Hello,
I'm translating a text from Spanish about this film, and my original text says that this film is set in the battle of the Volga, which I think is an error, as the battle of Volgograd (Stalingrad at the time) would have involved Soviet not American forces. I think it must be the Battle of the Bulge, in 1944, in the Ardennes. Can anyone help me?
Brian Brennan
[email protected]
It definately would be post Battle of the Bulge, not Volga. But this film is more a macabre fairy tale than historical document. It's 1945; right at the end of WWII, 'somewhere in wartime'. It's about heroes and villains and the fine line that separates them during battle conditions, regardless of age or sex or nation.
shareThe opening paragraph of an interview with Jeff Burr, the writer and director of this film, at eFilm Critic says, "Straight into Darkness is a character-led story that is set in the last winter of the Second World War, just after the Battle of the Bulge. It focuses on two American soldiers and their enigmatic, psychological, and religious journey between the lines."
However, the location of this film is irrelevant. The nature of war, the nature of humans when they are forced into war, is laid brutally bare in this film and it would be the same if it was WW I Europe, WW II Pacific, Korea, VietNam or the Middle East.
I just saw this movie last night at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood, and found it extremely affecting. It's frighteningly believable, thought-provoking, well written, directed and acted. Mr. Burr, Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Francis, Ms. Thorson and Mr. Warner and the rest of the talented cast and production crew have something they can be - and indeed have all indicated that they are - proud be associated with.
I encourage anyone who loves intelligent film to see this movie the first chance they get.
Sereniti
http://halfwayhouse.bv-ent.net/
http://www.talenthost.net/
I found this film to be amateurish at best. The story was a combination of so many other better films, the acting was bad, the pacing was slow and the dialogue was riddled with clichés. Avoid this film.
Téigh trasna ort féin
http://www.geocities.com/lsqc82/lookalikes/lookalikes1.gif
You got it, Ebert.
Been draggin' my heels with a bith called hope
let the undercurrent drag me along
-AXL
Look...frizz...
This film has been getting tons of awards for a reason...actually many.
The acting is great, there is no problem with these actors at all.
You're comments are the first negative I've heard.
The film also had a different twist with regard to the children. I'd hardly call it a tired formula.
The dialogue was interesting, helped forward the plot, and helped the viewers understand the film. It also made sense with regard to what the film was about.
Please support your comments.
Copied from what films exactly? And don't just give WWII flicks. Tell me what other films used the same storylines and plot devices found here. Betcha can't.
shareThis is the best WWII movie after "Saints and Soldiers".
share[deleted]
And what were your problems with this film?
With an excellent cast, a great script, as well as a good crew and a lot of heart, where did it go wrong, in your opinion?
[deleted]
Why would I pick on your English? I speak more than one language, and you expressed yourself well.
Scott MacDonald is "the bearded one"-- you are supposed to hate his character, he is nasty, and untrustworthy... (sorry, Scott) He is a great actor, you should see he other work. I have seen most of it, and he becomes the people he plays. I know him to be very friendly, yet I too was ready to kill his character, Deming, after about 10 minutes. (again, sorry, Scott :D)
The movie involves 2 people, that really don't want to be in a war to begin with, trapped in that environment. To make things worse, Ryan Francis' character ends up trapped with a lunatic. From his perspective, he could be caught for desertion at any moment, or killed by the man he's forced to travel with.
Of course they must travel for the duration of the film, they are behind enemy lines, and they can't go to they're own side, as they'd just be killed for deserting...makes logical sense to me.
So they are forced to wander, seeing horror after horror unleashed by the Nazis.
To the flashbacks... there are a lot... but you have to remember, as I said, that Losey is a very reluctant soldier, who has done some really horrible things. All he wants is to be with Donna again. He can't stop thinking about her, a common reaction to all soldiers when they go to war. When any soldier is on the news, they always mention missing their family, they may never see them again. For Losey, that is true on several levels, he is a deserter, he is in a dangerous place, and if Donna ever finds out what he has done, she may not want him back...
I am familiar with German culture and language, and I didn't think the German detracted from the film. I iked hearing another language other than french, or arabic. The majority of people seeing this film probably won't have the familiarity that you and I do with this language. Remember, it's still in the film festivals (and doing very well)
Now, the kids, I liked the addition, as kids always suffer in war, and are usually unheard. They added a new twist, as, during WW2, you ofter hear about kids doing amazing things to survive and protect their friends or siblings. But this is seldom seen. They weren't freaks, some were physically handicapped, some were young and traumatisd. Not freaks.
I admit, I'm not a war film buff, so I can't compare this film to many others. I can only analyze the content of the film itself, which maybe is the way it should be.
Oh, and I didn't get to play a part in this film, but it has my support.
As I've mentioned in other threads, for more about this film, check out this Interview with Scott MacDonald (Deming):
http://www.geocities.com/scottmacdonaldint/
The Actorz Inc. Page on this film:
http://www.geocities.com/actorzinc/Straight_into_Darkness.html
And the RT Journals on Scott:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?username=Marie1
And, for this film, esp. this Journal:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=100001889
- spoiler
the movie gave me nothing to ponder about, it was merely some days in two soldier's lives..! this movie was on the borderline between boring/artistic and the usual war movie i've grown very tired of. (whatever happened to 'the dirty dozen' and the unrealistic war action movies?)
the german spoken in that movie was very mechanical, altho i give them creds for not using english with a 'german' accent.
all in all i had a hard time finding out what this movie was all about. was i supposed to get the message that war is bad? i liked the thought mentioned above about that hero/zero-thing mentioned above, especially for Deming, seeing as the heat of the moment gave him the insight he didn't know of before, or smth.
i really tried to appreciate this film, but it didn't give me any clues as to what it all was about, and i had a hard time staying focused :/
I suspect you're missing the point. Everyone on the planet... well, most people, know that war isn't very pleasant. It doesn't take a movie to figure it out. But if you read up on the film, Jeff Burr wrote the script after visiting children in an Orphanage in Romania. He decided to make a point about the suffering children go through during conflict. The fact that they lose their innocence by war. It's a horrible thing for them to undergo, esp. when they lose their parents, and end up suffering over something that they have no control over.
sharesome things i didn't liked in this movie
1.the movie is supposed to take place in the winter of '45 - by that time the remaining german forces were made up of hardened veterans from the russian front + volkssturm and usually under the command of experienced officers. Instead, they looked&acted like a bunch of f**ckin ammateurs...
2.the tank used in the assault of the orphanage is not german; i don't know what it is, but is definetly not german - it looks weird and not real at all...
3. the children didn't looked like french or germans - they are in fact gypsies ( belive me , i recognized them , i see them begging at the corner of the street evry day) - so that ruined for me any credibility of the movie.
4. i'm ashamed to say that the romanian actors are quite bad
>>3. the children didn't looked like french or germans - they are in fact gypsies ( belive me , i recognized them , i see them begging at the corner of the street evry day) - so that ruined for me any credibility of the movie.
Are you saying that those children specifically are ones that you see begging on the street? I believe all those children are Romanian, but not all of them are orphans. How could the nationality of the children ruin the entire credibility of the film anyway?
The Germans that attacked the orphanage were desperate, the Germans and the entire Axis knew by that time that they were going to loose the war. That small group was attacking for the sole purpose of getting the valubles to sell-- to try and salvage their post war lives. This wasn't a special military operation where Hitler put his best men on it.
This was a low budget, independant film. I believe the tank was a Panzer, one of many kinds of German tanks, but I'll look into it. But since the movie was shot in Romania, I maybe they didn't drag a German tank all the way over there.
[deleted]
that was nobody's tank...it looked like it was cardboard and plywood glued and fastened to a toyota truck...it was really stupid looking and non-essential to the movie. i think 60 soldiers were more than enough to take out the Addams family, don't you?! did we really need the effect of a tank, that at that time, had no fuel to run it? the movie just plain and simply sucked!!!!
shareWell, you are right about the tank-- but since there are 3 actual Tiger tanks still in existence I think we can cut a small under budget indie a break; however the rusiian tank used is the closest in design -- as for the soldiers...they were professional, the actual Romanian guard-- so whatever expertise you claim is very wrong. They deployed in formation, maybe not cinematically what you were used to as a film goer, but as a professional soldier...I now they did it right. Standard cover formations in the assault. The kids weren't gypsies, they were Romanian, and some were professional actors. Sorry you didn't like the film but your facts are all wrong.
share^^Don't you just hate it when stupid begging children get in your way. I'd spit on those gypsys if they were worth my fluids.
shareAs already established, there were no beggers... or Gypsys...
On a more important note, SITD made the Washington Post's pick of the week!
Universal Studios Presents "Straight Into Darkness," out now on DVD.
www.actorzinc.com
I saw this film yesterday and liked it very much. I'm not a WWII buff, but have seen a few. It's possibly not 100% accurate historically but this did not bother. I liked the surreal, eerie feel to it! I thought the actors were great, but I do have to admit that the German 'translation' did bug me too! I am German and I never understand why in many WWII movies they sometimes use other nationalities to play Germans/speak German. Ok, in some cases it's clear - an all-American-(or other)-cast film or low-budget indie, but it DOES bug me..
'Tschuldigung!
~ j U d E
"^^Don't you just hate it when stupid begging children get in your way. I'd spit on those gypsys if they were worth my fluids."
What a strange thing to write, you must be worthy of that computer of yours.
I keep hoping it was sarcasm...
Even though its now on DVD, I'm hoping that it'll get to a few more festivals.
www.actorzinc.com