By way of introductions, I work with Matt at his day job. Thank you, Matt, for sharing this endeavor with me and others at the office. I’ve just finished watching this first movie, and since I’ve never written a critique before, please bear with me. Of course, I’ve discussed lots of movies with lots of people, but never by writing about it, so this feels kinda strange. But here goes:

First off, I’m a pretty basic movie consumer, am fairly easily entertained, and really like old movies. However, I’m not a big fan of war films, nor am I a big history buff. So I was torn as to whether to watch this one or not. I purposely did not read any of the reviews before watching it, so as not to sway my decision. Finally I decided to go ahead and watch it, but in all honesty, mostly because of having mild OCD and not being able to start with movie number 2. I knew that at some point, I’d have to go back and watch movie number 1, and I’d always be bothered because I hadn’t started with the first movie on the list, first.

Now that I’ve watched it, I would probably have been happier spending my time on something else. But art in all its forms is interesting, and I appreciate the craft of this movie (for its time); and now that I’m older, history has more relevance, so I have learned something new about the past (and how it can often repeat).

The main thing, though, that I have taken from this movie is that this might have been where Monty Python got some of its material. I kept hearing the line, “I’m not dead [yet],” especially after the (extremely long!) battle, where the slain men who were lying on the frozen lake kept raising up and saying a loved one’s name before collapsing again, apparently for the last time.

There was a very long time that passed between when Alexander hatched the plot to get the Germans out on the ice and have them break through, because of their heavier armor, and the scene where it actually happened. I waited for it for a while, after the battle started, then actually forgot about it, so it was kind of cool when it took place. (No pun intended.) I loved the shots of a bunch of the poor guys trying to get onto the same piece of floating ice (Styrofoam?*), only to have it turn upside down, again, and again.

Yes, there was lots of symbolism. Thank you, Jason, for the most informative background on Eisenstein and Stalin.

As to the music, it was sometimes terribly perfect and at others perfectly terrible. As to the costumes, the first of the two suitors (who were friends, and who both had their eye on the same maid) had on a weird jester-like outfit, I guess to show that he was more lighthearted than his competition, even though this was spelled out in the dialog. I can’t help but wonder what the colors were. The two ladies had quite the braids and earrings. And the helmets really were something else. In reality, how anyone fought in those things is beyond me.

The film gives an interesting representation of what it was like to have fought in those times. On one hand, a mild hack with a fake hatchet would take a man down (silly), but on the other hand, it took hack after hack after hack to gain another foothold (probably realistic). After recently seeing “In Bruges,” the lack of gore in this movie was extremely refreshing, but at the same time, the killing scenes were ridiculously campy. And then there was the….

Okay, my moon in Libra is showing. I think I’ll stop now, before I waffle you to death. Overall, I’d give it two out of five stars.

Thanks again for the opportunity to participate!

*From Wikipedia:

Styrofoam is a trademark of Dow Chemical Company for extruded polystyrene foam presently made for thermal insulation and craft applications. In 1941, researchers in Dow’s Chemical Physics Lab found a way to make foamed polystyrene. Led by Ray McIntire, they had “rediscovered” a method first discovered by Swedish inventor C. G. Munters. Dow acquired exclusive rights to use Munter’s patents and found ways to make large quantities of extruded polystyrene as a closed cell foam that resisted moisture. Because of its insulating properties, buoyancy and “unsinkability”, it was adopted in 1942 by the U.S. Coast Guard for use in a six-person life raft.

So, what were the Russians using in this film?

And as I was looking at the cross-references from the Wiki cut-and-paste, I came to the word “moisture” and had to stop. “Moisture” is a wiki entry? I’ve got to go back and see what it says….

Thanks for the heads up on this one, guys.

Also truthful, I watched this film after three glasses of red wine, a spegetti dinner and a couple rice-krispy treats covered in chocolate. So the fact that I nodded off a couple of times should be taken into account.

Jason does a great job describing the film, better than I could, certainly and I won’t rehash what he has already aptly said. But I would describe the film as sort of a “Alamo” but with rousing fight songs. I think every country has their “GREAT BATTLE” whether it be “The Alamo” for the US, “Gallipoli” for the Austrailians or “Battle on the Lake” for the Russians. Granted, the Russians win – so I guess that makes their’s different.

WHAT I LIKED:

Over all the film was made very well for 1938. There were some interesting camera angles and the fight scenes were both majestic and intense. I also liked the fact that the hottie in the town basically says: “I’ll marry the one who…survives…” If that was me, I’d hide behind the nearest tree and let the other guy get killed.

WHAT I DIDN’T LIKE

Jason already mentions the propagandish nature of the film. I also thought it a bit MUCH to really over-emphasize the “Germans are Religious (crosses abound!)” and then the Germans kill EVERYONE – including naked babies and children. Toss them into the fire! But, yes, lots of “praying, kneeling, priest blessing them, etc.”

Jason didn’t mention the “Princes” who had the helmet adornment. One with, I kid you not, a HAND sticking out of the top of his helmet and the other with a CLAW. The CLAW I understand, he’s got a kick-ass killing machine winged beast on his chest. The other guy just has a hand. Is this the precursor to the “high-five?” Is he from the “stop” tribe? And then I felt there were some continuity issues as I thought the “hand prince” had been killed but then I saw another guy with a “hand helmet” later. Maybe, there’s a bunch of them. Maybe that was one of the points I nodded off. Still, if I was in battle, I’d laugh at them.

As for the battle sequences…they were very good but…very repetitious. They went on-and-on-and-on-and-on. Often times I could not tell who was killing who, who was winning, who was losing, etc.

Acting was on par for the time/age/subject matter so no real complaints there.

Finally, my last complaint and that was with the sound. The film was made with probably no on-set sound being used. Everything was dubbed later. Even though it’s 1938. But there are scenes with massive amounts of horses and not a “clip-clop” to be heard. On mountain-sides as the wind whips up their “oh-so-stylish” mop-top hair cuts…not a sound to be heard. It actually made it a bit disorienting for me as the sounds were VERY basic – except in the battle scenes where the sounds were very…repetitive.

I also thought it funny that everyone referred to Russia as “Rus!” (Roos!). I can’t imagine John Wayne rallying the Texans with a “Let’s fight to the death for USA!” Well…maybe he did.

Out of 5 Stars…I’ll give it 3.