Hart's War (2002) User Reviews (206)

The director has done better, but you could do worse

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 6 December 2013]

This takes place in a POW camp during WWII, and follows the events that transpire after a few black enlisted men are captured and put among the white prisoners. This has a well-written script, lines are great and well-delivered, the plot is interesting, engaging and develops quite nicely throughout. The editing and cinematography have some inspired moments, and are always marvelous. This is rather exciting and entertaining.

I haven't read the novel, nor did I realize that this was based upon one until I watched it. This is the third of Hoblit's films I've seen, the other two being Frequency and Primal Fear, both of which I find to be excellent. Thus, in comparison, this is a little less impressive. I wouldn't call it poor, however. It certainly has a point to it, something to say, and it communicates it fairly well. The message is good, too.

The performances are impeccable, Willis does as well as we expect, Farrell makes reasonable use of his chance at doing a role that can prove he can do more than project his "bad boy" persona onto the screen, and Howard shines. This meeting and conflict between the experienced master and the up-and-coming student is further infused with the clever juxtaposition of that relationship being not only of their characters – but of the actors, as well.

The DVD comes with two informational, compelling and amusing commentaries: one by Gregory Hoblit, writer Billy Ray and Bruce Willis, and one by producer David Foster, 10 minutes of good deleted scenes with or without director commentary and several photo galleries. There is relatively infrequent strong violence and language. I recommend this to any fan of dramas, and who enjoy movies that deal with history. 7/10

It's all Colin Farrell - you see him, hear his voice, from beginning to end

[ruby_fff · 7/10 · 5 May 2002]

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.

Willis at his Scowling Best-- sort of...

[artzau · 6/10 · 10 July 2002]

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.

Hart's War or McNamara's Band?

[uds3 · 21 September 2003]

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

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

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

Not what I expected.....

[arosedec · 7/10 · 25 February 2002]

After seeing the trailers and commercials, this was not the film I expected it to be. I expected a "Bruce Willis kicks Nazi butt: film, and that is not what this is. I'm not going to add any spoilers to this review, but Collin Farrell's performance isn't that bad. Willis' character was played in what has become his commonplace style as of late, but it worked. And Marcel Iures was a devilish but almost likeable Col. Werner Visser. This film is more about internal conflict within the US Army than it is about conflict with the Nazi's.

Prison camp flick Hollywoodized for your enjoyment

[=G= · 6/10 · 13 July 2002]

"Hart's War" is a stalag flick which tells of events among the American soldiers suffering hardship in a WWII prison camp. The film scores points for good art, technicals, and performances. However, it trades reality for drama and spins a somewhat convoluted story about racism, murder, and smoldering secrets inside the compound which it finds difficult to sort out and ultimately fizzles in the end. "HW" is solid Hollywood style entertainment which should be a pleasing watch for those into WWII POW dramas. B-

Unrealistic to the very end...

[buiger · 6/10 · 18 March 2012]

To me the movie was average, probably because I don't find it so mind shattering that it pictures racism in the US military during WW2. It was there, that is an accepted historic fact so I do not think the film should win too much praise for "boldly going where no one has gone before". The plot was OK in the beginning but after the first 30 minutes it started to become less and less believable. The life in the camp is unreal, the Germans, the German colonel, etc.

The culmination comes (and there I agree with the critic) at the end when all of a sudden almost everybody is competing in order to be the first to be executed, to die as a hero. Then Bruce Willis suddenly returns in a sudden change of mind, just in time to save everybody by getting executed himself... Nonsense, this just doesn't happen.

Director Gregory Hoblit's "Hart's War" stands on its own, with Colin Farrell front and centered

[ruby_fff · 7/10 · 6 May 2002]

I saw again "Stalag 17" and "The Great Escape" (both quite entertaining films in spite of the war premise) after "Hart's War." My sense is, director Gregory Hoblit's film does stand on its own. It may not have the humor filled "17" atmosphere, nor the action packed "Escape" storyline, but it is a humane story at its core. It's about character building or disintegrating in times of hardship, offering aspects or the wisdom of life's outlook, military or otherwise.

Colin Farrell, who delivered an intense performance in Joel Schumacher's "Tigerland" 2000 (and looking forward to his appearance in this summer's "Minority Report" with Spielberg directing and Tom Cruise leading), once again demonstrated his keen acting portraying Lt. Hart, the central character opposite Bruce Willis' Col. McNamara in "Hart's War." For young Hart who has an affluent family background and was educated as a lawyer, he is fighting the 'war' -- yes, his war at hand, inside the POW camp vs. the literal war outside the barb-wired compound. There's urgency and suspense revolving around his character's encounters, trials and learnings -- things are somehow fast happening in spite of the camouflaged unhurried pace.

Willis gets to be subtle, sullen, and almost silent in his portrayal of Col. McNamara, the nemesis to Hart. He has delivered quiet performances (not so action hero-centric roles) in Robert Benton's "Nobody's Fool" 1994 (opposite Paul Newman), and Harold Becker's "Mercury Rising" 1998 (opposite an autistic child), prior to M. Night Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense" 1999 (opposite Haley Joel Osment). Here in "Hart's War," the humane side of McNamara is unobtrusively noted when he's not having confrontations with Hart, for instance the scene where he visited flyer Scott in his cell and calmly handed him a Bible. Subtle persuasions, he has.

This war picture is very much male dominated, however the film is complemented by the music score of British composer Rachel Portman. Cinematographer Alar Kivilo, who has worked with Hoblit on the film "Frequency", is masterful in delivering the bleak snowy tone of the film. It may be a court drama per se, yet there's no shortage of action and intrigue. "Hart's War" is a well delivered film, with no simple answers to the reasons why, of things happening, people reacting, circumstances changing… Like his "Primal Fear" 1996, "Fallen" 1998, and "Frequency" 2000, director Gregory Hoblit's films can be thought provoking.

RESEND May 6, 2002 SF ruby_fff

Good Old School Film-making

[bh_tafe3 · 8/10 · 17 December 2008]

"When the most likable character in your film is an evil nazi, you've got problems," one reviewer noted of this film. He was wrong.

Honestly some critics have been doing his for so long and so dourly that they find it impossible to appreciate a story for what it is. Hart's War is an engaging story about the battle for a man's soul, and is a story told exceptionally well.

Tommy Hart, played believably by Colin Farrell is forced to defend a black man, Lincoln Scott in a court martial after he is accused of killing Vic Bedford (another effortlessly emotive performance from Terrence Howard). Tommy finds himself caught in a chess game between Col McNamara (Bruce Willis) and Werner Visser (a remarkable performance from Marcel Lures) which turns into a battle for Hart's decency and in the end his life.

Some scenes fall flat, but it's not hard to look past them and see the bigger picture. As well as being a story about becoming, it is also a story of betrayal, friendship and respect, the type of movie that would have starred John Wayne or Charles Bronson in the McNamara role back in the day.

Shunned by critics and audiences upon its original release, but deserves reappraisal and a second look now.

Disappointing

[rastaban3 · 6/10 · 19 February 2002]

Hart's War is a complex drama with two very strong plots. Both plots ran at the same time with one right out in the open and the second being covered up by the first. The plot that is out in the open is events that lead up to a murder and trial of a black aviator in a German POW camp. This takes most of the film and becomes boring as this is a plot line that has been shone many times before. I feel this would have been much more entertaining if they had chosen a different set of events to cover up the hidden plot.

This film did have some entertaining segments but overall, this film was a disappointment. What made it even worse was the ending was lack luster and also occurred behind the scenes. I would have liked to have seen how it was done (I will not tell you want it is. You will have to see it for yourself. I don't like to spoil major parts of films). This film could have been helped by a little more action.

Over all, entertaining but very forgettable, (6 out of 10).

just so stupid

[k_bruzelius · 1/10 · 20 December 2002]

Would the Germans really let the prisoners have a trial?

I think they would shoot them right away... The story makes no sense. This so called concentrationcamp seems more like a vacationplace to me than a brutal place in war. Did the enprisonered soldiers have this much freedom? They live like equals to the German officers and can do almost what they want. This makes no sense to me, it´s not realistic. And...please tell me: Why the hell should the American soldiers have their own theater in which they make fun out of Hitler and the German staff? The writer of this movie can´t have done a lot of research for this movie.

The prisoncamps were hard places, it wasn´t Hawaii for you who didn´t know that. I would have to be given money to see this piece of s**t again!

/Greetings Bruze (and Peter)

Good if not great

[reggimann · 8/10 · 4 February 2003]

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

A contrived mess.

[mrbill-18 · 6/10 · 23 February 2002]

Evidently the writer wanted to explore every possible relationship in a prisoner of war movie, and the result is a befuddled mess that does not involve the viewer in the characters. When so many relationships and characters are involved the result will, and is, disappointing. Add to that an incomprehensible ending and, well, a big disappointment is the result despite a fine cast and generally good idea of exploring race relations in a prisoner of war camp.

Rubbish

[spencerdouglass3 · 1/10 · 26 April 2004]

I thought this movie was rubbish. It was very disappointing to watch a film for which there were good reviews and find out that it was very poor indeed. Why did I dislike it so much? Well, the main story is fine, a sort of racial discrimination version of 'A Few Good Men', and the background military story (which is supposed to be the covered up main story) is alright too. However, the entire plot is completely unrealistic and the story far too contrived. The story is set in a German POW camp, presumably not a very comfortable place to live, yet the Americans happily stroll around the camp smoking cigarettes, playing American football and insulting their German captors freely. There is no sign of any hardship or suffering, no one gets ill in the freezing cold weather and the German captors are extremely friendly and accomodating. So when Colonel McNamarra (who seems to hold more power than the Germans) suggests a trial when one of the soldiers is killed and a black man suspected, the German colonel immediately agrees and gives them a building to use for it. Most of the film then revolves around the racially biased trial of the black lieutenant. This strikes me as a completely contrived and nonsensical backdrop to the war, as one would assume that the soldiers would be focussed on escaping, fighting back against the Germans or something else useful rather than discriminating against each other. In addition in a real situation, they would probably be under too much strain and discrimination from the Germans to worry about creating more problems of their own. Finally when the trial is revealed to be a farce even within the film you are once again reminded of Hollywood's desperate need nowadays to try and make their films more interesting or seem deeper than they are. The final scene when Bruce Willis exchanges his life for his men's and the German colonel bears his loss with a wry grin and a joke or two, stretches the boundaries of disbelief. Without even a drop of imagination, it must seem obvious that the German colonel would be furious and undoubtedly kill all the men involved, and should the great colonel McNamarra turn up to be shot with his men at the last minute this would merely be icing on the cake.

A completely ridiculous film, unrealistic and poorly thought out. Don't watch it.

Not bad

[w2amarketing · 11 August 2003]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

too much American symbolism

[shailen · 6/10 · 16 February 2002]

Entertaining movie in the first half (good action, good story transition), however in the second half it falls apart. Well, I think the movie becomes to symbolic in the end. By that I mean, there is too many obvious and utterly predictable sequences. It reminded me too much of another similar patriotic movie I saw in the fall -The Last Castle (starring Robert Redford). Its not $12 movie, but definitely a rental.

Social Justice in a World War II POW Camp?

[romanorum1 · 6/10 · 6 October 2016]

SPOILER: In December 1944 in snowy Belgium, Lt. Thomas Hart (Colin Farrell), a military attaché, is captured by Germans via a ruse: Those desperate German soldiers of a dying Reich who speak like Americans and dress in American uniforms. He is sent to POW prison, Stalag VI A in Augsburg, Germany. There he meets German commandant, Col. Werner Visser (Marcel Iures, in a marvelous performance).

Almost immediately, he is greeted by Col. McNamara (Bruce Willis), the highest ranking prisoner of war in the camp. After sniffing out Hart (Hart's reaction to a most grueling interrogation by Deutsch Officer Lutz), he assigns Hart to an enlisted men's barracks, Building 27, instead of the one for officers. Apparently the Germans did allow the highest ranking POW a degree of power in the encampments. Hart blends in fairly well as he learns the ins and outs of survival, like the value of cigarettes. Before long two African-American Air Force officers, recently captured by the Germans, are placed by McNamara in the enlisted men's quarters. Staff Sergeant Vic Bedford (Cole Hauser) makes no pretense of his displeasure. Not only is Bedford bigoted, but he also knows how to obtain favors from the German guards.

When Bedford is found murdered, suspicion is focused on one of the Negroes, Lincoln Scott (Terrance Howard). The other had already been shot for attempted escape after being set up (by Bedford). With approval of Col. McNamara, Scott is placed on trial by the Americans. The aim of the trial can be seen as a way for Americans to maintain their dignity under trying circumstances. McNamara assigns Hart as Scott's defense council, even though the former has only attained progress as a second-year Yale Law School aspirant. Col. Visser agrees and supports the trial, which consumes much of the second half of the feature. It soon becomes obvious that McNamara is at odds with Hart, and has motives that transcend justice. The privileged Hart has much to learn.

On the other hand, Visser is sympathetic to the lieutenant, with whom he discloses his graduation from Yale back in 1928. He even gives the conflicted Hart a copy of the American Manual for Courts- Martial to assist him. He knows that McNamara "threw him to the wolves." Privately he tells Hart that he enjoys American culture, like reading Mark Twain; he also plays his Negro jazz records, a collection that very much relaxes him even though it is "verboten" in the Reich. Visser is obviously not a typical nasty Nazi stereotype.

Towards the end we realize that there is a shifting of events: the trial really has nothing to do with Lincoln Scott. Much about the camp was a lie; Bedford was a known snake. There is something larger afloat, an act of greater military importance that is portended earlier. As this is a World War II movie, perhaps this fact should have been expected. But it is distracting to the viewer, and will not work for many. Some may even feel that the story-line is no better than mediocre.

The feature is produced by David Ladd, Alan Ladd's son. The cinematography, with its wintry bluish tone and stark, snowy scenes, works very well. The claustrophobia in each of the unheated barracks can be felt outside of the screen. In this writer's opinion, you can do worse than watch.

Not Exactly what i thought it was going to be !

[djvision007 · 7/10 · 27 March 2006]

This is one of those films that i never got around to seeing at the cinema, and being a bruce willis fan i had the chance to get the DVD.

First off before watching the film i watched the trailer. The trailer does'nt make exactly clear what the film is about, it depicts a epic war film set in a POW camp, i was expecting this film to be about a massive rebellion in the camp and people escaping, this is actually part of the plot, which i was happy to learn. But you only learn this at the end of the film.

The film is based around Lt Hart (colin farrell) who is captured and sent to a POW camp, this is where he is sent to the officers bunk and meets COl Mcnamara (willis) he is then told there is not enough space so is sent to be the only ranking officer in with general soldiers. The film is pretty slow up to this point and not much goes down, characters are built.

The film changes tone when two black officers are brought to the camp, this is where the film deal with racism, as there is no space in the officers barrack, they are sent to bunk with lt hart, so they are not the only officers in general soldier population. The film goes on and eventually one of the black officers is framed for murder. So instead of him being executed the German officer in charge of the camp decides him to be put on trail instead of executed. (this is the only part of the film where i rolled my eyes) i mean would the German in charge of a POW camp really take the time out to hold a trial.

So the trail begins and lt hart becomes the defendant of the acused, the two form a friendship and hart digs deeper into what the trail is really all about. At the end point of the film you discover the whole trail is stagged so that (willis) and his men can complete the escape tunnel they have been building and get away. The trail is stopped and the film comes to a end with a interesting development which once again gives bruce willis another honour roll.

In general i actually enjoyed the film, the train sequence at the beginning was very shot, the film is a bit slow at times, but what i think really makes the music , is the female artist who did the score for this film. The music in the this movie is fantastic.

Has heart, loses the battle, fortunately not the war...

[buzznzipp1995 · 7/10 · 26 October 2007]

Typically Bruce Willis brings a bunch to any movie part and this is no exception, however from the director that brought NYPD Blue (1994-2005), 'Fallen'(1998) w/Denzel Washington and 'Frequency'(2000) w/Dennis Quaid two well set movies and a 'Hit' T.V. series, that are great additions to any entertainment library, I felt that this director, had one or two things missing from "Hart's War".

I would have been more interested if it would have been 'Hart Bochner's War' where Hart could have played the arrogant 'Ellis' and then the least end we could have had a few good laughs. Please don't take me wrong, I love and I mean love a good drama any day, but Hart's was just one of those maybe fall by the wayside in the movie arena type films. I enjoyed the activity and confinement, the trial and court drama that was the main push in this WWII story. but something didn't seem to draw me into a place that I could feel that I was sold all the way, as many Willis films are for me. I don't balk at much that Bruce Willis has made because he exudes that charm, style, strength and aloof that makes his character an essential part of American cinema. Hart's War, was almost there for me but I remember walking out, thinking about the story and the scenes therein, but not fully making that real connection that I have come to expect in a well done Willis Drama. I will watch it again at some point probably at a holiday, as some movies age better that others, some don't age at all. That is the test I have used most effectively for my final judgments on it. Worth a look, yeah, why not, but going out of your way to see this, may not be what you're looking for. See for yourself anyway. (**)

A different WWII POW movie.

[Sarge-23 · 10/10 · 7 March 2002]

I thought Hart's War was an excellent movie. It touched a lot of areas, and was very entertaining. Much better than We Were Soldiers (which was pretty unrealistic - - most of the soldiers in Vietnam were young guys barely out of kidhood who did NOT have wives) or Black Hawk Down (a standard horrors-of-war movie). This movie was thought-provoking and had plenty of twists and turns to keep you interested. Have to read the book, now.

Competently made, as good as some of the '60s classics

[Cristi_Ciopron · 7/10 · 6 April 2008]

Fundamentally, Hart's War (2002) is an action drama, and not a WW2 action flick; the adventurous element is almost absent. So it resembles the aforementioned legendary '60s WW2 action classics by its shape more than by the content. As shape, it could of been made in the '60s; as content, it couldn't (as it is a politically correct sermon).Hart's War (2002) is a movie for boys, nicely shot, well scored ,thrilling, gripping (surprisingly so for a very conventional action drama), promoting virile values. It addresses primarily, I believe, an adolescent audience. The final frame, in the POW camp, after Iureş' justice was done, and with the touching music, is impressing. It also speaks the language of the loftiest thing, and so it is also more refreshingly that it does so in an action drama—it remembers that class of acts that humans presumably hold most dear—the act that is predicated of St. Joan of Arc, of the medieval bourgeois (from Callais) that were much later sculpted by Rodin, of St. MM Kolbe also, of Vulcãnescu .This kind of fills the heart, warms it as well. A brave person offers his life for those of the others. A scriptwriter remembered that this is sometimes the salutary resort. The movie deserves the status of a lesser classic.

I've seen Hart's War (2002) firstly in a phase when I was eager to see as many Willis films as were available. I remember enjoying a lot this one. Yet Willis' role isn't one of his defining ones. Not the best introduction to his acting abilities (which are primarily comical). I thought Iureş very good too (probably much better than Willis). The actors were better than the script they got, i.e. the parts were better performed than written.

Hart's War (2002) was directed by Gregory Hoblit,also author of Fallen (1998) and Frequency (2000) .Hart's War (2002) is the adaptation of a John Katzenbach novel.

could you be any more inaccurate?

[jschafbuch · 1/10 · 22 April 2003]

I like Colin Farrell and I like Bruce Willis, but they know nothing about history when they read this script. The very idea that a company commander could choose where prisioners go in 1944 is just stupid. The germans are desperately loosing the war and the commander wants to do a trial? If this had been somewhat more real, the Germans would have been much more brutal. I can go on and on, but this is an awful movie.

Well crafted and thoughtful entertainment

[anthonymfb · 10/10 · 13 February 2002]

I recently had the good fortune of seeing an advanced screening of Hart's War. It took a good half hour for me to warm up to it but once the many plots twists took hold, I was pretty well hooked. Collin Farrell displays a good deal of screen charisma as Lt. Hart. Surprisingly, Bruce Willis is in a supporting role. Although the trailers I have seen would lead you to believe otherwise.

The story takes some surprising turns and that is one of the strengths of the movie. I won't spoil it by giving away too much.

As a student of history, particularly World War Two, I have to say that I really enjoyed this movie, not just for the original story line but the mood cast by the photography and the music score.

I highly recommend Hart's War as an intelligent, entertaining movie.

8.5 out of 10

HART'S WAR (DIDIER BECU)

[Didier-Becu · 6/10 · 22 October 2003]

You can start by telling this is the kind of movie that take a leap with historical facts and it can be the case, but with all respect, almost all Hollywoodmovies about the Second World War are like that. I mean it can't be fun for any soldier who is daily faced with death and certainly not for those who are in a workcamp run by nazis. But good that's not my point, if you wanna have historical facts that are right then you have to read encyclopedias or so.

Thing id that "Hart's war" brings back one of my fave genres and that's warmovies! Okay movies like that might have been made with tons during the 50's and the 60's but these days they are rare and that's the biggest merit of the film plus a brilliant (as always) performance from the most underrated actor ever : Bruce Willis...

Not what I expected

[mlbou · 5/10 · 18 February 2002]

I'll admit right here and now that I was not expecting this to be another JAG drama: I was picturing it more like a dramatic Hogan's Heroes, where the prisoners create havoc for the Germans. Instead, it felt a great deal like Stalag 17, except that the outsider/loner was an African-American soldier. Other than that, the two are very similar, except that I think Stalag 17 is much better done, deeper, more interesting than Hart's War.

Honestly, this story just worked too hard to get from A to B, because B was in no way the logical conclusion of A, no matter what turns were inserted into the script. So much evidence was glossed over: if there were mud beneath the floor board (enough to make the victim so dirty) why wasn't there a spot on the pilot, a fact ceded by the prosecution? (Hart had argued along similar lines just 5 minutes earlier, but now forgets it? I think not. Or that the criminal (when it was finally revealed) did not have any of that tell-tale sign left on him 3 minutes after the crime? I can see him scrubbing away frantically for all of 2 seconds? "Out darned spot...?oh wait, I'm clean. Ok."

My greatest problem with the movie is the message: that in order to be a hero you must die for your fellow man. While that can be a heroic act, I keep remembering a quotation by Gen. George Patton that "No poor, dumb soldier [editing for profanity] ever won a war by dying for his country. You win wars by making the other poor, dumb soldier die for his country." It just seemed to me that there were numerous ways to solve their problem without sacrificing anybody, if they had thought about it first but they instead all jumped up "I'll die for you." "No, I'll die for you" ?They never considered that there was only one person who had to die. Also, Hart's heroic act was actually among the most foolish things he could possibly do, speeding up what he should have wanted to slow down.

About the race issue here, some of the things that the pilots (both African-Americans) said were very interesting and worth listening too, but it really seemed like they were an otherwise superfluous wrinkle in the puzzle, as though a studio exec watched Stalag 17 and said, "You know what ?I don't want to redo this movie, but I bet if we made the pilots black instead of white we could call this original." To me that cheapens the film, if the crux of your film is "heroism in light of a trial fraught with racism" then racism should be an integral part of the film, instead if you took it out and changed a few words here and there it would be the exact same movie ?which disappoints me even futher.

I like war movies, and though I gave this a 6 I cannot say that it is a bad war movie I've seen. I do feel comfortable saying that it is a frustrating movie, that gets worse with time (the more you think about it, the more flaws you find in the story and your impression of it goes down). It has good moments and it is interesting at times, but if you want to see a WWII film about prison camps and conflict among soldiers see Stalag 17. If you want to see a Bruce Willis movie about heroes see Armageddon. This film just isn't original, interesting, or exciting enough to merit viewing it before those two films.