Reviews

What characterizes the German perspective of this mini-series? The Wehrmacht's invasion into the Soviet Union defines Germany's memory of WW2. This campaign lasted the longest 1941-1945, covered the largest front-line, involved the most soldiers, it is where the Wehrmacht suffered 90% of its 2 million dead, it is where Germany was defeated.

Realistic or not? As a former German conscript soldier born 1968 I recognize the depiction of military behavior, group dynamics and everyday-life of soldiers in a German context. However, I would expect more vulgar language. Other than that, I lack authority to judge.

The question whether or not this series is authentic is twofold ? First, is it true to history? The Wehrmacht's invasion into Eastern Europe and Russia accounts for the majority of deaths by war or genocide in the European theater of WW2. Regardless of modern technology, this war was still predominantly fought by the common infantry man and suffered by civilians. The series reflects these facts. But it never establishes the Wehrmacht as the efficient and dangerous fighting force it was, even during defeat.

Second, is the narrative authentic ? The series illustrates the recollection of my grandfather's generation and their perspective as I heard it from them. In that sense, some undertones are both apologetic and authentic to that generation's testimony. As an ambition, the series aggregates many personal memories into one narrative.

The visual impact of the combat scenes feels intense. The stain of a period drama, costumes and uniforms, disappears into the spectator's excitement easily after 5 minutes. Cutting into black-and-white newsreel footage feels smooth and provides perspectives a film on a budget small compared against the actual event cannot. The staged shots create an illusion of conquering a large landmass and moving in foreign territory.

The dramatization follows the generation born in the 1920s: one German Jew, two soldiers and two women. The story reunites the five in fabricated coincidences. Does this overstretch the artistic license? No, for it serves to re-examine the change both of the individual characters and their relations to each other as a result of violent experiences. More frequently observed is the changing relationship of two brothers, different in character, different in response to shared hardship.

The series explores the nature of what in modern terms would be called war-2.0 . Traditional war was but a means to an end that, at least in principle, could be achieved otherwise. War-2.0 kills for the sake of killing. In this series you'll see the Wehrmacht routinely executing civilians with the SS or alone. War-2.0 applies traditional warfare to the goal of genocide.

The series remains silent about the motives. It shies away from showing the deep racism, antisemitism, the cool institutionalized execution of genocide. When Friedhelm yells at his brother "there is no purpose, no sense (Es gibt keinen Sinn) " to express his desperation he is obviously blind to the genocidal intent of the campaign. The Nazi criminals appear as people of bad character to which their genocidal beliefs are but an accessory. Nowhere do we see a German as an educated , sympathetic individual, whose only flaw were his racism and antisemitism. The series only presents this type as a Polish partisan.

Entering the third part, one is sucked into an ever closer marriage of survival and killing but gets trapped by Nazi patterns of thinking. The Nazis created the myth of the German people fighting for survival facing the Eastern peoples in order to legitimate the genocide, preplanned from day one. The film implicitly picks up that image of survival. Initially it were millions of men and women in Eastern Europe, millions of Jews who fought for survival - not the Wehrmacht. While the series appears apologetic on some subjects it completely refrains from accusing the Red Army.

What about guilt? The soldiers portrayed in their early twenties were not the generation who planned the genocide, nor did they cheer Hitler into office. The swift and easy Wehrmacht victories in Western Europe motivated German soldiers, the series reveals. The story leaves the spectator with the crucial question: what, given the circumstances, could one have done differently at the age of 23 ? The series suggests that the line of guilt separates the generations rather than the good from the bad combat soldiers. It is the older generation who abused the young generation as the instrument of war. The series offers an iconic scene to justify my interpretation. It shows a German soldier in an act of self-sacrifice and redemption (I shall not disclose the details here).

I cannot grant redemption. The act benefits only German soldiers but none of their victims. De- humanization and cruelty out of racism characterize WW2. Uncompromising loyalty to one's own ethnic group sits at the core of extreme racism. It is this exact loyalty the film upholds in part 3.

I recommend the series. "Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter / Generation War" entertains. Using 3x1.5hours, the vast scale of WW2, the nature of the violence and the depth of personal experience come alive. It opens the subject of WW2 to a female audience who can identify with the rich female characters. Poles, Ukrainians, Russians will find the German perspective accessible for it correctly places the horror of WW2 in their home-countries. The series provides substance to a serious debate by being historically accurate, though not representative.

Reading through all the other comments let me give you my idea what the movie is about: The Cinicinnati Kid, a young talented but poor poker player gets the opportunity to play against Lancey, an old and rich master player.

The Kid thinks he has nothing to lose, it is the only opportunity he's got, poker is the only thing he can do, the can succeed alone on his own, he is in control of his side of the game, life would change for the better should he win, he is respected, Lancey is the man to beat, it is a fair game. All of these assumptions will prove wrong during the course of the film.

The kid learns that Lancey, who is a cynic, old and sick, has nothing to lose. He himself on the contrary is young and energetic, looking forward to a lasting relationship with his girlfriend. He has got everything, his entire future, to lose. He has these opportunities outside of poker. He even learns he can use his skill with cards, not to win money, but to make his girlfriend's parents laugh. They all enjoy the moment together rather than him being alone winning at poker.

The action starts when Slade tries to buy first Shooter, then him. This way he learns that he is not respected nor is Lancey. He is being watched for entertainment like the roosters in their fight. It is other people who control the game. Slade is the man to beat, not Lancey. It is not at all a fair game. Just like Melba trying to make the pieces of the puzzle fit into the picture, it is all a cheat. Slade buys Shooter who as a side-effect sends Melba into his bed, an event that almost compromised the Kid's entire future. Melba is a poker-player in real life, she only trusts in recklessness.

So if the Kid wins the money, will he change into a corrupt man like Slade or Lancey or even worse ? It is the poor people that demonstrate dignity to him, like the shoe-shine boy. The rich and successful are all fake. The film makes this point by revealing Slade's relationship with his wife and children are all a facade, not regardless, but because of his wealth.

When the Kid finally loses at the gambling table he wins in life. He is not ready yet, not ready to be a lonely cynic without a future in a corrupt world.

This great movie gives you all my words in pictures which is what movie making is all about.

Back in the day I saw this movie on the big screen which pulls you into the story for the darkness in the cinema is real. Das Boot is one of the few movies going 3hours+ that is always entertaining. The perspective is very clean, you see the action unfold through the eyes of the war correspondent on the boat. This war correspondent is a person in the real world, the story is autobiographic. As a spectator your level of knowledge is the knowledge of the people on board, this is how the suspense lasts all those three hours. Adding to the suspense even more is the use of sounds which are naturally dominant in submarine without any windows, no visual connection to the outside world when under sea. What sets this film apart is also the variety and large number of characters portrayed as their thought and feelings show by their action and faces, Maybe comparable to "12 angry men" . Most of the time you do not know their names, maybe their job on the submarine. Nevertheless I predict that any viewer can identify any man on board. I recommend watching this film German with subtitles for non-speakers for the military way of speaking is accurate, I assume a foreigner would get this as well, it adds to the authenticity. Clearly the film centers around the submarine which by its technology determines all activities, the action and most important the roles the people find themselves in as soldiers. These roles are their lives as soon as they leave the port. Clearly the submarine comes first, the people second, the machine is their means survival and weapon to kill others as well. As for the Nazi ideology the submarine also serves as a refuge from the nazi-society on land. Another core conflict of the men on board is they need to kill fellow seamen. The film does a good job in making the viewer understand this drama without ever resorting to some style of argumentation, it is all in the pictures. As for the story there is no obvious red line. The submarine follows military orders and reacts to enemy attacks. No single crew-member could possibly interfere with this. It is finest cinema, you are pulled into the screen, you have the illusion of darkness, even smells. The film is a perfect illusion with some thrill of authenticity. This film never attempts to tell you anything, because you are in the submarine like everyone else.

There had been many war time movies before this one. It has the outstanding quality being shot on location in Holland. This makes the film visually very believable. Germans actually play the Germans, speaking German in the dutch original version, again this adds to the credibility of the historical background. The story is based on historical facts however not true in that combination. Essentially it is a thriller, shot from the perspective of a Jewish actress/dancer who is a fugitive in occupied Holland trying to find out who delivers Jewish inhabitants to the Germans. It is very entertaining with all the action required, a beautiful lead actress and a string of highly skilled supporting actors.With all the details in the film Verhoeven does a good job of putting them all together into one story. There is not a single enjoyable detail in a scene that does not propel the overall story and makes sense sooner or later. Personally I find it very pleasurable to see that the outcome does not rely on the outstanding abilities of individuals but has everyone washed away in the wartime events. It is big entertainment filling over 2 hours, I saw it in a cinema late 2006 in Holland, one of the few productions maybe ten years back that really fit the big screen. On the other hand it can be taken as a serious look at the Dutch past with a view to a wider future of events as given by the flashback setup. Overall the film brilliantly succeeds in bringing back the past in full colour without ever looking like costumes and stages which is remarkable by itself in that genre.

Three years back I had the opportunity to see Dog Day Afternoon on the big screen. Perfect illusion of being real, events really happening where you saw only the screen during the commercials. The excitement stays on all the way thanks to a very clean perspective. The spectator is placed as a bank robber inside the bank. Almost all outside shots are in a style you would see the events during a live TV coverage. The bank robbers actually do watch TV while in the bank so the perspective stays intact.Practically all characters in the story are way beyond people I would ever know so I cannot comment on the actor's performance here. However the bank robbers do change as the events approach one climax after another in a way that is believable.

This is the only film ever that made me cut a telephone call short for I would not want to stop the film. It is a romantic movie that restricts the technical film-making to the minimum preserving the intimacy of the scenes. The two lead actors, Meryl Streep and Clint Eastwood both have the ability to leave it to their gestures and faces to create the intensity of the moment, make the viewer feel the inner action. Consequently the outstanding scene, shot in a car waiting at a red light, needs no talking, pure moving pictures. Almost with every scene the film makes you believe that what you see will happen now, cannot be missed and will be gone forever with the next frame. The drama is presented as one big flashback from the children's perspective. One may argue that this destroys the viewer's perspective and excitement now and then. However it does make the point that this is a once-in-a-lifetime story, there is an end to it.

This movie is a great spectacle. Since it is a true Kubrick film the score and sound effects are equally memorable and effective. As this is a war movie shot entirely from the ordinary soldier's perspective it is shocking. This is a result of true fear in the spectator's mind rather than explicit violence on screen. The presence of death feels real. The story unfolds without any waste of celluloid. Kubrick explains the logic of the characters out of the war-circumstances they find themselves in without establishing the characters over a feature length. Even when it is clear how the film would end after watching it by half, the story telling gains more momentum . Having seen this film only once on a big screen I was surprised almost everybody cried in that movie theatre with the story's unexpected epilogue. These final frames explain how and why millions of people would go out killing each other and on the other hand why they should not. This movie is perfectly understandable because it is brilliantly made in any way with outstanding actors. One may argue whether or not this is one of the best movies of all times. I do believe it is one of the most important movies of all times regardless of film making alltogether. Let me summarize: real, frightening, important.