Reviews

Based on the Novel by Boris Vasilyev and written/directed by acclaimed Russian film-maker Stanislav Rostotsky; The Dawns are Quiet Here is a quintessential Soviet war film (nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars in 1972). Produced in the 1970's, filmed in black and white, released amongst a fusilladed period of patriotic Soviet war films, The Dawns Are Quiet Here preserves kindred history with dignity and represents female soldiers of the Red Army with merit.

The Dawns is a small Anti-Aircraft company in the Quiet Karelia Soviet district during the Second World War. Browned-off with the Companies ill-disciplined, drunken, fraternising behaviour, the Soviet big-wheels replace this rag-tag company with an all-female company. Warrant Officer Vaskov struggles commanding these teenage-girls. The spirited all-female company; dance, dream, rebel, co-operate and tease like young girls do. Brazenly, in one scene take a fully-naked communal traditional Russian steam-sauna together (you did not get racy scenes like that in: The Longest Day!!) However, when these spirited girls are called into action they are no mitten floppers and seriously kick some Nazi ass with those ack-acks! In one scene mercilessly shooting a descending German fly-boy who has parachuted.

After one of the women discovers two German soldiers in the forest nearby, Vaskov leads five of his female group to go and capture them. Unfortunately this leads them to a larger than expected German Elite Paratrooper platoon. The six under-equipped Russians have to be quick-witted to survive and prevent them from making headway. Demonstratingly, Vaskov learns to respect them as soldiers.

The Dawns Here Are Quiet is a film of two halves. The first sets the scene and introduces us to the girls and their backstories. The backstories are surreal and very noticeably 1970's in cinematic tone(the only segments of the film that are filmed in colour). Bizarrely, it took me several dreamy flash-back scenes to realise they were individual characters back-stories. Disjoined as they were, If I had left the room and returned during one of these scene, I could be excused for thinking I was watching a different film altogether. The second act concerns their mission to hunt for the Hun. Rarely do we venture back to see the rest of the soldiers. There is a hammering shift in tone as the film remorselessly becomes a deadly pursuit in the marsh ridden Forest. The out-numbered girls, baptised under-fire display courage; the Sergeant displays consolation and many of the Elite German Paratroopers, as well as our young heroines are picked off one-by-one.

The Dawns Are Quiet Here is a sterling benevolent period soft-in-tone combat movie. Unsurprisingly, give the date of production it now feels that it belongs in a past era. I would recommend this authentic film to any dedicated Soviet film follower. Recommend it to anyone who is studying Russian history or The Eastern Front. And, recommend it to anyone possessing an interest of the Soviet Army during the Second World War. In addition, there is a fine frame-by-frame modern Russian television re-make of this film aired in 2014.

Unforgettably, The dawns Are Quiet Here pays merited honour, respect and admiration to the female fighters in the Red Army. In consolable, Many of these brave Russian GI Jane's were in their teens, early twenties or just beginning a family. Woefully, Countless numbers never returned home from the battle fields.

With special relevance against the current political backdrop of the Russian annexation of the Crimea, Haytarma is a compelling Ukrainian/Crimean produced short-film about the forcible deportation of the Crimean Tatars by Soviet authorities in 1944. Based on true events, the film stylishly portrays the story of a young ethnic Crimean Tatar test pilot (Sultan) and his efforts to protect his family from the unexpected brutal deportation.

The film starring-point is soon after Crimea liberation from three-years of destructive Nazi occupation. Sultan returns home to visit his relatives, coinciding with the Commissar of State Security decree to harshly punish by deportation, based on lavish collective collaboration charges, all Crimean Tatars to Central Asia. A race historically regarded as anti-Soviet by its Moscow crony masters.

A Ukrainian Crimean independent television channel produced and financed film. Given the pungent politically situation, the film aims a scattering of jingoism directed as a slap in the face to its Russian neighbours. Generally, Haytarma will be appreciated by eager historical nuts and cherished by nationalistic Ukrainians and ethnic Tatars. Yet, haply attention and interest will be recognised by mainstream international theatre audiences or DVD viewers. In short, Haytarma is a deeply moving patriotic film, visualising tales, revision told, lived and experienced by a population nations parents' and grandparents' to the present generation; yet a true-story not unappreciated by non-nationals of this geographical location. The film is historically genuine, historically accurate and admirably depicts the identity of the people and national characteristics. Even though, hefty questions still require riposte, and answers are still debated and disputed regarding the forcible deportation, carefully, though the film is neither over patriotic or aloft Russophobic.

Haytarma is a short film, ending unexpectedly with a loose conclusion. Yet, the story is griping and historical faultless. A crime against humanity? Or a state security requisite? Neither should distract against the quality of this short-film.

Night Will Fall is a potent documentary produced by the British Imperial War Museum covering the consequences of Nazi brutality towards Jews, Slavs and man, women or child considered inferior. As the Allied forces of Great Britain, United States and Canada advanced on the Western and Southern area of Germany, evidence of actual rumored, reported, alleged, speculated and widely believed accounts of state sponsored systematic murdered became distressingly real to the liberating soldiers.

The documentary (originally titled: German Concentration Camps factual Survey) contains recently restored actual footage of Nazi atrocities filmed in 1945 by Army camera crews on instructions by the British Psychological War Division. A plentiful amount of footage was gathered throughout the duration of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau and Auschwitz Concentration Camps. Originally, the footage was intended for a 1945 release to highlight the horrors hidden from public view, ignored by others, advocated by some the shocking truth discovered, which later became termed; The Holocaust.

Likewise the film makers intended not only to reveal the truth; yet, to edit, clarify and comment on what the world can learn from the reality of in-humanity still unimpaired and unforgettable to many. This restored footage is then inter-cut between interviews and melancholy testaments from British, American and Soviet soldiers, or camp survivor who witnessed the act of atrocities or its aftermath. Evoking as these testaments and interviews are, the uneasy commentary by The BBC War Correspondent Richard Dimbley who witnessed the Liberation of Bergen-Belsen is made even-more dismaying by the revelation that British Intelligence, skeptical of his statement, refrained the BBC from transmitting his broadcast to the public for a week after the April 1945 liberation in order to factually confirm the unbelievable horrors uncovered. Dismaying are also the incitable testaments from a Soviet perceptive of what was similarly, yet more eerie witnessed during the Red Armies liberation of the camps in Poland. Decorously, the documentary-makers have rightfully included a few captivating scenes of the Soviet liberation of Auschwitz. Granted, the images captured by Soviet film-crews are truly worthy of admiration. Unfortunately, because these scenes, combined with the commentary of Soviet War Correspondents, are so captivating, more should have been contained. Engaging, is also the explanation of film-makers and Producers Alfred Hitchcock and Sidney Bernstein and their involvement in the documentary.

Night Will Fall is a well presented, somber in commentary, extremely graphic in detail and at times may-be distressing to the viewer. Not only is the visual evidence of The Holocaust painfully revealing; yet, what is also represented is the advanced practices of reporting and commentary of War Correspondences combined with use of newly formed Army Camera Crews. Both methods intended for public exhibition; the original footage captured and the correspondence were innovating in 1945 for allowing the general public, authorised by the Government, with relatively minimal censoring, to bear witness in full overwhelming scenes of war crimes. Therefore, Night Will fall is clear in its focus, effective in its message and one of the best produced documentaries on The Holocaust.

With only moderate reference towards the battle of Stalingrad, the film confines one genuine notable incident during the early stage of the battle, the Red Armies defense of Pavlov's house. The film takes this skirmish between combating parties and infuses a fictional tale of a platoon of hardened soldiers turning all gooey as they protect a pretty young girl resident in this house. Unfortunately, given the international release intentions, the film makers have ignored to explain the importance of this now monumental landmark. Nevertheless, do acknowledge the significance of this brutal battle towards the defeat of Nazism. Most native Russians, Second World War Historians and/or students of the Battle of Stalingrad will know of Pavlov's house; yet, the general audience probably not. However, the cohesive fictional tale is simplistic and un-compounding with plausibly acting from the cast.

The movie reminds the world, rightly so, of the sacrifices of the Soviet nation during the Second World War. The dialogue emphasises the heroics of the soviet army, not the incompetence of the leaders, or the callousness motivations of the NKVD or political commissioners. Though not overly excessive, Stalingrad indulges patriotism and saccharine parades of Russian propaganda, past and present. Visionary, the film displays, swaggers, parades and flourishes in IMAX 3D special effects at every opportunity. The digital re-mastering is at many times extremely impressive, at others, unauthentic and phony. Cheerfully playful numerous computerised optical images are so far away from normal ranges of photography, certain scenes become bogusly ludicrous, especially in the first hour of the film. Also, lamentably the film lack cultural clarity and explanations of many of the German and Soviet actions, motivations and intentions. In addition, what possessed the film makers to choose the 2010 Pacific Tsunami as the point of narration, even more so, in the process of rescuing German citizens, reminding them of one of the most horrendous points of their history?

In spite of this, as the film progressed, Stalingrad" began to superlatively harness the phony computer graphics and proficiently separate and intermittently combine when necessary the over laden special effects with the out-playing tale. Therefore, the final third of the film is the most noteworthy and engagingly satisfying both recital and visionary. In addition, irrespective of minor optical computerised visionary and narrative blunders, the film constitutes numerous accuracies. Considerably, accuracies in direction, design, atmosphere and acting. Synopsized, Stalingrad" is compelling film; epic in scope, simple in story.

"71 Into the Fire" is a South Korean war action/drama based on an actual event during the inception of the 1950 North Korean invasion. The actual event is the engagement of a garrison of teenage male student-soldiers conscripted into the South Korean Army (Republic of Korea Army) to hold negligible defensive positions against the advancing 5th Division of the North Korean People's Army. Moreover, the defensive position is the students Middle school which lies en-route to the geographical strategic point of the Nakdong River, which was defended by the regular South Korean Army. Prior to the main theme of the movie, the opening 20-minutes set the bases of the following story in an introductory outburst of combat violence. The South Korean Army utilized students has ammunition runners during battles. One particular student Oh Jang-beom is later forced into becoming the leader of a platoon of 71 student-soldiers none simply than because he is one of only three of the students who has any experience in combat. In addition, the opening 20-minutes is a synopsis testimonial of the South Korean Armies precipitous retreat and the unfortunate predicament the frightened civilians population of South Korea found themselves in during the June invasion. One noteworthy inclusion pays attention to the famous the incident of the panicked South Korean military action of blowing up a bridge over the Han River which was a strategic defensive point, therefor trapping civilians to the mercy of the advancing North Koreans People's Army.

71 Into the Fire" pursues the now standard monotonous action/drama formula indicative of modern war films. There are the established close up hand held camera work, sharpened sound and colour, graphic combat fatalities and injuries and excessive visionary suffering. The pace of the film is balanced between conflict and benevolence. The acting is worthy of note keeping in contour with the story. 71 Into the Fire" makes prominent how one identical nation dating from a once remote period of great age surviving through interludes of independence and colonization now separated by a contrived political boundary can quickly become preeminent enemies divided by separate political ideologies. The students press democratic views and open opinions on leadership and battle formation, the North totalitarian domination. They were no longer a nation striving for nationalism; yet, communists and imperialist nationals divided by political and outside spheres of influence in another 20th century conflict of proxy resulting in an artificial political line dividing a country which as seen bloodshed and citizens continue to live in fear due to the actions of post-war consternation of other nations in proxy the name of politics.

For all its brutality and honorable intentions, by the end of the film I felt like this film pungently contrived the Korean war as Childs play and a bit of fun in the school yard, instead of the unimaginable horror witnessed by the population. It is obvious that the target audience is college aged South Koreans, reminding the assemblage of free citizens the price sacrificed by their grandparents. However, 71 Into the Fire is an invigorating, if not odd 60th anniversary tribute in honor of the many young soldiers who lost their lives during the Korean war, either regular, or in this insistence conscripted into defending their country in an avoidable conflict.

Produced in honour of the Red Army soldiers defending the USSR Western borders, Fortress of War recounts historical events combined with fictitious chronicles surrounding the June 1941 siege of the Brest Fortress in Sothern Belorussia against the invading Wehrmacht Army Group Centre forces in the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa.

This historical event is creatively accompanied by reminiscing narration from an orphaned 15-year old boy named Sasha Akimov. His narration ties together three main defensive stages led by real life Soviet war heroes centered on the resistance zones holding out against the protracted German siege. One location is headed by regiment commander Pyotr Gavrilov (Aleksandr Koshunov) another by the political commissar Yefim Fomin (Pavel Derevyanko) and lastly the head of the 9th frontier outpost, Andrey Mitrofanovich Kizhevatov (Andrey Merzlikin). All three have a different story to tell.

The film begins in an archetypal peaceful, though nervous per-war Belorussia in the summer of 1941. The heavy military presence contained in Brest, notably its historic 19th century fortress, explains the current political situation in the country following the Nazi conquest of Western Europe and the Politburo's rightful suspicions of Hitler next intended target. The focal characters are simultaneously introduced intermediately around Sasha's observational narration. The ensuing bombardment by Wehrmacht artillery and brutal assault comes with-out warning and is unleashed with fuming panic. The film thus continues along a direction of separate combat charges and defensive manoeuvres. These numerous skirmishes and scuffles between the two opposing armies are effective, edgy and well-staged. All the combat scenes are extremely effective and mastered by the production team using special effects and pyrotechnics to their full advantage. Because the film was produced by the Belarusfilm Company and in truth many of the cast and crew either lived or parents lived through the nightmare of the Wehrmacht invasion and resultant onslaught of the population, the accuracy to detail is visually authentic and at no point attempts to introvert away from the brutality faced by their ancestral soldiers or civilians during these troubled times. Yet, it does not go unnoticeable that this film contains blotches of patriotism and benevolence. The narration shifts between characters and their dilemmas in the three separate defensive locations at the beginning may appear to be unclear and confusing. Nevertheless, through skillful editing and directing as the film moves along at a steady peace the separate stories begin to coalesce into one and by no means are a distraction.

In summary, Fortress of War is a first-rate factual dramatised war movie which subjects its audience to the brave climatic struggle for survival and once again is another example of the evolving historical films from the Counties brutalised by ideology fuelled hatred and genocide that was the Second World War.

Set in the former French colony of Indochina, The Killing Fields centres on New York Times correspondent Sydney Schanberg, together with fellow journalistic aid and Cambodian national Dith Pran reporting on the military involvement of the United States in South East Asia in the early 1970s, Significantly, and the films main focal point, commentating on the latter stages of the Cambodian civil war. Due to the close proximity to Vietnam, and the United States wearisome involvement in the on-going communist and democratic conflicts in South East Asia, American foreign policy and public interest paid portentous attentiveness to the affairs of Cambodia.

The film is introduced at the time of America's covert aerial bombardment of Eastern Cambodian military targets following the communist guerrillas refusal to adhere to the 1973 Paris Peace Treaty. Zealous journalist Schanberg is eager to and hindered from reporting to the American public the trepidation caused by the American bombing. Succeeding this introduction, the film moves intensely to the 1975 evacuation of foreign nationals from Phnom Penh during the seizing of power by the totalitarian communists Kampuchea before focusing on the consequent killing fields caused through social transformation and the year-zero policy. The film's final act, following a left behind Pran's escape from a national forced labour camp, is the eventual reuniting of the two journalist friends. From one stand point, British director Ronald Joffe does not shy away from exposing the human atrocities caused by armed conflict. Yet, Joffe does not over-embellish the horrors that inhabitant's encounter in a war-torn Country. Particularly, The Killing Fields centrepiece is the acts of humanity both moral, relationship between close friends, and immoral, the killing of innocent civilians and possible to a lesser extent, the unintentional minor selfish betrayal of Schanberg towards Pran. Rather than taking a more dramatic conventional route, the films interesting aspect is to view from a pragmatic everyday journalistic media approach. Also, interestingly The Killing Fields is one of a handful of English language films to call attention the violence, economics and political ideologies of twentieth-century revolutions. The horrors of the Khmer Rouge and the story told in The killing Fields draws parallels with events in the 1930's collectivisation of Ukrainian agriculture, the Nazi Holocaust of World War II and Mao's Great Leap Forward in the 1950's, all of which resulted in systematic extermination.

Unfortunately I was unable to view the film in anamorphic widescreen 1.78:1 format. Although not as detailed, viewing the film in standard format did not eradicate the intensity of the film. As well as a story of friendship, The Killing Fields is an exceptional example of a former colonial countries dilemma when faced with dissimilar political ideologies following independence. Furthermore, the indescribable torment citizens' encounter in a brutal civil war and the mass suffering during the course of inhumane social experiments and the forced undemocratic reorganising of a society.

Andrzej Wajda's "Katyn" begins effectively with the visual illustration of startled Polish citizens fleeing the invading German army, only then to run into other citizens heading in the opposite direction escaping the Soviet forces invading from the east. Within this crowd of citizens, Wajda settles the focus on Anna travelling with her young daughter Nika . Anna's husband Andrzej is one the 25,000 Polish officers taken prisoner in 1939 by the Soviet Red Army. You begin to sense the fate that awaits these prisoners of war, not more so with the brutally important point of the Soviets refusal to sign the Geneva Convetion rules for the treatment of prisoners of war. The film then ventures along throughout three decades from the 1930's to the 1960's presenting life under German rule, then subsequently under post-war Soviet occupation. for all its good intentions, unfortunately, the final third of the film is "Katyn's" let down, becoming confusing and tedious with too many separate interwoven stories.

Expectedly, the film continuously reminds the world of the treatment of Polish prisoners of war and eventually the Katyn Forest massacres, not for once denying the NKVD responsibility and Soviet cover up. Also, emphasising for many years after the war had ended, the citizens through fear were denied a voice. To emphasising these points, the film, needlessly, splits into two. One focusing on the fate of the prisoners of war. The other into the repression of two/three generations of those connected with the officers slaughtered in Smolensk. The interwoven stories may appear to some as creative, to others irritating. The film, on reflection, would have been more powerful if solely concentrating on the former. Notable, demonstrated in the final 15 minutes of the film which are horrifically effective.

In addition, to an audience unfamiliar with modern Polish history or knowledge of Soviet war crimes may misleadingly except "Katyn" as it appears. Firstly; in 1945 Politicians, citizens and soldiers of Allied Poland, USSR, USA, Britain, were through manipulative fact or fictitious propaganda and the Noremburg trails unaware of the genuine fate of the polish officers taken prisoner in 1939. The truth remand hidden from foreign governments until 1972, even-more, the formal truth did not become widely published until after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Secondly, even though Katyn is from a Polish perspective, it would of provided more depth to the film if it attempted to mention why for their own act of revenge, own sovereignty and security against past reprisals, the Red Soviet authorities made the decision to murder the Polish armies high command.

Finally, "Katyn" is a well made film, if conceived as chronologically confusing at times. Furthermore, it is an honour to the many murder by the NKVD, not more so, the directors father.

"City of Life and Death" is one of the most powerful cinema experiences to depict both courageous and barbaric acts of humanity you may ever witness. Whether regarded as factual or fictionalised, this films weighs heavily and emotionally on the audience without obligation. Released in black and white, in documentary type reflection, Lu Chuan's film delineates the 1937 Japanese occupation of, then, China's capital Naking. Knowing full well that they were breaking international conventions of war, they disguised the massacre from the rest of the world.

With severity, "City of Lfe and death" is portrayed from both a Chinese and Japanese perceptive from witnesses and testimonies gathered at the time. Alloted among hundreds of testimonial soldiers and civilians, a handful of characters proclaim the principal story. Significantly, German national John Rabe, his assistant Mr. Tang, a naïve Japanese officer named Kadokawa and various woman caught in the midst of the massacre. Prominemnely, Miss Jiang and Chinese prostitute Xiaojiang. The faculties of cruelty are manifested in ambitious scenes of either battle, civilians fleeing the fallen city and orchestrations of horrific war crimes. Most notable the massacre of Chinese Prisinors of War being machine gunned to death, buried alive, set on fire or marched into the sea. Yet, efficacious as these scenes are, the films most powerful presence is focused on the for-mentioned handful of characters who fought and died in this imposing space of urban devastation. Conspicousasly, the emotions of bravery are portrayed in these characters individually. The spirited actions of Nazi Rabe, the suicidal motivations of Mr Tang and Miss Jiang. Also, not forgetting the sacrificial act from Xiaojiang. Most notable, from my viewing perspective, is the scene where a captured Chinese solider covers a little Chinese boys eyes with his hand to blind him from his impending death. This scene is one of the most tending images I have ever witnessed on screen. Environing these scenes, the director acutely puts the atrocities on-screen without warning and without insightful rationale to understand the motivations of barbarism.

In this review, I have decided not to detail these acts of humanity. After reading this review I mention favourably for the reviewer to witness this remarkable film. "City of Life and Death" easily achieves a convincible spectacle of mass atrocity and a magnitude of slaughter.

Adopted from an anonymous writers experience during the last major offensive in Europe, A Woman In Berlin recounts a daily record of one woman's indefinite life during this bloody battle and eventual Soviet occupation. In the interest of self-preservation her memoirs explain how she sort autonomous protection, food and succour from two occupying army officers. The story focuses on various woman, as well as children and de-listed men. Their lives traumatised through warfare, fear of occupying army, lack of food and water and absence of missing loved-ones. More notably, the fear of violation.

The first quarter of the film efficaciously makes visible the terrifying situation the residents found themselves in. Also, where the film succeeds is in illustrating the fate of women in war through the horrendous acts shown, and not shown. However, it is the emotional desolation that the film does not fully grasp. Yet, films adopted from novels generally do. The relationship between the anonymous writer and the officers becomes something like an Hollywood romance towards the end. Although, the combination of fear, extreme aversion and romance in times of trauma are without the absence of existence, it would have been highly unlikely in these circumstances. In addition, the novel is not romantic, it is an act of survival. Therefore, the horror and self-delusion of the situation could have been conveyed more practically.

Mainly, "A Woman In Berlin" solicits the audience to question the morality of woman who have no protectors. The film does not attempt to set apart good and evil. The Red Army is not impersonated as evil. The Germans are not presented as good. The soldiers do not conceal their intentions.The woman do not conceal their horrific ordeal. Although, for many years afterwards concealing their ordeal became a standard based prohibited subject in Germany. Moreover, any mention of the barbaric actions of the Red Army was meet with hostility in the Soviet Union. At the time of publication in the late 1950's, the book was proscribed as untrue and unacceptable by certain nations. More surprisingly, even today, coincided with the theatrical realise, "A Woman In Berlin" still is proscribed as fiction by certain people.

It has to realised, as the film makes known, the army and population of the ruined city mixed and collaborated willingly as well as unwillingly. in areas which the Soviets had captured and before the fighting in the centre of the city had stopped, the Soviet authorities took measures to start restoring essential services. Although, at the same time, the film does not let the audience forget the soldiers casual violation of people and property without fear of inflicting any punishment. History estimates 2 million woman were brutalised during the Red Armies advance through Eastern Europe and Germany. When caught in the middle of a war, everybody has their own story to tell. I had read the book some years prior to viewing the film. I will state anybody wanting to view "Woman In Berlin" should do this first and then read the novel. This way, the novel enumerates like a testimony of your observations. I concluded that the rape of German women was not a unique feature of this battle, but a condition of the atrocity of war generally. This film can not tell every woman's shuddering experience during the battle of Berlin. Perhaps more controversially, the choices each made to survive. This film is from the diary of one woman's experience in a ruined Berlin.

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.

If you want to find a good example of a early 1970's low budget sci-fi thriller and one that is entertaining or to say one of the better one's,Then i recommend this film "WestWorld" to you..

Westworld is a movie set in a amusement park in the future (the time line not told)This amusement park is split into three zones..Medieval world,Roman world and West world. Inside this park which caters exclusively for adults the guest get the chance to feel the real life presence of the time through the use of androids disguised as humans in the surroundings of the set time or theme the guest have decided to stay at. The best part of this is the park user gets the chance to interact with the androids as if they were actually real. The guest can if they wish live out their fantasises of the west,Things like robbing the bank,shooting people,sleeping with a hoar. Or if the Medieval time is the guest preferred location he or she can live like a King quit literally. The one and most important feature of the park is the fact that the robots cannot harm a human in any such way.(act one) This is until one or two of the robots start malfunctioning and killing the guest in what the guest think is a show fight.Also the scientists and engineers employed at the resort to repair and improve the androids,And to maintain the wellbeing of the guests staying there, Seem to get suffocated to death by gas once the androids start malfunctioning. One robot inparticular gets the real life personality of a wild west gun fighter and starts to hunt and kill two guest who have shoot him a couple of times.First he shoots one of them in a stand off,And then continues to pursue the other main character around the park.(act two).

So the first half of the film is a visual of people on holiday at the park living/staying in a western town of the 19th century or staying in a medieval castle. All the guest are shown having a great time mingling with other guest dressed in costume of that particular time period and the androids dressed and built like a human and a person of that time.The second half of the film is a cat and mouse chase between the gunslinger android and one of the last guest's alive.

; Richard Benjaimin and Josh Brolin play the parts of Peter and John two guests staying at the park (from who's point of view the film is being told),And Yul Brynner fabulously cast as a gunslinger android. Josh,Richard and Yul play the parts well and all three along with the other actors make the role they are portraying believable. WestWorld is written and directed with great enthusiasm and with a good eye for periodic detail by Micheal Crichton who later in his career penned "JurassicPark".So i guess the director has a keen eye for fantasy theme park films. I found this film to be both entertaining and very imaginative.The story is original and simple to follow, The acting is good.The most notable one role is of that played by the late Yul Brynner playing a robot gunfighter,I bet Mr Brynner had fun with that role which i say was tailor made for him at that stage later in his career due to all the western films he had starred in in the 1950's and 60's

They fought For Their Motherland is a screen adoption of the prize winning novel by Mikhail Sholokhovis and is directed by proclaimed Russian director Sergi Bondarchuk. It was nominated for the prestigious palme d'Or at Cannes film festival in 1975; which illustrate how powerful the film is. Approval for the film adoption of the Great Patriotic War came from the Russian Ministry of Defence via the Russian cinema council.

The film concentrates on a small number of individual regimental soldiers fighting within a larger battalion on the Russian Steppes in 1942. We are shown not noble soldiers and distinguished officers of the "glorious" Red Army, but ordinary fighting men. They are hungry, dirty, mentally and physically drained. Also, they are exhausted by their continuous 12 months retreat eastwards towards the river Donn and eventually Stalingrad. The soldiers find harmony in talking about home, family and express their emotions and feeling on the war and what it as done to them as people and their motherland. Location is presented impressively on film; firstly, by using wide angel lenses to capture the vast midst of the Steppe salt marches and corn fields. Secondly, by using close angel lenses to photograph the soldiers as they pass through, rest and interact with nervous civilians in the inhabited dwellings. With a large budget comes large battle scenes. The film shows the merciless destruction of land and villages by Luftwaffe air strikes. Defensive formations containing a whole battalion which is broad in scale and includes large battle formation shoots. The film doesn't over exaggerate when handling the destruction, human cost and horror of battle in its scenes.

The main depiction of war, battle and destruction are powerfully focused on individual soldiers. This film tells a similar story for many veteran soldiers of the second world war, whatever the nationality. Boredom, fatigue, fear, fun, friendship, enemies, orders, pain, loss, distress, death and a longing to go home.

They Fought For Their Motherland" tours the inferno imposed upon the soviet people, both military and civilian, on one side by the advancing, all concurring, disciplined German army. And on the other by years of hardship, personal sacrifice, poverty and living to the ideologist view of the soviet dictatorship. This is not the most graphic of war films in todays standard of brutal, realistic, fast passed combat movies. There are scenes of battle sustained injuries and death. However, this film focuses the humanity of war and what it does to the land, and the opinions of people in occupied nations towards the soldiers who are there to protect them. This is a patriotic film from a Russian point of view, which for many years, as at the time of release, future Russian generations, and other nations that fought in the red army, should look back with pride and honour towards those who fought, and died, for their motherland.

Not since the 1981 release of "Das Boot" has a German film had such an impact on audiences witnessing, from a German point of view, the perception, judgement,interpretation and opinion on its own history. "Downfall" tells the true story of the last days of the third Reich (April 1945), from within Hitlers secret underground bunker situated in the heart of Berlin.

3/4 of the film is set inside the scope of the claustrophobic and confined concrete bunker world of Adolf Hitler during his last weeks alive. The film also show a glimpse of central Berlin in its besieged and confused state during the Soviet onslaught. Inside the bunker we see Hitler's decay, he goes from calmness to rage, from understanding to paranoia, from irrational to total deluded. He gives his generals and field commandos ( there was no grand admirals present in the bunker at this time of the war) orders that are not compatible with reality or fact. He tries to control armies that do not exist anymore or order companies to counter-attack that only featuring on a map. A large majority of his high ranking commanding officers sense, and have done for 8-months, the war is lost on the side of Germany. However, some still believe in final victory in idealistic faculties. This is played out on screen with nervous tension. In addition, the few scenes set outside the bunker bring across a population confused, scarred, exhausted. Some however are continuing to display courage in valiantly defending the city and show continuously hopeless resistance in the face of the advancing red army (1st Belarussian army)bought on by years of Nazi propaganda.

The film magnificently achieves to bring to screen the combination of Traudi Junges ( Hitlers private secretary) memoirs, Nazi officials memoirs, German war archives and the documentary "blind spot" to a conclusion on screen.

Bruno Ganz brings the fuhrer to life in his exceptionally good performance. Alexandria Maria Lara plays the role of Traudi Junge has a young confused,aroused and obsolete to the truth citizen of the third Reich. All the members of the cast gives excellently rehearsed and researched performances to life. Ulrich Noether was a perfect likeness to Himmler.

"Downfall" is a remarkable history lesson on the second world war in Europe. It holds the attention of the audience through out. The film never side tracking away for long enough, in which it sets the sense of calmness, peace and normality, to lose sight of the unbearable reality of the situation.

I had been meaning for quite some time to watch this film, due to reading in the press about mail-order-brides from behind the old iron curtain and being fascinated and sometimes amused, by some of the scams being pulled. The film was released in 2001, however I had not come across it until much later.

The film is about John; a lonely, pretty well off bank clerk in his early thirties. John makes the decision to send off for a Russian mail order bride; who arrives in the form of Nadia. At first, John wants to return her. However, after she indulges in his kinky sex fantasies, he starts to warm to her. At this time and during Nadia's birthday party, two of Nadia's Russian "cousins" show up on Johns door step and after two nights sleeping on his floor, demand more than he had bargained for.

The film was promoted either as a tense thriller, a romantic crime drama or even as a comedy/thriller . I do not know to which category to label Birthday Girl as. The film wasn't very thrilling or very comical and the romance was not exhibited enough. The script became predictable and unsurprising after the first twenty minutes, the tone of the film became uneven and the ending was left narratively incomplete. Birthday Girl tries too hard to be more than your average romantic comedy/thriller and this is what spoils it.

Birthday girl is blessed with its gifted mix of a talented cast. The most outstanding (and best part of the film) coming from the excellently presented Nadia/Sophia played by Nicole Kidman. Nicole Kidman makes her Russian character believable through remarkable good Russian/English dialogue and recognisable Russian body language and characteristics. The different elements she gives makes her warm and likable; even though she is a crook and a swindler, you want her to be happy and even fall in love with John as the film strives to an end.

The two Russian accomplices ; Yuri and Alexei played by the French actors Vincent Cassel and Mattieu Kassovitz are also well done. Both actors do not over play their characters, they bring an atmosphere to the film clearly and conformingly. Lastly, Ben Chaplin looks relaxed, focused and delivers the comical tone with ease.

After watching Birthday Girl, it was not what I expected and the appearance of the film was unforeseen. However, I did enjoy it for what it was and the film did make me smile on more than one occasion. Would I have enjoyed watching Birthday Girl without the superior and very sexy performance by Nicloe Kidman? The answer I think is probable no!

Unfortunatily, though I wanted to, i did not find this film interesting. Come and See is an extremely cereal film to watch. If before watching the film,I had not bothered to read the sub text. I may not have know what the story was about. For the viewers who have little knowledge about the Eastern front in the early 1940's,it could be confusing to watch with no understanding of the concept of the story.

Quick over view, for the people who haven't seen the film. Come and See" is based on experiences witnessed by citizens in Eastern Europe during the German Invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 . Their treatment, mostly the work of the SS, towards the citizens of these countries were barbaric. Countless men,woman and children were raped,beaten,shot and slaughtered in one of the biggest act of Genocide in history. Come and See is set in Byelorussia around 1942-1943. The film is told from a young Byelorussian boys view named, Florya who joins the local partisans against the German invaders. We see him go through the film in an unconscious state of mind.

The problem with the film is that we get to know little about Florya,we don't learn anything about who the characters are and why they are there. The film is very slow and at many times throughout, nothing much is happening. The one good set piece that as any little visual effect showing the horror, at bested a film can, that these people went through comes right at the end. Like the massacre of Florya's family ,which you don't see, it could have been better done.

The film as a whole could have been so much better. The long, ringing in your ears, muted sound is off putting and not effective.

This film gets three stars from me for the reason of 1. The trees exploding scenes (around 20 seconds each) are visual stunning as well as 2. The bullets travelling at speed and glowing up the air, (also around 20 second). 3. For bringing to screen, a story from a group of partisans in Eastern Europe view and for the last 15 minutes of the film.

Come and See is not a total disaster of a film. It is well filmed by the director Elem Klimov and does,though very loosely, tell us about the experience of the partisans during the war. However their are NO set battle scenes, hardly a shot is fired, their is only one massacre scene at the end, and most disappointing of all the film is very SLOW.

The battle of Midway is one of the most famous naval battles in history.At Midway in June 1942 the giant American and Japanese navy's were pitched against each other in the pacific theatre of world war II. this battle, like Stalingrad, was an important turning point in power during the second world war and a decisive victory for the Americans.

During the 1970's Hollywood studios were making second world war films by the dozen. These films were attracting big audiences in the US,and other countries allied to the USA! It was now possible,due to Technicolour,special effects and an endless supply of US air,army and naval equipment decommissioned gracing studio companies. These war films were big budget,examples Tora,Tora,Tora. Patton.A bridge too Far. The longest day. .All focusing on the American victories and the great Uncle Sam. Into this arena of victories for the Americans, showing the world through cinema its past glories(remember Viatnam was still dragging on!!)It wouldn't by long before a studio financed a Hollywood's version of the battle of Midway. Unfortunately this wasn't one of the better ones.

"Battle Of Midway" for the first hour was an entertaining step-by-step account of the strategics of battle from both the Japanese and American view. The picture was both factual and interesting at this point of how and why the battle was to take place. When the battle set pieces eventually appeared on screen they were old documentary shots and even scene from other war films!! This spoiled the film,which had so far been good. The epic movie had become like a 1940's news reel mixed in with a Hollywood picture. Also so many scenes of old footage was used that the film became confusing. Midway in the last hour was just shots, some unnecessary, of American, then Japanese plans attacking Battleships and Carriers. All were clearly shots of old footage pasted into the main plot of Midway. This is what let the film down in a big way.

"Midway" contained a all-star cast. Charlton Heston played Captain Garth. This was one of Heston lesser performances, he just mopped and whinged about his son marrying a Japanese girl through out the movie. On the other hand, Henry Fonda played the role of Admiral Nimitz with good effect and also the same can be said for Glenn Ford in the role of Admiral Spruance. Both actors plus Cliff Robertson has Commander Jessop made the movie entertaining.

Another disappointment was the Japanese talking in English instead of their own native language of Japan,this is one of my pet hates in movies!!!It takes away the realism of the drama. On a plus side, the movie used authentic locations in the Pacific,the camera work was,in most parts,good. However the two important factors that spoil "Midway" are for one the use,and over use, of documentary,news footage and Naval footage of the actual battle of Midway, there were little evidence of battle scenes filmed on production of this movie. Secondly the Japanese talking in English. If these irritations had been removed, for example filmed their OWN battles scenes them Midway mould have become a better movie. Yes i'am taking into account that this film was made in the days when special effects were of lesser quality and blue screen was still relatively new. But using old footage from the 1940's was a bad idea.

As well as praise,this film also received a lot of criticism at the time of it's release because of it's pro-American view.so what... This IS an American financed film,made BY American's,FOR American audience's with American actor's and the beach landing on Omagh were done BY American servicemen. I can't see why SPR should be snubbed at because of this,It wasn't the first and won't be the last war film to be made from an American point of view.

"Saving private Ryan" is an excellent war film and deserve's it's billing as one of the top 10 war movie of all time.

The opening Omagh beach landing scene's are horrifically realistic,showing the viewer as best a film can what it must of been like for those men on that fatal morning in June 1944. When them landing craft ramps went down all hell broke loss and the US Rangers were just cannon fodder for the German's up above in their machine gun bunker's. A lot as been said about the miss-leading of the Normandy beach landing scene in the beginning of SPR,Some Viewer's of the film say that the overload operation lead by the British,Canadian AND American's were not as blood thirsty as has portrayed in this film. Yes this true,It is a fact that only 1 out of every 7 allied soldiers actually fired a weapon on D-Day. But Omagh was as chilling as it is seen in SPR.

After the first 30 minutes of one of the most graphically violent battle scenes ever witnessed on screen the film moves onto it it's main story.8 soldiers lead by capt Miller on a mission to find a private in the 101st airborne division lost somewhere in Normandy so that he can return him home to his mother after the US top brass as learned that three of her sons have just been killed in combat.A bit of a PR mission so to say. Through the mission the GI's tell us of their views of the war and the mission they are on(whats the point of risking eight lives to save one?) Some are killed in combat along the way as they meet German opposition raising the pointless of the mission with anger among the men.Till they eventually find pvt Ryan who as hooked up with another platoon that are defending a bridge that the Germans want for their counter attack.

All this lead's to a grand finale battle between the American GI's and the battle hardened waffen SS inside a bombed out Normandy village.

The battle scenes in SPR are authentic enough ,first on Omagh after a pinned down onslaught the rangers make easy pray of the German troops,This is because the German regiment's along the Normandy coast were mainly made up of eastern European conscripts captured from German occupied territory in the east and forced to fight by the Nazi's in German divisions.Hitler thought the main landing zone for the allies would most likely be Calias.So the front line worriment were stationed there. But in the final battle scene in this film the GI's faced much more resilient opposition in the form of the SS who we see give the American's a real fight.(The GI's are only saved from being wiped by the SS thanks to an air attack on the German line by P51's)

All in all "saving private Ryan" is an excellent movie if you like bloody all out war battle scene's.The director Steven Spielberg brings the killing scenes right up close to the camera.The script is OK but can be a bit sentimentally at time's(trying to reason war through the eye's of Spielberg..in dialogue from the characters by the way)but this isn't enough of a problem to spoil the film.

In the of winter 1942 inside a Russian city called Stalingrad the biggest land battle of history was taking place,This is the setting for the film "Enamy at the gates".

"Enemy at the gates"tells the story of a young freshly enlisted red army solider called Vasili Zaitsev played by Jude Law. From the start we follow the young Russian's journey across southern Russia to the burned out city of Stalingrad,now partly occuiped by the advancing German army wanting to take over Russia.There awaiting him and his fellow comrades are red army officers eager to get him killed on one side and the German army on the other lying in wait to kill him,(These poor lad's didn't stand a chance!).As it turns out Vasili is a crack shot with a rifle and with the help of his new found friend Danilov who is a army political officer Vasili is transfered to snipper division and his name and how many German officers he pick's off day by day is printed then expanded throughout Russia for propaganda purposes.

Danilov play's Zaitsev up as a national hero bringing some much needed hope into the heart's of the Russian people.Understandably the German high command are a bit p*s*ed off with this young talented Russian and his snipper division picking off their officers so they decided to send in their own crack shot a man by the name of major Konig to hunt and kill Vasili and his snipper platoon. So what we get is a cat and mouse chase through a devastated Stalingrad.In this nightmare setting Vasili falls in love and vis-versa with a young female solider callled Tania played by Rachel Weisz,concurrently so does Danilov which cause's tension between the boy's,Danilov wanting Vasili out of the way sends him on more and more suicide mission's ,All this lead to a grand finale between Zaitsev and Konig. The battle scene's are very gritty and authentic plus they are shown true to the battle as a no win situation's for both side's.The director use's lots of close up shots in the duals between the snippers capturing the tension and nerve that is with them as they lie in wait for the next kill,Theirs an excellent scene in the film were the snippers are trapped in a building under target from each other and at the same trying to survive a aerial bombardment from the German bombers.

The cast which unglued Ed Harris as Major Konig,Josegh Fiennes as Danilov and a very resembling with the help of make-up Bob Hoskins as Nikita Khrushev.All of them including Jude,Rachel and the support cast give applauseable poformance's in their role's and bring the characters to life.

This is a well made picture and a breath of fresh air to audience's in the west used to seeing WW2 movie from an American or British point of view,Although it doesn't totally capture the true horror of what the Germans and Russians went through in the east(no film could)it does a pretty decent job never the less and credit must go to the film makers and film company for being brave enough to make and finance a war movie(including a love story as well)that doesn't involve the US marine's.

Question?what do you get with a combination of Jerry Bruckheiner,$150million budget and a screenplay based on one of the most important historical events in modern history,Ansewer,a complete mess.

Micheal bay's reconstruction of the infamous attack by the Japanese air-force on the American pacific fleet based at Pearl harbor in December 1941 is 30 minute's worth of impressive film making which looks spectacular on screen ,Its just the other 130 minutes of "Pearl harbor" that is a complete load of rubbish. The film tries to pack to many subjects into one movie and in the end this is it's downfall.What you get is a war film,buddy movie,love story,biographical account of historical people and events,defeat and victory all mixed in to a 3 hour film that should of been only 2. The prolonged sickerly-sweet love triangle and the doolittle raid were totally unnecessary given the most crucial aspect of the film was the attack on Pearl itself,And if the director had had concentrated on that subject alone instead of going down the "Titanic" route of story telling (love story set against a sombre theme)it could of turned out so much better.

The set pieces are effective and use the aid of modern digital technology to it's advantage,Bringing the aerial sequence's to life which are thoroughly eye catching.Though sum of these scenes are spoilled by the gung-ho American approach.Points being the young USAF pilot being inexperienced in the field of air combat but able to jump straight into a spitfire and take on the Luftwaffe and later Japanese zero's,But where supposed not to notice that. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the script and the wooden acting.

Ben Affeck and Josh Harnett give it their best as Raffe and Danny but are not convincing enough in the period characters they are playing,Kate Beckinsale's character Everlyn gives you the impression that she would open her legs for any serviceman with a little bit of charming and Ewen Brenner's stuttering character is just annoying,As for Cuba Gooding jnr's take of Dorris Miller, that is the worst and not done to the right effect. That said there are some creditable performance's from Jon voight as FD Roosevelt and Alec Baldwin does a good job playing Lt col Doolittle.But these roles are lost among a weak scripted.

The film tries and fail's in bits to tell the story of WHY and HOW the Japanese planned and then attacked Pearl harbor from a Japanese point of view,Unfortunately their isn't enough of an explanation of why,just they refuse(the US) to give us vital oil,and the how is a very quick bunch of scene's and not explained with enough focus on the actual event,the director's to anxious to get back to the love story and blowing ship's up.

THEN THE MOVIE TAKE'S A ON AN UNNECESSARY THIRD ACT.

After the humiliating defeat by the "Jap's" at Pearl harbor it's time for the Americans to kick some ass,This is achieved by the Doolittle raid on Tokyo which is historically accurate but the timing of it is not ,Or the film gives you that impression! The Doolittle raid tuck place around the middle of 1942 after which time the imperial Japanese had occupied much of south east Asia including American territory(the film fails to tell you this). And this is how the film ends with Raffe and Danny crashed landed in China after the Tokyo raid.(what about the US pilots captured over Tokyo,which also doesn't get a mention in the film).

I do like the bit where during the Pearl harbor attack Danny say's the line "world war two as just started" to inform everyone as to why there being blown to bits,I wounder what the British,French,Canadian and Russian force's would of made of this belated observation by the young American. To sum all this up i would say the film is a embarrassment and insult to the veterans on both side's(OK the Japanese were no angels)but the American's never fought back at Pearl harbor the way it is shown in this film .If your looking for an account of the events in the pacific field of combat during 1941 try watching "Tora Tora tora".If your offeneded by the good ole American view of the war"(what defeats)"then i recommended you stair clear.