Hart's War

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.

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

If one were to place too great an emphasis on many of the smug and self-serving views expressed by various contributors here, it may well appear somewhat of an enigma that HART'S WAR still rates 6.3 overall. Obviously many who have voted have not posted a review. Equally obviously, to offset its many detractors...a significant number of people must have liked it. I'm one of them!

Let us agree immediately, anyone looking for a sequel to THE GUNS OF NAVARONE can expect to be disappointed. A screen adaptation of John Katzenbach's excellent novel, this late WW2 flick tackles racism, POW life and honor...and not necessarily in that order. A re-hash of the plot is unnecessary as every second reviewer has covered this aspect. It is a film to LISTEN to and to take from it what you are able. Negative comments such that the events portrayed are "unlikely," that Bruce Willis isn't the "star," that "nothing happens except lots of people keep talking," are a sad indictment of viewers with a limited attention span. A lot of what is uttered during the "court-room" sequences has great relevance in all facets of life - IF you care to listen. Farrell is excellent as is Willis in what admittedly IS a far smaller role. Willis' presence however is felt throughout the movie in much the same way as was Jack Nicholson's in A FEW GOOD MEN. (Another military court room flick)

Yes its longish and it would be fair to say it is extremely dark for the greater part of the film. It is ultimately though a worthwhile addition to other POW films. You could do a lot worse.