Own the rights?
17 out of 17 people found the following review useful: Light and shadow in every sense, 27 June 2004 Author: Michael Bo (michael.bo@pol.dk) from Copenhagen, Denmark
Very effective American propaganda piece made in the beginning of the war and centered around a couple of handfuls of French soldiers capitulating at Marshall Pétain's order and being made prisoners of war in the German part of Alsace. Director Tay Garnett was an acknowledged master of light and shadow, and not just in the cinematographic sense. Lots of issues are at stake here, and although all the characters are somewhat larger than life, the hesitant lawyer, wonderfully, luminously played by Jean-Pierre Aumont, and the cabdriver, acted by a young, doe-eyed Gene Kelly, both help to give human texture to the admittedly rather formulaic plotline, and neither is a hero in the textbook Hollywood sense. The most interesting conflict in the film would be how to deal with the Hume Cronyn character, a French soldier who sympathizes with the Nazis and serves as a translater / snitch in the POW camp. Should he be killed without a trial, or would that, even in wartime, be a violation of basic French principles of jurisprudence and democracy?'The Cross of Lorraine' is a very, very good film and a far cry from American WW2 movies we see today, they are all much more banal and onesided.The film was obviously inspired by Jean Renoir's ultimate antiwar movie, 'The Grand Illusion', and in its turn inspired Stuart Rosenberg's tough prison movie 'Cool Hand Luke'.
10 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Oh, YES!, 15 September 2000 Author: Anne_Sharp from USA
If you thought World War II Hollywood war movies were all sweetness and Casablanca fans, just wait till you see this gut-wrenching little propaganda piece, which must have come out the week the censors were all in Palm Springs. Perhaps the most realistic Hollywood portrayal of life as a prisoner of the Nazis until "Schindler's List," it's also quite intelligent and extraordinarily well-played by an excellent cast. You don't know the meaning of shock until you've seen Gene Kelly spit a huge gob of real sputum onto Peter Lorre's face--and then wait till you see what comes next. It's not Captain Renault and the roulette table, dearie.
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Gritty WW2 POW drama years before "Stalag 17"..., 27 March 2007 Author: Neil Doyle from U.S.A.
Basically the story of the French resistance during the early '40s when the Nazis overtook France, THE CROSS OF LORRAINE is a forerunner of films like STALAG 17, but without the humor. Instead, it's a straightforward dramatic tale of the harsh treatment meted out to the French POWs in a German prison camp.There are no real surprises in the plot--you know from the beginning that there will be an escape plan being hatched by JEAN PIERRE AUMONT, who takes over when the former translator/informer HUME CRONYN meets his fate at the hands of prisoners. Aumont and GENE KELLY have the leading male roles and both give earnest performances in this gritty drama directed by Tay Garnett.Although it appears to be a low-budget film, there's a splendid supporting cast including SIR CEDRIC HARDWICKE, RICHARD WHORF, PETER LORRE (as a despicable German sergeant), WALLACE FORD and Joseph CALLEIA.Film is engrossing all the way through but suffers from an ending that pushes the propaganda envelope too far as the French resistance overcomes the Nazi recruiters while Aumont and Kelly take aim with machine guns to help destroy a bunch of bad Nazis.Summing up: A flag waving tribute to the French resistance, it's well done for most of the way but that ending is too over-the-top to be taken seriously.
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Viva la France. Very good war drama., 18 February 2002 Author: Michael O'Keefe from Muskogee OK
Directed by Tay Garnett, who was a Naval pilot in WWI, this war drama has substance. French soldiers, believing that WWII is over, unwittingly surrender to German forces and are placed in a POW camp. A terrific and realistic look at being held prisoner under the thumb of the Nazis. A very good collection of talent featuring: Jean-Pierre Aumont, Gene Kelly, Hume Cronyn, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Peter Lorre, Wallace Ford and Richard Whorf.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: For what it was, it was exceptionally well-made, 29 June 2007 Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I read some reviews on IMDb that I felt were a bit too harsh for this film, calling it "propaganda" or complaining about how the Germans were all portrayed as evil. And my answer to that is of course it's propaganda and one-sided--plus, they were Nazis (and that IS bad if you paid any attention in your history classes). You need to understand the context---it was made during the war and was intended not as a perfect representation of the Nazis and the Free French movement but as way to bolster support for the war effort at home. In that respect, the film was a tremendous success and stands as one of the better wartime propaganda films made by the Americans. I respect the film for its ability to touch the viewer--ever today when it's easy to laugh at the jingoistic style of the film since the Nazis seem like a distant memory.The film begins with the war in France in 1940. When a group of soldiers surrendered after the traitorous French government made peace with the Nazis, instead of being returned home they were sent to a German prison camp and starved and beaten in attempt to break their spirits. The Nazis were all the usual stereotypical bad guys you'd expect, though it was interesting to see the German actor Peter Lorre actually playing a Nazi. Despite his background, during the war he often played French or other non-German characters--this is a rare chance to see him play a German in an American film.To me, the most interesting characters weren't the Germans or even most of the French prisoners, but the collaborators who actually worked for the Nazis and thrived. Hume Cronyn played a juicy role as a Frenchman only too happy to side with his captors and betray his people. His character was very chilling, but true to this style of film, he got his ultimate reward for his treachery (sort of like way Peter Graves in STALAG 17). Jean-Pierre Aumont, another collaborator, is another story. While he reluctantly worked with the Germans to save his skin, he could not live with himself unless he continued to resist and fight them covertly--setting up an exciting escape towards the end of the film.The film ends on a very bloody and exciting note. In fact, now that I think about it, for a Hollywood film of the 1940s, it was an exceptionally bloody and violent film--though considering the subject matter, this WAS necessary. One particularly brutal scene that actually shocked me and my wife was when Aumont stabbed a German in the throat and it was done realistically and in a close-up shot! The bottom line is that most people viewing this film probably left the theater angry and wanting to kick Nazi butt--a good sign that the film achieved its goal. In fact, the film was so patriotic and uplifting that Aumont himself left the safety of the US after finishing this film and he joined the Free French himself and earning a lot of respect for his heroism.
Fine Performance by Gene Kelly contains spoilers, 17 October 2009 Author: dgniewek from United States
Tonight I watched Cross of Lorraine and I thought the film was a well done and a fine example of a "message movie" during wartime. The plot was predictable, but engaging. The characterizations were well drawn and believable. I thought it was fascinating to have such flawed characters among the "good guys" in a war-time message movie. The cast was excellent. Jean-Pierre Aumont and Hume Cronyn gave captivating performances. Gene Kelly played Victor, the brash hothead always looking for a fight who is tortured into submission. He reminded me of a young John Garfield in this role. It was a a truly heart-wrenching performance. Gene Kelly really has been so very underrated as a dramatic actor.
The soul of free France upon the spirit of Charles Degaulle, 8 January 2009 Author: moatazmohsen78 from Egypt
This movie is an oracle of french Independence before it one year by the symbol of liberty (Charles Degaulle) in 1944 with American aim in the beginning of (Normandy operation) but he decided to make the liberty of Paris by french resistance without any aim from foreign countries to put the french trademark in the eternal pages of history by his speeches that he announced his invitation for french people (men , women , students) to take their arms for liberty and free France under his administration of pending government of (Free France) and the symbol of (Cross Lorraine) the saint cross of (Joan of Arc) the holy spirit of victory in 15th century against English occupation at France but he quoted this symbol by the spirit of 20th century and he did it for France and his famous shout after victory and during the vectorial ceremony (Vive La France).
4 out of 11 people found the following review useful: Not a bad movie but its propaganda elements are too obvious and quite ridicules., 30 April 2006 Author: Boba_Fett1138 from Groningen, The Netherlands
This movie does provide a good and realistic view of French POW's in a German camp. The story and its characters are gritty and those are the main reasons why this movie is quite a good one.It however is too bad that it's too obvious that this movie was a piece of allied WW II propaganda. This movie was made in the middle of WW II and it's quite ridicules to see how incredibly black and white the story and its characters are at times. The Nazi's are made to look incredibly ruthless and without an heart and conscience while all the French prisoners want to do is practice their religion, be kind to each other and make the best out of it. The story and its characters are so incredibly black and white at times that the movie becomes quite ridicules and not a credible one to watch at times.The movie also obviously tries to send out a message. To POW to keep fighting and resisting against the Nazi's, to French citizens to revolt against the oppressors (according to the movie, they should even burn their houses down, just like the Russians used to do, so the Germans will find nothing but ashes along their way) and to help the resistance in any way they can. The whole message and propaganda elements in the movie are all way too obvious. It makes this movie really a ridicules one to watch at times.There are some good actors in the movie but due to the simple way of directing and storytelling, none of them really shines. The talents of Gene Kelly (in one of his first movie roles) and Peter Lorre are wasted in this movie.Still I can't rate this movie any lower than a 6 out of 10, since the story and atmosphere are quite good and also have some nice elements in it. I guess it's a pretty good though rushed, early, low budget WW II movie that intends well but is too obvious with its propaganda. Not much interesting is really happening in the movie and the action toward the ending comes too late to makes this movie a better paced- and in general a better and more interesting movie to watchA watchable movie that however by no means is a must-see or a really recommendable one.6/10
1 out of 13 people found the following review useful: yet another poor propaganda piece.., 17 July 2002 Author: Prosinecki
The Cross of Lorraine is yet another poor propaganda piece, goose stepping stereotype nazis, ordinary peasants turned to overly patriotic resistance fighters, it's all there..Straight from the beginning you can guess how it all ends, I've read better comic books about the WW2 and the resistance than this ridiculous propaganda stunt.
Add another review
