The Battle of Stalingrad (1949)

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

A gorgeous print of this film is now available. Too bad as it is a terrible film. It is almost impossible to follow and in most action scenes it is hard to tell who is who. There are thousands of extras and battles of all types here but for no good reason. Stalin, Molotov, Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill and other World War 2 personalities occasionally show up but, overall, Stalin steals everything.The Fall of Berlin is now also available and though a bad film it is fascinating and I love it. Skip this mess and see the latter. You'll see Stalin and Hitler as you've never seen them before in the greatest propaganda film of all time. It is everything The Battle of Stalingrad is not and it has the glorious music of Shostakovich.

"Stalingrad" is a heavy-handed propaganda film made by the Soviet government in 1949 with three unstated goals: 1. Glorify the Russian war effort and sacrifices that led to the defeat of the Nazis in WWII; 2. Warn the free world of the folly of opposing communism; 3. Give credit to Joseph Stalin as the mastermind behind Russia's WWII victory.The first goal is a worthy one, because no nation suffered the losses Russia did - an estimated 25 million killed! But the losses portrayed in the film are sterile, as if plastic toy soldiers are being knocked down by marbles. This is because the soldiers actually fighting the battle appear only as extras instead of as actual characters. The only real characters in the movie are the always calm, unanimated Stalin, his entourage of child-like kiss-ass generals, and the over-the-top German leaders they battle against. The battle scenes do not appear realistic, despite the thousands of soldiers and hundreds of authentic tanks, planes, artillery pieces, etc. used in epic fashion. This is probably because of poor directing combined with terrible acting.The second goal was marginally achieved through the vast military might displayed on the screen. But history clearly warns that invading Russia is a risky proposition, especially in Winter, so additional warnings are unnecessary.The third goal was undoubtedly the real reason for the movie. Historians know that Stalin was a murderous thug who rose to power as any gangster does, by simply eliminating anyone who opposes him. He was only good for killing fellow Russians, not Germans. Marshal Zhukov was the mastermind in Russia's war against Germany and he was the true hero of Stalingrad. By removing Zhukov from the limelight after WWII Stalin eliminates a possible political threat while assuming the credit for Germany's defeat."Stalingrad" is not a good movie, but it is an interesting historical relic. It illustrates that lies, no matter how artistically packaged, will eventually be exposed.