I was wondering why there were so many jump-cuts. Then I realized, the director implemented these jump-cuts during battle so as to give the viewer a sense of "what the hell is happening?". In other words, the director wants the viewer to have the same feeling a soldier has, in battle, when so much is happening at once. Also, notice how the jump-cuts go away once the soldiers are no longer in a fight and things are relatively "calm". Then, once another battle begins, the jump-cuts return.
The answer is probably more prosaic - budget. Set up a big scene like this, all your cameras, and you can't do a retake, not on the budget of that film, so the footage you have at the end has to be used somehow. It would have taken days to film, so there's no going back - closups would have been put in at the end.
It certainly has that effect. But then again, we the audience aren’t supposed to be confused about what is happening. Its effect is indistinguishable from bad directing/editing.
This is not a historical scene. The film is about historical events, but they haven't tried very hard to make it authentic (the details like weapons or uniforms are more or less correct, but often misplaced). The combat is unrealistic, too (illumination rounds? really?; the Soviet infantry, who are supposed to hug the tanks are often going somewhere else; where are the NCOs?). And, on top of it all, it's a Cold War film glorifying the German Army on the eastern front.
@@andrewchesler2029 one where the whole focus is on the Germans, and the Soviets are a faceless Other. One where the Germans are skilled and principled while the Soviets are a mass of brutes. One where the Germans are brave and loyal towards each other, and humane towards their enemies. A film that subverts its subject matter and refuses to discuss the realities of the war.
@@maximilianodelrio Sorry Maximiliano you are wrong! 20,000 Russians lost their lives every day of the conflict till the very end. If Americans had such a casualty count the American public would be aghast. Yes, of course, sacrifices and brutal fighting was done in many theaters but for sheer shedding of blood nothing holds a candle to the Eastern front with a possible exception of the Chinese-Japanese war. A half a million Russians and equal amount of Germans in the 8 month battle of Stalingrad. More the total U.S. and British casalties in ALL theaters. You need to study up on your WW II war history my friend.
@@chuckbuckbobuck i know more people died there, it’s obvious, but what I meant is that the brutality of the fighting could be surpassed in other fronts, most notably on the Pacific with the Japanese and their brutal defence
@#3_Vacuum_Salesman_of_Marrakesh well i dont understand how you can grow iron crosses firstly, and if its a metaphor of some sort i cant see that either... whats the meaning behind it?
This was filmed entirely with analog equipment and released in 1977. That makes it older than most of the people reading this comment. Lo-Tech? More like No-Tech....
+Sonny Five oh you mean it like that..yes then i agree... I watch the movie and beside a lot of people dieing because its war it had not much story... quality is quit good indeed..
Also the fighting is pretty realistic. Especially for an old war movie, which are always so damn cheesy. It isn't perfect, but it's much better than all the other old ones I've seen.
Most expensive VHS I ever bought, 35$. I saw this when it came out in theatres in 77, 25 years later made it part of my video collection. It had to be ordered it was so rare, but what a great war movie it is.
By far - even by today's standards - one of the best realistically depicted war movies ever made of the titanic battles on the Eastern Front during WWII ... 'Tough-arse' Sgt. Steiner, played convincingly well and true to the tone of the film's gritty aura by the late (and equally 'tough-arse') star, James Coburn, couldn't have been better-portrayed by any other leading actor - who, in the end, justified and succinctly reflected the character's trials and tribulations to the bitter end from the novel of the same name. A highly recommended viewing for all WWII afficionados of the Russian-German War. Thanks for posting!
***** ...and those were genuine T-34/85s provided by the Yugoslav army which them in stock to be rented out for movie purposes (Kelly's Heroes was filmed there)...
Fun fact: the Russians (and some Germans!) are played by members of the Yugoslav People's Army. Care was taken to make the weapons authentic, though this wasn't possible. Hence T-34/85 instead of T-34/76, Yugoslav M-53 machine gun instead of German MG-42 (they're very similar though), Yugoslav uniforms instead of Soviet ones, American airplanes instead of Soviet ones, and finally Yugoslav TAM trucks instead of Soviet GAZ/ZIS.
Cannot verify all your claims apart from the MG-42. We still use the Yugoslav M-53 replica in the Norwegian army and when they fire it in the film a trained ear can recognize the sound of it. We call it MG-3 up here. A fantastic weapon. It looks excactly like the MG-42 only the firing rate is cut in half. It fires 17-23 rounds/sec. Double that rate for the MG-42
I can’t imagine the amount of time the editors had to spend sitting in some room somewhere with scissors cutting and splicing... cutting and splicing...
Saw this movie in the 80-s. Even then it amazed me how unrealistic it was! Hordes of red barbarians attacking a handful of arian knights, piling up at their feet... A Bridge Too Far, on the other hand, was pretty realistic and the events were depicted quite accurately.
But many... many, many cuts... ah this is what makes this movie so chaotic and hard for me to watch, I don't know where the front line is where they really are and even dying this is very vague, for example, Stalingrad 1993 has great battle scenes because they are specific, and this movie builds characters even among the episodic or insignificant. Cross of Iron is frankly terrible at building characters, which makes them forget quickly and you don't even notice that they die. After all, this movie is full of heroic scenes that are stupid. Stalingrad 1993, on the other hand, shows war devoid of heroism, it focuses on the drama of war, it does not hide in showing wounds, severed limbs, screams, suicides.
"No quick cuts" first thing I noticed was how sickeningly quick the camera cuts are in between shots. So many it becomes hard to even tell whats going on Gunna be honest, the editing there is genuinely poor
The thing is because this film lacks the stupid fake hero Allies it doesn’t devulge into the common bear pits of war film. There was no reason to make either side morally superior or ”good” so it transcendents into the one of the very best war films ever
I love how chatoic it is. You can barely tell what is going on but that's a good thing because they could not tell either. Just madness, death chaos and suffering
Fantastic action scene by a master film-maker, Sam Peckinpah...if anybody is wondering why there aren't any Wehrmacht panzerfausts in action, the single-use anti-tank weapon first became available in small numbers in August 1943. This film depicts the Wehrmacht's retreat actions at the Kuban bridgehead on the Taman Peninsula in 1943 (Jan to Oct). Improved versions of the panzerfaust only began to be produced in quantity from September 1943 onwards....
taclas1 Although the Germans did have what we'd probably now call RPGs, it is surprising that their use wasn't more widespread. They couldn't destroy a tank, but they could certainly immobilize it by blowing the tread off.
+Haas Siegen yes correct they were capable of destroying tanks. The American bazooka was limited and could not defeat Tiger or Panther armour but the Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust could do it. You just needed to be a very brave man or boy to use one so close to a tank.
I like how the tank didn't explode into a nuclear blast from a grenade (but only if thrown from a shirtless guy with abs). So at least it's more realistic than most.
The T-34 was designed to resist any attack or mine land, was the most advanced design for a tank, and easily take punishment for the biggest tank from the Germans The Tiger-Panzer!
@@hernanbojacav.8396 : It was built for reliability, simple repair and mass production. The Nazis couldn't get out of their own way, so busy were they with changes, that their tank production and readiness in the field were very poor by comparison. Soviets kept it simple. Used the best design for their chassis - which the Americans passed on - and I THINK they just stuck with a diesel engine, and didn't fool around with turbine engines. Basically, a farmer who worked on his tractors could work on a T-34.
@@harrymills2770 т 34 была оригинальная собственная конструкция. приобрели танк кристи - он же бт2, и его наследники бт5, бт7, это танки 30 годов, совершенно другие , во всем двигатель, ходовая, броня, орудие, ничего общего. а дизель выбрали по техническим и экономическим соображениям - в ссср было много дизеля и недостаток бензина, плюс дизель дешевле, и главное - т 34 поставили на поток, на конвейер, который делал танков больше чем вся германия,ссср не плодил модели - как только производство стабилизировали осталось практически две модели - ис и т 34. а немцы использовали бензин потому что добывали его из угля, а дизеля им не хватало - и весь он шел на флот - чистая экономика. The T 34 was an original proprietary design. we bought the Christie tank - aka bt2, and its successors bt5, bt7, these are tanks of the 30s, completely different, in everything the engine, chassis, armor, gun, nothing in common. and diesel was chosen for technical and economic reasons - in the USSR there was a lot of diesel and a lack of gasoline, plus diesel is cheaper, and most importantly-the t 34 was put on the stream, on the conveyor, which made more tanks than the whole of Germany, the USSR did not produce models - as soon as production was stabilized, there were almost two models - is and t 34. and the Germans used gasoline because they extracted it from coal, and they lacked diesel-and all of it went to the fleet-pure economy.
+tSp289 My presumption is that Peckinpah and editors Michael Ellis and Tony Lawson wanted to simulate the sheer confusion of war. It's jarring and disorienting, which must be pretty accurate to how the real thing felt. It's the sound that struck me, the constant barrage of ear-splitting crashing decibels. Who can think in such a crazed atmosphere? I find this a disturbingly credible portrait of battle. Smooth, clear editing has its place, and most war movies (certainly those prior to, say, 1995 or so) observe traditional methods of cutting and maintaining continuity. Peckinpah here is creating the same kind of intense chaos as he did in key scenes of "The Wild Bunch." For me, it works.
Oddly enough even tho its a bit on the rough side the equipment portrayed is quite a bit more authentic than what we see in modern movies. The t-34s, the german mortar and machine gun crews even the 75mm Pak is accurate. The weight of the teller mines when they threw them on the track was great whether they weighed there actual weight or the actors just played as if they were heavy. Well done any way one looks at it
I agree..those mines looked heavy..the dirt and dust on the tanks and soldiers made them look very lived in and real..many times, as you say, more modern films can look too clean..like they've come straight from props and wardrobe department...one of the effects that Saving Private Ryan got very right, was the deadening thud of the guns and not the per-twang sound that you get in older films like this...apart from that this film has done a great job..must watch it again
The old film was made by Americans and is absolutely far from reality. Only Russia can make a real film about the war between Germany and Russia 1941-1945. Recent films close to the real battle films "28 PANFILOVTSEV" and "RZHEV".
@@user-vr4th9lk5s The Cross of Iron was an Anglo-German production based on the book by Willi Heinrich who served on the Eastern Front. Nothing wrong with the film as it is. I've seen several Soviet war films and they always have a certain element of propaganda in them. No thanks!
The film ends on rather an odd note, but was originally supposed to include an additional extra scene including an airfield. But the producer pulled the funds. Also based on the book 'The Willing Flesh' by Willi Henrich who fought on the eastern front. The film compacts the book heavily, but does a decent job. The book is most certainly worth a read; at times it's excellent.
Indeed, I started the book yesterday and can barely put it down, it fleshes out the personalities and inner conflicts of the characters so well. I believe Peckinpah was a raging alcoholic and extremely difficult to deal with and by the time we get to Steiner's "I'll show you where the Iron Crosses grow" speech with Stransky, the production was bankrupt. The entire end scene was apparently filmed in a day and involved a lot of cutting and creative editing. Powerful and very sympathetic film nonetheless. The average German landser knew the war was as nuts as the Allied soldier did, or certainly came to realise it after Stalingrad. This film still hits like a sledgehammer.
@@markbirchall8225if you like that book then you you will absolutely love “The Forgotten Soldier,” by Guy Sajer, a 17 year old soldier in the elite unit Gross Deutschland Division for 3 years on the Eastern Front. I’ve had to purchase 4 books now because every time I loan it out for someone to read, something mysteriously happens and it’s never returned. It’s BY FAR the closest to, and most realistically written book describing combat and a soldier’s life during war. I’m a 60 year old former Marine grunt and I’ve never read anything even close to this survivors account of what they saw and endured.
This is one of the best war movies ever made, if not ,the best!! Great acting, authentic vehicles and equipment and lots of action!! Thanks Sam Peckinpah!!!!
As a former morterman, the first thing I noticed was the high angle of the gun. We called this a 'red mission'. This would be very accurate considering the proximity of the infantry. My hat is off to the military advisor.
@@scottfoster161 I was actually in a CHB. Drove a 113 for our TOC/TAC when I wasn't in the S-3. To much brains to be a grunt.....but definitely smart enough to understand trajectory basics. So instead of trying to insult another veteran.......why not just admit that it isn't rocket science. At least the basics. It isn't difficult.
***** Yeah, you made a damn good point. Even though I was referring to the fact that living through battles like that day after day for years would really really REALLY suck.
+╬Reichsritter╬ wE THOUGHT THERE WAS SOLDIERS ON THAT BRIDGE. I RED ABOUT IT....ON BEHAFL OF THE USA AND PRESIDENT BARRACK HUSSEING OBAMMA, WE APOLOGIZE BUTT DAMMIT YOU DECLARED WAR ON US NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
I own this movie, it wasn't supposed to be released in America, and the copys were confiscated, I purchased mine from action time videos, and someone showed up to confiscate it, I already purchased it, about a week later I went in to action time, and the owner said that a private security firm was going around the country collecting up the copys they could find, I have had mine for 36 years, and it's rare in America, and a treasure!
The T-34's biggest advantage wasn't it's sloped armor, it's high mobility, or it's gun(whether 76mm or 85mm)...it was the fact that there were always more...and more...and more of them.
The same people who told you that want you to pretend making more tanks than the rest of the world combined doesn't matter when they have a coked upped leader in a tight t-shirt like anyone gives a fuck
Ага, знатоки. Вы всё ещё верите в то что Ваши воздушные асы по 200 самолётов сбивали? Гебельсовская пропаганда, такая тупая, но для вас нормально. Живите дальше тупые бюргеры.
@@hansvandijk1487 diesel fuel does freeze. and the tracks werent that much of an advantage....it had the same ground pressure as the tiger I, and look what happened to that thing
My father who was a German solider , who servied on the Eastern front, said something I will never forget: There we're many of us, but there was far more many of them
Ironically, Germany and it's allies outnumbered the Red Army during Operation Barbarossa, as the Red Army had strong forces in the Far East to counter the Japanese in Manchuria.
@@lavrentivs9891 It will be a war in Europe, and therefore in the world, and it will begin when the West decides that this time they will be able to defeat the Russians. Globalists need to reduce the world's population not only in Eurasia. The upcoming war should prepare humanity for the inevitability of digital unification.
Dont forget the novel of Willi Heinrich which the movie is based on: Das geduldige Fleisch aka The willing Flesh. I read the book first in 1989 and I am still impressed.
Heh, I had read the book a few year before wathing the movie. I didn't know this movie was based on the book before watching it. About half-way through I started to think, hey, this all feel awfully familliar.
Only Russia can make a real film about the war between Germany and Russia 1941-1945. Recent films close to the real battle films "28 PANFILOVTSEV" and "RZHEV".
Most likely Coburn directed while Peckinpah was having DT's. Not hating on Peckinpah, but at this point in his career, Coburn did a lot of the work for him.
must be the best war film ever, even if apocalypse now is very closed. the battles scenes are amazing, very intense even if we almost don't see blood.... peckinpah was such a genius...
Hands down best movie from the German perspective. Shows how hellish the eastern front was. Shows an accurate showing of t-34's on the offensive not just endless hoards. A good portrait of the red army in the late War offensives. No stupid endless red charges with no armor protection. Firing online in the prone while talking guns, proper bounding from cover to cover. It's hands down of the best
The Soviets fiddled around with large-scale mobile warfare doctrine before the war. Stalin shot all the officers who experimented with it during the Great Purge. Then the Germans taught them everything they knew about their "lighting-war".
One of the main things that sets the older and the newer movies apart is the hip shooting. Looking at the older ones it seems like every single engagement with automatic weapons involved firing from the hip which is naturally a waste of ammo, unless you're caught by a surprise.
Another thing in old movies is that guys are constantly being caught by surprise be enemies coming up from behind them or the side and are easily wiped out before they can react. Experienced soldiers are rarely caught by complete surprise like that. They are also usually dug in and have to be gradually pried out of their positions. But that doesn't look as exciting and dramatic on a movie screen.
I rode to work for a couple years with a guy that was drafted and drove a tank on the Eastern Front. When he was drunk ' a almost everyday occurrence' sometimes he would talk about the war. He was telling me you never see one t-34 they come in groups. When you see a t-34 you turn around and Drive to the anti-tank guns. Ground troops would go to ground and let the t34 is Passover them. Besides the anti-tank guns they would call in stukas armed with 2 anti-tank cannons one under each wing between the stukas and the anti tank guns most of the time the t-34s or what was left of them would retreat. They then would attack the t 34 s shooting into the back of them. If this doesn't sound right to you it didn't always work and the Germans did lose the war. Paul remembers the beginning of the end was when you would call for stukas and because of Russian air superiority none would come.
My grandfather was at the eastern Front '39 to '45. He told me exactly (!), what your friend said. Combined handgrenades, spezialisiert anti-tank-explosives used by the infantry, air support by stukas or directing them in front of the 8.8 Flak or pak (anti-tank-guns). Benny, germany Greetings from germany
@@benediktpress2383 Paul has been gone some years now, but I always have been glad that I knew him. Ever the constant reminder that not all Germans were Nazis and evil just young man drafted into the army. These children soldiers had to do what our children soldiers had to do. Politics are always irrelevant to Frontline combat soldiers.
@@jackharter660 "Politics always has nothing to do with soldiers fighting on the front line." ... But now Europe, which supplied Hitler with weapons, is supplying the Nazi and corrupt regime in Ukraine with weapons, which has been killing people in the Donbas for 9 years, burning people in cities (Odessa, May 2, 2014). Europe and its policies do not change.
Sam Peckinpah was the best. Cross of Iron - which got only mixed reviews in 1977 - is becoming somewhat of a cult movie today. What battle scenes. What human interest scenes mixed in with them.
Spartaculus Jones It was a great movie, a movie that rivals classics like a Bridge to Far and Kelly's Heroes, however the fact the movie is shown from the German point of view was just too taboo at the time.
Chromewolf187 Stalingrad was a Russian made movie with financial backing from the Putin regime. Thus why the Russians in that movie are super men who can fend off entire divisions despite being only five guys.
Неа, это из фильма "Железный крест". И есть еще продолжение этой мути, второй фильм "Железный крест-2". Там уже война с союзниками. Главный герой - седенький старик в немецкой военной кепи-бергмюце или гансовке по нашему. Герой никак не может получить железный крест. Это основная сюжетная линия фильма, не уживчив с начальством. Он в звании что-то вроде фельдфебеля. Палит танки налево и направо, воюет в общем, а крест не дают. Кое как эту дрянь досмотрел.
А я удовлетворен мллион власовцеа триста тьісяч армии Каменского,29,30 русская дивизия СС 120 000 а ешо донские и кубанские казаки.И енто на фоне 18 000 СС гальічина.Которьіе в совке небьіли и предать енто не могли.Во ваши дидьі прославилися.
Cross of Iron, a movie that shows german soldiers as humans, not as stupid robots who allways look into the wrong direction :D Also, a genius behind the camera, Sam was one of the greatest. That movie changed my opinion about such war movies. It was dirty, realistic, brutal. And realistic. In my family quite some fought in ww2 (born 1971, lots of my uncles and their relevates... ) and they all told me that this movie at least showed SOME realism about the brutality of the fighting.
Красиво сняли, приятно смотреть. Как качественную порнушку, вот только как всегда в ней нет настоящей любви))) в сюжете дыры танки прут без пехоты, у немцев довольно скудное вооружение, где фаустпатроны и панцершреки во времена 43-45 годов( когда на вооружении СССР стояли т34-85), их немцы как консервные банки выпускали. Где пулеметы мг-34(или 43) наводящие ужас своей скорострельностью. В общем немцы тоже не дураками были и давали так не хило прикурить и не бегали если что то могли ещё делать, а наши были не такими уж дураками, стратегию наступления знали как Библию...
The chapters in the novel, The Cross of Iron, dealing with the Soviet offensive at Krimskaya provide a more accurate description of the battle than portrayed in the movie. But the screenplay took parts of the book and mixed them up so the scenes don't follow the flow of the novel. The most terrifying parts of the book deal with the fighting outside and inside a massive factory at Novorosiysk on the Black Sea coast. This is where Steiner and his men were betrayed in the novel, quite unlike the scene in the movie. The screenplay also had issues with German ranks and the positions they held in the German Army by late-1943, the period of time that the movie attempted to depict. Thus, LT Meyer in the movie is portrayed as platoon leader when in fact he was a company commander in the novel. Captain Stransky is a company commander in the movie when he was a battalion commander in the book. Hollywood had a mirror-imaging bias. Thus, if American lieutenants were platoon leaders and captains company commanders, then this must have been the case with the Germans too. But reality isn't a perfect mirror image. In the German Army lieutenants normally led companies and captains often led battalions. I like the movie, but the novel is a work of art. If possible, read The Willing Flesh, which is the unabridged version of the Cross of Iron. An English- language version was printed in Great Britain, but copies are hard to find. I lucked out on Ebay. It's about 70 pages longer than the otherwise excellent abridged version and gives more depth to key personalities, particularly Steiner, but also Lieutenant Colonel Brandt, the regimental commander (the movie depicts him as a battalion commander--wrong again.).
I read The Willing Flesh years before Cross of Iron even came out. Perhaps that's why I've never warmed to the movie. That said, the movie's look is good, and Coburn makes a good Steiner, although when I read the novel, the Steiner I visualised looked more like Richard Burton , who oddly enough did end up playing Steinerin the awful "Breakthrough".
The book is way way better. All the points you raise are valid, but tbh, I do think the structure of the film maintains narrative tension a bit better. Especially given they only had 90 minutes. Steiner in the book is a much more complex character... (Sometimes I find him almost hateful, if understandable).
"Why are we fighting in this god forsaken hell hole?" ... "Because there is a factory." ... "But it is blown to hell sir, its meaningless." ... "Its on the map so HQ says to hold the factory, its useful." ... "How? Its blown up!" ... "Its on the map."
I have this epic film on dvd, first I saw it I could not get the theme tune at the beginning of the film out of head for days, I can hear it now watching this
My Grandfahter fought for the Wehrmacht in this Battles, he made his way back to Austria and was prisoned by the US Army. He never tell us some of his story, i think it was to horrible.
I have to say the explosions look pretty realistic... No ridiculous fireballs. They did a good job with the effects... The editing on the other hand. This was edited by an insane person.
Though I’ve never been in a battle this seems to be a realistic portrayal of an attack and retreat. Some things like the sound effects are probably post production. When I think about war like this it seems to be a colossal waste on all levels and the sign of complete failure. What a disaster.
I was thinking about how they should update the sound effects in older movies like this because the scenery is really nice. It would immensely enhance the quality. Especially the sounds of firing and explosion. They are really out of date.
Unfortunately the sound effects are added in post production from library sound effects that in some cases dated back to the '40s. The most annoying sound effects are those electronic ricochets that were used in war movies and other types of films for decades.
Esta fue la primera película de guerra que me impactó, luego de estar acostumbrado a ver solo la versión hollywoodense del ejercito estadounidense tanto en Europa como en Asia y África, y siempre como los héroes máximos. Esta versión, en mi caso personal siendo un niño, la ví en los 80s y me mostró por primera vez en la vida a personajes alemanes y soviéticos dándome otra perspectiva de aquella guerra. Fue a su vez la primera vez que vi las tomas de acciones de combate como si fueren en primera persona y eso realmente me sacó de cuadro y me hizo amar esta película. Gracias papá por mostrarme tremenda película por vhs, siempre hablabas de ella con fascinación, nunca censuraste alguna escena estando a tu lado mirando con pasión.
@@user-wc1ow8gz9v si he visto algunas aunque incompletas y no recuerdo sus nombres. Creo que hasta una espacial me parece, una tal Solaris si mal no recuerdo. Será motivo para indagar más y verlas
There are a lot of unrealistic moments in this fragment. First tanks go like they are invincible (crashing those concrete dragon teeth like carton boxes=), next moment they totally explode from a mine on a track. This will sure destroy the track and immobilize the machine, but why the whole tank will explode like it was detonated from inside? And those stupid tactics moments, when a tank advances without an infantry support. Or going inside of a building and trying to blow it up when being inside (facepalm) - that was an epic stupidity.
Ну, да, а потом они остановились и начали стрелять. После чего, обогнали пехоту и заглохли в 2 метрах от фрицев. А потом заехали в заводской корпус... Клюква вечна.
Went to see it at the pictures in 1977. Still my favourite war film. Sam Pekinpah films were always great to see. Wasn't until 30 years later I read the book.
Still the best film about the war on the Eastern Front. Timeless! A classic! Steiner's platoon fought for their own survival, nothing more. My favourite war film.
@@harryfineberg5075 I saw Come And See a few weeks ago. It was dubbed. Still an amazing film. The boy aged ten years. Ivan' s Childhood is also good but the destruction of the village in Come And See never fails to shock.
A true Masterpiece of great accuracy. Performed very well in Germany. Impressed audiences and critics across Europe. How cometh? Well, it was an international co-production between British and West German financiers. With an international cast. The director: US-american action-expert Sam Peckinpah. Some assistance from the Army of Yugoslavia. No wonder, we have a German AND an English version. Hey. We are in the film business. There must be some compromising now and then. Whats the problem?
If anyone likes this movie then I recommend a Russian film called Zvezda or "The Star". It's from 2002 and is excellent. I have seen its been uploaded to UA-cam now so worth watching as a great film
Editor : What kind of editing style do you want to use?
Director : Yes
This is by far the most funny comment in this clip! I though that they both must have been high making this movie.
Definitely frenetic.
@@buffalopatriot Cut up all the clips and throw them in the air
I was wondering why there were so many jump-cuts. Then I realized, the director implemented these jump-cuts during battle so as to give the viewer a sense of "what the hell is happening?". In other words, the director wants the viewer to have the same feeling a soldier has, in battle, when so much is happening at once. Also, notice how the jump-cuts go away once the soldiers are no longer in a fight and things are relatively "calm". Then, once another battle begins, the jump-cuts return.
It's called the fog of war. Each soldier only sees what is before him. Confusion reigns/what the hell is happening? Good point Georgie.
The answer is probably more prosaic - budget. Set up a big scene like this, all your cameras, and you can't do a retake, not on the budget of that film, so the footage you have at the end has to be used somehow. It would have taken days to film, so there's no going back - closups would have been put in at the end.
ペキンパー監督はカット割りと スローモーション撮影が得意ですよね❗ カット割りのお陰で 戦闘の混乱が良く判ります❗
Ə.001q0¹0ağ
ii
Ailə
a±±₼6++0⁰)
It certainly has that effect. But then again, we the audience aren’t supposed to be confused about what is happening.
Its effect is indistinguishable from bad directing/editing.
The amount of work that goes into shooting a historical scene like this is unbelievable.
but it sets to zero when the film itself is a bullshit. It is only a western propaganda
This is not a historical scene. The film is about historical events, but they haven't tried very hard to make it authentic (the details like weapons or uniforms are more or less correct, but often misplaced). The combat is unrealistic, too (illumination rounds? really?; the Soviet infantry, who are supposed to hug the tanks are often going somewhere else; where are the NCOs?). And, on top of it all, it's a Cold War film glorifying the German Army on the eastern front.
@@peterlewerin4213 thanks bro
@@peterlewerin4213 Glorifying ?? What movie did you watch ?
@@andrewchesler2029 one where the whole focus is on the Germans, and the Soviets are a faceless Other. One where the Germans are skilled and principled while the Soviets are a mass of brutes. One where the Germans are brave and loyal towards each other, and humane towards their enemies. A film that subverts its subject matter and refuses to discuss the realities of the war.
The battles on the Eastern front were so unbelievable fierce. It's hard to comprehend something like it
You got that rigjt. All other theaters of was were sideshows. As much as Americans orobably dont want to hear that.
@@chuckbuckbobuck other theaters could be just as brutal if not more than the eastern front, this isnt a suffering competition
@@maximilianodelrio Sorry Maximiliano you are wrong! 20,000 Russians lost their lives every day of the conflict till the very end. If Americans had such a casualty count the American public would be aghast. Yes, of course, sacrifices and brutal fighting was done in many theaters but for sheer shedding of blood nothing holds a candle to the Eastern front with a possible exception of the Chinese-Japanese war. A half a million Russians and equal amount of Germans in the 8 month battle of Stalingrad. More the total U.S. and British casalties in ALL theaters. You need to study up on your WW II war history my friend.
@@chuckbuckbobuck i know more people died there, it’s obvious, but what I meant is that the brutality of the fighting could be surpassed in other fronts, most notably on the Pacific with the Japanese and their brutal defence
I think all the theaters were necessary to achieve victory. We were all on the same side
I'lltake you where the Iron Crosses grow" one of the best lines in this movie.
thats honestly makes no sense whatsoever though.
@#3_Vacuum_Salesman_of_Marrakesh well i dont understand how you can grow iron crosses firstly, and if its a metaphor of some sort i cant see that either... whats the meaning behind it?
@#3_Vacuum_Salesman_of_Marrakesh ah, thank you very much
@@stringpuppet3626 Dead hero's burial grounds.
@@stringpuppet3626 Maybe you never will. Best let it go
Damn good effects for such a old movie. Impressive.
💪
Old? Old is "All quiet on the Western front" both films are outstsnding
Rama Dama This was 1978 I believe and it doesn’t come across as a film made 42 years ago. Excellent warm film.
The trick is, all effects are well done and real. Real explosion, real (yes, T-34/85 to early in war) tanks and so on.
Jesus is lord
Sam Peckinpah was a genius director when he made this incredible war movie ! As a very young teen watching it then, it was a masterclass.
This was filmed entirely with analog equipment and released in 1977.
That makes it older than most of the people reading this comment.
Lo-Tech? More like No-Tech....
still younger than me
I like it! The low tech not the reality behind the film.
And it's been re-mastered and released on Blu-Ray... so I guess that brings it back up to 'current tech'. :-)
I was 23 when this fim was made. We went to the moon with worse computers.
@@charlesfoutch1132nobody has ever been to the moon! Lol
this is actually very very good for a movie in 1977, WOW!
+Sonny Five why? because a lot of people die?
not really, but just the sheer quality of the movie, feels more advanced cause the filming quality feels 1980-1990like rather than 1970 razorlord2
+Sonny Five oh you mean it like that..yes then i agree... I watch the movie and beside a lot of people dieing because its war it had not much story...
quality is quit good indeed..
Also the fighting is pretty realistic. Especially for an old war movie, which are always so damn cheesy. It isn't perfect, but it's much better than all the other old ones I've seen.
+Sonny Five The ones who loose the war tend to make more realistic movies about it...
Most expensive VHS I ever bought, 35$. I saw this when it came out in theatres in 77, 25 years later made it part of my video collection. It had to be ordered it was so rare, but what a great war movie it is.
ЗАКАЖИ КОССЕТУ КОНЦ ЛАГЕРЯ ОСВЕНЦЕВ ! ТОЖЕ РЕДКАЯ КАК ЖИГАЛИ ЛЮДЕЙ !
By far - even by today's standards - one of the best realistically depicted war movies ever made of the titanic battles on the Eastern Front during WWII ... 'Tough-arse' Sgt. Steiner, played convincingly well and true to the tone of the film's gritty aura by the late (and equally 'tough-arse') star, James Coburn, couldn't have been better-portrayed by any other leading actor - who, in the end, justified and succinctly reflected the character's trials and tribulations to the bitter end from the novel of the same name.
A highly recommended viewing for all WWII afficionados of the Russian-German War. Thanks for posting!
Its like Fury ... Not a good film...
It’s like there is a battle and a movie going on separately and they keep getting in each other’s way.
Я рад. Очень.
Yes, it's very confusing. James Coburn playing a German officer.
Seems like the producers had a lot of fun driving that T-34 through the set lol
***** ...and those were genuine T-34/85s provided by the Yugoslav army which them in stock to be rented out for movie purposes (Kelly's Heroes was filmed there)...
taclas1 The 1978 film "Force 10 from Navarone" was also filmed there, and used T-34's as German tanks.
+taclas1 no wonder i couldnt find any sign of a modded tank on them
+Matt K it wasn't a impossible thing that happened all Armies used each other's captured equipment at some point
+GhostJager81 Yes, for example the british used to take MP40s to replace their shitty Sten. Both use 9mm ammo, so perfect.
Fun fact: the Russians (and some Germans!) are played by members of the Yugoslav People's Army. Care was taken to make the weapons authentic, though this wasn't possible. Hence T-34/85 instead of T-34/76, Yugoslav M-53 machine gun instead of German MG-42 (they're very similar though), Yugoslav uniforms instead of Soviet ones, American airplanes instead of Soviet ones, and finally Yugoslav TAM trucks instead of Soviet GAZ/ZIS.
Cannot verify all your claims apart from the MG-42. We still use the Yugoslav M-53 replica in the Norwegian army and when they fire it in the film a trained ear can recognize the sound of it. We call it MG-3 up here. A fantastic weapon. It looks excactly like the MG-42 only the firing rate is cut in half. It fires 17-23 rounds/sec. Double that rate for the MG-42
Fpj
Moneor huh
Ese caballo de Bonanzaaarr
Mg.42 fires at 25 RPM according to several books.
Peckinpaw's constant cuts were the shakeycam of his day.
check out Deus Ex videos
Yeah it's pretty much unwatchable xD
I can’t imagine the amount of time the editors had to spend sitting in some room somewhere with scissors cutting and splicing... cutting and splicing...
Together along with "A Bridge too Far" were the best and most realistic "WWII" movies of the '70s, should be restored and remastered in 4K.
Better go watch some Russian movies.
Saw this movie in the 80-s.
Even then it amazed me how unrealistic it was! Hordes of red barbarians attacking a handful of arian knights, piling up at their feet...
A Bridge Too Far, on the other hand, was pretty realistic and the events were depicted quite accurately.
@@silafuyang8675 You mean watch Russian movie where Russian man make love to inner tube ??
Battle scenes like this are very rare in films today - no quick cuts, no shaky cam. Let the action play out instead of forcing it.
Quite a few quick cuts, but not the train wreck of quick cuts and shaky cam that passes for action in Hollywood, today.
But many... many, many cuts... ah this is what makes this movie so chaotic and hard for me to watch, I don't know where the front line is where they really are and even dying this is very vague, for example, Stalingrad 1993 has great battle scenes because they are specific, and this movie builds characters even among the episodic or insignificant. Cross of Iron is frankly terrible at building characters, which makes them forget quickly and you don't even notice that they die. After all, this movie is full of heroic scenes that are stupid. Stalingrad 1993, on the other hand, shows war devoid of heroism, it focuses on the drama of war, it does not hide in showing wounds, severed limbs, screams, suicides.
After 7 year a guys complaining about war film too chaotic ,
"No quick cuts"
first thing I noticed was how sickeningly quick the camera cuts are in between shots. So many it becomes hard to even tell whats going on
Gunna be honest, the editing there is genuinely poor
Lol, three seconds at a time.
An extraordinarily good WW2 film that is basically unknown
The thing is because this film lacks the stupid fake hero Allies it doesn’t devulge into the common bear pits of war film. There was no reason to make either side morally superior or ”good” so it transcendents into the one of the very best war films ever
@@pale_saint yes no ego stroking
@@pale_saint В этом, ты думаю прав, но эти сцены со стрельбой от бедра, не в пользу достоверности. Выглядит тупо.
💯 Percent agree 👍
Great film coburn at his best excellent directing
I watched this movie decades ago. Still good after all these years.
I love how chatoic it is.
You can barely tell what is going on but that's a good thing because they could not tell either.
Just madness, death chaos and suffering
"Regimental headquarters, can you hear me .... !?"
HQ: *Seen 12;13*
Fantastic action scene by a master film-maker, Sam Peckinpah...if anybody is wondering why there aren't any Wehrmacht panzerfausts in action, the single-use anti-tank weapon first became available in small numbers in August 1943. This film depicts the Wehrmacht's retreat actions at the Kuban bridgehead on the Taman Peninsula in 1943 (Jan to Oct). Improved versions of the panzerfaust only began to be produced in quantity from September 1943 onwards....
taclas1 Although the Germans did have what we'd probably now call RPGs, it is surprising that their use wasn't more widespread. They couldn't destroy a tank, but they could certainly immobilize it by blowing the tread off.
Peckinpah did this? Cripes. Some of the worst editing I've seen in a long time.
there was also a German version of the bazooka, the Panzerschrek
+Haas Siegen yes correct they were capable of destroying tanks. The American bazooka was limited and could not defeat Tiger or Panther armour but the Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust could do it. You just needed to be a very brave man or boy to use one so close to a tank.
+Grahame Nicholson chances of seeing a panzer or tiger was very low
I saw this movie many times. Very beautiful picture.
I like how the tank didn't explode into a nuclear blast from a grenade (but only if thrown from a shirtless guy with abs). So at least it's more realistic than most.
The T-34 was designed to resist any attack or mine land, was the most advanced design for a tank, and easily take punishment for the biggest tank from the Germans The Tiger-Panzer!
@@hernanbojacav.8396 : It was built for reliability, simple repair and mass production. The Nazis couldn't get out of their own way, so busy were they with changes, that their tank production and readiness in the field were very poor by comparison. Soviets kept it simple. Used the best design for their chassis - which the Americans passed on - and I THINK they just stuck with a diesel engine, and didn't fool around with turbine engines. Basically, a farmer who worked on his tractors could work on a T-34.
@@hernanbojacav.8396 The 88mm that the Tiger used was still effective on the T34.
@@harrymills2770 т 34 была оригинальная собственная конструкция. приобрели танк кристи - он же бт2, и его наследники бт5, бт7, это танки 30 годов, совершенно другие , во всем двигатель, ходовая, броня, орудие, ничего общего. а дизель выбрали по техническим и экономическим соображениям - в ссср было много дизеля и недостаток бензина, плюс дизель дешевле, и главное - т 34 поставили на поток, на конвейер, который делал танков больше чем вся германия,ссср не плодил модели - как только производство стабилизировали осталось практически две модели - ис и т 34. а немцы использовали бензин потому что добывали его из угля, а дизеля им не хватало - и весь он шел на флот - чистая экономика.
The T 34 was an original proprietary design. we bought the Christie tank - aka bt2, and its successors bt5, bt7, these are tanks of the 30s, completely different, in everything the engine, chassis, armor, gun, nothing in common. and diesel was chosen for technical and economic reasons - in the USSR there was a lot of diesel and a lack of gasoline, plus diesel is cheaper, and most importantly-the t 34 was put on the stream, on the conveyor, which made more tanks than the whole of Germany, the USSR did not produce models - as soon as production was stabilized, there were almost two models - is and t 34. and the Germans used gasoline because they extracted it from coal, and they lacked diesel-and all of it went to the fleet-pure economy.
@@hernanbojacav.8396 bs
Sam Peckinpah was a great director.
💪💪
He’s overrated.
Sheesh this is some crazy editing.
+L8bro pew pew pew pew
+L8bro yes, very annoying to watch O.o
+L8bro I was going to say, the cutting makes it really difficult to know what's going on. Great film, but bad editing in this scene.
+tSp289 My presumption is that Peckinpah and editors Michael Ellis and Tony Lawson wanted to simulate the sheer confusion of war. It's jarring and disorienting, which must be pretty accurate to how the real thing felt. It's the sound that struck me, the constant barrage of ear-splitting crashing decibels. Who can think in such a crazed atmosphere? I find this a disturbingly credible portrait of battle. Smooth, clear editing has its place, and most war movies (certainly those prior to, say, 1995 or so) observe traditional methods of cutting and maintaining continuity. Peckinpah here is creating the same kind of intense chaos as he did in key scenes of "The Wild Bunch." For me, it works.
I had a seizure from watching this
Oddly enough even tho its a bit on the rough side the equipment portrayed is quite a bit more authentic than what we see in modern movies. The t-34s, the german mortar and machine gun crews even the 75mm Pak is accurate. The weight of the teller mines when they threw them on the track was great whether they weighed there actual weight or the actors just played as if they were heavy. Well done any way one looks at it
I agree..those mines looked heavy..the dirt and dust on the tanks and soldiers made them look very lived in and real..many times, as you say, more modern films can look too clean..like they've come straight from props and wardrobe department...one of the effects that Saving Private Ryan got very right, was the deadening thud of the guns and not the per-twang sound that you get in older films like this...apart from that this film has done a great job..must watch it again
T-34s sounds weird. as if they have gasoline engines like the German ones. the original diesel V12 sounds completely different))
The old film was made by Americans and is absolutely far from reality. Only Russia can make a real film about the war between Germany and Russia 1941-1945. Recent films close to the real battle films "28 PANFILOVTSEV" and "RZHEV".
@@virus7379 I did think they sounded like a Panzer but dont think I'd know the T-34engine sound
@@user-vr4th9lk5s The Cross of Iron was an Anglo-German production based on the book by Willi Heinrich who served on the Eastern Front. Nothing wrong with the film as it is. I've seen several Soviet war films and they always have a certain element of propaganda in them. No thanks!
The film ends on rather an odd note, but was originally supposed to include an additional extra scene including an airfield. But the producer pulled the funds. Also based on the book 'The Willing Flesh' by Willi Henrich who fought on the eastern front. The film compacts the book heavily, but does a decent job. The book is most certainly worth a read; at times it's excellent.
Indeed, I started the book yesterday and can barely put it down, it fleshes out the personalities and inner conflicts of the characters so well. I believe Peckinpah was a raging alcoholic and extremely difficult to deal with and by the time we get to Steiner's "I'll show you where the Iron Crosses grow" speech with Stransky, the production was bankrupt. The entire end scene was apparently filmed in a day and involved a lot of cutting and creative editing. Powerful and very sympathetic film nonetheless. The average German landser knew the war was as nuts as the Allied soldier did, or certainly came to realise it after Stalingrad. This film still hits like a sledgehammer.
@@markbirchall8225if you like that book then you you will absolutely love “The Forgotten Soldier,” by Guy Sajer, a 17 year old soldier in the elite unit Gross Deutschland Division for 3 years on the Eastern Front. I’ve had to purchase 4 books now because every time I loan it out for someone to read, something mysteriously happens and it’s never returned. It’s BY FAR the closest to, and most realistically written book describing combat and a soldier’s life during war. I’m a 60 year old former Marine grunt and I’ve never read anything even close to this survivors account of what they saw and endured.
This is one of the best war movies ever made, if not ,the best!! Great acting, authentic vehicles and equipment and lots of action!! Thanks Sam Peckinpah!!!!
100% true
Except for the use of F4U's in parts the movie. They were never used in Europe, or by the Russian's.
The brilliant Sam Peckinpah.How i miss his moviemaking.
As a former morterman, the first thing I noticed was the high angle of the gun. We called this a 'red mission'. This would be very accurate considering the proximity of the infantry. My hat is off to the military advisor.
Do you really need a military adviser to know something as simple as how the angle should be if they are close? I don't think so.
@@jasondonovan1408 You have no idea what is required of a morter, do you?
@@scottfoster161 As an ex Army guy, I kinda do. It isn't hard to understand the basics.
@@jasondonovan1408 Counting blankets for 4 years doesn't count. POG
@@scottfoster161 I was actually in a CHB. Drove a 113 for our TOC/TAC when I wasn't in the S-3. To much brains to be a grunt.....but definitely smart enough to understand trajectory basics. So instead of trying to insult another veteran.......why not just admit that it isn't rocket science. At least the basics. It isn't difficult.
One of James Coburns best movies as if I remember Korpral Steiner
Im glad I wasn't there.
***** Yeah, you made a damn good point. Even though I was referring to the fact that living through battles like that day after day for years would really really REALLY suck.
+╬Reichsritter╬ That sounds pretty good 2 me
+Big R Tell that to certain italian lady
+╬Reichsritter╬ wE THOUGHT THERE WAS SOLDIERS ON THAT BRIDGE. I RED ABOUT IT....ON BEHAFL OF THE USA AND PRESIDENT BARRACK HUSSEING OBAMMA, WE APOLOGIZE BUTT DAMMIT YOU DECLARED WAR ON US NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
+╬Reichsritter╬ Something something Invasion of Poland something something.
this is one of the best WW 2 movies out there
I love this movie. I understand it was wildly popular in Germany
@@stevesmith866 yes It was, we watched it all the time in the 90s
I own this movie, it wasn't supposed to be released in America, and the copys were confiscated, I purchased mine from action time videos, and someone showed up to confiscate it, I already purchased it, about a week later I went in to action time, and the owner said that a private security firm was going around the country collecting up the copys they could find, I have had mine for 36 years, and it's rare in America, and a treasure!
MUITO SHOW
Seriously? Why?
I haven't heard about that, and plus I've watched a vid of an american reviewing the movie and even saying it's not hard to find
@@m0nlo it was something from interpol, that was strange stuff.
@@duckygaming3536 just try and find it, it was something that had legal issues from Interpol.
Still better than many other war films these days
The T-34's biggest advantage wasn't it's sloped armor, it's high mobility, or it's gun(whether 76mm or 85mm)...it was the fact that there were always more...and more...and more of them.
The same people who told you that want you to pretend making more tanks than the rest of the world combined doesn't matter when they have a coked upped leader in a tight t-shirt like anyone gives a fuck
They were like a twisted Doritos ad, kill all you want...we'll make more.
And broad tracks. And fuel that didn’t freeze in winter. And lubricants that didn’t freeze.
Ага, знатоки. Вы всё ещё верите в то что Ваши воздушные асы по 200 самолётов сбивали? Гебельсовская пропаганда, такая тупая, но для вас нормально. Живите дальше тупые бюргеры.
@@hansvandijk1487 diesel fuel does freeze. and the tracks werent that much of an advantage....it had the same ground pressure as the tiger I, and look what happened to that thing
According to my grandfathers testimony who was watching the film together with me these scenes are realistic
Did your grandfather experience that?
My father who was a German solider , who servied on the Eastern front, said something I will never forget: There we're many of us, but there was far more many of them
Ironically, Germany and it's allies outnumbered the Red Army during Operation Barbarossa, as the Red Army had strong forces in the Far East to counter the Japanese in Manchuria.
The main thing is that your father was lucky - he remained alive ... But will luck be on the side of you and your grandchildren in the future war?
А хули он хотел?
@@dimseza1541 Which future war? I have no doubt that there will be wars in the future, but you seem to have a specific one in mind.
@@lavrentivs9891 It will be a war in Europe, and therefore in the world, and it will begin when the West decides that this time they will be able to defeat the Russians.
Globalists need to reduce the world's population not only in Eurasia. The upcoming war should prepare humanity for the inevitability of digital unification.
Dont forget the novel of Willi Heinrich which the movie is based on: Das geduldige Fleisch aka The willing Flesh. I read the book first in 1989 and I am still impressed.
German-Russian war is probably the most intense and bloody one in the history
Heh, I had read the book a few year before wathing the movie. I didn't know this movie was based on the book before watching it. About half-way through I started to think, hey, this all feel awfully familliar.
Only Russia can make a real film about the war between Germany and Russia 1941-1945. Recent films close to the real battle films "28 PANFILOVTSEV" and "RZHEV".
@@user-vr4th9lk5s Hey Igor....go drink bottle of vodka !
@@hansgruber6455 нет. Кальвадос
one of the best action sequences ever done in a ww2 film-Peckinpah was a master director
Most likely Coburn directed while Peckinpah was having DT's. Not hating on Peckinpah, but at this point in his career, Coburn did a lot of the work for him.
@@minksnopes5551 That was the FINAL battle scene, I thought.
Such great movie weeebtheh austrian t 34!they used
@@adam4thnj I checked, and stand corrected. Coburn evidently learned a lot from the master, though.
However, the editing sucked.
Would love to spend the afternoon Paintballin! on this set! Wouldn't you?
Air soft
Children.
#evike.com
Have never known War to be in scync. 95% boredom, 5% sheer, gut wrenching chaos and Hell.
Great movie! Love it! It’s one of Sam Peckinpah’s best films and one of James Coburn’s best roles.
One of the best fight scenes in movie history.
Yeap and absolutely realstic!
@@HugoRauss agree
A legendary amount of jump-cuts.
Good gawd, yes. I haven't seen this many jump cuts since film school.
ayy lmao same
must be the best war film ever, even if apocalypse now is very closed. the battles scenes are amazing, very intense even if we almost don't see blood.... peckinpah was such a genius...
Watch Stalingrad 1993
@@panzerwaffel5281 3
Hands down best movie from the German perspective. Shows how hellish the eastern front was. Shows an accurate showing of t-34's on the offensive not just endless hoards. A good portrait of the red army in the late War offensives. No stupid endless red charges with no armor protection. Firing online in the prone while talking guns, proper bounding from cover to cover. It's hands down of the best
The Soviets fiddled around with large-scale mobile warfare doctrine before the war. Stalin shot all the officers who experimented with it during the Great Purge. Then the Germans taught them everything they knew about their "lighting-war".
Watch Stalingrad 1993?
Das Boot?
@@panzerwaffel5281 read the rest of my comment and that's why stalingrad isn't the greatest. Still good tho
It looked like a WW2 western. Not very realistic.
Oftentimes in life I ask, "What would Steiner do?"
Its a testament to the natural presence of Coburn. I can't think of many who had this... Mitchum, the middle-aged Burton... but not many.
He would lose.
Nazi loser.
He would fight like a German, act like a German und woulb be proud of this.
svnpt and you are drunken. Nazi loser.
You know what Steiner would do!
I love the magic tunnel in this factory.
100- yards away a WWI landscape They emerge into an untouched pasture
"Железный крест". Прекрасный фильм.
best "old" war movies ever
One of the main things that sets the older and the newer movies apart is the hip shooting. Looking at the older ones it seems like every single engagement with automatic weapons involved firing from the hip which is naturally a waste of ammo, unless you're caught by a surprise.
Another thing in old movies is that guys are constantly being caught by surprise be enemies coming up from behind them or the side and are easily wiped out before they can react. Experienced soldiers are rarely caught by complete surprise like that. They are also usually dug in and have to be gradually pried out of their positions. But that doesn't look as exciting and dramatic on a movie screen.
i WORK 11 HOUR DAYS.....AND AM NOW TRYING TO WATCH A UA-cam VIDEO, AND MY WIFE IS TELLING ME HER PROBLEMS...
+Horace Ball show dominance
+Mankind at war Women talk a lot.
go for a walk
+My life advice Legend says she's still talking to this day.
+My life advice QIVES CORNER YOU, THEY ARE PROGRAMMED TO TALK....NOT SURE WHAT SHE IS TALKINGA BOUT THOUGH
Really loved the practical effects in this scene.
Come back Red Army to Berlin.
70년대 전쟁영화로서는 최고봉이었다.
I rode to work for a couple years with a guy that was drafted and drove a tank on the Eastern Front. When he was drunk ' a almost everyday occurrence' sometimes he would talk about the war. He was telling me you never see one t-34 they come in groups. When you see a t-34 you turn around and Drive to the anti-tank guns. Ground troops would go to ground and let the t34 is Passover them. Besides the anti-tank guns they would call in stukas armed with 2 anti-tank cannons one under each wing between the stukas and the anti tank guns most of the time the t-34s or what was left of them would retreat. They then would attack the t 34 s shooting into the back of them. If this doesn't sound right to you it didn't always work and the Germans did lose the war. Paul remembers the beginning of the end was when you would call for stukas and because of Russian air superiority none would come.
My grandfather was at the eastern Front '39 to '45.
He told me exactly (!), what your friend said.
Combined handgrenades, spezialisiert anti-tank-explosives used by the infantry, air support by stukas or directing them in front of the 8.8 Flak or pak (anti-tank-guns).
Benny, germany
Greetings from germany
@@benediktpress2383 Paul has been gone some years now, but I always have been glad that I knew him.
Ever the constant reminder that not all Germans were Nazis and evil just young man drafted into the army.
These children soldiers had to do what our children soldiers had to do.
Politics are always irrelevant to Frontline combat soldiers.
@@jackharter660 i thank you a lot !!!
May your friend rest in peace, he definitly had hard times in his life
@@jackharter660 "Politics always has nothing to do with soldiers fighting on the front line." ...
But now Europe, which supplied Hitler with weapons, is supplying the Nazi and corrupt regime in Ukraine with weapons, which has been killing people in the Donbas for 9 years, burning people in cities (Odessa, May 2, 2014). Europe and its policies do not change.
The Germans would sucker the enemy with feints and false retreats ....to hit the flanks...?
Absolutely amazing movie
I HAVE SEEN THE ENTIRE MOVIE TWICE ...A TRULY GREAT PRODUCTION , AS IS THIS VIDEO
Sam Peckinpah was the best. Cross of Iron - which got only mixed reviews in 1977 - is becoming somewhat of a cult movie today. What battle scenes. What human interest scenes mixed in with them.
Spartaculus Jones The Wild Bunch returns.
R C Nelson Great observation. Thanks.
Spartaculus Jones It was a great movie, a movie that rivals classics like a Bridge to Far and Kelly's Heroes, however the fact the movie is shown from the German point of view was just too taboo at the time.
Loved this film when it came out,still do.
Very
They need to make more films depicting the eastern front.
try the german movie Stalingrad or Genration War
Chromewolf187
Stalingrad was a Russian made movie with financial backing from the Putin regime. Thus why the Russians in that movie are super men who can fend off entire divisions despite being only five guys.
not the russian crap the german movie Stalingrad from 1993
I agree
It's not a bad movie, it's the Russian equivilent of Saving Private Ryan (but I think they got obsessed with slow motion lol)
Режиссёр фильма и консультант в одном лице - Федя Бондарчук!
Вообще-то американский режиссёр Сэм Пекинпа.
@@user-pn2vf8uj1w да смысл тот же
100% танки у него гуляют в чистом поле без пихоты, а птхота носится в здании по центру и толпой!!!
@@user-pn2vf8uj1w А какая разница?
Как фильм называется?
サムペキンパー監督の状況表現力は圧倒的リアリティだ。
これを凌駕する絵は今後無いかもしれない。その場に自身がいるやうな臨場感が半端ない
One of my favorite WW2 films
The most outstanding war / anti- war film ever.
Ещё одна версия "спасти рядового", только не Райана, а Мюллера...
1 this was made in 1977 so " saving a private" is Another version of THE Cross of Iron
2 it is a much better film than saving a private
Неа, это из фильма "Железный крест". И есть еще продолжение этой мути, второй фильм "Железный крест-2". Там уже война с союзниками. Главный герой - седенький старик в немецкой военной кепи-бергмюце или гансовке по нашему. Герой никак не может получить железный крест. Это основная сюжетная линия фильма, не уживчив с начальством. Он в звании что-то вроде фельдфебеля. Палит танки налево и направо, воюет в общем, а крест не дают. Кое как эту дрянь досмотрел.
по-русски есть?
Хрень какая-то...
@Андрей 40 "железный крест.". Есть на русском. Вот сижу смотрю. Фильм как фильм ничего особенного
Always loved this scene. So well done.
"Развалинами рейхстага удовлетворён!!!" Маэстро
Please translate so we can get the Russian view of those dark days when Russians back was aginst the wall.
online translators тебе в помощь.
@@barriewright2857 learn Russian. It’s the right time.
@@barriewright2857 жить захочешь - переведёшь. Это несложно, почти как гитлер - капут...
А я удовлетворен мллион власовцеа триста тьісяч армии Каменского,29,30 русская дивизия СС 120 000 а ешо донские и кубанские казаки.И енто на фоне 18 000 СС гальічина.Которьіе в совке небьіли и предать енто не могли.Во ваши дидьі прославилися.
wow the clarity is so good compared to when I had this on VHS
That guy greasing the tank tracks at 4:03, those little details
Cross of Iron, a movie that shows german soldiers as humans, not as stupid robots who allways look into the wrong direction :D
Also, a genius behind the camera, Sam was one of the greatest.
That movie changed my opinion about such war movies. It was dirty, realistic, brutal. And realistic. In my family quite some fought in ww2 (born 1971, lots of my uncles and their relevates... ) and they all told me that this movie at least showed SOME realism about the brutality of the fighting.
A brilliant, underrated film!
saw this movie at least 3 times when it first came and I don't remember this scene at all. amazing! makes me want to watch it again for sure
Who made this movie, British for Germans, or Germans for the British? Looks like it fantastic movie.
@@Gunjboss l
Great movie. I wonder if anyone got killed with all that amazing action. The T-34/85 drivers deserve an award.
Красиво сняли, приятно смотреть. Как качественную порнушку, вот только как всегда в ней нет настоящей любви))) в сюжете дыры танки прут без пехоты, у немцев довольно скудное вооружение, где фаустпатроны и панцершреки во времена 43-45 годов( когда на вооружении СССР стояли т34-85), их немцы как консервные банки выпускали. Где пулеметы мг-34(или 43) наводящие ужас своей скорострельностью. В общем немцы тоже не дураками были и давали так не хило прикурить и не бегали если что то могли ещё делать, а наши были не такими уж дураками, стратегию наступления знали как Библию...
One famous German general inspected the T-34 and said if they mass produce this we will lose the war
Your typical Company of Heroes 2 match.
German 81mm mortar spam and T-34-85 spam. And of course the glorious Ostruppen Spam.
@@komradetuniska2003 You can count on Osttruppen.
No really, you can.
URAAAA intensifies.
I have a son named Christopher
The chapters in the novel, The Cross of Iron, dealing with the Soviet offensive at Krimskaya provide a more accurate description of the battle than portrayed in the movie. But the screenplay took parts of the book and mixed them up so the scenes don't follow the flow of the novel. The most terrifying parts of the book deal with the fighting outside and inside a massive factory at Novorosiysk on the Black Sea coast. This is where Steiner and his men were betrayed in the novel, quite unlike the scene in the movie. The screenplay also had issues with German ranks and the positions they held in the German Army by late-1943, the period of time that the movie attempted to depict. Thus, LT Meyer in the movie is portrayed as platoon leader when in fact he was a company commander in the novel. Captain Stransky is a company commander in the movie when he was a battalion commander in the book. Hollywood had a mirror-imaging bias. Thus, if American lieutenants were platoon leaders and captains company commanders, then this must have been the case with the Germans too. But reality isn't a perfect mirror image. In the German Army lieutenants normally led companies and captains often led battalions. I like the movie, but the novel is a work of art. If possible, read The Willing Flesh, which is the unabridged version of the Cross of Iron. An English- language version was printed in Great Britain, but copies are hard to find. I lucked out on Ebay. It's about 70 pages longer than the otherwise excellent abridged version and gives more depth to key personalities, particularly Steiner, but also Lieutenant Colonel Brandt, the regimental commander (the movie depicts him as a battalion commander--wrong again.).
What is the name of the movie
I read The Willing Flesh years before Cross of Iron even came out. Perhaps that's why I've never warmed to the movie. That said, the movie's look is good, and Coburn makes a good Steiner, although when I read the novel, the Steiner I visualised looked more like Richard Burton , who oddly enough did end up playing Steinerin the awful "Breakthrough".
@@freeiraq288"cross of iron"
The book is way way better. All the points you raise are valid, but tbh, I do think the structure of the film maintains narrative tension a bit better. Especially given they only had 90 minutes. Steiner in the book is a much more complex character... (Sometimes I find him almost hateful, if understandable).
"Why are we fighting in this god forsaken hell hole?" ... "Because there is a factory." ... "But it is blown to hell sir, its meaningless." ... "Its on the map so HQ says to hold the factory, its useful." ... "How? Its blown up!" ... "Its on the map."
Tanks sound so scary as they moved. They ran over everything
Снимал наверное барон Мюнхаузен ))
Следующий раз ищем наш Lebensraum в западе.
Довольно неплохой американский режиссер Сэм Пекинпа.
One of the best WW2 movies ever. So under rated and not well known.
I have this epic film on dvd, first I saw it I could not get the theme tune at the beginning of the film out of head for days, I can hear it now watching this
My Grandfahter fought for the Wehrmacht in this Battles, he made his way back to Austria and was prisoned by the US Army. He never tell us some of his story, i think it was to horrible.
I have to say the explosions look pretty realistic... No ridiculous fireballs. They did a good job with the effects... The editing on the other hand. This was edited by an insane person.
It's a Sam Peckinpah movie--Insane Editing is par for the course, along with slo mo deaths.
Though I’ve never been in a battle this seems to be a realistic portrayal of an attack and retreat. Some things like the sound effects are probably post production.
When I think about war like this it seems to be a colossal waste on all levels and the sign of complete failure. What a disaster.
I had watch this movie in theaters when I was small, it's great 👍
I was thinking about how they should update the sound effects in older movies like this because the scenery is really nice. It would immensely enhance the quality. Especially the sounds of firing and explosion. They are really out of date.
Unfortunately the sound effects are added in post production from library sound effects that in some cases dated back to the '40s. The most annoying sound effects are those electronic ricochets that were used in war movies and other types of films for decades.
Here I sit in a bar, in peaceful times watching this.
Esta fue la primera película de guerra que me impactó, luego de estar acostumbrado a ver solo la versión hollywoodense del ejercito estadounidense tanto en Europa como en Asia y África, y siempre como los héroes máximos. Esta versión, en mi caso personal siendo un niño, la ví en los 80s y me mostró por primera vez en la vida a personajes alemanes y soviéticos dándome otra perspectiva de aquella guerra. Fue a su vez la primera vez que vi las tomas de acciones de combate como si fueren en primera persona y eso realmente me sacó de cuadro y me hizo amar esta película. Gracias papá por mostrarme tremenda película por vhs, siempre hablabas de ella con fascinación, nunca censuraste alguna escena estando a tu lado mirando con pasión.
@@user-wc1ow8gz9v si he visto algunas aunque incompletas y no recuerdo sus nombres. Creo que hasta una espacial me parece, una tal Solaris si mal no recuerdo. Será motivo para indagar más y verlas
@@user-wc1ow8gz9v buenos datos. Gracias y saludos
@@user-wc1ow8gz9v siempre he querido ver el acorazado Potenkim. Algún día será
緊迫した場面でスローを使うペキンパ演出って本当にすごい「発明」だと思います。この場面だけでも１００回くらいは見たかな。
That was the director's trademark in all his films.
@3:25 it just ran through those dragons teeth like it was nothing lol those were made to stop tanks
There are a lot of unrealistic moments in this fragment. First tanks go like they are invincible (crashing those concrete dragon teeth like carton boxes=), next moment they totally explode from a mine on a track. This will sure destroy the track and immobilize the machine, but why the whole tank will explode like it was detonated from inside? And those stupid tactics moments, when a tank advances without an infantry support. Or going inside of a building and trying to blow it up when being inside (facepalm) - that was an epic stupidity.
grimmsterification yugoslavia...now they had a resistance worth talking about. Took more casulties under occupation than the whole of western europe
Yep, I noticed that too. It's because they were made of paper machet or some special effects stuff made to crumble.
HAHAHA yeah it did!!! LOL
Ergie Weggedorn - I HATE movie gasoline explosions masquerading as artillery... Everyone does it.
Ну, да, а потом они остановились и начали стрелять. После чего, обогнали пехоту и заглохли в 2 метрах от фрицев. А потом заехали в заводской корпус... Клюква вечна.
Редкостный бред, если честно. Танк в здании завода вообще вершина маразма данного видео
Не только наши клюкву снимают :)
Интересно, как механик водитель ориентировался в здании? ☺️ Бред какой то
Название фильма , есть русский перевод.
@@user-rs3ng5yy1h железный крест, перевод есть
Went to see it at the pictures in 1977. Still my favourite war film. Sam Pekinpah films were always great to see. Wasn't until 30 years later I read the book.
Peckinpah films are a cult in themselves .Watching this you can see why
Hollywood, some special effects, but beautiful, damn it.
Still the best film about the war on the Eastern Front. Timeless! A classic! Steiner's platoon fought for their own survival, nothing more. My favourite war film.
Try "Come and See" for the Soviet experience
@@harryfineberg5075 I saw Come And See a few weeks ago. It was dubbed. Still an amazing film. The boy aged ten years. Ivan' s Childhood is also good but the destruction of the village in Come And See never fails to shock.
A true Masterpiece of great accuracy. Performed very well in Germany. Impressed audiences and critics across Europe. How cometh? Well, it was an international co-production between British and West German financiers. With an international cast. The director: US-american action-expert Sam Peckinpah. Some assistance from the Army of Yugoslavia. No wonder, we have a German AND an English version. Hey. We are in the film business. There must be some compromising now and then. Whats the problem?
If anyone likes this movie then I recommend a Russian film called Zvezda or "The Star". It's from 2002 and is excellent. I have seen its been uploaded to UA-cam now so worth watching as a great film
Is it a Russian bias film or was it pretty historically accurate?
Thank you for distinctive. Taste in history of WW2 and cinematography!
@@ftffighter I have just checked and it's been uploaded to UA-cam as a full movie with subtitles. Check it out. It's got some great scenes in it
@@gotresidual261 Thanks. Love from the UK
I have COME AND SEE. It’s gut wrenching to watch.
The book and others in the series were great reading ,and still are again and again over the years