Stalingrad fails on almost every level it intends.

Rating: Null/10 (26 July 2003)

* out of ****
Joseph Vilsmaier's Stalingrad poses an interesting question: do laughably bad battle sequences ruin an anti-war film? The answer, it depends. Battle scenes take up only a small portion of Stalingrad's running time (two sequences, adding up to just under fifteen minutes total), so these cheesy segments alone can't really bring the film down to complete garbage. But considering how the film fails on every other level, the battle scenes are really just another icing on the cake that dooms Stalingrad as a war film debacle.
The story is pretty basic and does little to distinguish itself from most war movies out there. We follow a German platoon as they head into Stalingrad, and follow them through each deadly situation they encounter. Each of these men begin as respectable citizens, but by the end, virtually lose their grip on humanity. Actually, the title might mislead some viewers who think they're going to be seeing a film about the bloody battle of Stalingrad. Like Enemy at the Gates (a mediocre but superior production), the city is used as a backdrop for the catastrophic tides of war.
What's wrong with the movie? Okay, just for a moment, ignore the fact that the violence looks like something out of a 60's spaghetti western (the gore wounds look like rubber, the bullet wounds actually sometimes spew sparks instead of blood, so on and so forth). Now we focus on all the other scenes, which as some viewers have noted, are meant to create a hopeless, downbeat feeling. But director Vilsmaier has yet to learn that for such a depressing edge to work, you have to populate your film with three-dimensional characters that are worth caring for, and Stalingrad has none (keep in mind, one guy comes close).
Stalingrad displays virtually none of the same qualities as immeasurably superior character-driven war films such as The Killing Fields or Gallipoli, though it certainly aspires to. The acting is second-to-third-rate, with characters who do little to define and differentiate themselves from everyone else. Let's see, there's the up-and-coming Lieutenant, the Guy Who's Afraid His Wife is Cheating on Him, and a few other guys who make zero impressions. The actor who plays the Lt., Thomas Kretchsmann, comes close to creating a genuine persona, but he's hampered by a screenplay that replaces real personalities with cliches.
Stalingrad features many other terrible aspects, such as the cheap and obvious sets, the grating musical score, and the general feeling that this is a movie, and not a genuine, harrowing experience, probably the most damning flaw the film bears. Rarely for a moment did I actually feel I was in the the thick of the war-torn city streets or the snow-covered tundras, a detachment caused by all the problems I listed throughout the entire review.

Despite all that's incredibly wrong with the film, the conclusion almost works. The ending alone, a horrifying display of how seemingly inescapable the second world war was, almost creates visceral emotion on the basis of just how cruel and ironic it is (once again, could have been even more effective with great characters)(see Gallipoli for a truly nightmarish, heartbreaking finale). It's during these last few moments that, finally, Vilsmaier shows a competent hand at direction and shows us what he intended the whole time. It's just too bad it took over two hours to get there, and the trip beforehand isn't worth it.