I dunno about the "mini series" angle. I think they could have played the "Not all German Officers Supported Hitler Card" a little more heavily. As the movie presents Stauffenberg is pissed because he lost his hand, and eye, and is looking for payback. Instead of the fact that Hitler is making decisions that are costing lives. There was a lot more to the story than one pissed off colonel working in concert with a few generals.

I thnk there should have been more development of the motivation to kill Hitler.

They could have gone into Himmler and Speer a little more. Maybe even added Rommel to the mix.

And what was the deal with the ribbons? why didn't they wear them?
Why was a Colonel wearing a "Blood Stripe" on his trousers?

Thats just my opinion though and if you like the movie you like it.

__________________
"Logos, Philos, Arete"

I think if it were done the way that The Winds of War and War and Remembrance maxi-series were done-it would easily have been a much bigger movie than it was. They probably could have used Michael Curtiz-s help with the movie.

As for the stripes down the Colonels trausers-these are correct as they are Carmine Red instea of the shade of red used by Generals. The srtipes mean that he is a member of the General Staff and the piping on his shoulderboards as well as whatever headgear he wore-would also have to have that shade of red.

I agree though that they should have had mention of Rommel as well as more - after event history mentioned. In that, I was a bit disappointed.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

I personally found the film terrible. Certainly not one for the WW2 collection in my honest opinion.

__________________

Nothing much on my part to be added - I judge it to be a good movie, besides Tom playing an aristocrat German officer - he just looks too American.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Well Sir W. Leonard Spencer C, what did you find about the film that was so terribly bad? I went into watching it with as open a mind as possible-even though I can't stand tom cruise-he did a very good job in portraying the Colonel Count. Anyway, im more than sure that im not the only person here who is interested in hearing what you thought was so bad about the film?

Cheers and Rootbeers--C.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

If you can look past Tom Cruise, an uncanny concoction of american, british and even german nazi accents, the historical inaccuracies, half baked acting and the incorrect portrayal of Stauffenberg as hollywood hero rather than pseudo facist antihero I suppose you have yourself the makings of a true wartime movie classic.

__________________

Ehh?? "pseudo" I beg your pardon??

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

In comparison to the extremism of Hitler's facism.

Regards
WC

__________________

Hello W.C. (a cunning abrev. he.he)

first of all I find no reason in history or in the movie that could prove Stauffenberg to be a "pseudo" anti facist or a pseudo facist antihero.
Especially not for someone who risked his live to fight the facist.

Secondly: to which historical inaccuracies are you refering to or have you noticed? (German shepherd's such as Blondie have been mixbreeded for the past 60 years so even for Hollywood it would be impossible to find one with a straight back)

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Hi W.C, I think you missed the point to the movie. I can't see what was too terribly inaccurate about the movie? they did one hell of a great job in a lot of details on things. For me-coming from the viewpoint of a German Imperial and WWII MIlitaria Collectors point-of-view-they did a fantastic job on details. I can't see what is so historically inaccurate about the movie to make it a bad movie.

I have to agree that before seeing it-I didn't like the idea of Tom Cruise being the one chosen to portray the Colonel Count but, before and after eeing this movie, I would still rather have Tom Cruise in the role of Stauffenberg-instead of morons like gEORGE cLOONEY.

Not that this next bit has anything to do with this movie in particular-it's always had me fascinated at why so many people hate the now classic: Battle of the Bulge-as much as they do. I mean, most arguments I read about here as to why the movie is a bad movie-stems from the fact that they do not use "real" WWII German Tiger Tanks in their tank scenes. One of my comebacks was: Could you have pulled out a large unit of Tiger Tanks from your back pocket? Another of my come backs has always been: If the Producers could have been able to produce a Brigade of Tiger Tanks from their own back pockets, im more than sure they would have used them. Also, just how many war movies have actual WWII German Generals as advisors in them? not many-The Longest Day is another that comes to mind.

Anyway, I also hear griping at how inacurate the movie was-however, those who complain forget that this movie is a FICTIONAL story based on the actual events. Also, in order to make this movie-they had to Generalize the entire event-in order to convey the essence of the actual story. Now had they done it with more accuracy in mind-they would have had to make this movie a multi houred maxi-series like: The Winds of War and War and Remembrance-which ran for some appx 50 hours if you watched them back-to-back?

Now do you see what the connection is to all of this is? ;-))

Regards-PS, I also do not get where you got that the Col Count was a pseudo fascist? He did not share the same beliefs as "Wolfy" did.

PSS, I had read that same argument about Enemy At the Gates as well as U 571. Everybody seems to forget that both of those movies were works of FICTION based around an actual historical event. Could EATG been better-you but-but-it's still a good movie even though the romace SHOULD have been left out of it same as with P.H.

The only movie I have ever seen, that I greatly enjoyed that was a War Movie with a good portion of it being centered around a romance-(and everything was very tastefully done) is: A Time To Love and a Time To Die. It starts out with a soldier on the Eastern Front who gets a few weeks leave-goes home to find his Parents only to discover that their home was destroyed in a bombing raid and that his parents were elsewhere. In the process, he tries to find a former Professor of his and finds his Daughter whom he falls in love with. A portion of this movie is dedicated to their romance (and I hate romance movies) but this movie had so much going for it that the romance scenes were also good and were interesting-thanks to the background shown of life in a bombed out German City. This movie is excellent in everyway.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Right, I didn't like it *braces for incoming*

Ok, it isn't entirely rational but I didn't find it entirely convincing, nor was it particularly compelling, if I'm honest I was bored and just wanted it to be over!

Let's see, Tom Cruise was a bad start ('long live sacred germany' just sounded daft), the bits in North Africa were weird (colonels shouting at generals? Of course, that happens all the time!), the whole 'we need one man to redeem Germany' aspect of it just didn't seem to fit to me (lets face it, they weren't seeking moral redemption for the most part, simpy an end to Hitlers mistakes and stupidity).

Anyhow, this is all personal opinion, feel free to snipe at it, to be honest I'm probably going to crack it out and give it another bash when my DVD player is out of storage just to see if I was having a bad day but for now, well I'm just glad I bought Defiance the same day to rebuild my faith in Hollywood.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Not compelling is a good way to descibe it

__________________
"Logos, Philos, Arete"

Hi Stefan, im not going to gripe about your opinion of this movie. After all, it's only just that ;-)

Cheers.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Thats what I said Carl, I can't fault it for all the flashy uniforms and so on, even historically it stayed reasonably within the relms of what actually happenned with only a little artistic lisence. I simply didn't find it compelling and found the rather trite 'one man can redeem Germany' (depite having been an active part in all the evil that was done) rather irritating.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Hi Stefan, I do agree but using other thoughts about the movie that it most likely will never achieve Classic Movie status. I guess at least one thing about it-is that it would make for a good rainy Sunday Afternoon-type of movie to watch ;-)) I've only seen it once-unfortunately I had to buy the DvD to do so) so sometime down the line-im going to have to watch it again to at least get my monies worth.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Indeed, that's about it isn't it, it's the kind of film that you wouldn't mind watching on a Sunday afternoon, after a massive meal, when there is nothing to do, with a beer, probably whilst napping, when it is hoofing it down with rain.

Not the mark of a good film IMHO.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

heh heh, after that meal, i'd be ready for a nap and would probably fall asleep during the viewing ;-)) In all fairness on my part--I really did enjoy it but for other reasons then the main one-which was it's historical perspective. I do believe that the costumer should be nominated for an academy award-as I felt they paid great attention to uniform details and I was impressed-as a collector goes ;-))

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.