Miracle at St. Anna (2008) User Reviews (201)

Miracles can be bad too

[moutonbear25 · 5/10 · 25 September 2008]

2nd Staff Sergeant Aubrey Stamps: I know, I'm the only one left who knows.

I know this is too easy even for me but the true miracle at the center of Spike Lee's latest joint, MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA, is that I was able to sit through it without screaming out of sheer frustration over how hollow the whole affair was. I don't feel so bad about taking that oversimplified stance, seeing as how Lee himself didn't seem to have any concerns about dumbing down this important history lesson. Lee is an accomplished filmmaker and MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA is an ambitious project, even for him. He prides himself, as well he should, on telling stories from an African-American perspective that is rarely taken in mainstream film. In this case, he chose to shed some much needed light on the soldiers known as the Buffalo Soldiers, all black regiments in the U.S. army. He wanted to give the world a fresh take on the World War II epic by using an unfamiliar voice but all he accomplished was minimizing their plight by weighing down his film in tired convention and never committing to any one point of view.

I don't mind long movies when the story warrants the time spent. MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA opens in 1983. A postal worker (Derek Luke) has just shot and murdered a man who bought a stamp off of him for no apparent reason. A statue head, one with incredible value both financially and historically, has been found tucked away at the bottom of his closet. News of the statue's recovery spreads across the globe and an investigative journalist (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is determined to understand why a seemingly law-abiding citizen would commit such a random act of brutality. This goes on for about thirty or forty minutes until the postal worker finally agrees to tell his story. It all started in Italy during the second world war. My question is, if it all started then, why did Lee waste so much time with a pointless excuse to get to the actual story when the story in question needed no excuse to be told? This all too tired Hollywood convention needs to cease. People need to start getting to the point.

The story, adapted from James McBride's novel of the same name by McBride himself, follows a foursome of Buffalo soldiers who survive a German attack, find a young Italian boy in need of medical attention and eventually set up camp in a small village while they wait for reinforcement. During their stay, the soldiers make friends and enemies with the townspeople, which challenges the inherent racism of all involved. It isn't a bad story; it is just written in such a false and incredible fashion that undermines the film's credibility. There is no time for one liners when you are being attacked on all sides by the German army but yet somehow McBride felt that quips between gunfire would alleviate the intensity, as if that were necessary. There is also apparently no time for real character development. Bringing an untold story to light means putting faces to characters that had none before. Without development, these soldiers are nothing but black soldiers instead of real people. Somehow, by forcing us to face the colour of their skin, Lee made it so that is all we end up seeing.

Spike Lee makes important movies but sometimes, he makes them with the knowledge of just how important they truly are. MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA is at times horrifying and at others, beautiful. Mostly though, it is tedious and disappointing. It is not so much disappointing that Lee wasn't able to pull off such a huge endeavor but more so that if anyone could have done it the justice it deserved, it would have been him. Now, the story has been told but the point was never made.

Bogus history at St. Anna

[petra_ste · 5/10 · 9 October 2008]

See, I hate that. I hate movies which can't resist the temptation to spice real events up with invented love stories (Pearl Harbor, Captain Corelli's Mandolin) or bogus mysteries (Miracle at St. Anna), all while pompously claiming to be "based on true events". I hate tedious narrative frames which serve no purpose whatsoever apart for giving viewers a modern setting to which, supposedly, they can relate more easily before flashbacks kick in.

12 august 1944, town of Sant'Anna, Italy: German soldiers killed 560 people, including women and children. You'd think such an awful event would deserve to be treated in a straightforward manner, without adding clichés (which here reach an almost toxic level) or making stuff up. But race-obsessed filmmaker Spike Lee isn't really interested in that terrifying war crime, but rather in the (fictional) story of four Afro-American soldiers.

See, there was an interesting movie to be made about the Buffalo Soldiers; the problem is, using a real-life massacre merely as a backdrop for an invented story is callous and tone-deaf. The Sant'Anna tragedy deserved its own movie.

Besides, the movie falsifies history, changing crucial circumstances which lead to the massacre and blaming it on the (fictional) betrayal of a partisan.

5/10

Great Story, But Execution Could Have Been Better

[Franchescanado · 6/10 · 28 September 2008]

Let me begin by saying that this movie was okay. But it could have been way better.

The story itself is great and kept me interested until the end, but it's execution could have been much better. Throughout the movie, some of the acting ranged from good to bad to downright lame. Jon Turturro's cameo as a detective was extremely disappointing, for instance. The acting picks up when the flashback begins, but every so often it rockets down.

The battle scenes were, for lack of a better word, comical. They were over the top and stereotypical of any other war movie, complete with bodies being flung from explosions in an exaggerated fashion and people sobbing over amputated rubber limbs.

The characters were all over the place on the sympathy scale. Stamps and Trey (or is it Train?) elicit plenty of sympathy, whereas Bishop and whatever the girl's name was only brought out anger from me.

The worst part of the movie is the editing, though. Some of the battle scenes are choppy, and there are entire cuts to different scenes for split seconds that we could have done without (they serve no purpose whatsoever).

My biggest problem was the stereotypical racism of the white characters in the movie. The only American white people in the movie are shown as black-hating jerks who's ignorance leads them to destruction.

Overall, the movie was good. Not amazing, not great, definitely not a masterpiece, but it wasn't terrible or bad or crappy. It was a great story, but it could have been executed much better.

6.5 Stars.

I know who the sleeping man is Miracle at St. Anna

[jaredmobarak · 6/10 · 17 October 2008]

Spike Lee has left me confused after viewing his new WWII epic Miracle at St. Anna. This film is a jumbled mess of great sequences, surreal moments, and short bridge scenes thrown in to advanced a contrived plot and then left on the floor to possibly come back to at the end. I give the marketing people credit for keeping a veil of intrigue over the movie, never really delving into what the plot truly is. At the heart of the story is a little boy who has experienced a great tragedy, one we can't know until the end, that becomes a good luck charm to a band of four Buffalo Soldiers abandoned in enemy territory because their racist captain didn't believe they could have gotten to the position they were. The boy, young Angelo, is the most important cog in the machine; as much an angel of protection as a boy needing shelter, his inclusion drives the decisions of everyone involved. Some scenes seem to only exist for Lee to infuse a little racially motivated commentary, others are there to create the one event that is necessary to move the plot to where it must go, and yet more that just confuse because of their unnecessary inclusion.

It all starts with a postal teller killing a customer—the two appear to recognize each other—with a German pistol. He shows no remorse for the crime and instead goes to jail without speaking a word. Only when a young newsreporter played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt talks his way into a story by charming a police Detective on the case, John Turturro, does the man open up and speak the words I've used to label this review. The film now transitions to the Italian countryside in the midst of the war, our Buffalo Soldiers trekking along with orders to cross a forthcoming river. You believe this is our postal employee telling the reporter what happened, but when you see the end you will realize it must just be a retelling for the audience. And here is a main flaw for me; a lot of the scenes shown are there for us, thrown on screen to open our eyes to details we don't know. They aren't always fluid, but rather abrupt vignettes that at first seem to be meaningless until they are possibly returned to. Making matters worse is the fact that they are usually inhabited by star cameos, leading the viewer to believe the scene contains important characters, when in fact it appears that Lee just called in a lot of friends.

There is one cameo that works well, but only because he is an integral part to the story. Walter Goggins, with even more redneck sensibilities than his role of Shane in the great "The Shield", plays the racist Captain that leaves our heroes alone in Italy with the Germans hot on their tails. Even so, he could have been anyone too, but I'm glad for Goggins because it's nice to see him on the big screen once in a while. However, the four survivors of an ambush on the 92nd are our main contenders here. And the funny part is that besides Derek Luke, I only had a cursory knowledge of the others, and that was by face recognition only. So, our leads are the no names surrounded by the stars. It's an interesting maneuver, one that just hindered the story being told. It's too bad because the foursome is great across the board; they didn't need the bolstering of familiar faces on the periphery.

With a ton of religious overtones, Omar Benson Miller astonishes with his overabundance of faith. Playing Train, the soldier who finds Angelo and becomes his surrogate father/friend—the young boy's Chocolate Giant—he is a fascinating creature. Kind of like Lennie from "Of Mice and Men", Train has a huge heart that overcomes him at times. The bond with the boy is strong and, in order to protect, will possess him with power, strength, and anger. Like the sleeping man of the mountains, (talk about a heavy-handed comparison by Lee), Train is an invisible warrior with his statue head constantly being rubbed for luck. His faith in God may be childish in nature, but it works as he never gets bogged down by lust and hate like his compatriots. He is just a man trying to survive and watch over his ward.

There is a lot more going on besides the protection of this boy, yet things that come to conclusion because of his presence. He allows the men to join with an Italian family as they nurse him back to health; he is the reason they stay behind against their Captain's orders to evacuate, leading into the best part of the film as the Germans come and take on the four Americans in a thrilling sequence; and he is the reason for a rift in the bond of a group of Partisans, Italians fighting against the Fascists. It all revolves around the child as he plays an unconsciously Jesus role in orchestrating everything. At times I started thinking that maybe he didn't exist at all, maybe he was a manifestation in the story being told, a guardian angel himself for this group of men. Matteo Sciabordi is fantastic, breathing an abundance of life into a boy mired by tragedy in a world imploding around him. I think this could have been a better film if it focused only on his relationship with the soldiers, leaving the flashbacks, the racial politics, and the sub-stories all dancing around on the cutting room floor. As it is now, the sprawling tale is just too much to assimilate when so much is fluff surrounding the power young Angelo holds over the rest.

I have two big white biscuits right here for you.

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 3 July 2009]

Is this movie as bad as they say? Has Spike Lee lost focus? It garnered a lot of nominations, but no wins; what could be the matter? The opening was fascinating. There was going to be a story with multiple subplots that would make this an intelligent movie. Even Laila Petrone couldn't distract me as hard as she tried.

The story shifts to a battle between the Germans and the Buffalo soldiers, which was outstanding, and, as expected, shows the prejudice of the white officers in command. Only four men escaped the artillery barrage. It was funny watching Train (Omar Benson Miller) dragging a head with him as a good luck talisman. Soon, he is also dragging an 8-year-old boy (Matteo Sciabordi).

The story settles to life in town where various stories, including the explanation for the killing in the beginning, are told. Another big battle in town ends the story and brings us back to the present.

Was it overly long? No, I found that it was compelling enough that the time flew by. It was a good war movie with a twist. I found it enjoyable.

The White Man War

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 18 July 2009]

In New York, the elder employee of the post-office Hector Negron (Laz Alonso) has a rampage and kills a client, shooting him with a Luger. The rookie reporter of the Daily News Tim Boyle (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) follows the detectives that are investigating the case and they find the valuable head of the statue Primavera in his wardrobe. Tim decides to interview the catatonic Hector, and out of the blue, he starts talking about the 92o Division "Buffalo Soldiers" in Tuscan, Italy, in World War II. Hector and three other black soldiers - 2nd Staff Sergeant Aubrey Stamps (Derek Luke), Sergeant Bishop Cummings (Michael Ealy) and the slow Private First Class Sam Train (Omar Benson Miller) – cross a river but his company is destroyed by the German soldiers. While trapped in a village, Train rescues the eight year-old boy Angelo Torancelli (Matteo Sciabordi), who survived a massacre in St. Anna village, and become connected to each other. Along the days, the platoon interacts with the villagers and Hector discloses a story of prejudice and betrayal in times of war.

In "Miracle at St. Anna", director Spike Lee uses his traditional flag to disclose the situation of the black American soldiers in Italy, and how they were treated like second rate soldiers. I did not know that they have this type of treatment, and I was surprised why this theme had not been explored yet by other filmmakers. This movie is very engaging, and my only negative remark is the too long running time (160 minutes). My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Milagre em St. Anna" ("Miracle at St. Anna")

Bad In So Many Ways

[james1844 · 3/10 · 1 October 2008]

Spike Lee dropped the ball in so many ways. Casting that brought in mostly weak actors. Jerky scenes that have no bearing on the story line. What was really annoying was the "hook" in this film. The head that is continually carried throughout the entire film that was uneventful to the storyline. The over dramatic scenes of racial confrontations were preposterous. I really wanted to find this movie worth the 7 bucks that I dished out but alas! It was not the case. If Spike Lee would go back and watch Eastwood's film "Letters From Iwo Jima" again he would learn the elements of war were much better presented. If Spike Lee thought he was going to set the record straight about blacks serving in WWII he missed the target terribly. Many scenes fell apart. One example that stood out was the scene where a Nazi officer spares the life of one of the black soldiers and then hands him a loaded Lugar hand gun. Really now...Anyone going to buy that ridiculous scenario?

From Another Perspective

[af_xander · 8/10 · 23 September 2008]

Length is a factor for this film, and it's not the normal action driven war film. I was lucky enough to attend the premier in NY and from the perspective of a Cadet at West Point, I would say that I respected this film BECAUSE it "jumped around." It showed all perspectives and that there were people with good intentions on all sides. The bad intentions were included as well, and though it doesn't grab you the entire time, it tells an interesting tale. Sadly, most people don't go to see a war film for this reasons, they all want Saving Private Ryan these days. But that's not what war is always about, and this film shows the other aspects. The black soldiers are each equally representative of varying perspectives that these men had. With a lot of duality also represented, this film leaves a lot to think about if you watch it with the right eye. It seems most people I've talked to have a problem with length and action, but if you don't pay so much attention to that and just enjoy it, you'll find a nice film that takes a different approach.

Imperfect, but watchable

[Laurlcrown · 7/10 · 24 September 2008]

A funny thing happens when you're counted among the preeminent talents in any contemporary art form: Everything you do must approach sublime... or else. Something less funny happens when your art is as socially outspoken as Spike Lee's body of work: Folk wait with baited breath to name every shred of detail that marks your work as somehow less than sublime. And in so doing, they ever miss the forest for the trees.

Lee's latest "joint," MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA, based on James McBride's novel of the same name, no doubt will suffer from such deconstruction, some of which will be justified. At 160+ minutes, the fictional recollection of four black American WWII soldiers who get trapped in an Italian village during a German insurgence, can wax tedious. And Lee's defaulting to certain conventions of the war genre and his own signature style occasionally comes off forced, sentimental, even ridiculous. After, say, the 10th close-up of a slain human -- eyes still open in horror -- we may not need to see an 11th, 12th, 13th. And any casual student of cinema might spot Lee's attempted tear-jerker ending a la CINEMA PARADISO coming a mile away.

Then there are the technical shortcomings of personnel who should know better: A score by Terence Blanchard is uncharacteristically overwrought; cinematography by Matthew Libatique is alternately breathtaking and obtuse; and a self-adapted screenplay by McBride suffers from a conspicuously uncommitted point of view. But, indeed, what may most undercut any visceral charm of MASA is at once admirably realistic: The film's characters aren't particularly moving in their conflicted natures and utter lack of romance. Only a visionary Italian boy, played beautifully by newcomer Matteo Sciabordi, and the black American soldier who befriends him, played by the hulking Omar Benson Miller, elicit any real sympathy.

All told, the numerous missteps do not seriously undercut a captive tale of humans -- white, black and brown -- who find themselves thrown into a hell not of their making and forced to juggle universal sensibilities with the duties of their divergent identities. In this regard, Lee's latest shows marked progress: Gone are the one-sided depictions of whites. Fascist-era native Italians are shown here in all their warring complexity; American actor D.B. Sweeney plays a key, if understated, role as a white U.S. colonel opposed to the exploitation of the all-black 92nd Army Division; even Nazi stormtroopers here are given back a modicum of humanity. Neither is the African American experience sanctified: Actor Michael Ealy's preacher-turned-soldier character is equal parts charming and vile; and one pre-Civil Rights-era American flashback begs the question of what line separates hero and villain. If one is willing to forgive the imperfect details from a filmmaker who has proved capable of better, the aggregate statement is hardly ineffectual.

Lee's real victory here shouldn't be missed. MASA does not rise to the level of the best of the genre. Neither is it worthy to be called the definitive tribute to an unsung 92nd Army Division or the souls lost at Sant'Anna di Stazzema. But it is always watchable, always interesting -- and as an engaging enough mystery film and thoughtful ensemble piece with an important, forgotten corner of human failure as backdrop, it succeeds.

Two Hours And Forty Minutes

[casamartinez01 · 2/10 · 27 September 2008]

Endless, unbearable. Italian actors overacting shamelessly and Spike Lee losing track of his own talents. The self indulgence mixed with the confusion made this "epic" one of the most difficult films to sit through in long, long time. During my visit to Los Angeles I was invited to a few screenings but this one was the one I longed for. Terrible let down. It's been a long time since "Do The Right Thing" and I have the feeling that it has to do with Spike Lee's vision of himself as a filmmaker. There is a lack of humility that blurs everything he does and "Miracle At St Anna" is a perfect example of that. In a way "The Inside Man", his genre commercial outing, was more honest and disciplined than anything his done of late. I can't imagine this film making any money so maybe Mr Lee will have the space to reflect. I certainly hope so because I'm sure he still has some aces up his sleeve.

Maybe not the best war film ever made but still worth watching.

[cacophony · 8/10 · 27 September 2008]

Biggest comment about this movie was that the tone was much darker than I anticipated based on the trailers I saw. However, it was still fascinating and well-done. People talk about it being long but I didn't realize it was almost 3 hours until I walked out and didn't feel like I'd been in the theater that long. I liked that it felt very authentic and was not dumbed-down to please American audiences, referring specifically to that fact that much of the dialogue was in Italian or German. There were a lot of subplots that didn't come together until near the end and that made the film intriguing and sometimes suspenseful. I thought it was interesting how religion seemed to connect strangers on both sides of the conflict. The one major problem was I didn't understand was why the Italian girl slept with Bishop when earlier she seemed really annoyed with him and enamored with Stamps. Moreover, this love triangle seemed to distract from the plot without adding substance. The scene at the soda shop was maybe a little superfluous too and I was expecting Gordon-Levitt to be a larger player. Overall, though, this is a powerful, fascinating film.

Perhaps Spike Needs More Focus...

[fwomp · 6/10 · 2 March 2009]

MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA got panned pretty severely. And I can see why. Lacking cohesion and hopscotching around like a child with A-D-D, the story is tough to follow. And what about the title? Exactly what is "the Miracle"? Some might say it's that this film ever got made. But there are some upsides to it that I think make this a semi-watchable flick.

The first plus is that it focuses on a little known regiment of black WW II fighters called "The Buffalo Soldiers." Spike Lee had apparently been aching to do another "black story" and found his muse in Nazi occupied Italy.

Although there's been some bashing related to overacting on the main characters' parts, I didn't find that to be the case. Derek Luke, Michael Ealy, and the rest of these band of brothers did fine in my eyes. Although Spike did have them doing things that weren't being done during this time (specifically the "high five" which wasn't realized until the late 70s), I did find their delivery of the story to be engaging enough, and kept me watching during its entire, lengthy, 2 hours and 40 minute run time.

I also really liked the on-site filming locations in Italy, which gave the entire production a very real quality. The cobbled streets, twisted landscape, and ancient-looking buildings were all well-shown in the film and had me ogling at various times.

But, as they say, all good things must come to an end. Although Spike Lee tries admirably to keep the story together, he too often wanders off on tangents that have nothing to do with the story. One particularly infuriating scene involves John Leguizamo (THE HAPPENING). He's in modern day Italy with his lover and his only use for being in the film is that he throws a newspaper out a window so that it lands on a man's table. Why couldn't the man have simply seen it at a newsstand? Why the whole set up with Leguizamo and the hot chick? Sex for the sake of sex, perhaps? The other, less infuriating, item that shows Spike wandering away was when he films the Buffalo boys being refused food service at a place back in the States before they were shipped overseas. Why this played a role in the film and what it had to do with the Miracle is anyone's guess.

Finally, there's the tough sell of the Miracle itself. Although people can debate what qualifies as a miracle, I think most would say it equates to something supernatural that cannot be explained by normal evidence. And here lies perhaps the biggest problem for Miracle at St. Anna. There really isn't a miracle. Perhaps it's well enough that one of the Buffalo men made it home and found his way to peace. Perhaps it's that the world spun and allowed the last surviving Buffalo Soldier to avenge the people of St. Anna and his fallen brothers. Perhaps ...but not likely.

So much that equals to so little

[C-Younkin · 4/10 · 28 September 2008]

"Miracle at St. Anna" brings up a very interesting point about black soldiers during World War 2, primarily that they were actually there. Sure, Spike Lee wrongly and probably strategically went after Clint Eastwood for not depicting as many black soldiers at Iwo Jima in his two films, but that whole controversy led me to discover things I had not originally thought of about segregated units. And isn't encouraging people to think about race exactly what Spike is all about? Now he's directing "St. Anna" from a screenplay from James McBride (who also wrote the novel), the first movie I recall that focuses on an all black unit during the war. I love hearing stories about a director who puts his actors through a grueling, depressingly miserable boot camp before filming. I think it shows a lot of heart from everybody involved. It also sounds like it worked to their benefit. Advanced word has it that this movie is masterful and destined for some award recognition and after "Inside Man", Lee is already flying high. But you always wonder with Spike. Are you going to get a provocative flick like "The 25th Hour" or are you going to get something long and rambling that doesn't really go anywhere like "She Hate Me?" So can this movie get the audience and the awards, or will it fail on both accounts?

Spike Lee's film has gone from powerful Oscar contender to merciless dud in the course of 2 short days. There is nearly nothing to latch on to in this movie and yet it's jammed full of three hours worth of random material. The bloody battles are there, complete with bullets and explosions flying through the air and limbs being torn from bodies. The racism and bigotry of white America towards black America is alive and well, including one scene where a diner serves German soldiers but refuses to serve coloreds. We get many side characters including a German traitor and a group of Italian revolutionaries. There's a cute sub-plot about the relationship between Private Sam Train and an Italian boy and another subplot where a love triangle arises between Bishop, Stamps, and Renata. And then there is the folklore stuff about "The Sleeping Man." But what's the point of all this? I started thinking about the significance of saving one man or the significance of one picture defining an entire war and how those films by Spielberg and Eastwood (you know which ones I'm talking about) managed to engage us and then I started thinking about this film. Out of all that's happening in Italy, what exactly is it that we're supposed to hold on to here. What makes these soldiers and their story special other than them being black? It all just feels like melodramatic filler to me.

It also doesn't help that the characters seem like types instead of real personalities. Most don't come through as memorable or terribly compelling and you really have to blame the script for giving them such bland characterizations. There's the guy that Derek Luke plays, filled with honor even though he knows America still will not accept him. The guy Michael Ealy plays, a suave but selfish ladies man. And the wide-eyed innocent giant that Omar Benson Miller plays. These actors do what they can with one-dimensional roles but the characters and scenes they're given never allow them to show any range past the very short character descriptions they're given. Laz Alonso is really the only one out of the four who gets to show any real emotional depth, and that's only because of the beginning and ending of the film take place in 1984 and there seems to be a much more exciting and rich opportunity for drama in those few scenes than in any of the two hours spent in the Italian countryside.

And another thing I wondered about this movie was whether it was really trying to be a true to life account of heroism during the war or if it was some kind of over-produced WW2 action film. There were times when I really thought Lee was making a war film reminiscent of "Indiana Jones." One scene that keeps nagging at me is the introduction of a Nazi general, complete with over-the-top ominous score to announce him by composer Terence Blanchard. As the movie gets more soap operatic with betrayals and hidden secrets, this only made that feeling grow more and more. I also didn't care for the movie trying to be funny at certain points, feeling that those moments disrupted the tone entirely.

"Miracle at St. Anna" disappointed me tremendously. I was expecting something along the lines of "Glory" but what I got was something overblown with material and execution but still so short on actual depth or emotional impact. It's not all Spikes fault. A lot of it also has to be laid at the feet of screenwriter James McBride, who really should have showed some restraint when it came to adapting his novel cause 3 hours of this is too much. When you're going to make something that long, it's got to be air-tight (ex. "The Dark Knight) but unfortunately this movie just doesn't hold together at all. So if you're keeping score. Get the red marker out, cross this off your awards list cause its done.

Great idea, good acting, decent directing, and questionable editing

[angelsfang · 18 February 2009]

The biggest problem with St.Anna is the first scene. The modern day murder plot intertwines with the main plot but it just suspends itself and you the viewer gets thrown back into the WW2 era in a state of confusion. Why not just have the camera pan over some newspaper clippings about the murder? I hate watching a movie while suspending my curiosity about a major plot in a different setting/era. Flashbacks are fine but pretty much the entire movie is set in WW2 so the opening scene was unnecessary. The editing leaves a lot to be desired, most of the scenes feel very clumsy and the cutting from scene to scene feels almost a bit amateur at times.

The idea is excellent. At first I was even reminded a bit of Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima. Miracle at St.Anna shows a slightly different perspective of the war, from the African-American soldiers' side. This movie could have been so much better if the scenes were shot in a different way. Perhaps Spike could've gotten a better Art Director, this movie lacked subtlety and depth. I felt many of the plots and dialogue were jammed down our throats with overly obvious lines. Great acting from Michael Ealy manages to keep the film respectable though, and two big thumbs up to the child actor, Leonardo Borzonaca.

A Human depiction of War, like you would see in Hemingway!

[dbroggi · 7/10 · 11 September 2015]

It is really sad that very few people enjoyed this movie. I've just watched it and was quite amazed. The first scene in the post office was just outstanding, it got me right away. The camera was quite different from what you see in the USA normally, perhaps RAI has something to do with it. But the greatest thing about the movie were the characters. Some might say they were overacting, I say they portrayed people at war. It reminded me of For Whom the Bell Tolls, by Hemingway. I know the book is set in the Spanish Civil War instead of the Italian WW2 campaign, but the tone was quite similar in some ways. They both deal with the partisan fight, prejudice, the dehumanizing face of war and even the incredible capacity some people have to resist the war impetus to transform us into monsters. Very passionate, very human, very good!

An Epic film in search of a miracle...

[higherall7 · 7/10 · 13 March 2012]

Let me first of all start by saying that Spike Lee is an auteur, in the same class as Woody Allen or Francois Truffaut, but depending upon the subject matter, this can work for or against you. He has an original way of looking at things and an original point of view to express. This is in full evidence when you watch the film 'MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA', which unfortunately fails to address its subject matter with the appropriate tone suitable to the massacre of over nine hundred people. There is a bleakness about the deaths of hundreds of people in one horrific incident that demands it assume the foreground and not the background.

The experience of catharsis in the Theater is a communal experience. Such an experience reminds one that the word 'religion' is rooted in an earlier word that can rightly be translated to mean 'community'. Catharsis was meant in ancient times to purge the community of unwholesome feeling and to act as a kind of therapy to lift the mind to a state bordering on philosophic reflection. The aim was to free all of cloying emotion in such a way that the community could see Life as it is and yet feel fortified to go on with their own lives.

Cinema does not aim or intend to achieve catharsis so much as it strives for a visual grasp upon the noumenal at its best, and the arousal of such kinetic emotions as makes one's heart race or causes one to hold their breath in its more commercial uses. However, an auteur will often roll the dice and find himself flirting with the phenomenon of catharsis in film and even rubbing shoulders with the noumenal. This has happened at times in Spike Lee films and been handled with varying degrees of success.

'MALCOLM X' did not get my last half of a star as a fully fledged four star movie because I could sense the ending was too celebratory and after seeing yet another black man sacrificed in the prime of his life and at the height of his powers for the sacred cause of greater Human Freedom, a moment of silence and more was probably most appropriate and fitting. The catharsis was spoiled by what seemed to be the attitude, "-alright! Let's boogie for the man!" and the reference to 'SPARTACUS' with the little African and African American school children declaring 'I AM MALCOLM X!' There were other shortcomings to this flawed masterpiece, but many of these were temptations any artist might succumb to and so Lee could be given leeway with them.

'HE GOT GAME' ran to an ending that was more in keeping with what film can do and flirted with that concept of the noumenal. 'GET ON THE BUS' presented an interesting range of characters and came to a resolution that was really suited to its subject matter. 'MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA' was another opportunity for Spike Lee to stretch himself, but the characters are not as well drawn as in 'GET ON THE BUS', nor does the resolution leave one with the feeling of a full emotional discharge. One feels still 'worked up' as I did at the ending of 'MALCOLM X', although I could not deny it was a great show and a memorable experience.

'MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA' is a wonderfully photographed and visually arresting film and yet it feels all stirred up without all its elements being properly rendered and clarified. Corporal Hector Negron's story, instead of bookending the film should have run intermittently parallel with the story building up to the massacre at St. Anna. This would have given the audience time to develop some background on the relationship between Negron and the Traitor. The shooting instead of occurring at the beginning should have happened at the end after the massacre and the formulaic Hollywood Happy Ending should have been eschewed. This would have been in keeping with the bleakness of the subject matter. Before all this as well, Director Spike Lee and Writer James McBride should have established for the film at least what 'the miracle' was going to be, as it should have been something a little bit more substantial that a half a dozen incidents that might vaguely suggest themselves.

A few other things are worthy of note. One of the things no filmmaker has captured to my satisfaction is the sullen residual dignity I have often seen in the faces of particularly urban blacks. I have often seen them on the bus, coming home late at night from their work shift wearing no social masks and there is a visual beauty to that I have never seen captured on the screen. It is similar to the way Kirk Douglas was photographed at the end of 'PATHS OF GLORY' and the way the waiters in 'A FACE IN THE CROWD' kept their cool when Andy Griffith was berating them for not 'loving' him enough. Spike Lee even touched upon it a little in a prison yard scene in 'MALCOLM X', but as I indicated, it is not anger exactly, but a dignity that cannot be effaced by event or circumstance.

The other thing is that the delight and glory of interracial romance is one thing, and properly treated it can have dramatic value, but it has yet to be approached with any real subtlety or nuance in the films of Spike Lee or others for anything other than shock and controversy. Here in 'MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA' it comes across as obligatory and yet at the same time as nonsequitur as it was in 'SWEET-SWEETBACK'S BAAAD ASSSSS SONG'. Unfortunately, the shroud of death should cloak this film because nearly a thousand people are about to violently lose their lives, along with four Buffalo Soldiers on the wrong side of an offensive.

That deserves a moment of silent prayer more than a hymn or gospel song.

Disappointing ending

[guyb-2 · 7/10 · 10 April 2009]

I too have been a big Spike Lee fan for years. Also, I'm a sucker for World War Two films. After reading all the negative reviews I was hesitant to rent it. But, like I said, I'm a sucker for World War Two. I actually liked the mix of genres. A little bit spiritual, a little hint at Indiana Jones, etc. I thought the World War Two stuff (ala Private Ryan) was OK too. There were a lot of complaints about too many subplots. Thanks for the heads up. I prepared for all the subplots. I handled them fine. Until the ending. Most of the subplots got wrapped up but not several crucial ones. That was very disappointing to me. Spike should consider re-cutting the film and solve this.

By far the worst of Spike Lee!!!

[wilfordalexander · 1/10 · 30 September 2008]

First I'd like to say that I've been one of Spike Lee's biggest fans for as long as he's been around and would be greatly surprised to find that there's anyone out there who's more disappointed than I in seeing "Miracle at St. Anna". Having served in the military and majored in film while in college I may be a little bit more critical than most viewer's but none the less felt the film to be cartoonish, poorly acted, technically flawed, and historically inaccurate. I actually feel embarrassed for Spike Lee when I think about how he came out and attacked Clint Eastwood during Cannes for his crafting of his war movie "Letters from Imo Jima". In comparing the two films you have to think that Spike was simply trying to get some free publicity because if I didn't know any better I would have thought that Roger Corman had made "Miracle at St. Anna". In fact I find it hard to believe that Spike even had any military technical advisor's let alone any with knowledge of WW2 for this film. The mixing of genres, War, Drama, Comedy, Spiritual, and Supernatural didn't work for me at all. The acting was very, very, very bad. Derek Luke seemed to be reading off of cue-cards and many of the scenes shocked me in being the best available take and the one that actually made it to the screen. The film is so bad it's hard to believe that any scene was shot using more than one take. In Spike's defense and not to totally bash him, it's evident the budget for this film was super low and limited any effort at depicting a modern war film of superior standards such as done with "Saving Private Ryan" or "Letters of Imo Jima". Budget does account for the lack of depth and visual detailing of the film but is no excuse for bad story, acting, and sad to say directing. In also being some what of a student of black history I was extremely disappointed in Spike Lee's stereotypical view and depiction of the black soldier of that time (WW2). One would think by seeing this film that black soldiers in WW2 were simply given uniforms and told to go fight. The film also depicts black soldiers as undisciplined, cowardly, and just plain stupid along with any other stereotype they fought so hard to dispel. If this film is in the least bit accurate in how it depicts black soldiers of WW2 it would mean that the majority of the white stereotypes of the time were justified. My advice to Spike Lee is the same to what I would give Steven Spielberg and to take a nice long look in the mirror and go back to what you use to do best. Lately they both have been loosing their edge and cranking out crap. Just as "Saving Private Ryan" was the last great movie of Spielberg, "He Got Game" was it for Mr. Lee. Unlike Steven Spielberg who has unlimited studio backing and has no reason for churning out a bad film, Spike should understand he was great when he understood his standing with the studios and didn't try to hit an home-run when all he had was double pitched to him. Woody Allen has had one hell of a career knowing this and has never felt that he had to try his hand at making a big-budget blockbuster and staying true to his style. Spike Lee has a style and needs to "please baby, please" re-find it. "Miracle at St. Anna" was garbage and amateur film-making.

A major step forward for Lee

[brookspeter · 8/10 · 25 December 2009]

Lee makes a European film allowing philosophical questions and moral questions to supplant desire for personal satisfaction and identifiable this is a Spike Lee film signature patterns. There are a number of excellent directorial decisions in this film. Lee's camera is sensitive, gentle and sincere. He shows us the many ways our eyes are deceived and how much of what we perceive is illusion. I think its a great film that is inspirational, has meaning and is both emotionally and intellectually satisfying. I hope that Lee will continue to make films outside his comfort zone and articulate events from the African American experience around the world to show our contribution to history and civilization.

An entertaining missed opportunity.

[zrasz · 6/10 · 27 September 2008]

Spike Lee's Miracle at St. Anna follows four African-American soldiers stranded in an Italian village in 1944. There is a framing story set in 1983 where a black postal worker inexplicably shoots a customer and is found to have a priceless European artifact in his apartment. He is linked somehow to the four soldiers and by movie's end we will know the connection, sit through the story of these men, and what happened to them.

The four soldiers are survivors of an ambush. Calling for help on the radio, they find out that they have to carry out a mission that a racist superior officer hands them before they can be rescued. Along the way they meet a group of rebel Italians fighting the Nazis and a strange small boy who seems to be lost in more ways than one.

This is the setup. The first thing to say is that we have never seen a WWII movie from the African-American point of view. They were a vital part of America's victory but they faced institutional racism. The movie expertly shows this in the form of the white commanding officer who doesn't trust the men to get anything done. He represents the head shaking belief by some black soldiers of why fight for a country that doesn't respect them? In a chilling scene, the Germans capture this mood and try to use it against the U.S by having a female radio host try to persuade the men to switch sides so that they can be freer in fascist Germany than they are in America. The actress who plays her is remarkable.

So is the Italian boy the protagonists find. There are great performances here but the four principal characters are stereotypes and some are offensive ones. Do you know the stereotype of the black pimp with gold teeth and a randy disposition? He's one of the men. How about the innocent simpleton who praises Jesus all the time? He's in there too. The idea to represent black soldiers--their struggles, their characters and ideals is seriously undermined by making some of them cartoonish figures who are more at home in the racist minstrel shows of the past. Think of any movie made in the 1950s featuring a simple, God-fearing, bend-over-backward to help black maid or think of the parody of a militant black man Robert Downey Jr. plays in Tropic of Thunder.(Full disclosure: I am not African-American.) Roger Ebert called this movie a story that needed to be told. If it was a film of real, complex black grunts during World War II and what they went through, then I would agree. WHat we have instead is a much too packed story (it might be unwise for novelists to adapt their own books onto the screen. It's the first Harry Potter syndrome: the whole book is put into the movie. For me, the best movies are poems.) Plus the battle scenes are perfunctory, the pacing especially at the end is off, and their is a discordant note of comedy at the beginning. The relationship between the simpleton and the Italian boy to some may be touching, but I found it cynical and manipulative.

And yet, and yet, there is one devastating scene of war that will stay with you for a long time and the movie is never boring. I wish Spike Lee had edited some, made his characters into real people and found a cohesive theme to streamline his story. If he had done that, Miracle might have been a miracle.

Miracle at St. Anna fails to meet my lofty expectations

[Nighthawk1 · 4/10 · 8 September 2008]

I attended the world premier of Miracle at St. Anna at Toronto International Film Festival. Unfortunately as much as I respect Spike Lee as a filmmaker I thought the movie was a bit dull and kind of boring. At 166 minutes I found that the movie was overlong and dragged too much. I became restless after awhile as the movie progressed. The story didn't seem to go anywhere, was uninteresting and I had trouble connecting with it. It was hard to follow at times as well. The movie jumped all over the place at several points to different years in the history of the characters. I found this to be jarring and irritating. Spike Lee should have taken more time to edit his film because each of the scenes went longer than they should have. It's not the worst movie I have ever seen although it could have been better. My expectations were high. I came away somewhat disappointed.

Almost excellent.

[sheroman · 8/10 · 7 September 2009]

I don't know why everyone here keeps telling that this movie is bad, because it's definitely rather good. Only thing to take out of plot was mas execution of civilians which I couldn't take and just pressed "skip the scene". From the very beginning, where troops advancing to enemy lines got under artillery and machine-gun fire dialogs are interesting and realistic, let alone so called hook from first minutes where black postman kills his customer for no apparent reason. It cost $45M to produce and true that commercially it has become a screw up but not everything revolves around money. I say it has no major faults in plot, definitely no more than any other picture does. And that story with Italian girl - Renata was her name, all is fair in love and war. Definitely worth seeing. Comparison to Save Private Ryan is not applicable.

Will be my first Blu-Ray movie

[nathaniv · 7/10 · 27 September 2008]

I am not sure if I should be writing a comment because I have been a fan of Spike Lee forever. Plus also, I couldn't help it and I read the book the minute I found out that he was making it into a movie.

I think Spielberg set the bar so high with Saving Private Ryan that everyone expect every subsequent war movie to be like it. Whether it's the story line or special effects. It makes me sick to find out the majority of the funding came from France and Italy. Yes, people are not perfect (Howard the Duck, Always, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut) but colossal sums of money are given constantly to the dumbest movies.

Yes, this movie has problems (Bishop's gold tooth, not enough emphasis on the massacre, unnecessary love scenes) and it is hard to follow at times if you didn't read the book. I can't give it a perfect rating because it's not fair since I'm a big fan of Spike. But I was immediately sold when they did the flash back to the diner and then the subsequent shot was the soldiers looking into the camera (at the wall). I was like "Damn....that was awesome". A lot people won't get that scene but every black person will...instantly.

As usual Terrance Blanchard did a hell of a job with the movie score. Why this guy doesn't get more attention...it's beyond me.

I really have an issue with the way people are trashing this movie. You have the right to your opinion and trash it even. But compared with the crap that's been out there lately, I enjoyed this movie. Also, keep in mind this movie is FICTION based on real events. It was called Miracle At St. Anna's...not the 92nd.

Awful

[eye-shuh · 2/10 · 23 September 2008]

I am so very disappointed. Spike Lee, why? You know how movies have little scenes that don't make sense at the time but then all tie in at the end and they give you this awesome "OH!" feeling? This movie had those, but failed at the "OH!". The entire beginning sequence did not belong in the movie. The loose, boring, and un-original tie-in it provided was completely unnecessary to the plot. In fact, if they had skipped the first half hour of horrid over-acting it would have enhanced the plot.

I get it. War is horrible. African Americans were treated like dirt in the 40s. Everybody prays to the same God we're not so different. This movie even failed at making these very easy to portray messages resonate.

Every horrible death/war scene made you feel disgusted and sad and you wanted so badly for everyone to live. Exactly the feelings they should have been going for. BUT THEN they overlaid almost every one of these scenes with a joke! Or some stupidly funny remark or scene. In the end it made you feel disgusted with yourself for laughing while good men are laying dead on the screen. I'm pretty sure making an audience feel disgusted with themselves is not the goal here. And if it was, I have news for the producers/writers/director - we didn't need that lesson. Instead of making me think, it made me wonder what a sick person the writer must be to joke about death and war in such a manner.

Not to mention that the whole middle of the movie was one big black soldier joke. COME ON. Seriously? You seriously needed to through in all those lame silly stereotypes to make us feel for the characters? Your that bad at making movies? It was just an all around bad flick. Even the ending was completely awkward, which ruined any sentiment that should have been there.

A very poorly made and written film.

a very captivating and well thought out movie but slow at some points.

[Muhls · 6/10 · 4 October 2008]

A Miracle at St. Anna is a compelling and down to earth kind of movie. It wasn't exactly a fun movie that I would watch over and over again but it was smart and when I walked out of the theatre I thought it was worth it.

The movie was very long and drawn out to share some facts and opinions of World War 2. I feel though that it could have been shortened to around two hours and ten minutes instead of two hours and forty minutes. There were many long scenes that would had me bored that could have been shortened.

I was a bit disappointed with the action of the film. I felt this way because it only had two main action scenes that had the protagonist in them. But the two action scenes with the protagonists were both entertaining and realistic which a very well liked. but I do wish they had more of those scenes instead of the protagonists just sitting around.

Overall I really would recommend this movie to someone who is looking for a very stimulating war movie and who is really looking to get into a long but good movie.