empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy giving this film a score of 8 is relative to other feature-length films from 1930. By the standards of films made just a few years later, this film might receive a score of only 6 or 7--mostly because the sound quality was so poor. Now it is possible that the film sounded better and the Fox Movie Channel did show a degraded print (it DID have a lot of lines and scratches), but I assume the sound problem was always an issue. That's because sound in movies was still a novelty in 1930 and many of the Hollywood talking pictures of 1930 sounded terrible--with background characters often drowning out the leads, characters huddled together to make sure they are picked up by the microphones or inconsistent quality (such as what was seen in THE BISHOP MURDER CASE, HELL'S ANGELS and other films of the day). This was all made much worse in THE BIG TRAIL because most of the film was shot outside--something unheard of at the time. Quite an innovation but also something that really stretched the talents of the sound technicians! So, while the film was very hard to listen to, I realize that they had to start somewhere, so I can forgive this--especially since the outdoor scenes are breathtaking--a major innovation for 1930.
The plot is rather similar to CIMARRON--a Western that came out the following year and which captured the Oscar for Best Picture. Unfortunately, CIMARRON isn't all that great a film and I actually like THE BIG TRAIL more due to the scope of the film. While some might balk at THE BIG TRAIL's slow-moving pace, I saw it as a great history lesson about the hardships endured by those traveling West on wagon trains. Plus, the whole thing just looked so beautiful, as director Raoul Walsh went to significant trouble to film on location and THE BIG TRAIL looks almost like a film version of some Ansel Adams prints.
As for the acting, it was pretty good. This was a major break for young John Wayne--as his previous screen appearances were, at best, minor and unremarkable. Here, he was given the lead and did a dandy job--though he was obviously young and a little less \"John Wayne-ish\" than he was in later films, as his screen persona was not yet firmly established. Another interesting part was played by Tyrone Power II (Tyrone Power's father). He looked nothing like his extremely handsome son and looked and sounded almost exactly like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons! He made very few sound films--dying just a year after making this film--so it's a rare opportunity to see and hear this once famous actor.
Overall, the film is well worth seeing despite some sound problems and a few overly long scenes here and there. For 1930, it was a remarkable achievement--more so than the much more famous and award-winning CIMARRON made the following year. Much of the reason THE BIG TRAIL didn't win an Oscar most likely was because ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT came out the same year and it is truly one of the great films.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe details in The Big Trail were so incredible that I felt that the movie was made at the time it represents. I have never seen wagons that were so real! They were big, loaded with accessories, and even felt as though they had been filled with details under the canvas covers that was never meant to be seen. Every speck of dirt, every scratch, every splinter was there. Modern day computer technology could never recreate the scenes of the numerous wagons as they move across the land or circle to fend off indians. The wagons were all real, individual vehicles, each with its own real team of horses or oxen.
The actors clothing could not have felt more genuine. With the exception of John Wayne's buckskin outfit and Marguerite Churchill's nice dress, the clothes were very common looking, tattered, or dirty in an authentic looking way. Many of the actors and actresses were born before electricity and indoor plumbing were common, and they must have felt comfortable with the surroundings. All the indians were real indians rather than white extras painted tan.
Women of the old west had to be sturdy because there was a lot of work. In every scene showing work done by the people of the wagon train, women are shown chopping wood, hauling logs, etc. This realism was so natural looking that it did not come across as a statement on the role of women of the day rather than a fact of survival.
The plot of revenge and romance is played well. Nothing is overstated or overplayed.
Something was lost along the way in the 1930's in Hollywood. As much as I love the fake scenery and controlled environment of old movies, The Big Trail manages to feel real above all else. The more I see big budget movies of the silent era, the more I like them. I can think of few movies of the 1930's that I have seen that equal the grandeur of the best of the 1920's. If there were home movies made in the days of wagon trains, The Big Trail is what they would look like.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBest Cinematography I have ever seenConsidering the year the movie was made I was absolutely amazed and thoroughly impressed with the amount of attention dedicated to the scenes and with what appears to be authenticity. Though I am not particularly a western movie buff.every single scene is given the utmost detail, and it is haunting. There is a sincere connection with nature. At times I am overwhelmed with the amount of action passing through the scenes, but I am never bored. I feel as though I am truly peering into a time machine and looking back into the old west. I recommend this movie to anyone who is studying set design, location planning, and for that matter photography in general. It can be a humbling movie to experience with regards to the visuals considering this era of digital touch-up that we now experience.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI first saw this film in video form. Even on a television screen, the vistas were impressive. Seen on the big screen in its full glory, it must have blown people away.
As one or two other comments have pointed out, the story of the early pioneers and how they got around the problems of terrain etc on the road to Oregon is as authentic as any film can be. It therefore shows that it is totally unnecessary to take liberties with the truth - something that today's film makers should take heed of - reality is enough.
The plot relies on the struggle of man against the elements and hostile natives. Subplots are few and simple. But the basic plot is enough. Elsewhere I have reviewed Paramount's rival to the big trail, Fighting Caravans. In spite of having a more sophisticated plot, and having better actors, Fighting Caravans lacks the breathtaking scenes.
The Big Trail should be compulsory viewing.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie I received was a great quality film for it's age. John Wayne did an incredible job for being so young in the movie industry. His on screen presence shined thought even though there were other senior actors on the screen with him. I think that it is a must see older John Wayne film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo one said that in \"The Big Trail\" and I thought it would be a natural. Nevertheless, this was one of the best Westerns I have seen and I am a big fan of horses and gunsmoke movies. The scope and feel of this picture is simply staggering and, as someone mentioned in their comment, it does have the feel of the 3-camera triptych of \"Napoleon\" (1927). Nowadays the cost of the production and, especially, the cast of thousands, would be prohibitive, but Raoul Walsh got it done.
The cast was excellent, although John Wayne was better when he had no lines and just swaggered around. In particular, Tyrone Power,Sr. was a perfect villain - I had never seen him before and this was his only talking picture. Ian Keith was a snake, but El Brendel is an acquired taste as the comic relief. He can be funny or annoying, but mostly the latter - and he shows up at the most inappropriate times.
It is a bit too long and it took a while for the Indians to show up, but this is as close to a documentary on Manifest Destiny and as true to life as you will see and a must for movie fans regardless of genre preference. By the time the settlers got to California I was exhausted.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRaoul Walsh's mega-epic, stunning filmed in an early widescreen process by the great Arthur Edeson, can be slow and static in the early talkie manner, but this classic wagon train journey across America to the NorthWest is thrilling as a sheer physical production when seen on the big screen. On t.v., the lack of close-ups and distant sound reproduction may prove daunting. Young John Wayne scores easily in his first starring role with a natural delivery the rest of the cast can't command. Amazingly, the film flopped and Wayne spent most of the following decade in Grade B Western fodder.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's quite revealing to see this today and appreciate how far we've come along in what we expect from movies, and at the same time appreciate how many bedrock notions were established.
Here we have a full-fledged narrative talking film - the audio and the visuals are pushed to their period limits. The framing is limited to about belt-high and up -- no face close-ups.
The compositions are remarkable; there's an early over-the-shoulder cross cutting scene to showcase the dialogue; there's a treacherous descent into a canyon with some harrowing perspective angles; a sun-bleached skeleton lies in the dust as the wheels and legs march in the upper portion of the frame; the tension in the showdown between the hero and the bad guy is visually captured by filming above the long axis of a large tree that lies between them; and on and on - early visual treats abound.
Today, it's unsettling to see the young Wayne carry a film, unencumbered by ego or mannerisms.
I have to wonder if Walsh recognized the self-reference: the subject is the journey of a disparate group of pilgrims; those who appear on screen are a disparate group of stage actors, vaudeville comedians, shell game artists, and, probably, carny barkers and ten-in-one show veterans. They all journey together to blaze a trail for how movies would be made.
This is worth at least one viewing to appreciate the source of so many visual ideas borrowed in later movies.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf we consider three films with a similar subject, which are this one, which was made in 1930, 'The Covered Wagon', made in 1923 and 'Wagon Master' made in 1950, the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'The Covered Wagon' is only 7 years whereas the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'Wagon Master' is 20 years. This is amazing because it shows how much movies evolved in those 7 years, and how in the next 20 years the changes were slow to come. 'The Big Trail is technically close to 'Wagon Master', but ages apart from 'The Covered Wagon'. The story is about the pioneers going from the Missouri to the west in Oregon. Tyrone Power Sr. is the man leading the caravan, he is a rough and mean guy. John Wayne is the good guy and the film makes too much of a point of his good looks, not giving him a chance to be the Wayne that we are used to. Marguerite Churchill is such a proud lady that you wonder why Wayne just does not forget her. Raoul Walsh was a master at showing caravans and cattle moving through the west, he directed 'The Tall Men' in 1955, which has a lot in common with 'The Big Trail'.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n044: The Big Trail (1930) - released 10/24/1930; viewed 4/5/06.
BIRTHS: Richard Harris, Harold Pinter, Robert Atkins.
DOUG: In Hollywood, Raoul Walsh unveiled his latest film, The Big Trail, a western about the trek west across the frontier, starring up-and-coming 23-year-old actor John Wayne. In 1930, we are seeing many \"firsts\" but few \"bests.\" Besides the first John Wayne film, we have here the first widescreen film (although we only watched the full-frame version). Interestingly, the decision to film in widescreen was essentially the same reason that widescreen became popular later: to compete with television, which hadn't yet appeared commercially but was still an emerging curiosity. All the same, this film was extremely good, giving us a harrowing look at the trek to Oklahoma. The opening title cards let us know that this is a western of the most traditional kind, about America, about the land, who should live on it, etc., and is an excellent demonstration of that. Walsh gives us some astonishing visuals of the wagon company out in the wilderness (when they reach a cliff, they must rope each wagon down one by one), and we also get a revenge subplot involving Wayne pursuing the man who killed one of his friends (I seem to recall something similar in Stagecoach). Wayne's tough cowboy routine is at least partly there, and would surely evolve further in subsequent films. Since this film is representing all of Wayne's early 30's work for the Odyssey, we will not see his face again until Stagecoach, but once we do, we will keep seeing him to the end of the Odyssey and beyond.
KEVIN: Ah, our first sound western, and John Wayne's first starring role. It's Raoul Walsh's The Big Trail. This review will be short, since it's been weeks since I watched it. I enjoyed this movie, but it was far from a masterpiece. The mostly predictable adventure had a few surprises, like when the brains of the bad guys, Red Flack (Tyrone Power Sr. in his last role) is killed half way through; I thought he would be the boss at the end, but that ended up being Bill Thorpe (Ian Keith). I remember that I didn't like the way Breck (Wayne) kills Thorpe and exacts revenge at the end. I understood that that's what he was meant to do in the story, but I really didn't like his reasoning when he tells Ruth why he has to do it. I think he had a far greater responsibility to the hundreds of settlers he was leading through the harsh west.
Last film viewed: Animal Crackers (1930). Last film chronologically: Soup to Nuts (1930). Next film: L'Age D'or (1930).
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Father Hood\" is an overlooked little gem of a \"road movie\". Fine performances by Halle Berry, Sabina Lloyd and Brian Bonsall, two really fun \"over-the-top\" ones by Diane Ladd and Michael Ironside,
and a downright outstanding one from Patrick Swayze. The movie is helped by an unconventional storyline, but badly undercut by it's flashback framing which results in a formulamatic, abrupt ending. \"Father Hood\" would have worked MUCH better without these \"bookends\". Nevertheless, the movie brings up important issues of \"family responsibilities\" and the consequences of state intervention. As long as the foster system rewards state institutions for NOT placing children, such abuses will exist.
Pick this one up. It's worth the \"ride.\"
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFather Hood is an entertaining tale of an unwilling Father who is definitely a HOOD! Patrick Swayze plays Jack Charles who is a hood always on the look-out for the one big \"score\" that is going to put him on easy street. His wife died while he was is prison and his two kids were put in foster care. When he \"got out\" he thought they were probably better off in foster care  besides he still had to score his fortune. His daughter Kathleen Charles (played wonderfully by Sabrina Lloyd) breaks out of a foster care institution that is abusing the kids and misappropriating money that is suppose to be being spent on the kids. She hunts down her father; tells him about how bad the place was and that her brother, Eddie Charles (played by Brian Bonsall) , \"just a little 7-year-old kid\" was being moved to the institution that she had just broken out of and convinces her father to kidnap him. The three start off on an adventure across country, all the while Jack keeps telling himself that he has to get rid of the kids! Patrick Swayze is really good in this comedy, playing a \"hood\" (probably a little understatement for this criminal character) who is similar to his Johnny Castle character of Dirty Dancing except Jack is appropriately funnier in this comedy and more optimistic than Johnny Castle. Swayze is funny and rally does comedy pretty well! Halle Berry plays Kathleen Mercer who is a reporter trying to get at the truth of the foster care system who becomes Sawyer's ally. Diane Ladd plays Rita the con-artist mother of Jack Charles.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFather Hood
I can understand why a lot of people hate this tale of a father kidnapping his two children and carrying them across America, but I've seen much worse, and--when I saw this years ago--I didn't think it was particularly awful. Patrick Swayze is the worried father who takes his kids on the run with him for personal reasons, and Halle Berry is the cop chasing them down.
Overall a decent way to spend a couple hours of your life. You could certainly do worse--ever hear of the film \"Pod People\"?
** 1/2 out of *****
Rated PG-13 for some traumatic scenes, adult content matter, violence and language.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't like boxing, don't understand the attraction. I did like this movie. Positive portrayals of Latinos, with no drugs, sex or street violence. The plot actually showed stable, loving families. The fight sequences are violent, as is boxing, but not as over the top as Rocky films. Nothing wrong with attempting familiar themes with a different angle and ethnicity. It's a good rent.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHe is very good in this role as a disaffected and bored husband, a decorated air force officer, who becomes bored with his predictable suburban life and decides to make a radical change.
One evening he meets Karen Sillas, an attractive woman younger than his current wife. A relationship develops, and Cole decides to take it to the next level.
Not only does he have an affair, he fakes his death to escape his family obligations. Lies become increasingly more of a pattern as he begins to rob banks to keep his new wife (Sillas) happy, and to project the image that he is a success. A fictional delusion, apparently.
This was also based on a true story which makes it all the more intriguing. Cole is believable and excellent in these roles. Recommended. 8/10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI thought it was an excellent movie. Gary Cole played the role of a military man who feels trapped and unhappy with his wife who fakes his death fabulously! Over all, I thought the movie was great, definitely not a boring plot line! It's sad to say, but I think lots of men might feel this way. I think he should have just gotten a divorce and asked to be transferred instead of the extreme he went to, but he felt there was no other way out so he faked his death. I thought it was neat that Cole's real-life wife played the wife he was unhappy with in the movie. I think what the guy did was alittle extreme, but the movie was great nonetheless! Definitely recommend it!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis mostly routine fact-based TV drama gets a boost from the fine performance by Cole. This is the story of a highly trained military man, unhappy with his wife and children, fakes his demise and runs off with the other woman. To support her in the manner in which she is accustomed he robs banks. Predictable, but not a bad watch.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the best TV movies I have ever seen! The title makes it so obvious and predictable but come on, all TV movies are like that!
The story is fantastic. It may seem ridiculous but it is based on an incredibly true story. Gary Cole plays a military man named Dave who feels trapped in his marriage. He abandons his wife and kids and then fakes his death! All so he could be with Alyson (Karen Sillas). How far will Dave go to keep his secret?
The acting is top notch for TV movies. Gary Cole especially keeps the movie together as a charming, smooth-talking sociopath who has an answer to everything when his wife gets suspicious. Karen Sillas does the best she can as a wife who discovers that her husband is a LIAR and doesn't know what to do about it. Teddi Siddall, who I believe is Gary Cole's wife in real life, plays her part well especially when she cries about the \"death\" of her husband. Wendy Makkena adds a nice touch as Alyson's sister. Linda Goranson is great in her small role as Dave's mother.
Predictable but the acting and the story take this movie up several notches.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only reason I decided to view this film is because of the great acting talents of Karen Sillas,(Alyson Haywood),\"Bad Money\",'99, who is deeply involved with Gary Cole,(Dave),\"Cry Wolf\",'05, who is a great war hero and has all kinds of ways to make money and never seems to stop telling LIES. Alyson and Dave are trying to rebuild an old home and restore it to comfortable living conditions. The relationship gets troublesome and Alyson decides to find out what is going on and the plot gets very mysterious. If you are a big fan of Karen Sillas, this is the film for you. I only wish Karen would appear in more films, I miss her great talents.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a film that I keep coming back to, for a variety of reasons. As a testament to the suffering of the ordinary soldier on the Eastern Front in the Second World War, it is a powerful one. There are a number of very powerful scenes in the film which help to capture the horror of war, such as the tank battle for instance. Furthermore, from what I can see the experiences documented in the film are by and large 'true' - if you read A. Beevor's book 'Stalingrad' you will know what I mean. The film is also successful in the sense that it doesn't allow character or plot to dominate it - it is simply a tale of survival, that attempts to depict the battle mainly from the ordinary (German) soldier's point of view. I've read somewhere that the original screenplay had to be toned down, which doesn't surprise me at all - if they tried to really show what the battle was like, it would have been almost impossible to make I'm sure. Even so, there are still some moments that are difficult to watch - this was made before Private Ryan but is possibly even harder-hitting in places. Just one word of caution - don't buy the dubbed 'English' version, it's pretty awful and spoils the film - try to get a copy in the original (German) version with English subtitles, it's far more powerful. You may need to buy a Region 1 DVD of the film in this case, as I did.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor the main criticisms of the movie... The love story: that wasn't a love story. Those were two people distraught coming together trying to find humanity in ANYone. The same thing happened with soldiers and the Russian boy. It added a feminine touch, but come on look at American movies...no where close to love story. There was no storyline: does war have a storyline? I think that is a silly criticism. The storyline is this. They start with 400 men and the movie narrowed down to show the lives of about 10 men and how each did their part and died. Death is the ultimate end to any story. Just because there was no happy ending doesn't mean it has no storyline.
There was a horrid truth in this movie. I wouldn't necessarily call it \"anti-war\". It had a political statement of course, but the movie wasn't all about the politics. In fact, except for a few occurrences when the Captain? showed up, there was never a stifling air of Nazi Germany. They were far enough out of the reach of the main Nazi party. The fat cats weren't gonna go into Russia!
Maybe not completely accurate and not a Hollywood hit, but it exhibits a fine knowledge of the common soldier (I'd say exactly of almost any nationality and war)and what they must go through. It was a losing battle, of course the movie is going to be depressing. And to the person who said that it was gutsy (and silly) to even portray Germans as victims: there are victims on all sides in every war (any real soldier will tell you that).
This movie is a fine balance between movie and documentary. A few problems with it when arguing for just one, but it instills the best of both worlds. Watch it as such. Beware however because it is a hard movie to watch if not graphically, emotionally.
I'm waiting til they make a movie about Iraq. It will probably have many of the same themes and will be very controversial, I want to see who has the guts to do it first. (Jarhead doesn't count)
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is one of the historically most accurate war films ever made in that it displays the reality of soldiers in a battle situation as well as the particular circumstances of the Battle of Stalingrad, obvious when one compares this film to works such as Anthony Beevor's book \"Stalingrad\".
Unlike the better known \"Enemy at the Gates\" where the plot diverts into a sniper/hunting story, this film shows what war can do to individuals. Although filmed by Germans, \"Stalingrad\" is anything but a nationalistic apologetic film. It shows that war films can be something beyond flag-waving, jingoistic distortions of the grim truth of war, like so many Hollywood \"war\" products seem to be.
The scripting, acting, direction and other film techniques in \"Stlingrad\" are of the highest caliber.
It's a must-see film for anyone contemplating to join an army and to obey orders from any type of \"Fuehrer\".
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film is about the battle of Stalingrad. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it was the worst battle in the Second World War. Over 1 million people died in the course of the battle. This is the only film that I've seen that seems to have actually captured how bad things were in the war between Russia and Germany. What I really liked about it is that the two ideologies (Nazism and Communism) were nowhere in the film. Unlike most American films, the Germans are not seen as blood thirsty murderers, but what the average German foot soldier was, a person.
The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.
Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike \"Enemy at the Gates\" the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf we compare the movie industry with an ocean, we have the tendencies to observe only the surface. Driven by the strong Hollywood marketing force, we all saw war movies like Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket. But underneath the splashy waves grow in silence, from time to time, less known pearls. When you pick one and look carefully at it, you wonder why this pearl lie almost unknown and why it's not already on the crown.
\"Stalingrad\" is such a gem. Why, it has a bunch of multi-million dollars rated actors? No. It have thousand of extras? No. It have breathtaking, spectacular, shiny computerized visual effects?. Not at all. So, what's so special? Well, in one word, it's pure past reality recreated and transposed to celluloid fifty years later. The tragedy of the most bloody battle in the history is here. Filthy, wounded soldiers, Russian civilians who lost everything during the invasion, burning villages, collapsing buildings, decayed suburbs, gunfires, explosions, tanks in flames, soldiers shot, burned alive, ground by tanks in their pits or shred to pieces - you got all. But the real horror is elsewhere. People are reduced to simple pawns, without the power to change anything. The soldiers we follow in film try to leave the combat zone and they fail. The civilians stay in prostration in the middle of nowhere, only crying for their children killed. Mercyless, the huge grinding machine of war melt together humans, equipment, villages, cities - and ask for more victims and destruction, over and over.
In all this collective insanity a group of German soldiers struggle to survive and to keep at least a minimum level of normality. They do their duty and fight bravely. But, as everyone know, a battle is almost lost when people start to loose confidence and faith. We see how all those people are abandoned, how they plan to desert, how they struggle to catch the very last plane to Berlin (full of wounded), how some very bad injured soldiers were treated as simulants and shot, how they were forced to execute a small group of Russian civilians, including a young boy, how they later discovered a place literally full up to the ceiling of food and drinks - destined only for some \"superior\" officers, of course. One by one, they drop dead. The end of the movie is one of the most bitter, depressing and touching ending I ever saw, all on the magnificent score of The Munich Philarmonic Orchestra. The war destroyed everything in its path.
This movie is a must-see for everyone. A true movie-lover should have it in his/her collection. The strong anti-war message must be a warning for all of us. Unfortunately, the mankind never learn, nor the politicians. Self-destruction is in our DNA and the human pain seem to last forever. Can we be enough reasonable to stop THE WAR?
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSimply the best and most realistic movie about World War II I've ever seen. Not only because the German soldiers talk German and Russian soldiers talk Russian (no English in a German or Russian dialect)also because of the realistic decor in which the movie was shot. The acting is outstanding. No Hollywood-sentiment at all even no love story...Stalingrad was supposed to be one of the most horrific battles during the war, and in such context there's no place for sentiment or romantic scenes. What you get is a movie which will make you thrill to the bone and which have one of the best unhappy endings a movie could have.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nApart from the low budget, there never seems to be more than 50 Germans in one scene at any one time, plus the same 2 half tracks, this film is absolute top class. Everything is accurate. That is the point, I think, from the uniforms to to the horror and the disillusionment.Everyone is as grey as the field grey uniforms. Grey men with the life drained out of them. Forget US made Gung ho rubbish like Blackhawk down and Private Ryan. This is one of the best war films ever. Only Cross of Iron beats this for tension and story. Please could we have a proper Un-dubbed German language with English subtitles version in the UK ? Without having to pay ridiculous import charges from Europe. Most other DVD's are multilingual. Why not this one ?
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie shocked me. It was so realistic and the story was incredible touching. They talk German and Russian, which makes it more believable and real. This is a must-see movie. The actors are great too. Really a good piece of work. The plot takes place within a German troop in WWII. They have to go to Stalingrad, Sovjet, to fight against the Sovjetian armies. You get more connected with every soldier in this group and follow them through all the perils as they get captured within Stalingrad. They get face-to-face meetings with death, blood, grief and the coldness of Russia. This is a must-see-movie and you cant afford not to see it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA movie like this doesn't come along too often. I'm surprised it took 9 years to finally see it. Politicians and civilian hawks should view this before making decisions on how the destroy peoples lives, I watched this the day after viewing the TV version of \"Uprising\" about the Warsaw ghetto. Even with this fresh in mind I felt sympathy for the German Soldier. I felt sympathy for all parties that this tragedy could happen. It will take awhile to thaw out from this one. I'm surprised they have not made a movie based on \"The Forgotten Soldier\" by Buy Sajer. This movie shares the cold with the book. Both will haunt me for the rest of my life.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie tries to run away to the typical 'I'm fighting because I'm obliged to defend the fatherland. The NAZI's are all bad guys, I'm against them' (typical of German war movies). How? By not talking too much about it, and just referring the war and the POW's. Nevertheless I would like to see a German movie which would be something between the extremity of Come And See and the \"bad NAZI's\" Das Boot. I say this because, excluding this factor, the German movies are the best depicting 2nd world war and the German side. You easily see some of the German hierarchical relations, very different from the ones in US army.
This is a movie which tries to get a real sight of what was Stalingrad, and I was not there, and I doubt most people were there now, but if I would choose one movie depicting this battle, for sure would not be the all American Enemy At The Gates. Why do I say this? Because even the best soldiers are not hero's, and given the conditions they may regard their own lives instead of the fatherland. This goes for all the ranks, and in the end you see von Paulus giving the example.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBloody marvelous. Recommended by a friend who knew I liked Thomas Kretschmann in The Pianist and Downfall. I loved the flow of the narrative - how the characters moved from hope and ideals of valour through shock, fear, disintegration, desperation and utter annihilation. A first rate anti-war movie that must have created quite the stir in Germany. Not a proud moment for anyone and the study of a generation lost. This movie was excellent at conveying the remove of the command from the ground troops and in pounding the utter futility of trying to control untamed nature and the Russian psyche. If I didn't know I would have thought it was a Russian movie it was so fatalistic. What an uncompromising ending. A pieta.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film does for Infantry what Das Boot did for Submariners. If you appreciated Das Boot then that is all you really need to know.
This is a well done piece of cinema. On a par with Das Boot. Basically it follows a Company of elite German \"Stormtrooper\" infantry who leave garrison duty in an idyllic Italian seaside town and are immediately thrust into the chaos of the disintegrating Russian front.
A good war movie illuminates both the senselessness and brutality of war and at the same time gives us insight into the experiences and essential humanity of those who fight. This movie does that. The film is full of drama and action and so is entertaining on that level as well.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nStalingrad is a terrific movie, well acted and directed, and rather down to earth in it's approach to the various bizarre aspects of warfare and it's politics. This is, together with \"Das Boot\" one of the best war movies (together with the Finnish \"Vinterkriget\" (\"The Winter War\", in English, I believe)). It depicts the ordeals of some of the German soldiers that fought --- and died --- in and around Stalingrad during World War 2. No big time heroics, no over bearing emotional fuzziness, only the fear of every day death in war. The mood of the movie is similar to the one in \"Das Boot\", and that should give you some hints on what to expect, I guess. So, if you enjoy realistic, non-Hollywoodish, war movies: Rent it, buy it, just make sure you see it! Finally, a film buff's note: for some of the previous reviewers information, I only want to add that \"Stalingrad\" isn't directed by Wolfgang Petersen (who made \"Das Boot\")!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFrom a military historian's standpoint, nearly everything in this movie is historically accurate. Beyond that, it is an enthralling story that leaves you depressed at the end but quite glad you took the time to watch.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie basically is a very well made production and gives a good impression of a war situation and its effects on those involved. It's always interesting to see the story from the 'other' side for a change. This movie concentrates on a group of German soldiers who after fighting in the North Africa campaign are send to Stalingrad, Russia, where one of the most notorious and bloodiest battles of WW II is being fought.
It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.
The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.
The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.
The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.
All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.
7/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the best war films I have ever seen, if not the best. It is very hard to talk about such films as it is very difficult to point at any film mistake made. The \"problem\" is as it looks too real and by that drags you in to the ruins of Stalingrad and make you suffer for both sides. This is for the reason that this film unlike the most of Hollywood films doesn't glorify the war or the heroism of the main characters. Instead of that, the film makes them heroes only for being human and by that is anti-war as much as the reason can offer. Extremely convincing war scenes and so impressive acting, most of the scenes look like isolated theater pieces. Also, German army is played by Germans which is so convincing as well. The film is produced and realized by Germans where you can see their love for details to perfection. This is the reason why \"Stalingrad\" is one of the films I can watch million times and never feel dull. I watched the film with my father who fought in WWII and the first thing he said was: \"This is like real, this is how the war against Germans looked like\". This is the place you can see how did it look to be a soldier in the worst nightmare of warfare in human history and turning point of WWII: Stalingrad.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDescribing Stalingrad as a war film may be a bit inaccurate. Sure it centers on the longest and bloodiest battle in world history, in the most expansive theater of the most costly war in terms of lives, money, and matériel that has ever occurred. Yes it contains action scenes depicting bitter battles and terrible destruction. The visceral storytelling and harsh images though make it something more than a war film, even more than an anti-war film. Stalingrad is instead a film about absolute and undeniable hell.
The film is fraught with visual descriptions of the worst kind of war, one that is intensely personal and close, where days are spent in taking one city block, only to have it re-taken in a surprise assault. The early form of modern urban warfare that the Germans came to call Rattenkrieg (Rat Warfare) is depicted in brutal and uncompromising terms. The characters war in sewer tunnels, rail yards, and from building to building in the hellish bomb-scape of ruined Stalingrad, only to be defeated by the unforgiving Russian winter.
The film deals with the issue of Nazism and the vilification of Germans in that period in the way that many other films from both Germany and the rest of the world do. Its characters are a group of soldiers swept along by the winds of war and simply attempting to make it out with themselves and as many of their comrades as possible alive. The characters do not fight the Soviets out of any ideological hatred between National Socialism and Soviet Communism, not for any grand dream of Grossdeutschland or racial superiority. They fight only because if they do not the enemy will kill them, and if the enemy does not then their own officers certainly will for refusing to fight. This portrayal adds another layer to the suffocating envelope of trapped hopelessness that pervades the film.
A sort of ground based companion to Das Boot, Stalingrad frames the epic struggle of World War Two in a personal light and from the unexpected perspective of the ordinary German soldier as a sort of hero made tragic by circumstance and a brutal government that would pervert his sacrifice.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"