Stalingrad

Skerries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Da3EgZUA0Y

Da Shins Kelly

The trailer looks good, however having read a bit about it, it seems that a love story is front and center, which is a little disappointing for me. I mean, the Battle of Stalingrad is dramatic enough as it is. Don't really understand the need to include a love interest on top of that.

krudler

so its not just Hollywood that loves the orange/teal look, good christ yet another film with it

Technocentral

It looks a bit too artificial and stylized for my tastes, there have been a load of good war films recently but this one looks like its trying to be be too 'Hollywood", the colour scheme as mention here is awful too.

Da Shins Kelly

Apparently it's in 3D too. Ugh.

johnny_ultimate

Was this film ghost directed by Zack Snyder? Laughably awful trailer.

siblers

I've seen a few different Russian war films covering different campaigns, they all tend to have lots of propaganda in them which takes away from their quality
. I'd recommend

Its really good, depressing as hell but very authentic and portrays both sides in a more human way.

Odd to see both Thomas Kretchman and Fedor Bondarchuk (who also directed) starring in another Stalingrad film apiece. Kretchman was in the excellent 1993 version and Bondarchuk was in a rather good 1989 film also called Stalingrad.

Ole Rodrigo

Honorable mention to ' Come and See '

Brilliant film.

markesmith

ror_74 wrote: »

Honorable mention to ' Come and See '.

+1,000. 'Idi i Smotri', I think it's called.

Ole Rodrigo

markesmith wrote: »

+1,000. 'Idi i Smotri', I think it's called.

Thats it.

Merch

Looked a bit 300ish there at times,

pixelburp

Stalingrad for the Call of Duty / 300 generation by the looks of things. The visuals & slow-motion usage makes everything look so heavily stylised, I can't help but wonder if we're starting to once again romanticize war, on a par with if not more so than the post-war, John Wayne period.

The grit and dirt might be there, but it's all so heavily choreographed and visually arresting that I can't help but wonder if the realism and anti-war messages are muddied & war is being glorified again, simply by making the battlefield look exciting.

It seems far removed from the 70s-90s when warfare was portrayed on film as the grim, pointless catastrophe to humanity that it truly is. A long way away from the Saving Private Ryans or Bridge Too Fars of this world (or the German-focused, Stalingrad from '93)

Duggy747

Sexy war movie.

It was just missing Jay-Z music to accompany it.

kowloon

Duggy747 wrote: »

Sexy war movie.

It was just missing Jay-Z music to accompany it.

That awful cover that's already in the trailer is bad enough, don't tempt them!

charlie_says

The 1993 film of the same title is an excellent antiwar, if extremely bleak and brutal look at the Russian campaign from the German perspective. Horrible, horrible part of the war probably the worst for all involved although the Pacific war shared some of the really bad conditions.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108211/?ref_=sr_1

Well worth checking out. Not exactly a feel good movie but worthwhile of your time.

I didn't look at the trailer for this 3D love/war story (Enemy at the Gates anyone) due to some of the comments above :pac:

siblers

The first 40 minutes of Enemy At The Gates was awesome, the way Stalingrad is re-created is astonishing, then they introduce a stupid love story. That film should have been one of the greatest war films of all time.

Reekwind

siblers wrote: »

The first 40 minutes of Enemy At The Gates was awesome, the way Stalingrad is re-created is astonishing, then they introduce a stupid love story. That film should have been one of the greatest war films of all time.

I think Enemy at the Gates and this new Stalingrad (trailer) suffer from the same problem: treating war as a spectacle. The first half hour of EatG is a great visual treat but it says nothing about war and nothing about Stalingrad*. It's a pure popcorn moment, not the opening to a serious war film

Later the focus changes but war remains as little more than a backdrop; a bombed out set in which the love triangle and personality duels can play out. Which is little different from the film's opening, just less visually arresting. It's that attitude, not just the particular plot points, that really prevents EatG from being a proper war film

*That which it does say about the Red Army is largely myth and historically incorrect