Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Pluskylang Great Film overall

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

robinakaaly This was one of the most remarkable films ever made, and surprisingly stands the test of time extremely well. In many ways it is a much better film than Münchausen. Its problem is that it is irrevocably tied to the period it was made, and the reasons for making it. On the one hand it is a timeless tale of the need for ordinary people to stand up and resist tyranny and aggression; on the other it encourages Germans to support their Great Tyranny at the height of the Final Solution. On the practical level, one is continually astound by the cast of thousands, both civil and military assembled for the grand set pieces, and the fact that they were all correctly clothed for the time. Goebbels' ability to divert vast amounts of scarce resources into the making of the film, was truly amazing. One is also surprised by the quality of the acting, which apart from Gneisenau, was generally restrained and authentic. Some of the set pieces in which the citizens discuss whether to surrender to the French, and thus protect their livelihoods, or resist the invader and at least maintain their honour, if nothing else, were well argued and believably presented. A particular plus point in the film, is that the Germans speak German, and the French French. (The version we saw came from Arté so had French sub-titles.) The story itself may well distort history. In 1813 the citizens of Breslau demand the right to form a citizens' militia to fight the French. The King of Prussia refuses: war is for soldiers, not civilians. Gneisenau points out that (a) there are a lot of civilians outside, and (b) if it hadn't been for civilians, Kolberg would have fallen to the French in 1807. (Kolberg is a town in Pomerania, now part of Poland, which shows how the future mocks the past). The time then switches to 1807 and a grand scene in which the Emperor of Austria renounces the title of Holy Roman Emperor, showing himself to be morally degenerate. In Potsdam, the King of Prussia, fearful of the French, flees to Konigsberg. In Kolberg we see much peasant merrymaking until the military commander objects to the Mayor's interference in military matters, and says he has orders to surrender the town to the French, who now lay siege. The film's heroine, torn in love between two officers, is smuggled out and sent to Konigsberg to press the King to send a new commander. After a moving scene with the Queen, Gneisenau is sent and takes charge of the defences. About the only light moment, is when he orders trenches to be dug across roads, and the Mayor orders them to be filled in. Gneisenau insists they be dug out again. However, the Mayor explains they will hamper movement in town. The message is clear, the military give orders, but they must be sensible, and advice must be sought and considered. To protect the south of the town, a canal is dug and the low lying ground flooded in one of the film's great spectaculars. A huge battle ensues as the French try to raze the town, and we are treated to a spectacle of what it must have been like in Lubeck and Rostock when the RAF bombed these old Hanseatic towns. In the end the resistance of the town and political developments elsewhere, lead to the French halting the bombardment. The people have won, but they paid a heavy price. Back in 1813, the King agrees to the formation of a citizen militia.In retrospect it is bizarrely amusing that at the time Kolberg was filmed, France was our glorious (more or less) ally and Germany the seriously bad guy. However, at the time it was set, France in the form of Napoleon was the Big Bogeyman (and children were scared to sleep by the threat of his coming, and Prussia was on our side (and helped us at the Battle of Waterloo, even if they did arrive late). Russia too was an ally of Prussia against the French.

Mart Sander There are some mistakes in the other reviews, which I would like to correct. "Kolberg" is by no means the last film of the Third Reich. The film production kept on going until April 23 in Berlin-Babelsberg, and as long as the early days of May in Prag, the last major colour film shot being "Shiva und die Galgenblume". Until that time there were about 90 films being either completed or shot in the Prag studios. If you want to find out the really "last" film, perhaps you should check out Käutner's absolutely beautiful "Under the Bridges", which didn't pass censorship in March 1945. But I'm not sure even that was the last completed film. Amazon.de sells about 6 different films on DVD which are marked as completed in 1945 (Frech und Verliebt, Monte Miracolo, Peter Voss - Millionendieb, Fledermaus etc.) Plus there are several, which were completed in 1945, but released only after the war.Then, Kolberg hadn't fallen when this film premiered in Berlin and La Rochelle (which, perhaps inspired by the film, capitulated only two days after Germany had fallen). Kolberg was finally abandoned on March, 18.There is a beautiful restored print sold by the International Historic Films. It has beautiful colours and a good soundtrack, plus some extras. This film can be watched - and indeed enjoyed - as a work of art, unless you absolutely want to read propaganda into it. Sure, it was made as an ultimate propaganda vehicle, but as a viewer I am permitted to distance myself from the politics and see this film as a cinematic near masterpiece. We know, that it was radically edited in January 1945, since Dr Goebbels found it to be too bloody, "nearly pacifistic". Every trace of human suffering (aside from the lame love intrigue) was removed, and that's probably what makes this film uneven and jumpy at times. What the director's cut could have looked like, we can only guess. Politics and propaganda are as important today as they were back then. It's important to remember the atrocities of war and the crimes of Nazist regime. But a film starts living its own life since the moment it's completed, and we are stupid if we fail to recognize its merits merely because we know, that we are supposed to be blind to them.

bobj-3 This film, the pride and joy of Goebbel's propaganda machine, was filmed during the last year of the war. Lavish financial and materièl resources were expended to make the film and it premiered just ahead of the advancing allied armies. Reportedly, Goebbels and company diverted precious rolling stock from a hard pressed Reich to bring in loads of salt to use as "snow" in one wintry scene. Munitions factories were ordered to produce the dummy ammunition expended in the fighting scenes. And Wehrmacht troops were drawn from the battle fronts to serve as extras. For the Nazi hierarchy propaganda had BECOME reality.

233RdC I saw "Kolberg" on French television some time ago. What was most interesting about it was how desperate the propagandizing looked in this film - as if the filmmakers knew that they were on a sinking ship and that time was running out. I don't think the film is as "evil" as other Nazi films but it's only watchable for the historical interest of witnessing the final product, the last gasp, of a dying, militarist, and anti-humanistic culture. It looks like a film shot on borrowed time.Herr Goebbels mentioned that "Kolberg" was an attempt to one-up the Hollywood style and clearly, he's given his director, Veit Harlan, the financial and manpower resources to stage some big scenes. Or, at least, what I think were big scenes. Goebbels, worried that the sight of Prussian troops (the film is set during the Napoleonic wars) getting wounded and killed in battle might demoralize the flagging German spirits - the film was shot in 1944 - and thus cut most action sequences out of the film. You'll get an army charging a hill abruptly cut into a shot of a burning house(whose ignition is never seen) cut again into someone encouraging the dedicated Prussian citizenry to hold fast against the merciless French troops. Cut back to a charging army that never really engages with the enemy. Cut again to panicking villagers. In between these gaps, which become more egregious as the film progresses, you get hamfisted attempts at colorful local humor, an impossibly convulted plot that crosscuts between several German towns to no avail, and an overbearing Valkyrie peasant woman forever spurring her fellow subjects to the Higher Cause (she's the most sexless woman in movie history). Everything in the movie is impossibly crude to the hammer-on-anvil dialouge, to the declarative acting (each actor seems to be wearing his or her own Greek mask while at the same time failing to make any impression whatsoever), to the whole stilted and incoherent pacing of this film.The film is terrible but fascinating, especially given the context of when and where it was made. Goebbels diverted troops from the eastern front for the battle scenes that he subsequently mutiliated. And when one learns that Goebbels considered this the film that would revive the Nazi cause and that it was filmed at the time and near the locations where the Final Solution was shifting into high gear, it leaves you with a strong feeling of disgust for the whole enterprise. Even the subject matter, about Kolberg's citizens futilely defending themselves against a French onslaught, seems out of place. The tale is obviously used to rally support for the flailing German cause but the Kolberg citizenry's efforts were lost (the Prussian army was vanquished) and thus the message of the film is cancelled out. In an even greater historical irony, by the time the film debuted (30 January 1945), the Pomeranian town of Kolberg had been taken over by the Russians and today is a part of Poland."Kolberg" is a unique document showing a well-oiled propaganda machine collapsing in the face of its immanent demise. It achieves the opposite of its intent. The stolid face at the end of the film with the proto-Nazi flag as a backdrop is supposed to convey a sense of determined conviction but there's fear in those eyes.