En defensa del honor

This film is absorbing because you are kept guessing until the very end. Hart, the lead character, isn't exactly an angel; and the Nazi Kommandant conjures up a measure of sympathy, with other motives of characters such as Col. MacNamara (Willis) truly unclear until the end.

Thus, it's enough to keep you watching, although I wish I'd read the book first. Also, it's not an "action" film in the Schwarzenegger sense, but it is fast-paced and holds your attention, as the plot keeps twisting and turning.

Contrary to what others thought, I found HART'S WAR to be reasonably historically accurate. It's frequently pointed out that by late 1944 / early 1945, the Germans were reeling, desperate and disorganized, while HART'S WAR portrays them firmly in control. This is a fair criticism, but I would respond as follows:

1. HART'S WAR coincides with the Ardennes offensive (Battle of the Bulge), which was the last major German offensive of the war and which came perilously close to succeeding. Puffed up from that near-victory, not knowing (as we know today) that this was the last gasp of a dying reich and not a turning point towards victory, and now holding hundreds if not thousands of Allied POW's to boot, it's no surprise that the Germans are still confident of victory.

2. Also, HART'S WAR takes place in a short period of time (I would guess 2-3 weeks between Hart's capture and the end of the trial, which itself is only a week). The story does not drag into the spring of '45, at which point the Germans knew they were losing.

3. The Nazi Kommandant epitomizes this German confidence, yet because he was educated in the US, he has at least a measure of sympathy for his American prisoners and treats them with an equal measure of military courtesy, with a few exceptions. Other Kommandants during this time may not have been as "humane," but, because of his background, Visser's lack of brutality (again, with exceptions) is understandable.

Bruce Willis is clearly a supporting actor in this film, but I felt he had a strong and important role and was, arguably, the CENTRAL character while Colin Farrell is the LEADING character. However, Willis gets top billing for one simple reason -- TO SELL TICKETS. It worked for me, at least.

If you're looking for action in your war film skip this one. But if you don't mind an interesting drama about prejudice among Americans in a German POW camp, which although slow at times, leads to an interesting pay-off with a twist that (kinda) makes the whole thing worth it, then check it out. I especially enjoyed the subdued though "grizzled" looking Bruce Willis as Colonel McNamara and Marcel Iures as the camps' German commander.

For what it's worth, I appreciate the film medium interpretation of a book's story, and not try to compare or expect how detail or more poignant the book's descriptions were. Viewing a film, audio and visually taking in the collaborative efforts of a film production is not the same as someone reading a novel. Reading also depends on the environment that you're in: while traveling with people around you, or being quietly by yourself. Reading is very much one person's own interpretation - as one reads, one can conjure up the possible sight and sound in one's mind and imagination. While in a cinema viewing a movie, we are exercising our senses - visual and audio - of what's presented on the screen. The experiences are uniquely different.

In HART"S WAR, Colin Farrell who portrayed Lt. Hart is very much front and centered, while Bruce Willis' role of Col. McNamara, his (humane) attributes are more subtle and from within - his aching insides from the years of war and isolation. There is the struggle/conflict of the war veteran vs. the clean cut affluent background of young Hart. We see Willis' McNamara's treatment with Farrell's Hart more evidently, but for McNamara himself, say the quiet scene where he visited the flyer in isolation waiting for trial - more imminent of death, we simply see him giving Lt. Scott a book; when Scott opens it, it's the New Testament. It is later while Hart's talking with Scott outside the trial room just before the closing arguments, that we learned the book was Scott's own, with a picture of him and wife and child kept within the Bible's pages. So off camera, we may gathered that McNamara must have silently gone through Scott's belongings and took that New Testament to Scott, with the understanding that Scott may find solace in seeing the family picture again and as most soldiers would, felt duty above all else.or would he? And Hart, representing Scott as his defending lawyer, would he let him? Such are the subtle layers to the storyline.

Director Gregory Hoblit's previous films were no simple Hollywood plots. They all require some mind stimulating thinking: 1996's "Primal Fear," the crime and lawyers film with Richard Gere, Laura Linney, and the fascinating debut 'hell' of a performance from Edward Norton; 1998's "Fallen", one devil of an intriguing storyline where Denzel Washington, along with Embeth Davidtz, tackling the many faces (Elias Koteas included) of the elusive Lucifer (music was by Tan Dun of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"; 2000's "Frequency" was the mind-twisting time-bending drama of son and father team, Jim Caviezel and Dennis Quaid. Here in HART'S WAR again, there are no simple answers to the questions raised: moral dilemma, military honors, ravage and trying times of war and being POWs - no escape of endurance tests. It's a well produced film with fine cinematography of stark snowy scenes from Alar Kivilo (who also did "Frequency" with director Hoblit); score to this war film was complemented (unexpectedly) by British composer Rachel Portman; and performances by a talented cast. I did see "Stalag 17" and "The Great Escape" again, but my sense is "Hart's War" stands on its own, it's not really a humor filled "17" not an action packed "Escape" movie, it's more of a humane story at its core, offering an aspect of life's outlook, military or not.

Having grown tired of the typical action packed glorified war films (Pearl Harbor for example), I sought out more of a human interest story. I wanted something that delved past the cliché romances, battle wounds, and graphic violence we have become accustomed to. To me, Hart's War exemplified exactly what others have failed to do. It was an inside glimpse into the lives of a WW2 POW camp, but more so. It dealt with the struggle for power, respect, and honor in an unlikely situation. The stellar performances by Bruce Willis and Marcel Lures stole the show away from the title character, Lt. Hart (played well by Colin Farrel). There are times when you don't know who the token hero or villain is, just by the way that each commands their region. If you missed this movie in theaters (as I am guilty of), easiest way is to catch it is on pay per view - it's still going to be running for a while. Enjoy!

I don't know what y'all are complaining about: this is a good movie! It has fallen pray to mismarketing like so many good films before. Farrell is good (he'll be BIG soon, mark my words), Marcel Iures fills the screen with his presence and performance. Willis however, I must admit, play Willis. But hey; I like him for what he is.

The plot is well thought out, intelligently blending the lines between the war- and the courtroom genre. Don't tell me you anticipated every twist in the plot.

For all it's worth; the movie was very different in a great way from all war movies in last couple of years. Different in quite a smart way, too.

8/10