Sweeping and still impressive early Talkie Western of pioneering days; other contemporary films in the same vein include THE COVERED WAGON (1923), THE IRON HORSE (1924) and CIMARRON (1931)  none of which I've watched, though I do have the latter on VHS. It was simultaneously filmed in the "Standard" fullscreen ratio and in an experimental Widescreen process called "Grandeur", but only the former has been released on the bare-bones Fox DVD; one can only surmise how it would look in a wider ratio, but the careful framing  not to mention the splendid cinematography  is evident enough even in the "Standard" version.

Young John Wayne is surprisingly commanding in the lead (a role which, however, didn't lead to the expected stardom  as he'd languish in 'B' Westerns for the best part of the next decade, before John Ford came to his rescue with STAGECOACH [1939]!); anyway, he and Marguerite Churchill (from DRACULA'S DAUGHTER [1936]) make a nice couple  despite her somewhat tedious character. Supporting characters include a variety of stock types: veteran westerner, comic-relief sidekick (with a penchant for making noises with his mouth!), burly and uncouth villain (played by Tyrone Power Sr.!), his two slimy cohorts (a Mexican and a Southerner, the latter also filling in as Wayne's rival for Churchill's hand), etc. Also among the members of the wagon party is a timid Swede (full of optimism for the promised land, but who's continually put down by his irascible mother-in-law) and later Wayne regular Ward Bond.

The episodic narrative resolves itself into a number of alternately cornball, lyrical and action-packed vignettes  as we see the prospective settlers combating the elements, the Indians and themselves; the film, however, has a completely authentic feel to it which smooths over its essentially dated and static quality. Also, the editing is somewhat choppy (particularly during the second half)  little wonder, since the DVD edition of the film is only 108 minutes long against the complete 158-minute "Grandeur" version!


If one overlooks the technical problems of this early (1930) sound movie such as the sound quality and the occasional stiffness of John Wayne, one will find this movie to be an epic that is more realistic than almost any movie made since. Beginning at the Missouri, a large caravan of Conestoga wagons, people, and animals head west. The wagons are pulled down huge cliffs and cross a flooded river with considerable risk to the riders in the wagons. Indians meet with Wayne, and allow the train to pass through their land. Later, Indians gather west of the train to combat them. The wagons form a huge circle with horses and cattle in the circle, and fire their rifles creating with the circling Indians a veil of smoke.

When the battle ends, the dead are buried on the spot and the people and wagons depart. This scene is remarkable, as the camera stays with the dead as the living depart. It is unique in the way it links the viewer with the dead and separates the viewer from the living. The wagons encounter a major thunderstorm with torrential downpours and mud everywhere. They finally arrive at their destination near a redwood or sequoia forest in Oregon. The film is done in 70 mm widescreen at about a 2.0:1 ratio (in 1930!).

I haven't mentioned the plot because it is secondary to the scenic grandeur and the enormous amount of work involved in making this film. Moviemakers will never work this hard again to make such a movie or any movie. Given the technical limitations of the sound, the music is at times moving, such as when Wayne leaves his girl to hunt down his friend's killers and at the end.

While all the critics rave about The Searchers and Wayne's psychology, racism, short temper, and complex characters, The Big Trail gives us a story of simple people encountering extraordinary hardships. One of the best westerns I have seen.


The precise text of an ad (except the word Chinese, as in Grauman's Chinese, at the end, should appear in caps but IMDb's racially sensitive formatting won't let it), as published in the Los Angeles Times of October 2nd 1930, reads as follows (with " / " denoting the break between each line in the ad):

GALA WORLD PREMIERE / Tonight / 8:30 PROMPTLY / TONIGHT all Hollywood and Los Angeles boulevards become THE BIG TRAIL to Grauman's Chinese Theatre...the rendezvous of all that is beautiful and brilliant...the gathering place of stars...celebrities...the great and the famous!

Thousands will fill every seat...many thousands will line Hollywood Boulevard to watch the gala festivities attending this world premiere!

Tonight all Southern California pays homage to the great American Epic, which faithfully depicts the thrilling, soul-stirring romance of the American Pioneers..who won the West and left us a heritage of Peace..Liberty..and Happiness.

Raoul Walsh's / The BIG / TRAIL / Story by HAL G. EVARTS / FOX MOVIETONE PRODUCTION / SHOWN ENTIRELY IN / GRANDEUR / Cast of 20,000 featuring / JOHN WAYNE MARGUERITE CHURCHILL / EL BRENDEL / Tully Marshall Tyrone Power / David Rollins / Frederick Burton, Charles Stevens, Russ Powell, Louise Carter / William V. Mong, Dodo Newton, Ward Bond, Marcia Harris / Marjorie Leet, Emelie Emerson, Fran Rainboth / Andy Shufford, Helen Parrish / Production Manager Archibald Buchanan / Settings by Harold Miles, Fred Serren / Chief Grandeur Cameraman Arthur Edeson / Sound Engineer George Leverett / Chief Film Cutter Jack Dennis / ADDED FEATURE: / Fox Movietone News Exclusive Interview with / GEORGE BERNARD SHAW / Direction Carli Elinor / GRAUMAN'S / Chinese / Direction of Fox West Coast Theatres / Twice Daily Thereafter / 2:30 --- 8:30 P.M.


One of the myths of the early sound era is that they couldn't make Westerns because they had trouble recording sound on location. In fact, it was the financial restrictions of the depression that temporarily killed off the genre, at least in the "A" budget bracket. However, in the period 1929-1931, before the economic downturn had really kicked in, the "A" Western flourished, notable examples including The Virginian, Billy the Kid and Cimarron. The Big Trail was perhaps the biggest of them all  a gargantuan pioneer Western shot in an early widescreen process appropriately titled grandeur. Thanks to a recent DVD release we now get to see the widescreen version alongside the fullscreen that was shot simultaneously.

The director was Raoul Walsh, a man for whom the spirit of adventure lay in vast outdoor vistas, and thus in many ways a perfect choice. He makes great use of the wider frame to show off the Western landscape at its most breathtaking. Very typical of Walsh are a number of shots towards the beginning, such as the one where a woman is chopping firewood. Most of the screen is tightly filled by the wagons and other clutter, but in one corner we see the wilderness stretching out invitingly. When the wagon train gets going, the open plain is gradually revealed to us, with wagons pulling away like stage curtains. These shots are not so effective in the fullscreen version, yet on the wider canvas Walsh's expression of the outdoors was never better.

But there's an unfortunate flipside to this. When it comes to dialogue scenes, Walsh's tendency is to place the actors in the middle of the shot, as if they were in an imaginary fullscreen box. The extra width becomes just that  extra. It may seem logical at first, because it means that height-wise we see as much of the actors as we would in a fullscreen picture. However it makes the players look small and insignificant within the frame, while all the background business dominates the shot  and there is a lot of background business in the Big Trail. When widescreen formats re-emerged in the 1950s, many directors would make the same mistake, before eventually realising that in talkie scenes it is better to frame actors from around the chest up, losing some of their height but allowing them to fill the screen.

It's a pity, because The Big Trail is a particularly well-balanced and finely scripted effort. The romance and revenge subplots are simple but well defined, and do not threaten to overbalance each other or the pioneer story. It could have been a great intimate epic, but it loses dramatic weight because every time characters start talking to each other we get distracted by herds of cattle, drifting wagons or whatever else is filling every spare inch of frame. Still, Walsh's sensitivity to deeply emotional romantic moments is still on display, and he manages to make the final scene effective and memorable. There are also some nice comedy touches, largely courtesy of "comical Swede" El Brendel.

The Big Trail is also notable for being John Wayne's first lead role. While Wayne is another victim of the distant framing in dialogue scenes, we do at least see his strong physical presence and hear his warm but assertive vocal delivery. He betrays his lack of experience, but the potential is clearly there. Sadly that potential wasn't widely realised at the time and he spent the rest of the decade slumming it in B-pictures before he finally hit stardom. Also appearing in this picture is Wayne's buddy (and later prolific character actor) Ward Bond. He's not credited, but you can spot him in a number of scenes, most prominently around the 80-minute mark where he is stood to Tyrone Power's left.

The Big Trail is a glorious epic that manages to defeat itself as a drama. And it was this stupendous scale that would put the Western (and widescreen) to bed for some time. And although the 40s and 50s are now regarded as the golden age of the Western, it was by then a changed genre, with stories of individual adventure and heroism in an established West  no better or worse, but of a different form. The early talkie period was the end of an era in which Westerns could be truly gigantic.


I never expected such an old film to be as impressive as this 1930 western turned out to be. The scenes of the pioneers heading west in their covered wagons, encountering storms and mud, river crossings, Indian attacks and every manner of trial and danger, are astonishing in their rugged believability. Much of the film was shot outdoors, and the movie has a truly epic feel about it. The actors must have experienced much the same conditions as the original pioneers did, and the results are astounding. The wagons, the clothing, every single detail looks and feels right. The characters are simple but believable, with a straightforward story ,that travels like the wagon train to its destination.

John Wayne is slim and youthful in one of his first roles, as the scout leading the wagons, and he does a fine job as the idealistic young frontiersman. He's up against a marvelously scurvy trio of villains, including Ian Keith as a slick gambler, Charles Stevens as a Mexican sidekick and Tyrone Power, Senior, as the growly, bear-like trapper. Power's bearded, snarling, larger than life portrayal is both comic and menacing. I keep picturing him with a bandanna, gold hoop earring and black eye patch, with a parrot on his shoulder, as he grunts and growls various threats and insults. His character could easily be transferred to a pirate ship with no difficulty at all. He nearly steals the whole picture.

Tully Marshall is delightful as a wily old frontiersman who is Wayne's best friend. The lovely Marguerite Churchill makes a spirited heroine, whose initial meeting with Wayne is a hilarious mix-up, resulting in a long running courtship consisting of insults and feigned indifference on her part, to aw shucks persistence on his. The results are quite humorous and one is glad to see them finally get together at the end.

The scenery is amazing, with the wagons crossing real prairies and having to be lowered by ropes down cliffs. Indians who are clearly the genuine article, and not white actors in makeup, appear as both friends and foes, and are treated with dignity. Wayne's character tells an admiring group of young boys that the Indians are his friends, who taught him everything he knows about survival in the wilderness.

The Big Trail is an uncomplicated tale told well by a talented cast and crew. It will probably appear naive to many modern viewers, but there is a quiet dignity about it that never lets it become corny. There is a great deal of intentional humor, including a rowdy rascal of a pioneer, who makes loud animal sounds from hiding , every time the smooth gambler Ian Keith tries to con the beautiful heroine into marrying him. His flowery speeches about the plantation he allegedly owns are interrupted by very realistic imitations of yowling cats and quacking ducks, causing the would be seducer to look around in annoyance for the unseen creatures.

Highly recommended, both for western fans and lovers of old movies in general. This is truly a classic film for the ages.


This movie is important to those of us interested in western history because it makes use of authentic techniques in its production.

The scenes of the wagon train are particularly authentic; so far as I know, it contains the only scenes ever filmed illustrating the techniques for river crossings at a bluff. The horses and mules have to be lowered to the river level and the wagons let down by ropes and pulleys. The scene is such that I could watch it over and again just trying to get a feel for what a crossing was like...and the early travelers did it time and time again while crossing the country.

Melodrama aside, this picture is as authentic in dress and style as they come and worth watching for that alone.


My 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.


The 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.


Best Cinematography I have ever seenConsidering 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.


I 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.


The 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.


No 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.


Raoul 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.


It'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.


If 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'.


044: 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).


"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."


Father 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.


Father 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.


I 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.


(Some Spoilers) Facing a mid-life crisis and fed up with his marriage to Cindy ,Teddi Siddall, who seemed to have more say in what he did and where he stayed then the Air Force,USAF elite Red Beret Sgt. Major Davis Bay, Gary Cole,decided one morning to just walk away from in all and start a new life as a civilian.

David first got this idea when he met at a Halloween party sweet and adoring Alyson, Karen Sillas. Keeping his background secret from her by telling Alyson that he's in a top secret military outfit was the perfect cover for him. Back at Jackson AFB outside of Austin Tex. David starts to review his life's options with Cindy and the USAF and decides to change his identity by running away from it. David then calls Alyson, who only met him once, and makes a date with her. Before you know it David, now using the name Haywood,is engaged to be married to her.

Faking his death in a bicycle accident Dave purposely leave his wife and kids out in the cold and deserts his military obligation to his country.It didn't take long for Dave to find out that civilian life just doesn't appeal to him. It's now too late for Dave to go back to his first wife Cindy and his two boys with him facing the brig and a military court-martial if he comes back to the USAF. Dave takes up the only job that he could do to support him and Alyson and their infant son Chris: using his skills he learned in the Red Berets to rob banks.

Based on a true story "Lies He Told" has Dave Bay/Haywood living three, not two, different lives. One of a hard working family man one as a ruthless bank robber and yet another one as a dead and highly decorated, by the President of the US and Prime Misnister Of GB, All-American hero. Gary Cole is very effective as both Master Sgt. David Bay&husband David Haywood. Davids actions are, even though unforgivable, understandable in the case of his depression over his marriage to Cindy. The pressure of her nagging him got to the point where he just wanted to get lost and away from her and the kids. But he should have sought professional counseling from the US Air Force, which he would have been gladly provided with, instead of choosing the easy way out. Which in the end lead him straight into Levenworth Ferderal Prison. It may have been that the overly macho Dave thought it would have been a bad mark on his career, as well as his ego, to get help for his problems.

Karen Sillas as Alyson is the glue that keeps the film together with her at first going along with her new husbands explanation of his frequent disappearances, some for as much as two weeks, as him doing covert action in keeping the country safe from domestic and foreign terrorists. The real reasons for his long absences were the result of him casing out planing and robbing banks. Which was the only way he knew how to earn a living given from what he learned, in subversive actions, all those years in the elite Red Berets.

Alyson tracking down Dave's mom Carolyn Bay(Linda Goranson), who he told her was dead since he was a small boy, in Portland she finds out the truth about the double, or triple, life that he's been leading since he married her. This lead to Alyson finding out about his marriage to Linda and the two sons that he had with her as well as his faked death, and now AWOL, from the USAF. Being that it's a true story the ending was anything that you would have guessed it to be in a standard Hollywood, or made for TV, movie. That's what makes the film "Lies he Told, a lot better then what you would have expected it to be.


He 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.


I 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!


This 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.


This 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.


The 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.


This 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.


For 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)


The people of my generation and those who are older know about the WW II (or as it is called in Russia – the Great Patriotic War) not only from the school textbooks, but from the witnesses and participants of the event. My granddad was a soldier at Stalingrad and when I was a small girl I used to listen to his stories of how he defeated the Germans. He also told me some anecdotes, not all he told me was gloomy. But it was long ago, and no when I have a conscious interest for what happened there in the battle of Stalingrad, I have to turn to books and movies for information. Somehow most films I saw were made in the Soviet Union, only a few in present day Russia. And “Stalingrad” is an exception. In the movie the war is described from the opposite side, and the fact in itself is interesting. All that is shown in the film is quite different from what I’m used to.

The film reminds me a great deal of Remarque’s “Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben”, because the war is shown through an ordinary German soldier perception. And this soldier or lieutenant is rather obsessed by repeating he is by no means a fascist. The movie heroes right from neat and enthusiastic Europe, from the Italian coast arrive in the snow-covered hungry Soviet Union. They are doomed to die; it is clear from the very beginning.

After the elite detachment had taken part in their first fight at Stalingrad, one of the soldiers said the phrase which reflected the whole idea for me; he said “If you start thinking, you will go mad”. And to my mind it is true for spectators as well. From the one hand, one may think, OK, I’ll just watch this movie and it won’t dissipate me, I needn’t feel sorry for the people on the screen as it were they who attacked my country and not vice versa. However sooner or later but inevitably one starts sympathizing with the characters. Probably when the lieutenant chokes back his tears at seeing Kolya’s execution.

“Stalingrad” is hard to watch, all these frostbitten legs, dirt, executions, snow, famine, destroyed illusions.

As far as I know, Lt. Hans von Witzland is one of the few films where Thomas Kretschmann played his star roles. I watched quite many Hollywood movies where he was given unimportant parts of small fries, such as “Next” or “Transsiberian” (why did he do it?!). And after I had watched “Stalingrad”, I cannot make out the European actors desire to appear in American movies, even second-rated at any cost. The fact puzzles me deeply. I believe Thomas Kretschmann deserves better parts and much better screenplays than those he is given in Hollywood. And out of what I saw with him, “Stalingrad” is the best, beyond the doubt.

In my opinion the worst “Stalingrad” drawback is the way they speak Russian in the movie. I mean of course those who are supposed to be Russian. Say, the boy who spent some time with the Germans or the girl with whom they planned to escape. Was it really so difficult to find actors able to pronounce a couple of phrases without that horrible accent? Initially I set down to watch “Stalingrad” just to listen to native German-speakers because I’m studying the language. I did not expect anything extraordinary of the film. But it impressed me, made me cry when I wasn’t going to at all. I know I’m 15 years late to watch it, but “Stalingrad” is not a run-of-the-mill movie, and after 15 years it is still watchable and shocking.


This 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".


The 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.


If 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?


Simply 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.


Apart 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 ?


I just recently saw this movie in hopes of seeing an accurate portrayal of the bloodiest battle of the 20th Century. I got what I had expected and so much more. Just to think I came across this movie by luck, before I had never even heard of it. It's a German film made in 1993 so I suppose I can't be surprised that it's almost completely unknown to the modern American audience. It's a shame cause this really is a remarkable film, I dare say that its as good if not better then Platoon, Full metal jacket, Apocalypse now, and All quiet on the western front; all of which are iconic war movies.

1942: World War II is in full swing. Nazi Germany has over run Mainland Europe and parts of North Africa, then Adolf Hitler orders the full scale invasion of the Soviet Union. A fateful move that ultimately dooms Nazi Germany to defeat. In the early stages the invasion goes well and the German Armies conquer large sections of Soviet territory, but a critical battle ensues at Stalingrad, A city that hold great symbolic & strategic value. The battle soon turns into a blood bath of epic proportions, a nightmare for both the German & Russian soldiers fighting. On the verge of taking the city the Germans are suddenly counter attacked by the Russians who end up cutting off the entire German 6th Army inside Stalingrad. To make matters worse, the Russian winter arrives causing incredible suffering for the Germans. This entire battle is seen through the eyes of a few young German soldiers fighting for survival not only against the Russians and the harsh winter conditions but also against their own Sadistic officers who care only about medals & glory and the generals who have little regard for the average foot soldier.

This film is going to haunt me for a while. The German Soldiers the film concentrates on are so young and naive, then their humanity & sanity are stripped from them and you really do feel sorry for them cause their not the demonic Nazi's often portrayed in film. Everything they were fighting for is no longer important, and everything they believed in was shattered, and after fighting a gruesome battle against the Russians inside Stalingrad we see them further deteriorate with the onset of Winter causing many to freeze to death. The Battle & Winter scenes were like a horrible nightmare but it also felt so real. It's amazing, in the beginning we see strapping young men in the prime of their life, and at the end they a shells of their former selves stripped of everything. After witnessing so much carnage these men just loose their will to live on, it was really sad. When there is finally a moment of hope they are betrayed by Hitler who ultimately abandons these men to a horrible death, which is just another one of Hitler's crimes abandoning the men who fought for him to be slaughtered by the Russians.

A good Anti-War film depicts the horrors of war and that's what this movie does. The battle for the tractor factory sequence Is the closest thing that comes to hell on earth, but that's really what The Battle for Stalingrad was like. The German & Russian soldiers were depicted with humanity, it was only the bad apples (specifically on the German side) that doomed the men. Bottom line is this film is amazing cause we see how men breakdown physically & emotionally during war. We all have our limits and these men were pushed far beyond their limits in the most deadly battle of our time. What the average foot soldier endured at Stalingrad was beyond imagination. Even if they had survived everything they had seen & done would have scarred them for life.

Stalingrad shows us why War is Hell, and what exactly hell looks like.


This 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.


A 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.


This 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.


Bloody 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.


This 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.


Stalingrad 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")!


From 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.


This 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


One 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.


Describing 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.


Having majored in Western History when I was a student in college seeing the views on World War II are quite discomforting and in a whole completely wrong. World War II was the most graphic and bloody affairs to ever occur in world history. While the Axis Powers conducted many crimes against humanity which is still the view today and the correct many people forget that not every German soldier was out to exterminate the Jewish population, not every Japanese soldier swung a samurai sword around and flew kamikaze missions, and not every Italian soldier was a Fascist. Most of these soldiers for the Axis powers were normal people like you and I caught in a terrible conflict and just happened to be fighting for a country they loved.

The Battle of Stalingrad was arguably the most lethal battles in world history with over 1,500,000 casualties sustained over the course of the battle. The film Stalingrad follows a German platoon and its leader Lieutenant von Witzland as they are reassigned to the Eastern Front to battle the Soviets at Stalingrad. Von Witzland acts as sort of the main character with two other men, Rollo and Fritzi. They all are normal men and seem to be completely unaware to what is happening back in Germany and Poland.

The film follows the course of the battle. The film is overall very bleak when it comes to its portrayal of combat and a soldiers life during the battle. We are shown numerous gruesome battles and intense violence outside of the battles (including a firing squad sequence). Overall the battles are the earliest examples that I know of that portray the loss of limbs and overall in your face death sequences and violence. Much of the inspiration for Saving Private Ryan's battle sequences seem to have come from this film.

The film does not aim to make the German's completely innocent of everything in the film. Several of the higher ranking officers of the army are portrayed in the usual view most people are use to, evil. Most of the soldiers are just normal people who often speak of home. The film makes it clear quite quickly that not all Germans were responsible for what happened during the Holocaust, most of the country and army was entirely oblivious to the fact that genocide was taking place. The film makes it clear that the soldiers in the Germany Army was simply fighting for a cause they really didn't understand and most wished just to return home rather than freezing in negative degree temperatures in Russia.

The film really shows how hellish war is, especially World War II. The battle scenes will shock you with its gritty realism and the story is quite easy to follow as you are simply following a platoon during the battle. As with most war films do not expect much happiness after seeing it. It will leave you in a bit of a depressed mood just from seeing the life most of the soldiers on the Eastern Front faced. Not recommended for children.

4/5 stars


I found the movie very real just as much as Saving Private Ryan and gave an upfront account from the German perspective. The graphic action and individual characters gave this movie much to keep me interested through the whole movie. Stalingrad was very brutal battle and the scenes gave this movie that stark reality of this battle. I recommend this for anyone who is interested in military history. This was my second viewing of this movie in a few years and was captivated by it's realism again. The weapons, uniforms, and hearing it German while reading the subtitles gave it much credit for a good military movie. In fact, this being a German perspective of the battle, I was rooting for the Germans, even though they were the agressor and ultimate loser of the war.


The magnitude of the Stalingrad tragedy is concisely presented in the end note of the movie: "In the battle of Stalingrad, more than one million people were killed in action, froze to death or died of starvation: Russians, Romanians, Italians, Hungarians, Germans, Austrians. Of the 260,000 surrounded men of the Sixth Army, 91,00o were taken prisoners, of whom only 6,000 returned to their homeland, years later.

What the story does not tell was that Fieldmarshall Paulus, who surrendered, did not share all the hardship of the captivity of his men. He had a special treatment as the highest ranking prisonner taken by the Soviet army. When, during his presence at the Nuremberg trials he was asked about the fate of the 91,000 prisoners, he declared that they were fine. He was freed after the war and died in the East Germany.

The film only presents the first part of the tragedy, the actual battle of Stalingrad. However, for an entire picture, the fate of the 91,000 prisonners should also not be forgotten.


Naked City: JWAB does a pretty good job of balancing its two A - B stories, eventhough I'm not all that fond of multiple plot movies. And Scott Glen and Courtney B. Vance make a great on screen dual. However, I'm not sure what kind of message a movie sends when two flat-foot country girls can get off scott free with murder, grand theft, and to top it off, win a free flight home (in first class no less--at least from the looks of their attire anyway). Gee, I guess that blue wall of silence is still rather think!

Rating: 8


This Showtime cable film features a talented cast and weaves together several storylines involving the darker side of New York... from the naive and innocent tourists' nightmarish adventure to a pair of undercover cops on the streets... to an old friend's betrayal, it has it all.

Well worth a look, as is its sequel.


The essence of this film falls on judgments by police officers who, fortunately ethical and moral men, act on situations within situations in a city with a super-abundance of violence and killing. Good compound interacting story lines and above-average characterizations.


I recently purchased this on DVD as I hadn't heard of it and like robert carlyle.

Obviously this movie is not going to have Hollywood blockbuster special effects,in saying that though the special effects were decent enough,and the acting was fine also.

I found the movie to be enjoyable and do not regret buying it at all,at almost 2 hours long it is just the right length for this type of movie.

Do not expect thrilling explosive action from beginning to end though,it is a fairly well balanced movie with a decent enough storyline!


This is a catastrophe movie set in London . Starting multiple hurricane,superstorm and tornadoes on Scotland are displaced towards East , downing England coast and later the South. After several hours of heavy rainful , the London barrier above Thames is short from running over, and it paves the way for disaster. Then a colossal tidal-wave travel relentless down East causing devastation and lives of millions of Londoners are in danger. At the center of the story is a climatologist(Tom Courtenay) a climatologist who tries to save London from the effects of giant wave , trying to convince the authorities that the town dike was unsafe, furthermore a marine engineer (Robert Carlyle) and his ex-wife Samantha(Jessalyn Gilsig) . They are trapped into the barrier and dropped to sea .Meantime the secret government agency HQ ruled by Nash(Joanne Whalley) under direct orders of deputy Minister(David Suchet) attempt to control many displaced and avoid more dead, approximately 200.000. They have a little time to save London from total catastrophe.

Perfectly acceptable drama-disaster with alright acting. Magnificent Tom Courtenay as a climatologist who predicts catastrophe and excellent Robert Carlyle and Jessalyn Gilsig as ex-matrimony rekindling their love. The movie packs impressive flood scenes brought to life by the breathtaking computer generator special effects, better than the classic of the 70s , such as 'Earthquake, Inferno Towering' and similarly to 'Armaguedon and Day after tomorrow'. Although isn't a clear denounce, we know that the flood is caused by the greenhouse effect and global warming which originates the ozone hole. The motion picture is well directed by Tony Mitchell. I would recommend this movie to people who like disaster movies. Another adaptations about floods, are the following : 'Flood(1976)'directed by Earl Bellamy with Robert Culp and Barbara Hershey; 'Hard rain(1998)' directed by Mikael Salomon with Morgan Freeman and Christian Slater; ' Flood : a river's rampage(1979)' directed by Bruce Pittman with Richard Thomas


Excellent special effects make this disaster move very plausible. One can see that the producers went to some trouble to get the displays on the computer screens just right - it all makes it very convincing. The sets are also very authentic looking. A good choice of music rounds off the film nicely.

Acting is good and the presence of David Suchet adds some weight to the cast of course. Compared to other movies of this genre, Flood is right up there with the best of them. Thankfully, the "human drama" aspect has not been overdone, as is often the case with this type of movie. The human suffering is portrayed in perfect balance with the actual flooding scenes.

And of course, the movie confirms what many of us suspect anyway: weather forecasters so often do not get it right! :)


The three main characters are all hopeless, and yet you only feel sorry for one of them: Ernesto, hopelessly devoted to Mercedes. This was part of the frustration: screaming at Mercedes to get a clue and ditch the no-good Harry, to no avail.

Then there's the satisfaction: Steve Buscemi has a great part as a transvestite, and Harvey Keitel's moving story of his indignity playing a gorilla for a cheap TV movie is incredible. When you least expect it, Quentin Tarintino is doing half a monologue, and Anthony Quinn turns Ernesto into a wealthy man.

Time and again great moments appear in the story, but in the end it's hard to know what to feel about this movie. It doesn't have a happy ending, or even a complete one, but it somehow feels right.

This movie is strange, but then so am I; no wonder I liked it.


Rosie Perez is the lead in this very engaging affair, cast as Mercedes, a young woman from Brooklyn who has resolved to become a film actress although not favoured by her circumstances, living in East Los Angeles and struggling with a series of fruitless auditions for any sort of part at all. Mercedes has hooked up with a married and washed-up actor, Harry Harrelson (Harvey Keitel), who at one time had performed in a television Western series during the 1970s, and seldom since, accepting him as her lover, in part from loneliness, and as well from a hope that film parts will be coming her way because of his "contacts", but these latter are of small consequence as Harry is simply self-delusional in his attempts at recovering what he perceives as past cinematic renown. In order to adequately support herself financially, Mercedes toils as a taxi dancer in a downtown Los Angeles Skid Row dance hall/bar while she continues carrying on her efforts to succeed at the motion picture business, and it is while there at the dance palace that a young immigrant from Mexico, Ernesto (Michael DeLorenzo), falls in love with her and the largest portion of the narrative depicts his efforts to please the object of his affections, even if they may mean losing her altogether. This essentially tradition rooted melodrama is given only a moderate budget, despite the presence of a goodly number of well-known players, including Steve Buscemi, Anthony Quinn, and Stanley Tucci, and was kept in the can for about a year before its rather desultory distribution and leaden marketing efforts on its behalf, more's the pity as its solid production characteristics are firmly complemented by Alexandre Rockwell's admirably controlled direction, a consistent virtue of his work, and on display in this film from its very opening scene, frames that form a montage behind the credits, featuring Perez at Skid Row's Fifth and Main Streets. Rockwell has often demonstrated that he operates very closely indeed with his cast, and this holds true in this instance as he allows his actors to create their roles while any ad libbing is neatened nicely via the editing process, resulting in an artistic success for the director, despite negative comments from some mainstream evaluators. The film's scoring is aesthetically spot on with a good deal of it contributed by Tito Larriva, who also plays as band boss for the taxi dancers. Acting honours here must go to the ever vital Perez, although nary a sub-par performance is turned in. A fair test for any film's quality is given when a viewer will watch it twice within a brief period. Sitting through this undervalued work will be considered a keen pleasure for many.


I saw FAREWELL TO HARRY at the Plaza Theatre while in New York city and was quite taken. The performance of William Hall Jr. is tremendous. This is a movie for the classic movie goer. Garrett Bennett's direction reminds me of early Barry Levinson and Robert Redford's work. The movie seems to transcend the typical independent film. It has a soul and a visual power that is quite unique. I saw this with a small audience (400) who were captivated from the moment of the first credit to the last and although I wasn't out and out crying (like the lady next to me) I do have to admit I had a little watering in the eyes...


I just watched the movie tonight and i found it brilliant. It doesn't have special effects that blow your mind, and it's not violent or bloody, no terrorist or aliens but it's brilliant. It's just plain nice, sweet and it brought me to a whole different time, a much simpler time, where people could take their time to walk down the street and look out at the ocean. I think it was beautiful and I for one recommend it. Nick was a great character and his friendship with Harry was one of the highlights of the movie. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i believe everyone should watch this, mostly when they feel down, or when they want to share something nice with their friends.


This is a quiet movie. It's a simple story about a writer who cannot write his story coming back to his home town to get started but instead he gets involved in a friendship with a weird older man whose life externally represents perhaps the internal state of the writer - it's a museum of unfinished ideas, outdated equipment and "useless" people.

There are no extraordinary circumstances or any big movements in the plot. It's a movie about internal changes. Being stuck in their lives which are not developing much, the principal personages get to help each other to transform, stop leaving in dreams and achieve something or at least get a change and give their lives the desired and long-awaited new direction.

On the film-making side I can think of only one weakness which could also be considered as a feature - we do not get much of characters description or inner world insights. It's very narrative on the side of thoughts and events and we have to guess about their true feelings which are rather hidden but still you can see them, and this is what makes your own mind work, trying to figure them out, to understand the impressions made by those people, and it's not empty underneath - the actors definitely hold well some inner states proper to their characters. It's close to the real life where you mostly never know someone well enough to understand them completely, and this turns us around and puts in front of our own feelings and choices.

What's most important for me is that this simple almost flat story leaves you pondering afterwards, about your own life, about your own dreams and achievements, are there any or are we caught up in the routine and pleasures, leaving at 100% or only dreaming about it, could we do more and move somewhere we'd rather like to be than just leaving feed ourselves and others the tales like "I'll do this one day"- not moving one finger to make this actually happen, or "I'm fine where I am" because it's easier to go by the habits than to actually make a change? At least that's the impression it left me with and it was very timely for me, which adds to my appreciation of this far-from-famous movie. I definitely recommend it to anyone who likes the movies meant for the heart but those who need events and actions should stay away.


Seeing Gary Busey in a G rated film was a first and a nice one at that. I don't know much about the director, but he obviously knows how to spend a few dollars and get the most out of them. Where did Jillian Clare come from? My kids love her! The only thing I remember Christopher Atkins doing was Blue Lagoon. Disney needs to see this film and put him to work. The wife thinks he is very cute. I liked what he did with his character. He seemed so real. What we liked most was the message this film sends out. Greed sucks and faith, love and family wins! This is the first low-budget DVD we've bought that had so much stuff on it. The producers made this one for kids and the kids loved it. They liked the music and all the extras on the DVD. The director probably won't stick to family movies, but I hope he does - cause he really knows how to get the most out of kids, animals and stars like Gary Busey. The dog was great and seeing Gary Busey act like a dog was even funnier. There wasn't much we didn't like about this one. It hard to find a family film without all the crude humor, and Quigley was a delightful surprise.


My entire family enjoyed this film, including 2 small children. Great values without sex, violence, drugs, nudity, or profanity. Also no zillion dollar special effects were added to try to misdirect viewers from a poorly written storyline. A simple little family fun movie. We especially like the songs in the movie. But we only got to hear a portion of the songs ... Mostly during the end credits... Would love to buy a sound track CD from this movie. This is my 4th Bill Hillman movie and they all have the same guidelines as mentioned above. With all the movies out there that you don't want your kids to watch, this Hillman fella has a no risk rating. We love his movies.


Living just down the Hwy from Georgetown, Co...I remember this movie well and thought it was great! The story seems like something John would do even in real life, but there is something that I will always remember most about the movie. For those of you who don't live in Denver...every Christmas, the city of Denver, Co puts up a fabulous display of lights and decorations at the Civic Center in downtown Denver. Well...as it so happened, during the filming of this movie, a Nativity scene was needed. So...it was borrowed from the Civic Center display...with permission, by the way! Someone had forgotten to advice the powers that be, and it was reported stolen! A frantic search began with law enforcement for a few days. Finally, someone spoke up and remembered loaning it to the film crew in Georgetown! It was returned and put back where it belonged! As it turns out...it wasn't featured all that much in the movie...you can barely see it during the Christmas show with the children. It did create quit a disturbance though...


The GREAT NEWS is that this film is now AVAILABLE on DVD from http://treasureflix.com for all those who wish to own it as well as on video.This is good news as it is one of my favourite films!

I watched this film for the first time in the 80s and it is compulsory holiday viewing. Living in the small market town called Tewkesbury, picturesque and with its own traditions,of reenactments,and traditions we are also a cosy tight community. We are now also faced with large housing developments which threaten to destroy the Community and you can see why I love this film First of all-and most important, there are LASHINGS of snow!!!! Then there is the lovely legend of the Christmas Tree and also the Christian denouement as all the community cough up the money to help the destitute farmer save his farm and stay in the community. The evil developers-only after the money are sent packing as the whole town pledge their money to help protect what they have , which is very special. I love the way the whole community send their message to Santa via the post office which is misunderstood by the hero . He and his daughter have a long journey to make after the death of the wife and mother of the family. (There is a likely candidate for this)-even a sleigh ride and most heartwarming of all is that the taxi driver, whose engine is broken is mysteriously given a new one on Christmas morning and no-one had engineered it! There is a lovely moment where Denver sings a lullaby and an exciting search. Great gentle film for everything Christmas is really about.


This is an excellent movie and should be presented every year during the holidays @ Christmas! Beautiful with great acting. John Denver at his best, i,e, sincere, kind, talented, and natural. The town is Georgetown, Colorado and every bit as lovely as in the story.


I just finished watching the movie tonight and I truly loved it. John Denver didn't play a pastor, but it was the reverend of the little town who decided to leave the floor for John Denver to speak. It's a really great movie with a wonderful Christmas message. It was also fun to watch.


My Santa Lucia Choir was chosen to be in this movie. All 100 plus. When it came time to film the movie I was asked to chose just 10. Oh my goodness. We had a little gal who went early to have her tonsils out because she wanted to be in the movie. The choices were hard to make. The people of Georgetown are just a lovely as the people that they show in the movie. Gracious, kind, believers. The town sponsors an annual Christmas Market the first two weekend in December every year. I was there this year and it was wonderful. The town is lovely and the people work hard to make it magical. The town appears today as it did when the movie was made. Much credit goes to the Historical Society there that work hard to maintain the historical value. The principal of the school that has been turned into a Charter School was given an award by the Governor of Colorado for Volunteers.


Even if I had never seen or heard of Georgetown, CO, this would be a sweet little movie. But my dad was born and raised there, and those are my uncle's horses you see pulling the sleigh! So this movie is very special to me. A lot of the interiors are shot in buildings and houses I recognize, and are very realistic. The story is a little hokey, but Georgetown is that kind of magical place where things like that COULD happen. John Denver was a better actor than a lot of people give him credit for. Mary Wickes plays the kind of "common-sense lady with a lot of sass" she played so well in many other films, most notably "White Christmas". I usually don't get to go out there in the winter, so I like to see this movie at Christmas time to "tide me over" until my next trip!


It was good to see John Denver again though he passed several years ago. I found this film to be very heartwarming and a great film to sit by the fire on a cold winters night recollecting what Christmas is all about. The scenes of Georgetown, Colorado were magnificent and make one want to move there immediately. As I sit here in my own mountain seen in So California I loved the story and the plot. I hope all who see this somewhat older film enjoy it as much as my mother and I did. Merry Christmas! A great film for all the family too see. Enoy and tell others about it. Thanks for the memories. We need to have more films like this come out of Hollywood.


Just watched it on the Hallmark Channel. I was surprised to John Denver! This movie was full of clichés, but that is to be expected (a made for TV Christmas movie- come on!) The acting is as good as any other '80's made for TV movie. The story is, as I said before, predictable and cliché, but still good. If you are looking for a campy Christmas movie, it will certainly scratch your itch.

I was also pleased when I learned that it took place in Georgetown, Colorado. It is a real mountain town west of Denver. Very cool as this is my home region.

I was never a big John Denver fan (I always found him to be pretty foney) but he was a decent actor. He is very good as the good old boy like he played in this film.

If you get the chance to watch it, than do. I'm sure it will be on again in 2007.


This movie is my families favorite Christmas movie because it is a beautiful picture of what Christmas is really all about. These days living in a big city which I hate, I love to watch movies about the life I've always dreamed of having. The town that this movie is set in is my dream come true for the life I've always wanted and the true feeling of community that has been lost in todays society. I truly don't feel the true spirit of Christmas anymore but watching this movie helps to find that feeling again. My family taped this movie long ago of TV and now our copy has been worn out so I would really like to buy a few copies on DVD for my family and me if anyone can tell me where I can buy some copies please just post the info here and I will keep checking. Thanks.


The joy and tragedy of the Christmas Season lies in the fact that it mostly revolves around family. That is why some people call it "the children's holiday." As we age, natural attrition and progress removes the people and the things that gave us our special memories. John Denver, in one of his sweetest roles, plays George Billings, a successful NYC architect and new widower who lost his wife about a year earlier. His life is focused around his 9 year old daughter, Alex; both are still grieving their loss. George is trying his best to make this a special Christmas for his daughter. Enter his boss, Thomas Renfield (roguishly played by the wonderful Col. Flagg of M*A*S*H guy, Edward Winters), who sends George to Georgetown, CO to explore a possible real estate deal. Lying to his daughter that the purpose of the trip is a vacation rather than work, George and Alex fly into town, where they're immediately met by a collection of loving generous but somewhat eccentric group of characters whose main eccentricity is that they all believe in Santa Claus. Georgetown is a picture book community we'd all love to live in and we'd love the people for neighbors. George soon meets a love interest in Susan (Jane Kazmarek.) Were it not for the grinch (Renfield) it would be an ideal time. But the fact is, he is in town to find property for Renfield to develop, and there is a nice ranch near town about to be foreclosed, and the dark edges of the movie revolve around the impending foreclosure and the reactions of the townies, the rancher, and the outsiders. I won't spoil the ending for those who've never seen the movie. It's a typical happy Christmas ending, but it's handled in a fairly subtle and believable way that shows the best in the human spirit without being too syrupy. All in all, this is a most pleasant way to spend a couple of your Christmas TV hours. John Denver and Jane Kazmarek have nice chemistry and Gennie James as Alex does a real nice job. I've always loved the work of Mary Wickes, a recognizable character actress, and all of the other cast members do a nice job with less meaty parts. This is a regular Christmas fare for my family; I rate it 4/5.


My Wife and I saw this movie once in 1989 and enjoyed it so much We wanted to see it again. It was so moving that I was calling it a tear jerker. The mystery that Billings was sent to report on is really no mystery at all. Angles!! It seems that ever time He turned around something happened to him, all good, and I believe it scared George a bit, considering that he did not realize what He had gotten into. It just goes to show that even the cold hearted can change with the right attitude around. If only We all could treat each other the same, the world would be a better place.To date we have been searching the net for a copy of it, now I finally have a connection to it, as soon as I can find a copy to buy I am going to grab it.


This is an excellent movie and I wish that they would put it out on DVD for people to purchase. It is difficult to try to catch it on TV all the time. As you do not know when one of the stations will decide to air it. Can someone tell me what file company make it so I can write to them and see if they will release it to the public? I only caught the last hour and a half yesterday and I only got to see it once last year. My sisters and I are all looking for it in every store that sells any videos. John Denver is an excellent singer and actor and the plot line is great. They put out some much older movies and I think that is great but there are quite a few that they have not put out and I think if we could contact the producers and voice our requests we might get some of them put out on DVD.


I've already seen spin-offs of cartoons such as The Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes and most of them are great.

When I saw the All Grown Up pilot in 2001, I thought it was interesting to see how the Rugrats would look in their pre-teens/teens and it contained things that would usually happen during that time of life such as going to a concert, going to school and being grounded.

The actual TV show is better because the Rugrats seem to wear different clothes in each episode and Angelica doesn't get punished as much as she did in the original Rugrats series. Tommy and Susie get punished in this series.

I've also noticed references to Rugrats in this show and even flashbacks of how the Rugrats looked in the original series. They actually talk to the adults in this show because they're 10 years older.

This show is aimed at a slightly older audience than the original Rugrats. Viewers of the original show may like this.


The Swedish filmmaker Roy Andersson's latest film You, the Living is not easy to review. One of the reasons is that in his own words he has broken with the Anglo-Saxon tradition of story-telling, in all essence the template of most Western film productions. Another reason might be that although Roy Andersson is somewhat heavy on symbolisms, his, unlike those of, say, Andrei Tarkovsky, are of a more elusive nature. It took him 3 years to complete this 86 minute long film and it wasn't because he was forced to have long breaks between shootings due to financial troubles or problems with the actors. The film consists of 57 vignettes shot mostly by a still camera, and it was the careful design of each of these scenes which required much time. The imagery of this film which is closely related to the director's previous film Songs from the Second Floor is of utmost importance to the story, thus this story is told to a great degree by the surroundings and the environment in which the characters of Andersson's universe dwell and interact. Before each scene was finally shot, there would have been no less than 10 different test shootings with different actors, colors, dialog etc. The result is a dreamlike version of the surrounding world which most of us would recognize and if the setting is like a dream, why not dream a little? Just like in Bunuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, when somebody says "Last night I had a dream", you get to watch it. But then again, what is perceived as reality here is not very much different from the dreams.

Despite the fact that the film lacks a plot in the traditional sense of the word and there are no main characters as such, the different characters who appear and reappear in different scenes still meet each other and their stories are inevitably intertwined. What most of these characters have in common is their apparent loneliness despite being surrounded by other people. The trailer trash chain smoking and binge drinking woman who dreams of having a motorbike so that she can get away from "all this crap", her corpulent and mostly silent boyfriend and his frail and seemingly gentle but rather absent-minded mother, members of a brass band whose skill improving efforts at home aren't getting a favorable reception neither from their families nor their neighbors, the depressed Middle Eastern hairdresser and his arrogant customer on his way to "a very important business meeting", an elderly man having a nightmare about bombers in the skies, a young girl dreaming about marrying the young rock star that she is so madly in love with. It's all about dreams and nightmares versus reality but it works as much as a statement in support of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's claims that "all human communication is miscommunication". People speak to each other but it is as if they speak past each other. They try to reach out to the others but shut the others out when those try to reach them.

You, the Living is a poetic film set physically in Stockholm but yet universally applicable. The society it portrays is Sweden, its artistic language and the people displayed are generally unmistakably Nordic. Yet, the subject it deals with, namely, the misery of the humankind in a selfish world, reaches far beyond this hemisphere. Despite the seriousness of its theme, the film itself seems a lot more cheerful and laden with humor than one might have expected. But in the words of the director himself "living is so complicated to each one of us that the only thing that saves us is our sense of humor". Hence, this film is a tragic comedy or a comic tragedy, depending on your sensitivities, and not a depressing black reality tour of the human nature. It is unusual in its language and structure, but if you can think outside the box and enjoy it, you will certainly find this film both entertaining and meaningful at the same time. It was shown at this year's Cannes festival as part of the Un Certain Regard program which offers "original and different works" outside the competition. After the film was shown in the Salle Debussy, the 1,000 strong audience gave it a standing ovation for several minutes. Do I need to say more?