Watch The Cross of Lorraine For Free

Strong and Moving!

Memorable, crazy movie

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

The film is hopelessly marred and scarred by its propaganda nature, which brands it with a character that debases it for history when the war once is over, which is a pity, for it's a great story with great actors, who all do their best, and there are some instances which are more realism than propaganda, especially towards the end, as the intrigue thickens, when prisoners start to escape. It's Jean-Pierre Aumont's film, he is the most interesting character, as you never really know where you have him, as he constantly has to change footing according to what is happening around him, while finally his character emerges in full glory. Gene Kelly is also quite good as an impossible slugger who is completely quashed by Peter Lorre and his Germans, but his annihilation is not quite complete. You can't keep down Gene Kelly for long.It's the boy in the end who introduces the cross of Lorraine and lifts the whole performance to a higher level. This is very far from one of the best war films, but it certainly has some good scenes worth seeing.

The Cross of Lorraine has many virtues - but also some serious flaws.It is gripping and involving, and has excellent performances and characterisations. Gene Kelly's excellent performance gives the lie to the claims by most of the leading film critics (eg. Leslie Halliwell, David Quinlan) that he couldn't really act (Halliwell said that his acting ability was 'minimal', whilst Quinlan said that he 'never convinced' as an actor). Had they forgotten his terrific performance here? As another reviewer has also said, the half-forgotten German character actor Tonio Selwart is also very good as the German commandant, as is Jean-Pierre Aumont as the hero.The film is also very well directed, for the most part, and has many good scenes.However, there are some disturbing aspects, partly due to the presence as co-scriptwriter of Ring Lardner Jr. Lardner was a member of the American Communist Party, despite the fact that Communism had been responsible for millions of deaths in Russia in the 1920s and 1930s. His sympathies can be seen in the film in a number of ways. The traitor, Duval, played by Hume Cronyn, is shown as a capitalist wine merchant who puts business above loyalty. The traitor could have been given any occupation at all by the scriptwriters (French collaborators were from all sorts of occupations in real life) but Lardner had to make a heavy-handed swipe at capitalism.Similarly, the Spanish republican, Rodriguez (Joseph Calleia), is shown as as a heroic figure even though this charming character's aim in life is to kill as many fascists as possible. His positive portrayal is despite the fact that Spanish republicans were responsible for the murder of thousands of priests, nuns, middle class figures and other 'enemies of the state' in republican-controlled areas of Spain in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39).There is also another uncomfortable aspect to the film, due presumably to a combination of script and direction. The film positively revels in the slaughter of German soldiers in the climatic battle - even though in actual fact those particular Germans hadn't killed anyone in the village at the point when the insurrection starts. The film gleefully shows German soldiers being burnt alive, bludgeoned to death, and so on, seeming to take pride in allocating them grisly deaths.So, although this is a high quality film in most respects, it is also deeply flawed.

The problem with this movie is that it, and others,tends to give an unreal picture of what the reaction of the population to enemy occupation was.Perhaps it exaggerated slightly in that it showed every last German to be a sadistic monster,which of course was not the case.Even in Japan, whose government and army actually encouraged brutality and sadism towards non-Japanese, there were decent, humane people.But there is no question that the occupation of unfortunate countries by both Germany and Japan was both harsh and cruel beyond belief.But as I said, the real problem was that it showed everyone rising up and striking back with violence.Satisfying, but unfortunately not practical under the circumstances."Burn down the town and retreat to the hills"?The Russians , with their huge country and vast areas of wilderness, could do that, but not people in the small, heavily populated countries of Europe.There was literally no place to run.This kind of thing didn't happen(until the Germans were retreating) not because the people were cowards, but because it would have been pointless and suicidal.It is insane to deliberately take action that will at best annoy the enemy but bring terrible disaster on yourselves and your family and countrymen.Costs always have to be balanced against possible results. The reality is that mostly people gritted their teeth,and resigned themselves to waiting as patiently as they could for the Germans to be defeated by superior force,avoiding provoking their occupiers any more than could be avoided,trying to keep their spirits up.Not spectacular movie heroism, but heroism nonetheless.

If you thought World War II Hollywood war movies were all sweetness and Casablanca fans, just wait till you see this gut-wrenching little propaganda piece, which must have come out the week the censors were all in Palm Springs. Perhaps the most realistic Hollywood portrayal of life as a prisoner of the Nazis until "Schindler's List," it's also quite intelligent and extraordinarily well-played by an excellent cast. You don't know the meaning of shock until you've seen Gene Kelly spit a huge gob of real sputum onto Peter Lorre's face--and then wait till you see what comes next. It's not Captain Renault and the roulette table, dearie.