Could have been better

Rating: 7/10 (8 March 2002)

In Vietnam, the USA lost about 60.000 soldiers over a period of 10 years. In Stalingrad, Germany lost 250.000 men i 75 days. The battle of Stalingrad, no doubt, is the bloodiest and most fierce battle in the history of mankind. And still, there has been made only two big movies about it: this one and "Enemy at the gates". Compare to the number of Vietnam-movies, and you'll see, that something is missing here. "Stalingrad" tries to capture a bit of the carnage as seen through the eyes of four german (not nazi, of course) soldiers. It doesn't really succeed. If you take a brilliant Vietnam movie like Apocalypse Now, it gives a much more vivid picture of what happends to ordinary men under extreme conditions. That is what war-movies should. Not just roaring battle-scenes, screams and explosions. But the way humans act, when they are confronted with something they cannot absorb. "Stalingrad" tries so hard to show the horror of the war, but since its characters are as one-dimensional and shallow as they are, we never really experience, what the ordinary german landser must have experienced in the cold, doomed city. If you want a good personal account of the war on the eastern front, read "The forgotten soldier" by Guy Sajer. If you want good history, reed Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor. If you want a good war movie seen from the german perspective, see "Cross of Iron" instead.