Watch Stalingrad For Free

I love this movie so much

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

As I laboured to get to the end of this film, I kept waiting for that moment when the director would finally let the audience know why they were made to endure this tedious nonsense. Alas, the end came, and we were all left wondering what the director was thinking, what motivated him to make this film, and what he was hoping to achieve. Clearly the director assumed the topic of the Stalingrad battle had been elaborated so much that he did not want to focus on the battle itself. This certainly disappointed a lot of viewers, though, who still expected an epic battle. But in my view, it was not inherently a weakness. Thus I expected an exploration of the battle and the impact on those involved, instead of watching endless scenes of carnage. The problem is that these characters, even after more than two hours of parading on the screen and after long and tedious exposition from a narrator, remained stiff, boring, and unappealing. There is nothing taking place between these characters that even scratches the surface of a potentially good story. Nothing. It's a poorly written melodrama that no one would want to watch were it not called 'Stalingrad'. As for the battle scenes, they are utterly pointless, have almost zero impact on the plot, are utterly unrealistic, and boring. This is largely due to slow motion, something every viewer probably cursed inside himself as we were treated to 'Matrix' fight scenes in a CGI environment of 'Stalingrad'. Nobody came to see that. Not only was it boring, but it was an insult to the men who fought and died at Stalingrad. They deserved better than ridiculous fight scenes and substandard melodrama that can't even match cheap romance novels you find on the shelf at the local supermarket. This is bad film making on every level. The city looks fake due to copious use of green screen and CGI, the characters are cardboard cutouts, the plot is nonexistent, the action is directed extremely poorly, the ending is utterly disappointing, the actions of the characters are by and large nonsensical, and the whole film comes across as unpersuasive drivel that is guaranteed to bore you to death.

STALINGRAD 2013This 2013 Russian production is an absolutely stunning looking war film. Having said that, it is a shame that the lack of a real story robs the potential this had to be a first rate war film. Anyone expecting a film on the Battle of Stalingrad had best be ready to be disappointed.The film trots out a tale of a group of Soviet soldiers, sailors etc holding a large house near the Volga in Stalingrad. They are outnumbered and out gunned by the Nazi bunch all around them. The script plays out like one of the Soviet era war films from 1960's. All the standard Soviet types that populated those films are present. There are all the same political "fighting for the motherland" type drivel that just serves to slow the action.While the cgi effects and battle parts are really quite well done, the lack of a real story, bring the non-battle scenes to a rather boring slow walk. The Soviets are all hero types, while the Germans are all perfect Nazi swine.A real missed opportunity to make a classic film on one of the great battles of WW2, A shame.

This is a very odd film, obviously mixing a variety of genres and movie tropes, with uneven results. Nonetheless, I found it worthwhile, though I was forced to revise my expectations continuously while I watched.Like the previous German 'Stalingrad,' this Russian film does not attempt to tell the story of this pivotal battle of World War II. Instead, it once more burrows down to give us a worm's-eye view - this time from the Russian side. But where the German film captures only chaos and madness, the Russian version gives us at least a symbolic representation of the larger reality. We don't see the vast strategies at play, or the chronology of the battle. But we do glimpse the scale of the devastation, and we do get some perspective on the undoubted fortitude of the Russian defenders.There's a very odd 21st Century gloss over all all this. The film uses trendy digital techniques, and even IMAX 3D. (Mercifully, I saw the 'flat' version.) This gives it a hyper-kinetic, surreal quality that seems painfully at odds with the historical subject matter. This is the battle of Stalingrad as seen by a modern time-traveler, not as it would have appeared to the participants. The film is impeccably produced, but the stylistic approach will be understandably off-putting to many viewers.However, almost obscured by all the high-tech technique, there's a rather beautiful little story struggling to escape. The tale is presented as a reminiscence, almost as a fable. It's about one small group of soldiers, who befriend a young civilian survivor. This girl, Katya, refuses to move out of her apartment, even though her friends, neighbors and family have all perished there. And even though the Germans bring ever greater firepower to bear against the building.Young Katya does a pretty good job of representing The Spirit of the Russian People. Idealized, certainly, but why not? Surely those who fought and died in this gruesome battle deserve to be idealized, if anyone does. Katya's innocence is the innocent hope of every civilian population that's ever been subject to invasion and subjugation. How could ANYONE endure the unimaginable hardships of war and occupation, if they couldn't cling to some vision that it would all be worth it, that in the end things would come out right?The soldiers are also stereotypes, but likable ones. Like Katya, they're icons that do ring true on some human level. Their violence - on both Russian and German sides - is casual, senseless. This is a view of war reduced to a personal battle of wills, between opponents who no longer clearly remember their original objectives. And the individual dramatic arcs do work, despite the odd style of the film.It is both a compliment and a criticism to say that this version of 'Stalingrad' is 'enjoyable.' The creators have wrung a very positive, very human story out of the chaos of large-scale butchery. It's an odd objective, to be sure, and one that many will find inappropriate. But taken purely as a cinematic creation, 'Stalingrad' is definitely worth seeing. And, in some strange way, it does deepen our understanding of the time and place it depicts.It's true, this 'Stalingrad' is impossible to watch without mixed feelings. But perhaps that's as it should be, for any film on this topic.

I don't often review a film in a defensive manner, but in this case I was truly shocked by how negative the reviews have been.STALINGRAD is not an epic history of the battle itself. The actual battle took over six months and involved over a million men. Did anyone really expect to see every single soldier engaged rush past the camera? STALINGRAD is not Russian, let alone Communist propaganda. It's a story of human survival and human values such as loyalty, compassion and love. If anything, the movie is overly cautious in that not one Red Army soldier ever refers to commissars, or the Party Line, let alone the danger of being liquidated by the NKVD. But that's part of the point. There are no idealists and no dissidents either. Only men and women fighting to stay alive.The fight for a single house symbolizes the epic battle of Stalingrad. There is no reason to reject this strategy. Anyone who's watched the movie GETTYSBURG (surely the American equivalent of Stalingrad on many levels) will notice that at least half the film's running time is devoted to the valor of a single Union Army Regiment (the 20th Maine) defending a single small hill (Little Round Top.) This movie presents a similar struggle, except a single house is the Red Army's Little Round Top. And the brave, tender, loving woman who lives there is the flesh and blood symbol of all they hope to preserve.STALINGRAD is not only a great war movie, with explosive combat scenes and hand to hand combat, but a very intimate movie too. The fact that a narrator is used to provide back story for the five Red Army soldiers (and their adored Katya) in no way lessens the dramatic impact of their sacrifice. This is a unique look at war because here there is no separation from the Home Front and the Front Lines. The idolized "girl next door" in most war movies is literally next door, and her survival is more vital to these fighting men than their own.Does STALINGRAD have flaws? Perhaps a few minor ones. Thomas Kretschmann is an extraordinary actor, but his character, Captain Kahn, is the "doomed yet defiantly chivalrous German officer" we've all admired ever since Marlon Brando in THE YOUNG LIONS. His love affair with the submissive, lush-lipped traitor Masha is scorching hot at first, particularly one indelible image when he returns to her after a firefight and literally tears the clothes from her all-too-willing body. Yet by the end his heroics have become unintentionally funny, as he commandeers a go-cart and zooms through the crowds like Bart Simpson on a rampage, seeking his golden-haired Slavic siren. When the stern Colonel reprimands him, you almost expect Kahn to chirp, "Don't have a cow, man!" But again, the point here is not to glorify war, or even Russian fortitude. It's to glorify the common humanity of Germans and Russians alike. STALINGRAD is a fine film and time will confirm my judgment!