Cheap Cross of Iron (DVD) (Sam Peckinpah) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Cross of Iron

The REAL German Wehrmact
Wow! This movie is amazing.
There is no doubt that "Cross of Iron" changed the themes and imagery of the War film genre forever after release in 1977.
James Coburn as Steiner is one bad [guy]!
So this is the type of German soldier that the Allies were really fighting during WWII?! Geez, after watching all the previous ...WWII flicks such as "To Hell and Back", I'd almost come to believe that our European enemy in that War was too stupid to win any squad or platoon level firefights against us!
If CoI wasn't so heavily edited (with precious footage vanished forever on the cutting room floor), then I would give this movie a 5 star rating.
I like this movie so much that I bought a used copy of the novel (long since out-of-print)on ebay.
The movie does not closely follow the novel, but it is ground-breaking enough to be considered a classic in its own right.

---

Dirty Harry -- in feldgrau.
"Cross of Iron" is a bad movie, made with preconcieved notions that do not fit history or reality. It makes the double mistake of A) cramming an American-style character (the lone wolf anti-hero) into a German uniform and B) tacking the director's well-known appetite for blood and graphic violence to a silly antiwar message.

The movie follows the conflict between an embittered and defiant combat soldier named Stiener (played by James Coburn) and his new CO, a glory-seeking martinet named Stransky (played by Maximillian Schell). From the git-go, the movie follows every stale antiwar convention in the book: the bitter, insubordinate sergeant with an unspoken love for his men vs. the bloodthirsty killer-officer who wants to win a medal and doesn't care how many men die in the process. We've seen this in numerous American war movies, but it never quite works in German unfiorm. This wasn't a democracy; discipline in the Wehrmacht, particularly during the period in questoon, was severe and the slightest defeatism or insubordination were ruthlessly punished. The scene, for example, where Stiener berates and threatens a replacement soldier who is a Party member would probably never have happened. By late 1943 even officers were being degraded and sent off to suicide-squad 'punishment battalions' for minor transgressions or seditious statements. In reality, a soldier like Stiener would have most likely been shot, sent to a military prison or killed off digging up land mines in a penal outfit. The "lone wolf" mentality was simply not tolerated in the German army of 1943 (in Sajer's "Forgotten Soldier" a lieutenant is demoted to corporal and sent to the punishment squad for losing his field telephone when he swam the 900-yard Don River...what would have happened to Stiener for mouthing off to the colonel?).

Additionally, we have more sterotypes: the loveable but doomed men of Stiener's squad, including the "I have dead meat written all over me" teenage boy, the evil Party member, the cowardly lieutenant, the well-meaning but ultimately hapless senior officers (played by James Mason and David Warner) and the obligatory scene where we find out that the Russians are people too. Really, the film is very similar in structure to a Dirty Harry movie: the lone-wolf anti-hero who scorns medals and glory, the pencil-pushing politician/boss, and nice-guy dead-meat partner, the ultimate hollow victory....blah blah blah.

"Cross of Iron" is undermined by the love of cruelty that Sam Peckinpah was rightly infamous for. Graphic violence certainly has its place in a war movie, but as usual, Peckinpah felt the need to cram the viewer nose-first into buckets of human gore. This cheapens the antiwar theme of the movie; viciousness is fine so long as it is committed by the hero, but dastardly if if perpetrated by the villain. Morally, the massage of the movie is unclear: Stiener does not avenge the death of the innocent young soldier by the Russian POW women, but later brutally kills his own lieutenant for shooting others of his squad. Then, when confronting Stransky, who actually gave the order by blackmailing the cowardly lieutenant, he does not kill him but gives him a chance to "show that Prussians can fight." Okay, Stiener is probably insane by the end of the film, but none of this made sense to me. In Peckinpah's mind, the trembling lieutenant deserves to die more than Stransky, because he's afraid and "just wants to go home" wheras Stransky, while evil, deserves to live because he is not a hypocrite: he is willing to kill and allow others to be killed for his Iron Cross, but is also willing to fight himself. Maybe Peckinpah's theme was that war is unfair. So it all balances out, I guess?

I guess not. "Cross of Iron" is a chronically over-rated war movie that bludgeons the viewer with Americanized themes, graphic violence, and a hypocritical antiwar message, brought to you by a director who idolized violent men. As entertainment it is a matter of taste, but as historical fiction, it is nonsense.

---

Peckinpah's last triumph
Sam Peckinpah, in his 1977 effort "Cross of Iron", darred to look at the war throught German eyes. Thus becoming one of the handful of directors with the audacity to view the German soldiers as a humans, and not as faceless barbarians. Based upon a novel by Willi Heinrich, Cross of Iron is the tale of Steiner, and his troops fight for survival on the Taman peninsula in 1943. Thought it is not near the final stages of the war as many believe, the film depicts the turning of the tables in favor of the Soviets; after the losses at Stalingrad and Kursk. This gritty, unflinching and realistic portrail of combat on the eastern front, seems more stunning if you keep in mind the budget restraints. Authentic in almost every aspect, all the vehicles, weaponry and uniforms all flawless. The Wehrmacht soldiers are dirty and unreasted as they would be during uncessant battle, unlike many a war film which have the soldiers clean and proper. Also during filming, Soviet T-34 tanks acquired from the Czech Republic, were administered during a skirmish. At the time Peckinpah was addicted to coccain and was an alcoholic, yet through all the self-inflicted harm of his reckless life style, his directing capability remained unscathed. The Sam we know from the "Wild Bunch" and "Straw Dogs" is still here, with the slow-motion seens of carnage and his trademark "zooms". But aside from his usual hallmarks, he also give use a personal view of combat. Sam doesn't want to be a spectator, he wants to be a participant, and in doing so he lets us experience the noise, confusion and horror of the Russan front. The film though however great, is not without flaws. First off the casting is questionable, James Mason, David Warner and James Coburn seem somewhat out of place. Being either American of British they could have made a more conscious effort to sustain a fluent german accent. There also is some scenes, a lack of light, which can cause some confusion. Still Sam Peckinpah has left us with an enduring and powerful statement about war, honor, survival and friendship in a world gone mad.