Stalingrad (1994)

Wonderful Movie

Don't listen to the negative reviews

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

This film gives the viewer a real slap of reality to what the soldiers on both sides went through. It's the best film available about this particular World War 2 battle. The film describes the moral of the German soldiers going into the battle, right to what the battle became and ended up to be at it's conclusion. It's a true account of the horrors that these soldiers were faced with and makes it abundantly clear to the viewer how much of a tragedy this whole situation really was. The film is shown from the German soldiers point of view, and shows the world exactly what Adolf Hitler did to his soldiers. This film makes it clear that a tragedy like this never should have been allowed to happen, and leaves the viewer saddened and disgusted that it really did happen. It leaves the viewer well aware of how inhumane, selfish, careless, and out of reality Adolf Hitler was by this time. This film has it all for a war movie. Awesome battle scenes and perfectly accurate to everything that took place in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Gritty WW2 drama.August 1942. A German combat engineer platoon is resting and recuperating in Italy after fighting in North Africa. Their Lieutenant was badly wounded in the fighting and a new, green, platoon commander, Lt Hans van Witzland, has just taken command. The platoon is soon to be attached to an elite unit and sent to a place synonymous with carnage and destruction on a massive scale. An operation that marked a turning point of World War 2. Stalingrad.A good depiction of the Battle of Stalingrad, told from the German perspective and on a small unit scale. Accurately depicts the callous disregard for human life, the terror, the sheer futility and, ultimately, foolhardiness of the Battle of Stalingrad. Quite novel too, a German telling of the battle, a battle that they suffered massive losses in, ultimately lost and, as a result, ultimately lost WW2.Not perfect. Character engagement is a bit limited - you don't feel as much for the individual soldiers as you should. There's a breathless feeling of action scene after action scene without any time to reflect, or get to know the characters better.

It's August 1942 and some German soldiers are resting in Porto Cervo, Italy after battling in North Africa. Lieutenant Hans von Witzland is their new by-the-book commander. The men are soon sent to the eastern front. It's a harrowing fight filled with horrors as they get surrounded by the Russians.It is a little bit hard to differentiate some of the men. Most have similar haircuts and some look very similar. It's also hard to differentiate by their voices since I don't understand German. I certainly don't recognize any of the actors. Once they get into the battle gears, it's nearly impossible.The battle sets are big. The rubble is impressive. However there is something old fashion about some of this. It doesn't have the feel of reality. There are too many wildly overacting "shocking" cliché moments. Everybody is yelling. The action is also not the best choreographed. It is still impressive that they actually stage them. Overall there are some good gritty bloody stuff going on but it gets undercut by a lot of clichés.

It's hard to deny this is an excellent film. Impeccable acting, direction and photography create a powerful depiction of war at its most miserable, futile and degrading.But I do think two mild criticisms need to be stated.First, a movie titled "Stalingrad" ought to present at least some vague overview of that historical battle. Aside from a few confusing references to the wider tactical situation, this move sticks to a worms-eye view. After a while, you even have to wonder whether the travails of this particular group of soldiers are at all typical of the huge German force involved at the time. The film works as drama, but if you call it simply "Stalingrad," I think you're promising a bit of historical context.Second, the pace is a tiny bit over-drawn. In the last third of the film, I reached an atrocity overload, where further horrors had progressively less impact. I began to disconnect from the characters, remaining only mildly curious as to what agonizingly tragic ways would be found to dispatch them. A stronger dramatic hook is needed, to pull us through the admitted hopelessness of this last segment.These are far from fatal flaws. It's more a question of balance. A bit more context, a slightly tighter narrative, and this could have been a masterpiece. As it is, I'd say it's a really excellent film, that does show - unforgettably - how war deadens the soul, even if it fails to kill the body.Still, I have to hope that other filmmakers will one day present a broader view of the battle of Stalingrad. There's still lots of historical ground that needs to be covered, if future generations are to understand the madness that created this nightmarish conflict.