Not a 'war' movie

Rating: 10/10 (17 August 2011)

American WWII movies tend to be slick 'action' films, in which the hero is a sort of John Wayne figure who rises to the challenge and overcome his personal flaws to defeat a relentlessly evil enemy. This basic plot is even central to such films as Saving Private Ryan and Platoon.
Stalingrad deals with war in a much more realistic manner, and in this regard is far more comparable to the American film A Thin Red Line. What we see here is not just the intensity of combat, but one is given a sense of the bureaucratic monstrosity which war engenders, and the film thus has depressing cutscenes of trains, troops, tanks, and endless marching columns. Just as A Thin Red Line dwells upon the heat and misery of the jungle, Stalingrad focuses upon winter and famine. Meanwhile, both films portray the reality of a distraught civilian populace.
Unlike most American war films which one-dimensionally portray the enemy as 'bad', Stalingrad provides a far more realistic view of blended morality, showing warcrimes committed by all sides, whilst truly good-natured and moral individuals are also seen on both sides. In the end, we are thus left with a sense of war as a senseless waste, as a struggle between corrupt leaders who exploit the naive youth who believe it is their duty to defend their country.
Of course, the most controversial aspect of this film is that it deals with the Nazi movement and uses German soldiers as the protagonists. Does it thus glorify or condemn Hitler? The answer to that question will become readily apparent to anyone who watches the film. In the end, the viewer is left wondering just what any soldier could have done to avert these tragic events. What would you have done? In watching the film, you will almost certainly view at least one character trying to do exactly what you believe you yourself would have done.
-Adam Rinkleff