Mission évasion

This film has its moments. But, to buy into it, you have to suspend any knowledge about WW2, Nazi POW stockades or likely situations. The action focuses on Willis as the brooding leading officer in a POW camp, Colin Farrell is the law student pressed into becoming a defender for a Black Pilot wrongly accused of murder. What transpires is a Machiavellian game with the Commandant, well played by Rumanian Actor, Marcel Iures, with plots and subplots, motifs and counterplots. But, it really does not go anywhere. There are some nice twists at the end but the ending before the final credits I found to be cheesy and unsatisfying (I've always found it irritating to switch to an ending narrative when there was none to introduce the story). Viewers who like Willis will not be disappointed and Colin Farrell is sure to delight the ladies with his Irish good looks, dark "little boy" eyes and expressions. Cole Hauser, back from getting eaten by an alien in Pitch Black, makes a wonderful sleazy villain but the rest of the cast seems to walk through their parts. Also, Look for Joe Spano from NYPD in a bit part in the opening, but don't expect a lot from the rest of the show.

HI everyone! I just watched Hart's War on Pay-Per-View and I highly recommend those of you who haven't had a chance to see it to do so. This film totally did not receive the recognition that it deserves; the performances by Bruce Willis and Colin Farrell were extraordinary, and I am sure we will be hearing much more about Colin Ferrell's career in years to come. This film deals with the prejudice that existed amongst POW soldiers within the Nazi camps and takes you through an emotional-moral-roller-coaster ride when Farrell is asked to represent a soldier accused of "murdering' another solider who was vehemently racist. Meanwhile, Bruce Willis uses this distraction in order to seek justice for himself against the Nazi's captors. If you are in the mood for a suspenseful and intellectually stimulating film then definitely catch this one before its too late.

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

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.

What a squandered opportunity.

Hart's War is yet another example of why movies rarely if ever live up to the book upon wich they are based. The novel of the same name by John Katzenbach is so clearly suited for the big screen it is almost frightening, and yet one has to wonder whether screenwriters Billy Ray and Terry George actually read the entire book or merely relied on cliff notes. The writers have taken an immensely engrossing tale of life in a German POW camp during WW2 and commercialized it with needless explosions and manipulative and improbable plot twists. The movie's thorough lack of character development hinders the best efforts of the actors (Bruce Willis, Collin Farrell, and Terrance Howard all do comendable work with the restrictive material they are given) to make the audience identify with them - resulting in an emotional climax that is supposed to evoke sympathy and respect but instead falls flat on its face. It is still beyond me why the makers of this film felt compelled to change the ending from the book - perhaps they feared it was too compelling and thought-provoking for their intended audience and felt obligated to dumb it down into as many cliche ridden speeches and improbable acts of courage and honor as possible. Whatever their reasons, the resulting lack of subtlety in this film is nothing less than insulting.

If I am being more harsh than other reviewers it is because I have read the book and know just what could have been accomplished. Do yourself a favor and read the book - it is far superior to this film or any other recent Hollywood offering.