I came here long ago to Kinopoisk, in order to review the bad drama Hart's War.
Well, the winter blues apparently affected, the frost, decided to return to the stage with barefoot Farrell, in order to realize how much easier and more fun my life is.
Read my bright review to the end, at the end there will be a nice bonus.
I came in and came across angry comments from the local public.
Despite the fact that the film is bad, under the mood, but still:
1. The British and Americans were not in concentration camps. They were kept in prisoner-of-war camps, and the conditions there-oh, yes, were very, very tolerable. Even for black people, to whom, by the way, white fellow citizens treated, to put it mildly with coolness. About how German prisoners of war were kept in the United States ... you will find on the Internet, but, I warn you, your fragile and cozy world may collapse.
2. The United States won the war. It was they who penetrated the Fortress Europe in three places (Italy, Normandy, Siegfried Line), they took the first of the capitals of the Reich (Rome), they were the first to enter Germany (September 11, 1944). From the very beginning of the European campaign, the U.S. Army attacked. The person correlating the number of corpses to the victory is sick on the head of the person.
And, welcome bonus. Not so long ago, the domestic tape "Dyavyatayev" was released on the screens. I haven’t watched the film yet, and I don’t know if it mentions the little moment that the life of prisoner Nevyataev was saved by American prisoners of war, who moved freely around the camp for prisoners. Read Max Hastings’ brilliant work Armageddon.
I took most of the above information from there.
I decided to write my first review on 'KinoPoisk' from this film, because the last thing I watched was this interesting ' idea', but never turned into reality.
The idea is certainly not new, there were many options, but since the theme of the war has already outlived all its resources', the story about concentration camps, prisoners of war is quite rare, and even about American soldiers held in captivity, especially rare. Initially, in the first half of the film, I wanted to turn off so many blots and unrelated plot elements that it seems to look beyond the second half, associating it with the Devil's Advocate & #39; or '12' with Mikhalkov. Of course, I take into account the fact that the director showed the essence of the military tribunal, its foundations and the moral values of a person. Not to the end, but revealed (of course, in American, because the movie they shot, it means to be surprised by something is not worth it) such qualities as honor, duty, courage. But fully revealed ' other minuses ' lives like cowardice, selfishness, a little irony, flattery and fear. About all the details that you can cling to and develop a whole treatise of criticism, I will not speak. But I will not ignore the moment in which Soviet prisoners of war are shown as morally humiliated, hungry & #39; pseudo-humans & #39; along with well-dressed, well-fed, in well-equipped barracks, American soldiers. What is it? Director's mockery or American format politics? a - la ' Alan Dulles' plan?'.
Although if we take in comparison a bunch ' cinema - consumer goods of American Hollywood', about Soviet citizens, the army, the navy, what are we surprised by? Throwing bread like you’re in a touchdown & #39, imagining it as a national American game, that’s what the cast and cast are capable of. Not surprising, but more distant from reality. In general, I believe that American directing soars in the clouds, with its special effects, robots, fantasies, it helps only in the genre of fiction, fantasy.
Also clearly visible picture, which initially seemed a fairy tale in such a persona as the war and concentration camps of the Second world war. But looking through history, it becomes clear that yes, indeed, American soldiers were kept, with good food, warm barracks, supplemented with cigarettes, music. It can be ' the policy of the parties' by type (you me, I for you). That is, the states keep the Germans in the same conditions, that's true. Be kind, so to speak!
And yet, as they showed us, the Russian viewers, I would like to point out to the Russians... thank God it is impossible to understand. To be honest, polarities are always different. Sometimes we are in the plus, sometimes we are in the minus. But we have a completely different view of the history of the war, since the entire Soviet people took the brunt of this brutal war. I am not saying, I do not want to offend other countries, peoples, allies, everyone’s contribution to the common victory is clearly visible, the facts speak for themselves. But why in such films as ' American saves the world', the eternal Soviet army is exposed among fanatical brainless mutants, with one goal, ' Meat to kill' enemy?
Going all the same to the essence of the film, very well showed the reverse side of the brave & #39;Yankees' Prisoners of war they are rarely seen in the cinema. The actors played, of course, under ' twig' they say strictly so, show it like this. This is another story, though.
It’s one of my favorite movies and I’m sorry that many people misjudge it. There are different genres in cinema, and different criteria are needed to evaluate them. This is a film about the ideal, it is very straightforward, but the ideal should not be vague, it should be clear and bright. I think that’s what I should see in the film, not some historical motive. This is not a historical picture and there is no philosophy. What difference did the United States play in the Second World War? That’s not what the film is about, and no one here claims that the victory is the merit of the Americans. And if the role of Americans is small, does this mean that they do not have the right to make films about the second world war?
And the war here is just the background. The film itself is not about war, but about honor. I haven’t seen such good films about honor. In the modern world, this is not a very popular topic. Many people think of honor as boring. And if the concepts of honor and duty die out in the world, it will be terrible. These films are a reminder and a guide. If every person who has seen the film honestly asks themselves if I could do what Willis and Pharrell did, then maybe the world will be a little better. Only this question is difficult, because self-sacrifice is a difficult thing, it requires great courage. And it is much easier to breed philosophy from scratch and find a million “arguments” to refuse to sacrifice yourself and justify it.
10 out of 10
After reviewing the “top 250” you begin to think that in the world of cinema the same as in life – the wrong films are achieving success and the top began to be diluted with beautiful pacifiers.
You can analyze the film from different angles. But there is one disadvantage in cinematography - it is easy to lay the wrong images in the new generations, to zombie; to implement hidden control, distortion of reality, history, etc. Knowledge reveals a lot of interesting, veiled. Knowledge allows you to see in films answers to questions, allow you to ask questions, protect yourself from negative influences, negative ideas.
With this review, I would like to highlight the layer of films (especially historical ones) that are foreign to us. It is a pity that such films are filmed diverse, cult actors - Bruce Willis, Nicholas Cage ... This film is so full of stupidity and lies that you need to ban watching everywhere. I have not been able to see this nonsense.
(1) Racism. I am sure that our fraternal peoples, in the face of danger, have united (and I hope they will continue to do so) and blurred the boundaries between religious, national and ideological differences. There were and will be monsters.
2) Historical issues. The different attitude of the fascists to the Western and “Eastern” subjects of the war is shown. Was that true? Why? Many answers are given by Starikov N., Fursov A., and other studies. But the film clearly emphasizes the difference in allies: arrogance, domination is unjustified, our second-rate, which is unacceptable. Moreover, the sponsorship and ideology of Nazism, eugenics, cleansing of the population, racial superiority came from Ford, Carnegie and other ideologues.
(3) The course of the war. There is a misconception about the processes that took place. Uneducated (zombie) soldiers. Was it difficult to guess where the fighters were being taken, showing huge furnaces in the background. Although the roots of zombies go deep into history. What does it cost only to form an attitude towards the Indians, which in North America alone destroyed more than 80 million and will soon disappear altogether? Recommended for viewing is simply necessary "Go and see", etc.
(4) Personality. It is possible to show human weaknesses. It's art. This is a dangerous business, for the outcome will depend on the morale of the beholder. “And the dawns here are quiet” – laconic, tragic, accented, skillful display of fear, stupidity, anger, recklessness ...
(5) Compared to our films, the heroism shown looks very poor. Everything is sadly reflected. From decorations (what are the jackets on pilots) to deep feelings.
The film is quite atmospheric and interesting. I’m not sure why he got so many negative reviews. There is nothing out of the ordinary that does not like the film. It is neither "cash" nor "slag." Not everyone will watch it because of the lack of special effects and battle scenes. But! This does not infringe on its merits!
It quite well conveys the atmosphere of the winter of the 44th, the scenery, costumes, camp - everything corresponds to the temporal theme. The plot may seem mediocre, but in its own way it is interesting: it is not often possible to see a kind of “performance” arranged by the German command as a military field trial of a man who is suspected of killing another. All this was done to make fun of the prisoners, saying that we throw you a bone like hungry dogs, and you gnaw at it with each other. It is important to treat prisoners, not as people, but as “wolves” who sometimes need to throw a piece of meat to see the performance. Here comes the topic of “self-sacrifice”. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your life to save others. It may look a little naive, “patriotic” and banal, but in conditions of war, not everyone is capable of such heroism.
A lot of people have said that there is a fake American pseudo-patriotism in the film, but I didn’t see it personally. There were no particularly loud pretentious statements and speeches, and the American flag did not catch my eye.
Of the minuses, you can see the monotony of the plot, the heavily strained acting and the format of “American filming”. There was no objective view of the situation, but there was an American version of the detention of prisoners in the camp, who for the most part did not live so badly. Another very striking disadvantage is the age-old theme of racism. White doesn’t like black, black doesn’t like white. I think that if Negroes were to enter the Nazi camp, they would be shot without question, given Hitler’s racial insanity. These moments are particularly striking.
In general, the film can be watched very well. For those who are interested in the Ardennes operation, the theme of the film will be very entertaining, although it is only superficially touched upon here, and it is a pity. Based on everything, my verdict:
Yes. There was a military detective drama in 2002. It's called Hart's War.
So here we have -- oh yeah -- the Americans, of course, the Russians, the Germans, the German military concentration camp and a good cast. What did I expect from this movie? A good drama, a psychological military detective of good quality from the director of “Primitive Fear” and “Radiowaves”. So what's the bottom line? I haven’t seen such a miserable and boring movie in a long time, and with terrible acting... but all in order.
1) What is the overall picture? Honestly, after watching this movie, I got the impression that the American people still think that they were the nation that liberated the world from the fascists. All the horror of the Second World War was supposed to show (this is a drama and this is the Great Patriotic War), but what about it? The Americans live like at home: they eat normal food, wear clean ironed clothes, Hitler is mocked in amateur performances ... so only Russians were poisoned and hence the questions: was this a German concentration camp? Do Americans know how many people were brutally tortured in concentration camps? What role did the Russians play in this war? What the hell? How could such a director have done such a thing?
2) Drama - it's not here, almost. So, 6-7 percent out of 120.
3) Patriotism, heroism... ay, okay, that's always been in American movies. Let us not ask this question, because everyone knows what American patriotism, American faith, honor, duty, etc. are. All this is good, but you need to know how to make a movie like this.
4) Actor's play. Like I said, she's terrible. What were Willis and Farrell doing here? Well, maybe they didn't know what the hell they signed up for.
5) Cinematography. An equally important part of any film. Shooting should convey the whole reality and atmosphere of what is happening, and here ... in short - longing and despondency. Throughout the film, you will most likely yawn, yawn, yawn, and then fall asleep, somewhere in the 40th minute.
My opinion: Don't spend 2 hours watching this picture.
Young Lieutenant Tommy Hart enters a German prisoner-of-war camp. His inexperience and maximalism go through the trials and hardships of a prisoner’s life, as well as contradict the views of the experienced Colonel William McNamara. But the unexpected murder of one of the prisoners becomes the beginning of an essentially detective story in which enemies and friends are equal before the laws of law.
The 2002 film Hart's War, directed by Gregory Hoblit, is an unusual mix of genres, combining features of war drama and a classic Hollywood court thriller. The film is based on the best-selling novel of the same name by John Katzenbach and Gregory Hoblit found an adequate artistic embodiment of the book, shooting a very balanced and interesting film with a powerful detective intrigue and the inherent idea of sacrifice and justice.
Colin Farrell brilliantly played Tommy Hart, creating a deep and vivid in his contradictory nature image of not so much a soldier as an ordinary person who believes in justice.
William McNamara, played by Bruce Willis, appeared as a verbose and strong man, for whom words about military duty are more important than prayer for the night. His hero is the personification of all the qualities of a real soldier.
Bright characters were also played by Terence Howard, Marcel Yuresh and Linus Roach.
Operator Alar Kivilo shot the picture in a realistic and gloomy manner, and the soundtrack of Rachel Portman creates a sad and tragic mood in the film, in the final reaching unimaginable heights of suspense.
I recommend this film to all fans of thrillers, court dramas and just a good movie and I think you will love the tape.
10 out of 10
Such a film from the director of the most powerful psychological thrillers "Primitive Fear" and "Radiowave" I did not expect. He changed formation and switched to a psychological military detective. A fertile genre, the viewer will always be found for him, because no one has canceled the desire to tickle their nerves or brainwash when watching, but with "Hart's War" this can only get our overseas friends, who, as you know, teach history in a completely different way.
The beginning of the film seems to be good: winter, war - all this is convulsive and terrible, then captivity and torture. All this is shown for ten minutes, and then we are transferred to a concentration camp of Germans who existed during the Second World War. And here begins the most interesting thing, with which you do not know what to do: cry or laugh. For some indefinite reason, the screenwriters (who have been involved in some very famous other projects, by the way) decided that it would be possible to bring a share of symbolic democracy to scary places at scary times. Gradually, scene after scene, a sense of wonder awakens more and more, and this, in turn, is replaced by a clear awareness of the delusional situation that is being shown to us. And how else to react differently to the fact that in a concentration camp they decide to allow captured Americans to hold the most democratic military-field tribunal!
A huge number of strange, illogical turns of events in the plot instantly turn into a big fan of the satirist Mikhail Zadornov with his famous attitude to the United States. Do Americans know how many people were brutally tortured in concentration camps? And the saddest thing is that there are those who think that the picture shows historical reality.
Some kind of oppressed, too oppressed, completely unattended atmosphere of the tape, there was also camera work. Gray colors did not cause a feeling of depression and hopelessness, but rather caused a feeling of longing and boredom from what they saw.
The only thing that can boast of this tape is the play of actors. Bruce Willis and Colin Farrell on their backs stretched the gloom of what was happening, saturating the scenes with drama or real military alignment. But this is not enough and if it were not for them, and even the problem of racism, plus the principle of “people of honor and duty” put on display, everything would be even worse, much worse. For me personally, Hart’s War is the worst military detective/war drama I’ve ever seen and I wouldn’t want to see anything like it again.
5 out of 10
The film completely distorts the historical reality.
It tells the story of courageous American heroes, who are respected by good fascists, despicable Negroes and Russians - people of the third class (even worse than Negroes).
One German concentration camp worth what: all Americans are kept in a cozy, warm, clean, glazed room, eat white bread, fish and chicken broths (!), drink coffee, wear clean clothes. They listen to American news on the radio (!), the prisoners have enough cigarettes, have first aid kits. Prisoners use clean dishes, listen to a gramophone, play checkers, draw pictures, play American football (!). In the concentration camp there is a library, amateur activities - a piano, a theater and a cinema in the barracks (!). The theater plays cartoons of Hitler. Comedy! Perhaps there are such amenities in the American and European zones, but they were not in the Nazi concentration camps. It is not clear who commands the concentration camp, the commandant, or Willis. He bargains with the commandant, as a defense lawyer, for some rights of prisoners of war in a concentration camp. And the commandant responds with stamped American phrases. I couldn't look any further.
In order to imagine how “good” the Germans were, it is enough to watch the true films “Go and See”, “Schindler’s List”.
Bruce Willis plays poorly - the same facial expression throughout the film.
After watching the film, young people simply do not understand the horrors of World War II and the inadmissibility of repeating such evil.
1 out of 10