very contrived plotting as in " Someone must do something unlikely and even more unlikely a character who they already know appears to move the plot forward " A number of people who dislike this movie have pointed out the unlikely coincidences of characters who appeared in the film earlier appear and they're right . It's not enough to destroy the film but a battle on the scale of Stalingrad to have people bumping in to each other the way it happens here strains all credibility . Likewise the final third of the film is rather static where people have existentialist discussions and feels more like a German New Wave film from Rainer Werner Fassbinder
In short STALINGRAD is a film I always wanted to see since it was released almost 20 years ago . It was worth the wait . It's a sweeping epic war film and is much praised for the battle sequences . It isn't flawless and unfortunately the flaws are very easy to spot and take issue with . As it stands CROSS OF IRON still remains the best film featuring the carnage and hell of fighting on the Eastern front
This is a slight problem with this cinematic account of the battle . STALINGRAD is a very well regarded German film and being a German film it feels the need to make a very clear line between good Germans who are portrayed as the ones who are conscripted in to the Wermacht who do all the fighting and dying in pursuit of Nazi ideals and bad Germans who blindly follow Nazi genocidal laws and never serve in the front line. Even the classic DAS BOOT suffers from this viewpoint . The only film that doesn't portray villains as Nazis is the Anglo German production CROSS OF IRON which has a Prussian aristocrat as the bad German . Would it not be a nice change that Germans murdering innocent people weren't necessarily goose stepping Nazis ? The truth is there were plenty of ordinary Wermacht units implicated in crimes against humanity on the Eastern front in the early 1940s
For the majority of the film director Joseph Vilsmaier and screenwriter Jurgen Buscher tend to ignore politics and concentrate on making an anti-war film on a grand epic scale . They succeed too as a battalion of 400 men is quickly drained to a troop of 62 men carrying out full frontal assaults against desperate Soviet defenders . The film makers also make a very important point that Nazi Germany was a Christian nation and include a scene where a padre addresses a congregation emphasising that the Germans have God on their side where as the Bolsheviks are Godless atheists . This scene alone meant I could easily forgive the slight clichés that creep in to the film
Slight clichés are easily forgiven . Unfortunately the more the film goes on the more clichés come firing at the audience quicker than a Soviet counter-attack . What become even more unforgivable is the introduction of very contrived plotting as in " Someone must do something unlikely and even more unlikely a character who they already know appears to move the plot forward " A number of people who dislike this movie have pointed out the unlikely coincidences of characters who appeared in the film earlier appear and they're right . It's not enough to destroy the film but a battle on the scale of Stalingrad to have people bumping in to each other the way it happens here strains all credibility . Likewise the final third of the film is rather static where people have existentialist discussions and feels more like a German New Wave film from Rainer Werner Fassbinder
In short STALINGRAD is a film I always wanted to see since it was released almost 20 years ago . It was worth the wait . It's a sweeping epic war film and is much praised for the battle sequences . It isn't flawless and unfortunately the flaws are very easy to spot and take issue with . As it stands CROSS OF IRON still remains the best film featuring the carnage and hell of fighting on the Eastern front
Brutal, heartbreaking, & realistic portrayal of the bloodiest battle ever fought.
ItemCo1652727 March 2003
I first saw Stalingrad about 7 years ago and to this day it still hits me as hard as the first time I watched it. It is the story of Leutnant von Witzland, Unteroffizier Rohleder, Obergefreiter Reiser, and Oberschütze Müller and their desperate fight for survival in the deadliest battle in the history of war: STALINGRAD. The film starts off in Italy in the summer of 1942 where their platoon is resting following heavy combat in North Africa. Soon they are on a train heading for the Eastern Front. The men of 1st Platoon laugh and joke, play games, write letters home, and enjoy the view of western Russia as they head for the Ukraine. This is as light-hearted as the film gets. What follows is a very accurate and graphic portrayal of the infamous battle. It pulls no punches. It's main antagonist is Hauptmann Haller, a field police officer who thinks nothing of allowing his men to abuse and murder Russian and Ukrainian prisoners. At one point he lines up a group of civilians and has them shot saying they were partisans.
The combat scenes themselves are even more horrific. In one scene a German soldier hits a Russian over the head with a shovel as the Russian is trying to kill Ltn. von Witzland. In another scene a German soldier is cut in half by a Russian tank shell. There are many other gruesome scenes in the film, but they are necessary. The world has to see what happened in the Battle of Stalingrad. To see its brutality. To have its heart broken at the horrendous waste of the soldiers' lives. Over 2 million people lost there lives. Only 6000 of Field Marshal Paulus' 250,000-man 6th Army survived the battle. As with the battle, the film itself does not have a happy ending. And that's the way it should be. And as you watch this film, remember one thing, not every German soldier who fought in the war was a criminal. They were mostly decent people caught up in events well beyond their control.
The combat scenes themselves are even more horrific. In one scene a German soldier hits a Russian over the head with a shovel as the Russian is trying to kill Ltn. von Witzland. In another scene a German soldier is cut in half by a Russian tank shell. There are many other gruesome scenes in the film, but they are necessary. The world has to see what happened in the Battle of Stalingrad. To see its brutality. To have its heart broken at the horrendous waste of the soldiers' lives. Over 2 million people lost there lives. Only 6000 of Field Marshal Paulus' 250,000-man 6th Army survived the battle. As with the battle, the film itself does not have a happy ending. And that's the way it should be. And as you watch this film, remember one thing, not every German soldier who fought in the war was a criminal. They were mostly decent people caught up in events well beyond their control.
Germans at War
gavin694218 April 2016
A depiction of the brutal battle of Stalingrad, the Third Reich's 'high water mark', as seen through the eyes of German officer Hans von Witzland (Thomas Kretschmann) and his battalion.
There is something historically and culturally significant about this film. One, as an American, history is very much taught in this country from an American point of view. That may not be a bad thing, but it leaves us with the impression that America won World War II. That is true in the general sense, but it was the Soviet Union that defeated Hitler. The Americans were much more involved with Japan. So to have films that focus on Russia during World War II is always good.
But two, it is interesting to see films like this come out of Germany. You walk a fine line. Obviously, you want to be proud of your country and part of that is being proud of military victories. But, at the same time, you don't want to praise the Nazi regime or suggest that what they did was right. How you promote the bravery of soldiers without endorsing their fight is tough, but this film seems to make a serious effort at doing so.
There is something historically and culturally significant about this film. One, as an American, history is very much taught in this country from an American point of view. That may not be a bad thing, but it leaves us with the impression that America won World War II. That is true in the general sense, but it was the Soviet Union that defeated Hitler. The Americans were much more involved with Japan. So to have films that focus on Russia during World War II is always good.
But two, it is interesting to see films like this come out of Germany. You walk a fine line. Obviously, you want to be proud of your country and part of that is being proud of military victories. But, at the same time, you don't want to praise the Nazi regime or suggest that what they did was right. How you promote the bravery of soldiers without endorsing their fight is tough, but this film seems to make a serious effort at doing so.
Very graphic and brutally honest. A must see.
ChuckStraub14 December 2004
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.
Good portrayal of a war time situation and battle but all around the movie doesn't have the greatest storytelling.
Boba_Fett113816 October 2006
This movie basically is a very well made production and gives a good impression of a war situation and its effects on those involved. It's always interesting to see the story from the 'other' side for a change. This movie concentrates on a group of German soldiers who after fighting in the North Africa campaign are send to Stalingrad, Russia, where one of the most notorious and bloodiest battles of WW II is being fought.
It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.
The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.
The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.
The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.
All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.
The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.
The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.
The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.
All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Glad I wasn't there!
tgs33312 November 2004
'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.'
An anti-war war movie, a bit protracted though
BeneCumb14 June 2013
For losers of a war or a battle, it is not customary to create something depicting their defeat, especially if this happened not so long time ago. E.g., Russians have had several defeats in the post WW II period - could you imagine them picturing this? With Stalingrad 1993, Germans have crudely shown the horrors and sufferings in one of the most severe battles in the WW II, without glorifying themselves and without scoffing at their enemy. On the other hand, Soviet Russia was no innocent victim, its treatment of own and neighboring people in the 1930ies was nasty and lethal as well, and Soviet (non-)activities were largely a reason why Hitler had courage to start this horrible war.
As for the movie, the events and background seem realistic (probably shot in Finland), most of actors performing Russians speak decent Russian, and leading men are catchy to follow (primarily Dominique Horwitz as Obergefreiter Fritz Reiser, Thomas Kretschmann as Leutnant Hans Von Witzland, Jochen Nickel as Unteroffizier Manfred "Rollo" Rohleder). However, some of the scenes could have been shortened, and direct battle scenes comprise only a small part of the movie. The ending is predictable, although the scenes leading to it are well directed. It seems that the creators wanted to combine profound human aspect with concrete battle, but for this task, the movie was too short - a miniseries could have been more appropriate. Nevertheless, if you like war movies based on real events, Stalingrad is worth watching.
As for the movie, the events and background seem realistic (probably shot in Finland), most of actors performing Russians speak decent Russian, and leading men are catchy to follow (primarily Dominique Horwitz as Obergefreiter Fritz Reiser, Thomas Kretschmann as Leutnant Hans Von Witzland, Jochen Nickel as Unteroffizier Manfred "Rollo" Rohleder). However, some of the scenes could have been shortened, and direct battle scenes comprise only a small part of the movie. The ending is predictable, although the scenes leading to it are well directed. It seems that the creators wanted to combine profound human aspect with concrete battle, but for this task, the movie was too short - a miniseries could have been more appropriate. Nevertheless, if you like war movies based on real events, Stalingrad is worth watching.
Deeply Flawed
wmarkley9 December 2005
With all of its technical flash, the 1993 "Stalingrad" movie is very disappointing. Before watching it I had read non-fiction accounts of the Stalingrad campaign and had seen a lot of documentary footage and photographs of the actual battle and its participants. I don't think that any movie can really succeed in depicting the titanic struggle and suffering that actually occurred, but I still wanted to see what a relatively recent German movie production would be like. While there are a few good elements of this movie, overall it is a failure. To me the worst aspect is that it includes substantial anachronisms, and also some very contrived and clichéd elements, most glaringly in some encounters between a German officer and a Soviet woman.
Also there are some ideological elements in the movie which result in very distorted perceptions, including what amounts to a caricature of a German chaplain, some overblown class-warfare messages, and problematic depictions of "good" vs. "bad" Germans. Certainly the German Armed Forces of World War II included men who were able to maintain some decency throughout the war, and others who did very bad things, but the attempts in the movie to show this contrast are very simplistic and childish. I give "Stalingrad" credit in the sense that it doesn't completely portray German troops in the simple demonic quality which is the stereotype that many people now have, yet the movie includes stereotypes of its own, such as an almost too-good-to-be-true infantryman who has attitudes more akin to the 1990's than the 1940's, and two completely evil infantrymen and a rear-echelon officer.
Some recent movies such as "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" are frequently praised for their "authenticity" in depicting graphic scenes of combat, yet these same movies are deeply flawed and distorted in their depictions of the attitudes, values and behaviors of 1940's soldiers and civilians. "Stalingrad" and "S.P.R" have major and minor characters who lack the unselfconscious stoicism that was common among regular people during the World War II period. Certainly soldiers throughout history have been notorious for their frequent grumbling and occasional cynicism, yet the self-absorbed, talky and touchy-feely characters in both of these movies are something else, and are much more prevalent in our world of today than they were in the 1940's. While many people these days like to denigrate war movies from the 40's and 50's which present more patriotic messages and aren't as graphic about combat, many of those earlier movies such as "Battleground" are much more accurate in their depictions of typical soldiers' attitudes, and they are often successful in showing the horrible effects of war in more indirect ways.
One well-done part of "Stalingrad" is a battle between German infantry and Soviet tanks, which does a reasonable job of capturing some of the horror and confusion in such combat.
"Stalingrad" does a poor job though of showing the common look of the frontline soldier. Part of this might be due to the difficulty in finding thin, haggard-looking extras in our pampered and well-fed America and western Europe of today. Also, too many of the German troops in the movie don't wear their uniforms and equipment properly, and don't display the professional bearing that was common in the German Wehrmacht even during the years of German defeat. If you want to get a good idea of how the actual German troops looked, I recommend the following documentaries which contain footage of the Stalingrad campaign: "The World at War," "War of the Century" and "Russia's War." Also the books "Operation Barbarossa in Photographs" by Paul Carell, "Stalingrad" by Geoffrey Jukes and "Stalingrad" by Paul Carell contain a great many helpful photos. Books written about the battle by Antony Beevor and William Craig are recommended also, and the latter one is especially good about the common soldiers and civilians on both sides.
Relatively recent movies which, in my opinion, are much better than "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" in depicting attitudes and characters of persons during World War II, and the general feel, look, horror and grittiness of that war, are "Der Untergang" ("The Downfall") and "Talvisota" ("The Winter War"). While "A Bridge Too Far" and "The Longest Day" cover events on the Western Front rather than in the East, they are also excellent war movies, and stick very close to factual accounts. The latter two movies lack some of the grit that is more prevalent in more recent films, but they compensate for that lack with their other strengths, including truthfulness.
Also there are some ideological elements in the movie which result in very distorted perceptions, including what amounts to a caricature of a German chaplain, some overblown class-warfare messages, and problematic depictions of "good" vs. "bad" Germans. Certainly the German Armed Forces of World War II included men who were able to maintain some decency throughout the war, and others who did very bad things, but the attempts in the movie to show this contrast are very simplistic and childish. I give "Stalingrad" credit in the sense that it doesn't completely portray German troops in the simple demonic quality which is the stereotype that many people now have, yet the movie includes stereotypes of its own, such as an almost too-good-to-be-true infantryman who has attitudes more akin to the 1990's than the 1940's, and two completely evil infantrymen and a rear-echelon officer.
Some recent movies such as "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" are frequently praised for their "authenticity" in depicting graphic scenes of combat, yet these same movies are deeply flawed and distorted in their depictions of the attitudes, values and behaviors of 1940's soldiers and civilians. "Stalingrad" and "S.P.R" have major and minor characters who lack the unselfconscious stoicism that was common among regular people during the World War II period. Certainly soldiers throughout history have been notorious for their frequent grumbling and occasional cynicism, yet the self-absorbed, talky and touchy-feely characters in both of these movies are something else, and are much more prevalent in our world of today than they were in the 1940's. While many people these days like to denigrate war movies from the 40's and 50's which present more patriotic messages and aren't as graphic about combat, many of those earlier movies such as "Battleground" are much more accurate in their depictions of typical soldiers' attitudes, and they are often successful in showing the horrible effects of war in more indirect ways.
One well-done part of "Stalingrad" is a battle between German infantry and Soviet tanks, which does a reasonable job of capturing some of the horror and confusion in such combat.
"Stalingrad" does a poor job though of showing the common look of the frontline soldier. Part of this might be due to the difficulty in finding thin, haggard-looking extras in our pampered and well-fed America and western Europe of today. Also, too many of the German troops in the movie don't wear their uniforms and equipment properly, and don't display the professional bearing that was common in the German Wehrmacht even during the years of German defeat. If you want to get a good idea of how the actual German troops looked, I recommend the following documentaries which contain footage of the Stalingrad campaign: "The World at War," "War of the Century" and "Russia's War." Also the books "Operation Barbarossa in Photographs" by Paul Carell, "Stalingrad" by Geoffrey Jukes and "Stalingrad" by Paul Carell contain a great many helpful photos. Books written about the battle by Antony Beevor and William Craig are recommended also, and the latter one is especially good about the common soldiers and civilians on both sides.
Relatively recent movies which, in my opinion, are much better than "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" in depicting attitudes and characters of persons during World War II, and the general feel, look, horror and grittiness of that war, are "Der Untergang" ("The Downfall") and "Talvisota" ("The Winter War"). While "A Bridge Too Far" and "The Longest Day" cover events on the Western Front rather than in the East, they are also excellent war movies, and stick very close to factual accounts. The latter two movies lack some of the grit that is more prevalent in more recent films, but they compensate for that lack with their other strengths, including truthfulness.
“If you start thinking, you’ll go mad”
Tatiana_G29 November 2008
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.
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.
One of the historically most accurate war films ever made
bernhard-1824 August 2006
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".
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".
90'S VERSION OF 08/15, BUT WORTH A VIEW
J. Steed3 September 1999
Well-meant attempt to depict the events concerning the battle of Stalingrad, though the individuals Vilsmaier concentrates on, remain - due to his direction - too far away from the viewer to have him/her really involved and the result is that the drama of the war is never really felt. Thus the film's last and symbolic shot is devoid of a deeper meaning, Thè anti-war film based on the Stalingrad event - as Vilsmaier has clearly given himself as task - is never established. An anti-war film it may be, but "die Brücke" by Bernhard Wicki still has far more impact. It also noteworthy that the film concentrates on the German soldiers only and hardly shows anything on the Russian side.
Moreover as far as the political side is concerned the film never surpasses the level of the 08/15 films by Paul May: it is simple in its division between the politically "good" and "bad" soldier, finding the latter in the higher ranks only, while the lower and lowest in rank are basically decent people; the soldier is just another victim of the regime. Compare this, if you have ever the opportunity, to what 6 German ex-soldiers tell about their experiences at the Russian front in the documentary "Mein Krieg" by Harriet Eder and Thomas Kufus (q.v.). I certainly do not want to suggest that Vilsmaier excuses the war (or worse), but he does not succeed in incorporating the socio-political situation, if he had ever the intention to do so..
There are surely impressive scenes (short truce in the plant; attack of Russian tanks, shooting of Russian civilians e.g.) and the battle scenes ar extremely well choreographed; the cinematography is sometimes stunning. But on the minus side: the cast is never more than average and the music is heavy handed.
In short: despite elementary shortcomings, certainly worth a view.
Moreover as far as the political side is concerned the film never surpasses the level of the 08/15 films by Paul May: it is simple in its division between the politically "good" and "bad" soldier, finding the latter in the higher ranks only, while the lower and lowest in rank are basically decent people; the soldier is just another victim of the regime. Compare this, if you have ever the opportunity, to what 6 German ex-soldiers tell about their experiences at the Russian front in the documentary "Mein Krieg" by Harriet Eder and Thomas Kufus (q.v.). I certainly do not want to suggest that Vilsmaier excuses the war (or worse), but he does not succeed in incorporating the socio-political situation, if he had ever the intention to do so..
There are surely impressive scenes (short truce in the plant; attack of Russian tanks, shooting of Russian civilians e.g.) and the battle scenes ar extremely well choreographed; the cinematography is sometimes stunning. But on the minus side: the cast is never more than average and the music is heavy handed.
In short: despite elementary shortcomings, certainly worth a view.
Not the best, but definitely has merit
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews14 April 2008
I haven't watched many WWII films where we follow the Germans
there are obvious reasons why such are not as often made as ones centered on Allied forces. This takes place where the title suggests, and therefore has some points that I've not seen in other features. The real goods of this almost all lie in the details
which is not to say that the production values are anything short of amazing. The war scenes aren't bad, but they don't engage the viewer as much as others, they don't create the same amount of tension or an idea of what the situation was like for real, to the extent found elsewhere(although I will admit that I could be somewhat influenced by watching this so close to Saving Private Ryan). There's no Hollywood, as such, herein, but there are one or two "coincidences". The writing tends to be pretty good. The psychology isn't bad, and seems accurate. This doesn't particularly downplay any aspect of war(and does include a thing or two that aforementioned Spielberg piece did not), without anything ever being gratuitous. There is no celebration of violence(or anything else), and you are not going to get any warm, fuzzy feeling from a viewing of this. The fact that everyone speaks the actual language(not just German, also Russian) lends this a lot of credibility. The pacing could definitely use work, and the direction could be considerably more effective. The realism does have a noticeable hole or two, but it's also spot-on in places. The acting is mostly a positive aspect
the only performer I recognized was Thomas Kretschman, and he does much better in his native tongue than in American, more convincing. I recommend this to any fan of war-movies, and find the seldom used backdrop and the information found within it to be commendable. 7/10
An epic drama that impresses
raymond-152 July 2001
There can be no real victors in war if we value human life at all. That so many German and Russian boys should die in the snow-bound wilderness around Stalingrad is a tragedy beyond comprehension. The camera crew did a great job in bringing to the screen the vastness of Russia with soldiers camouflaged in white struggling on the point of death across frozen landscapes. Far from home and missing their loved ones the German soldiers are depicted as rough diamonds with kind hearts sharing their last crust of bread with starving Russian children. The over-all German plan is to take certain cities important in the flow of oil and supply of food to the Russian enemy, but their plans are thwarted when the Russian armies encircle them. The close fighting is well filmed with lots of explosions, flames and shattered bodies among fallen masonry. I liked particularly the contrast of the opening scenes in sunny Porto Cervo (where the Germans are celebrating their recent victories) with the tragic scenes which followed when calamity overtakes them.I thought too that the three struggling figures exhausted in defeat symbolised the horrific loss of human life and the futility of war. While none of the actors shone above the others, their characterisations were adequate enough though I got somewhat confused with such a large cast and all the same uniforms. The lasting impression is not with individual performances but with the over-all mood of this tragic event captured superbly under expert direction. One soldier says to another:"This will give us the Iron Cross" The reply:"Yes...it will look good on your coffin!"
A True German WWII Movie Trying to Say Many Things Without Success
gangzhou-7028717 October 2022
I watched this movie today, October 17, 2022, nearly 30 years after its release on YouTube because I wished to understand the German perspective, as told by the producers' lens, of how this particular historic battle affected German soldiers at a personal level.
1) "Stalingrad" Is Too Sentimental Without Necessary Battle Scenes to Back It Up.
War is a brutal experience. No war is peaceful. Hence, when "Stalingrad" tries to portray the humans' sentimental side for the good, there should be sufficient factual backup for such emotional portrayal. Given the fact that the WWII generation has almost died off, there is little comparison at a personal level, at least in my existing knowledge, between what the movie is trying to portray and what I know as a fact of the true German experience at the battle scene when it comes to how German soldiers interreacted with their Soviet counterparts at Stalingrad and, off the battle scenes, with the local civilians during the battle. For instance, the movie gives a scene of a short truce in order for the Soviet side to pick up its wounded soldiers from the battle ground. My question is: Did that ever truly happen? In addition, there are some vivid scenes of German soldiers trying to protect a young Russian boy from being shot by a firing squad, of course without success. In the intense battle scenes of Stalingrad, could that ever have occurred? I kept asking myself those questions again and again during the movie. What truly impresses me is the plot where three German soldiers were trying to escape back to their fatherland by pretending to be wounded soldiers. That plot is believable because, as happened throughout human history, soldiers, too, wanted to live on, instead of dying without a productive purpose.
2) German War Movies Need Not Be Apologetic for Germany's Role in WWII
War movies are a reproduction of past battles from the producer's perspective, which may be told in less than perfect tones about what truly happened. However, a lesser version of true human experience, even when told from the loser's perspective, need not spell justice for one side or the other. Viewers know the historic truth already. The producer's role is to go beyond an artistic representation, and to provide a balanced understanding of the war, particularly when it comes to human sufferings shared by both sides. In and by doing that, German war movies about WWII need not be apologetic if their objective is to give a lifelike version of German soldiers' true experience, both positive and negative. "Stalingrad" steps beyond that line by saying too much, through body language or actual actor lines as to how Germany is still sorry about its role in WWII. The past is past. P. S. As I recall, Berlin, which I visited for the first time in May of 2018, still features a Soviet victory moment with an actual T-34 tank as part of it. Why would Germany still keep such a Soviet monument at the site? Watching "Stalingrad", you would understand why.
3) "Stalingrad" Is Worth Watching at Least Once to Understand Where Germany Stands Today.
The ongoing Russian-Ukraine war, or President Putin's "special military operation", provides a better understanding of the mentality of today's Germany in terms of its view of itself in WWII versus what role it should be playing today on the international scene. Germany under its current chancellor Scholtz almost makes me pity the German people for never having grown up from their collective past inherited from Hitler's Germany. In spite of its vital interests being hurt so badly - so much so that German citizens today are asked to wash "only four parts of their body" during their daily shower - the Scholtz government follows the United States' lead like little puppy without its own thinking mind. That reality is almost an extension of the make-believe German mentality portrayed by the move "Stalingrad" 30 years down the line. It is time to grow up, Germany. You deserve better.
1) "Stalingrad" Is Too Sentimental Without Necessary Battle Scenes to Back It Up.
War is a brutal experience. No war is peaceful. Hence, when "Stalingrad" tries to portray the humans' sentimental side for the good, there should be sufficient factual backup for such emotional portrayal. Given the fact that the WWII generation has almost died off, there is little comparison at a personal level, at least in my existing knowledge, between what the movie is trying to portray and what I know as a fact of the true German experience at the battle scene when it comes to how German soldiers interreacted with their Soviet counterparts at Stalingrad and, off the battle scenes, with the local civilians during the battle. For instance, the movie gives a scene of a short truce in order for the Soviet side to pick up its wounded soldiers from the battle ground. My question is: Did that ever truly happen? In addition, there are some vivid scenes of German soldiers trying to protect a young Russian boy from being shot by a firing squad, of course without success. In the intense battle scenes of Stalingrad, could that ever have occurred? I kept asking myself those questions again and again during the movie. What truly impresses me is the plot where three German soldiers were trying to escape back to their fatherland by pretending to be wounded soldiers. That plot is believable because, as happened throughout human history, soldiers, too, wanted to live on, instead of dying without a productive purpose.
2) German War Movies Need Not Be Apologetic for Germany's Role in WWII
War movies are a reproduction of past battles from the producer's perspective, which may be told in less than perfect tones about what truly happened. However, a lesser version of true human experience, even when told from the loser's perspective, need not spell justice for one side or the other. Viewers know the historic truth already. The producer's role is to go beyond an artistic representation, and to provide a balanced understanding of the war, particularly when it comes to human sufferings shared by both sides. In and by doing that, German war movies about WWII need not be apologetic if their objective is to give a lifelike version of German soldiers' true experience, both positive and negative. "Stalingrad" steps beyond that line by saying too much, through body language or actual actor lines as to how Germany is still sorry about its role in WWII. The past is past. P. S. As I recall, Berlin, which I visited for the first time in May of 2018, still features a Soviet victory moment with an actual T-34 tank as part of it. Why would Germany still keep such a Soviet monument at the site? Watching "Stalingrad", you would understand why.
3) "Stalingrad" Is Worth Watching at Least Once to Understand Where Germany Stands Today.
The ongoing Russian-Ukraine war, or President Putin's "special military operation", provides a better understanding of the mentality of today's Germany in terms of its view of itself in WWII versus what role it should be playing today on the international scene. Germany under its current chancellor Scholtz almost makes me pity the German people for never having grown up from their collective past inherited from Hitler's Germany. In spite of its vital interests being hurt so badly - so much so that German citizens today are asked to wash "only four parts of their body" during their daily shower - the Scholtz government follows the United States' lead like little puppy without its own thinking mind. That reality is almost an extension of the make-believe German mentality portrayed by the move "Stalingrad" 30 years down the line. It is time to grow up, Germany. You deserve better.
'...62 men left out of 400': Realities from the German Stance
gradyharp26 June 2010
STALINGRAD , released in 1993, remains one of the most brutally honest depictions of war on film. A brief history of the facts behind this film have been well stated: 'The Battle of Stalingrad was a major battle of World War II in which Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in southwestern Russia. It took place between 17 July 1942 and 2 February 1943, and is often cited as the turning point of the war in Europe. The German offensive to take Stalingrad, the battle inside the city and the Soviet counter-offensive--which eventually trapped and destroyed the German 6th Army and other Axis forces around the city--was the first substantial German land defeat of the war. The battle involved more participants than any other on the Eastern Front, and was marked by its brutality and disregard for military and civilian casualties by both sides. It was amongst the bloodiest in the history of warfare, with the upper estimates of combined casualties coming to nearly two million.' The horror of this battle as written by Jürgen Büscher, Christoph Fromm, Johannes Heide, and director Joseph Vilsmaier manages to allow us to see the 'other side' of the German forces, those not committed to the Nazi hunger for world domination, but instead were simply men serving their required time in the army, hoping to return to their families.
The film opens with a prelude: German troops of the 6th Army are languishing in Italy after their successful mission in North Africa. They are soon assigned to attack a port in Russia - a place called Stalingrad - and off they go to what is perceived to be another quick victory. The unit is directed by Lt. Hans von Witzland (Thomas Kretschmann, in a role that should have won him every award possible, so fine is his performance): he is a man who appears more human than soldier and indeed when his troop arrives in Russian territory he is appalled by the treatment of Russian POWs by German officers, a response that places him in a negative light with the Nazis. But Witzland is assigned to take a Russian strong hold with the close help of his group of fellow soldiers (played with extraordinary humanity by Dominique Horwitz, Sebastian Rudolph, Oliver Broumis et al). For a moment in time they are successful heroes but their commitment to the war is rapidly and fully eroded by the slaughter around them and the orders from the heinous Nazi officers to treat the Russians with less than dignity. They are threatened with death by firing squad for their humanity in attempting to give aid to the Russians being constantly attacked and only released form their prisoner status when the war appears to be aimed toward loss. There are many very tender moments between the 6th army and the Russians trapped by the siege of Stalingrad and as the bitter winter sets in the battle-weary soldiers are dying, committing suicide or attempting to escape and find their way back home. The over two hour study of the cruelty of war ends with a solemn statement, both emotionally and visually and the Battle of Stalingrad, a victory of the Russians, shows the defeat of the minds (and lives) of the Germans.
The film is brave in its commitment to address the fact that the universal 'German image' of World War II is a negative one. This film focuses on individual ideals and the scarring that war, on both sides, leaves on the soldiers and people who survive it. Highly recommended.
Grady Harp
The film opens with a prelude: German troops of the 6th Army are languishing in Italy after their successful mission in North Africa. They are soon assigned to attack a port in Russia - a place called Stalingrad - and off they go to what is perceived to be another quick victory. The unit is directed by Lt. Hans von Witzland (Thomas Kretschmann, in a role that should have won him every award possible, so fine is his performance): he is a man who appears more human than soldier and indeed when his troop arrives in Russian territory he is appalled by the treatment of Russian POWs by German officers, a response that places him in a negative light with the Nazis. But Witzland is assigned to take a Russian strong hold with the close help of his group of fellow soldiers (played with extraordinary humanity by Dominique Horwitz, Sebastian Rudolph, Oliver Broumis et al). For a moment in time they are successful heroes but their commitment to the war is rapidly and fully eroded by the slaughter around them and the orders from the heinous Nazi officers to treat the Russians with less than dignity. They are threatened with death by firing squad for their humanity in attempting to give aid to the Russians being constantly attacked and only released form their prisoner status when the war appears to be aimed toward loss. There are many very tender moments between the 6th army and the Russians trapped by the siege of Stalingrad and as the bitter winter sets in the battle-weary soldiers are dying, committing suicide or attempting to escape and find their way back home. The over two hour study of the cruelty of war ends with a solemn statement, both emotionally and visually and the Battle of Stalingrad, a victory of the Russians, shows the defeat of the minds (and lives) of the Germans.
The film is brave in its commitment to address the fact that the universal 'German image' of World War II is a negative one. This film focuses on individual ideals and the scarring that war, on both sides, leaves on the soldiers and people who survive it. Highly recommended.
Grady Harp
Good Germans in one of the worst battles of WW II
stamper14 January 2015
This film used to be one of my favorites as a German teenager and re-watching it after 15 years was almost painful to some degree.
The film now appears a reaction to stereotypical characterizations of Germans in US films, where they are all inherently evil. Unfortunately the film goes completely overboard with there being way too many good Germans. To make matters worse, the "bad Germans" are mere caricatures, which seem to have been pulled straight out of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Such a shame to be so disappointed as I had been really looking forward to seeing this again. Admittedly this is a very juvenile attempt at history and depicting Germans a human rather than evil. As one German reviewer rightly concluded, the film does feel like it is playing down fascism and the Nazism.
Down from 9 out of 10 to 6 out of 10 Definitely will not be buying the DVD after seeing it again.
The film now appears a reaction to stereotypical characterizations of Germans in US films, where they are all inherently evil. Unfortunately the film goes completely overboard with there being way too many good Germans. To make matters worse, the "bad Germans" are mere caricatures, which seem to have been pulled straight out of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Such a shame to be so disappointed as I had been really looking forward to seeing this again. Admittedly this is a very juvenile attempt at history and depicting Germans a human rather than evil. As one German reviewer rightly concluded, the film does feel like it is playing down fascism and the Nazism.
Down from 9 out of 10 to 6 out of 10 Definitely will not be buying the DVD after seeing it again.
Die Beste (The Best)
dusan-2231 August 2009
One of the best war films I have ever seen, if not the best. It is very hard to talk about such films as it is very difficult to point at any film mistake made. The "problem" is as it looks too real and by that drags you in to the ruins of Stalingrad and make you suffer for both sides. This is for the reason that this film unlike the most of Hollywood films doesn't glorify the war or the heroism of the main characters. Instead of that, the film makes them heroes only for being human and by that is anti-war as much as the reason can offer. Extremely convincing war scenes and so impressive acting, most of the scenes look like isolated theater pieces. Also, German army is played by Germans which is so convincing as well. The film is produced and realized by Germans where you can see their love for details to perfection. This is the reason why "Stalingrad" is one of the films I can watch million times and never feel dull. I watched the film with my father who fought in WWII and the first thing he said was: "This is like real, this is how the war against Germans looked like". This is the place you can see how did it look to be a soldier in the worst nightmare of warfare in human history and turning point of WWII: Stalingrad.
Non-glorification of war
richard614 May 2011
During the second world war, one city on the banks of the Volga become the symbol of adversary for many nations ensnared in conflict. For the Nazi supremacy the City of Stalingrad represented the doctrines of Bolshevism. For the Soviet Union, Stalingrad represented national loyalty, patriotism and the defence of the whole country. Subsequently, for many generations, the battle of Stalingrad carries an extensive mark of lasting psychological suffering. Most notable, the German nation. Its a striking occurrence that since Germany was unified in 1989, the first moderate budget war film produced centred on this battle in 1942.
The film-makers have skilfully chronologically crafted and edited the film in several ways. To begin with, the scenes of the Warmacht relaxing in North West Italy following combat in North Africa, which resulted in them pushing back the British, Australian, New Zealand and Free-French armies. This method allows the audience a sense of calm opposing expectations before the troops are relocated to Southern Russia. During relocation, we witness the feeling of confidence instilled into the minds of the Warmacht and their future plans for Russia, once conquered. However, on arrival In Stalingrad the first images witnessed are of severely wounded and unresponsive soldiers (the ones they have been sent to replace), Russian prisoners of war being brutally mistreated and close combat soon follows. You can scene the atmosphere and their thoughts, what fate awaits them? "Stalingrad" succeeds in a series of scenes containing humanity-combat-brutality-morality-back to combat. The majority of these different scenes, binded together story-wise, accomplish a purpose and question the obligation of the war. Yet, some scenes are over dramatised and amiably over-tender, especially the third and final act.
The director, Joseph Vilsmaier resourcefully adopts a hand-held camera method for many of the combat scenes. This method helps heighten the impending danger. Also, many combat injuries are graphical in detail. Both methods that are now so common in many modern Hollywood war films of the past 15 years, post "Saving Private Ryan". The film makes the subtle conformity that is was the harsh Russian winter, lack of supplies and the deficient judgement of their high-ranking officers that defeated them.
It appears the film makers are indicatively expressing the story of the war, not just the battle of Stalingrad, in this film. The rise and fall of the Warmacht, from victory to defeat, and eventually the spirit of the German nation. A principle that sub-consciously last to this day. Not that this should be misinterpreted as passing judgement on the film-makers or the German nationals, it is just a slender observation.
Overall, "Stalingrad" is not a documentary of the titles battle, it is film, and a very virtuous one, made for dramatic presentation. The acting is good from all the cast involved, especially, Thomas Kretschmann and Dominique Horwitz as Warmacht soldiers. The production design is realistic and visionary decisive. The combat scenes express savagery and the film contains a image of sombre quality focusing on sacrifices and human interaction of a sensitive issue.
The film-makers have skilfully chronologically crafted and edited the film in several ways. To begin with, the scenes of the Warmacht relaxing in North West Italy following combat in North Africa, which resulted in them pushing back the British, Australian, New Zealand and Free-French armies. This method allows the audience a sense of calm opposing expectations before the troops are relocated to Southern Russia. During relocation, we witness the feeling of confidence instilled into the minds of the Warmacht and their future plans for Russia, once conquered. However, on arrival In Stalingrad the first images witnessed are of severely wounded and unresponsive soldiers (the ones they have been sent to replace), Russian prisoners of war being brutally mistreated and close combat soon follows. You can scene the atmosphere and their thoughts, what fate awaits them? "Stalingrad" succeeds in a series of scenes containing humanity-combat-brutality-morality-back to combat. The majority of these different scenes, binded together story-wise, accomplish a purpose and question the obligation of the war. Yet, some scenes are over dramatised and amiably over-tender, especially the third and final act.
The director, Joseph Vilsmaier resourcefully adopts a hand-held camera method for many of the combat scenes. This method helps heighten the impending danger. Also, many combat injuries are graphical in detail. Both methods that are now so common in many modern Hollywood war films of the past 15 years, post "Saving Private Ryan". The film makes the subtle conformity that is was the harsh Russian winter, lack of supplies and the deficient judgement of their high-ranking officers that defeated them.
It appears the film makers are indicatively expressing the story of the war, not just the battle of Stalingrad, in this film. The rise and fall of the Warmacht, from victory to defeat, and eventually the spirit of the German nation. A principle that sub-consciously last to this day. Not that this should be misinterpreted as passing judgement on the film-makers or the German nationals, it is just a slender observation.
Overall, "Stalingrad" is not a documentary of the titles battle, it is film, and a very virtuous one, made for dramatic presentation. The acting is good from all the cast involved, especially, Thomas Kretschmann and Dominique Horwitz as Warmacht soldiers. The production design is realistic and visionary decisive. The combat scenes express savagery and the film contains a image of sombre quality focusing on sacrifices and human interaction of a sensitive issue.
Doesn't stand the passing of time
CosmoFelani6 October 2013
I have wanted to watch this film for many years but only got around to it last week. Many reviewers have highlighted the fact that this is not a Hollywood treatment, which can be a positive. But for anyone who has been exposed to the realism of Saving Private Ryan and similar movies, the absence of Hollywood production values and standards of acting and realism make Stalingrad hard to take seriously. It is highly theatrical, in the sense that the acting is over the top and the motivations and actions of most of the characters do not line up with anything that I'd call realistic, in terms of what I have read about the battle itself or based on what one would consider believable human behavior. Very simplistic in all respects. Probably would have been quite OK in 1993, when it was released, but by today's standards, not something I would recommend.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
