User Reviews (124)

Add a Review

  • Sergeant Michael Dunne (Paul Gross) survives a brutal vicious assault and finds himself in a Calgary hospital being treated by nurse Sarah Mann (Caroline Dhavernas). She and her brother David (Joe Dinicol) face problems arising from their German father who died for the German army. David's asthma keeps him out of the war which is looked down upon by his girlfriend Cassie Walker's father. Michael is facing desertion charges and possible execution back at the front despite winning a medal from the fight. The three of them eventually find themselves back in the war.

    There are compelling bits of scenes here and there. It's kinda daring to have the protagonist bayonet a helpless German boy in the forehead. The shaming of the men who haven't enlisted is interesting. The story back home is way too messy encompassing too many elements. It's trying to do too much. Paul Gross is not gritty enough for this role. The first half becomes a sincere melodrama. The second half is more or less a big muddy WWI trench war movie. The production is not as high as Hollywood. The sincerity does keep it from being truly bad.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was happy and excited to see a movie about Canadian soldiers in the First World War, but disappointed with the product. That young Canadians volunteered to a squalid life in the trenches, lost injured soldiers to the muddy fields, and had aid stations that operated at a fever pitch without antibiotics or, often, anesthetics -- these all show that there is a story to be told here. A difficult and heart-rending story yes, but certainly a story that can stand on its own. If told deftly.

    The makers of this film tell us about so many things they could have more effectively shown. This is a film, not a book, and film is a visual medium so show us what you mean don't tell us. For example, the scene of the doctor in Calgary giving a little presentation describing battlefield wounds and passing around a piece of shrapnel could have been far more effectively conveyed visually on the battlefield. So why only spend 30 minutes in Europe ?

    SHOW us why the Germans called the Canadians stormtroopers, and THEN TELL us that is the moniker the enemy bestowed on us. See how this could have worked ?

    That there was a romantic interest was something I expected. This is a common device used to show the humanity of people who will later do brutal things. Think "History of Violence". Once again though the film relies too much on little speeches and pronouncements to tell us about their feelings rather than showing people relating to each other by how they treat each other. Vets of the First and Second World War are renown for their reticence, so that 1.5hrs of the movie especially didn't ring true.

    The "stations of the cross" scene is some measure of just how far from the reality the film makers wandered. I've heard of the First World War trenches described as weeks of boredom and anxiety punctuated by short periods of shear terror and confusion. To me this movie was weeks of eager anticipation followed by hours of growing disappointment and frustration.

    So I guess I'm still waiting for a movie that can really convey the pride, professionalism, necessary brutality and heart-rending emotional aftermath of Canadian soldiers who've seen battle. I guess I wanted a film that made me feel a combination of pride, disgust and grief and this film failed to do so.

    I would nominate this film for cinematography, costume, special effects and maybe audio and acting but not screenplay or "best film" certainly. And I don't think more money would have fixed this.
  • War movies are not exactly a typical Canadian genre, and so I've been wanting to see "Passchendaele" for some time. As a war movie, this is very well done. Both the opening - depicting Sgt. Dunne's role in an unnamed battle - and the closing - which follows Dunne and Mann through a portion of the Battle of Passchendaele - are graphic and believable representations of battle, and they provide a sobering view of war, which may be necessary (that's another debate for another time) but is certainly neither glorious nor noble, although the individual soldiers who fight may well be both. The subtle (or perhaps not so subtle if one has ever read the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion) religious overtone to the closing scenes of the battle as Dunne effectively carries his cross across the battlefield (it's necessary to watch the movie to understand that) is also powerful. The soldiers who lived through this insanity would also be carrying their own crosses for the rest of their lives.

    The weakness of the movie is found in the middle hour, between the battle scenes. The portion of the movie set in Calgary raised significant questions about patriotism, loyalty, duty, etc., but is also rather slowly paced. Dunne, having returned home suffering from shell- shock after the opening battle is assigned to recruitment duty. Falling in love with the nurse who treated him, he discovers that her brother is anxious to sign up, in order to win the respect of the father of the girl he loves but more to regain his family's honour, which he feels was tainted by his father, who was born in Germany and returned home to fight for Germany, eventually dying in battle against Canadian troops at the Battle of Vimy Ridge. That story is interesting, but it's slow pace is quite a contrast to the chaos of the battle scenes - perhaps appropriately so - and makes this part of the movie seem perhaps even slower than it really is.

    The performances from the two main leads (Paul Gross as Dunne, and Caroline Dhavernas as Sarah, the nurse he falls in love with) were excellent. I was a bit put off by the tear-jerker ending of the movie, but that turned out to be key to the last and haunting shot of the Canadian war cemetery, with rows upon rows of crosses (to paraphrase Lt. Col. John McCrae's famous poem) and a riderless horse in the background. An extremely well-done movie, indeed. 7/10
  • There was great hoopla around "Passchendaele" in 2008, with the hope that it would bring in great audiences when released. However, the box office take in its native Canada was only average, and it faired worse in the international market - the only foreign market it played in theaters was with a (brief) British release, and in the United States the DVD label that picked it up was a small DVD company that specialized in releasing public domain movies.

    Seeing the movie, it's easy to see why not that many people were attracted to it. The first half of the movie is pretty awful. I know the intent of this first half was to illustrate war on the home front - which you don't often see in war movies - but it fails in its intentions. The dialogue is downright awful at times, the characters are very familiar, and it's REAL slow going. Even worse is that despite the expense put into the movie, the look and feel of the movie here is like one found with a cheapo drama broadcast on the CBC television network.

    The second half of the movie - moving to the Passchendaele battlefields - is a bit more successful than the first half. The battlefield and the battlefield fighting come across as gritty and authentic, and the movie finally has a theatrical feeling to it. However, the movie still suffers from bad dialogue, throwing in ridiculous symbolism as well. Worse of all, the struggle for Passchendaele doesn't last that long - all of a sudden, we're told Passchendaele has been taken. Huh?

    Had writer/director/actor Paul Gross had set the movie entirely on the battlefield AND had someone smart working with him to correct the shortcomings of his screenplay, we might have had something here. But as it is, the movie ends up being a big disappointment. What's worse is that this movie's mostly bad reception means that it will probably be a long, long time before some other Canadian tries to make a "big" movie that will attract a large domestic audience - if ever.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    What did I like about Passchendaele. The movie had great character development. The viewer can relate to the pathos of the major characters. Passchendaele's story was easy to follow with the right mix of personal character development mixed in with the historical events of the film. What I did not like about the film is the downer ending. I will not spoil the story but my wife hated the ending. I also did not like the usual everyone get a girlfriend and make love to her story subplot. That plot device is overdone in war movies. Overall, I liked this movie. I found the movie entertaining. Worth watching I give the movie a seven out of ten.
  • I recently took a large group of students (150) to go see this movie. While it was extremely well done, in terms of historical accuracy. I found the movie spent a little too much time in Calgary developing the story. This was actively promoted as a Canadian WWI movie - however, I felt there wasn't enough time spent focusing on the actual war.

    I did enjoy this movie and appreciate what Paul Gross has attempted to do. Canada's role in the world wars tends to be overshadowed and definitely deserves to be put into the light.

    My biggest problem with the film is the end. All the realism that had been built up was completely dashed away with the extremely overpowering Biblical allusion - I am Christian and I found it WAY to much to stomach. As I stated it completely took away from any realism the film had going (which was a lot).

    All and all educating people on Canadian's role in WWI is very much appreciated. Next time, leave religion out of it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Some excellent depiction of war - witness the opening scenes as a machine gun stops and blows a body back, rather than the usual all fall over shot: some nice romantic interest that is mainly not overplayed; and a hero who suffers but does not crack under the pressure of 'hell is war.' But the film - and you have to say Paul Gross as writer and director - goes over the top just a couple of times too often. He packs the story with real incident, viz his girlfriend is of German stock and her house is trashed, but very late in the war so a bit unbelievable, but an occurrence in countries with new immigrants, and loses the audience rather. The worst moments come when Gross drags his mate pinned up on a makeshift cross across No Man's Land(A similar moment to the excruciating slo mo in 'Children of God' as the fighting stops to let a pregnant woman pass!) and the quick coupling as shells burst all around the battlefield. A pity, a great pity, because the movie has a lot to portray in that quiet Canadian way which shows the strengths of the country but also its' inability to make its' cultural and artistic presence felt. Perhaps the film could have done with a little more 'Canadaism' by showing the troops preparing for the fight, rather than Gross meeting his sweetheart at a nearby field hospital. But an interesting and very faithful depiction of a clichéd moment in time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Six was generous. It's a 6 simply because it was a hugely ambitious project from a country, my country, that usually considers a movie investment to be flying in Americans.

    Paul Gross has always struck me as somewhat of a walking contradiction. I recall an interview with him once discussing why he left Hollywood, because he hated the way things were done there. Instead, he works in his home country where he seems--from the outside at least--to operate as if he were the Hollywood studio. Does he have an ego problem? I'm not sure because I don't know him. BUT, most everything he's touched seems to reek of ego. This film takes it to the extreme. Instead of creating a film about a historic event, a battle that Canada won against odds, he created an extremely cliché love story. He made a movie about how his character fell in love and eventually won a battle--not how the army won, but how his character kept his cool and stayed the voice of reason. The plot is driven by a protagonist who is so two dimensional you can practically hear him say "I don't like you, because otherwise there wouldn't be a plot." As for my Hollywood reference, it's painted over this film. It's the epic war story with the epic love in between. Only, they forgot the war was the story. In turn, what they wound up with was Pearl Harbor--the film, not the event. As for his ego, everything about the project displays one--real or not. The ambition behind it (not that I'd complain about that), the writing (predictable plot points, obvious motivation) the lead character, a man who's only visible, overt sign of having a flaw, of ever making a bad decision, came when he killed an enemy two minutes into the film (given the context, wrong as it truly would have been, I'd hardly call it a flaw), and to top it off, this is the kicker, the film ends with Paul Gross as Jesus. I don't want to throw in spoilers here, in case you decide to suffer through this, but really, his self love, or inability to flaw his own characters, got so big that it really and truly ends with his character portraying a scene that FEELS like it came straight out of the bible, complete with sunlight beaming down through the once rainy clouds.

    If you are Canadian, and you are interested in film, this is no worse than Hollywood garbage--again, Pearl Harbor--and it probably won't kill you to watch. And as such, it may even be worth while to witness Canada's first attempt at grandiose cinema. But, while I HATE when the media and critics attack these kinds of projects due to their nature (Canada's first big film = let's rip it to shreds) I'm actually upset that they didn't actually do it with this one. Not that they should have done it unfairly, but most critics seemed to have given it far too much credit.

    Show ambition again Canada, but give it to Cronenberg, Egoyan, or anyone else with a track record for interpreting and projecting a good story.
  • laurasfraser6 November 2008
    Paul Gross' Passchendaele provides a unique perspective of the Canadian effort during the First World War. Those who are expecting just battle scenes will likely be disappointed.

    For those looking for character development, some romance, an interesting perspective on recruitment pressure, and yes -- AMAZING battle scenes -- then yes, this movie is for you.

    As a Military History student, I had no issues with the historical accuracy of the movie. Paul Gross based the first 5 minutes on his grandfather's story, and the rest is historical fiction. In general, it is an excellent representation of the period, and certainly provides a much more realistic version of the soldiers' perspective on war in 1917 than many other war films out there.

    I highly recommend this film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    (Spoiler for you, spoiled it for me) Why would anyone want to do that? You craft a brilliant impactive epic movie with Private Ryan-like battle scenes fought by WW1 Canadian boys in their period uniforms complete with those flat helmets and antiquated leggings, and the horror of all the mud and blood coming together so effectively and inevitably and then you go and muck it all up with a soppy love story that moves along at snail's pace and is so desperately unconvincing, just like that one a few years ago that blew a hole in James Cameron's epic Titanic.

    To be fair, Paul Gross plays a very creditable hero and achieves his goal of creating an iconic battlefield blockbuster for Canadians to be rightly proud of, but his back-up characters left much to be desired. I lost any respect for his girlfriend when she stormed off and left him, immediately accepting that he had betrayed her without giving him any kind of trust or even a hearing. And the brother was even worse: a self-centered whiner who certainly did not deserve to be pursued into battle to make sure he was baby sat. Lastly we could have done without that caricature of the pompous British officer, I know it's popular to bash Brits in historical dramas, but hasn't that stereotype been done to death? Earlier on I had admired the way the the hero dismissed the propaganda about Huns crucifying Allied soldiers on the barn door, and then lo and behold, there is that gratuitous crucifixion scene of the hysterical brother in the German trench and the oddly unbelievable finale. All a bit unnecessary I thought.

    The movie merits a good 7, but it would have been a solid 10 with a decent sub-plot.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I wanted to like Passchendaele so much!! I was so excited when I finally rented it and I don't think I've ever been so disappointed in a movie in a long time.

    3/4 of the movie is a really forced, non-believable, way too over the top love story, with just terrible characters. (The officer who runs the recruitment station tops that list) Its the type of thing I expect from Canadian day time TV.. not the type of thing I was expecting from a supposed critically acclaimed movie.

    I wasn't going into this expecting a non-stop action war film, I was just expecting a great movie based on the war! And I really didn't feel like it was. Other than the name of the film and the brilliant (albeit way too short) battle at the end I just don't see this as the tribute Canada's bravest deserve.

    I think for a Canadian movie, technically it was superb from an effects standpoint. I think this film gets more credit than it deserves simply because of that... when the battle is on the screen, it looks, and sounds amazing, which is something you really don't expect from a Canadian film.

    But it has so many moments where you just completely face-palm and say.. oh come on... (the sister/nurse just happens to be stationed at the exact same place as her brother and lover are deployed... he charges straight at the enemy trench, and Schwarzenegger style he arrives completely untouched, only to be blown crucifix style onto the wood... the gross' enemy the officer from the recruitment station travels ALL THE WAY TO France, practically into the battle, just to bring him up on some petty charges)

    Come on boys, I really thought we had something here that would put Canada on the map. Just a complete disappointment. It takes more than just mentioning Canada to be a tribute to its soldiers. They deserved so much more than this.

    I really cant put into words the disappointment Im feeling after watching this film.
  • doug-6975 September 2008
    Passchendaele is part unabashed romance and part horrific and quite graphic war story.

    In film World War One has been a neglected war compared to the more morally unambiguous Second World War and the more recent Vietnam War. And films that aren't about American participation are just as neglected. Passchendaele fills that void.

    The movie moves quickly and switches between home life and battlefield with surprising ease and effect. I was not bored for a moment of this movie. The movie will make you care about these people when they are at home living their lives and then fear for them at war. While the battle scenes are quite brutal, they are not sensational or exploitive, since to have made them sensational or exploitive would defeat the great effort this movie takes in showing how men had to cope with life after the war and the memories of what they lived through.

    Undoubtedly there will be cynics who will decry some moments as contrived or melodramatic, but these are the small-minded who have missed the real emotion of this film. The movie is great entertainment, but there is something going on beneath the surface. This is the first time I can recall a film where the main character is someone who has been both emotionally damaged by the war, but does not succumb to it. I suspect there must be many men coming out of the war who were damaged, but quietly lived with that damage their entire lives. For that depiction alone, this is a great movie.

    The movie is not without humour and it has one of the funniest seduction lines I've ever heard uttered by a woman in a movie.

    The movie is entertaining, but there's a lot going on and much I haven't mentioned as I don't want to click the spoiler warning. There are scenes I'm still thinking about, which doesn't happen with every movie I see.
  • First of all, I would like to mention that the first 15 minutes and last 1 hour show WW1 battle scenes.

    Filled with lots of - often exagerated - symbolism, this movie may still be considered a worthwile watch. Especially since it makes clear how (young) people were pressured in joining the army without them having any idea to what risks they are signing up to. It also shows that the rich and connected were in safe places that would mostly prevent them from getting harmed.

    I think it might be worthwile if an alternative "director's cut" of this movie is created. By putting more focus on the excellent action scenes and removing much of the symbolism, this movie could very well result in a feature of 1hr30min which would easily achieve above 7.0/10. I also wonder what material is still unpublished: i.e. The "B-roll". If you see the effort put in recreating the battle scenes - including the detailed recreation of "no man's land" - I wonder what extra film material is available that wasn't included in this movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I really wanted to like this movie. From the buzz I'd heard, I thought this could be a great one. Sorry to say, it wasn't.

    On the positive side, the battle scenes were extraordinarily well done. Granted, they were filmed in the grainy, slightly-speeded-up style of "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers", but this is an effective style and what today's audiences have come to expect in depicting combat.

    I've studied a lot of military history, extensively on WWI, and the film is technically accurate to a very fine degree. The Canadian uniforms are the correct colour, the Germans are accurately shown in a variety of clothing, the weapons are spot on. There are even things that I never thought I'd see in a movie, like accurate repros of German trench mortars. Somebody put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting these things right.

    Which is great for the 20 minutes or so of the actual war movie scenes of this "war movie".

    And the film "goes there" in ways that most war movies don't. The hero is suffering from neurasthenia, what we now call PTSD. The leading lady is addicted to morphine. These aspects of the story are realistic and commendable.

    Sadly, the story sucks. Why do writers feel that war movies (like SPR) have to be written as family dramas? Real war doesn't work that way. All of the Mann's neighbours would have known they were German long before 1917 when their house gets trashed. In spite of getting a doctor's certificate, there's no way David Mann could have got through training and into the front line with his asthma. There's no way young men would attend a recruiting meeting if they had no intention of signing up. Absurdity piles upon absurdity.

    The leading lady, Caroline Dhavernas, is lovely to look at, but why on earth am I looking at the leading lady for over an hour in a "war movie"? And she barely cracks a sweat going cold turkey from her addiction. Very pretty; not very real.

    In a breakthrough for Canadian movies, the bad guy has an English accent, and he gets killed in the end. Just like American movies. Yay.

    But the film finally lost me as Paul Gross did the Stations of the Cross through the mud of Flanders, wound in his side and everything. What on earth was he thinking as he wrote this? I dunno, but "All Quiet On The Western Front" made a much better job of capturing the pathos of war, and that was 78 years ago.

    Colour me very, very disappointed.
  • "Passchendaele" gives us twenty plus minutes of brutal, miserable, genuinely horrific trench warfare towards the end of the film. During that time it is the sort of gritty, relentlessly (but not gratuitously) violent war film many will and have gone into the theater thinking it would be. Apart from the short five to ten minutes which opens the film there are no other scenes of battle, and the movie is better for it.

    What Paul Gross has attempted here is to give Canadians their own war epic (and on a minuscule budget when compared to most Hollywood war films). The film is not interested in philosophizing and 'making a point'. It's something like a far, far better version of what Michael Bay was doing with "Pearl Harbor"; the film is an unabashed romance and period drama, with Passchendaele being not the focus, but the event at the end of the road which the audience knows is coming.

    Paul Gross has achieved something with "Passchendaele". We see so many Canadian films every year, but very few if any of them are ever about Canada, about being Canadian (and the film doesn't shy away from depicting some of the darker sides of that, we see the hatred and pain many German Canadians experienced simply due to their origin reflected in Dunn's love interest). More than just that, "Passchendaele" is a love letter to Canada, and although I might be biased as a Calgarian and Albertan (where the film is set), I think that every Canadian will find a reason to be proud in this film, in spite of the fact that it's depicting a war where nobody really knew what they were fighting for. "Passchendaele" has its flaws. There's some really, really heavy-handed symbolism (which thankfully doesn't ruin the film) and cloying sentimentality. While I normally abhor cloying sentimentality, "Passchendaele" must be doing something right because I was with it every step of the way. There isn't a moment in this film where the characters don't feel real, where the story doesn't affect you, where the romance doesn't feel genuine (including a love scene which could have been laughable but ended up being one of the year's most beautiful scenes).

    "Passchendaele" is Paul Gross' heart poured onto the screen. The man is perhaps best known for his light-hearted role on "Due South", but he is a phenomenal dramatic actor and his performance here is probably the best I've seen this year from a male lead. You can feel his character's pain, his joy, his suffering, his love. Gross spent 12 years on the screenplay, and while I'd love to say the final result is perfect it is not. It is still, however, a screenplay so filled with genuine emotion and such passion that it ends up being something rare and special. It's a wonderful, wonderful film, one which attempts no grand statement on what war is or should be, it simply shows us the emotions of those involved in it.

    I could go on at length complimenting the wonderful cast, explaining the story, discussing the film in detail, but that would be pointless. It's a film every Canadian should see. I honestly don't know if there's anything here for non-Canadians, although I imagine the film is populist enough to entertain most people (there's even a healthy dose of well-written humor, and the movie has one line so hilarious and yet oddly seductive that I'll probably never forget it). I've said it already, but I'll say it again: writer, director, and star Paul Gross has achieved something special with "Passchendaele". It's a tribute to many things. Less importantly perhaps it is a tribute to Calgary and Alberta (only a Calgarian could have made this film), and more importantly it's a tribute to the pure, certain feeling of true love, to our war veterans, to the troops currently fighting in Afghanistan, to all Canadians, and ultimately and most importantly to Canada.
  • This is no 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Letters from Iwo Jima', the two top war films that come to my mind. And I have no idea about the historic accuracy of the episode in WWI depicted here. I am not interest in that either. I was watching a movie and I knew it.

    As a film, a romance story set in the backdrop of war, it is not a bad one. The brutality of war was well depicted, and the battleground setting fairly well done. The acting was decent by all actors in the film, and the romance credible. As far as I am concerned my 2 hours was a worthwhile investment and I got entertainment out of it.

    I noticed some reviewers rated this film one-star. Don't know if it is because this is a Canadian production. I bet if the same film came from Hollywood most of the one-star ratings simply would not be there. Just a thought.
  • The Great war was devastating for a whole generation of Canadians. It has rarely received treatment on the big screen or on television in works of fiction. Passchendaele is a rare exception. Here are a few exceptions for those of you who may be interested in learning more.

    The Wars (1983) based on the novel by Timothy Findlay was an early attempt. It benefited from some early federal government tax incentives back when the Canadian film industry was struggling to define itself and compete against the big Hollywood money machine.

    Going Home (1987) is a little known film starring Nicholas Campbell (of DaVinci's Inquest). It is worth a viewing. An intense, superb drama. The battlefield sequences (in flashback) are wrenching.

    The Halifax Explosion shows the war at home. The returning hero, disillusioned and bitter must keep silent about his terrible experiences or be branded un-patriotic. His family and neighbors do not want to know about the real war, they prefer to be cushioned by the propaganda and lies they are being fed by King and Country. Then the horror of War follows him home when two munition ships explode in Halifax harbor.

    All three films are very much worth a look.
  • As a Great War Living History reenactor I was very interested to see this movie.

    There was a very long lead up to the major combat at the end - to follow the "Private Ryan" comparison, you start and end with some intense combat footage, and a fairly slow-moving story for the rest of the time. However, the depiction of combat was first rate, showing the brutality of hand to hand fighting in the trenches (also fairly accurately depicted as strings of mud filled shell craters) Not all a saccharin-sweet romance, and certainly not the worst such movie I have ever seen; but it would be nice to see a story of the standard of "All Quiet On the Western Front" with the benefit of modern special effects that can allow the combat depictions to be more realistic.

    Overall there seemed be some inaccuracies in the uniforms and equipment, although little that anyone not heavily into the history of such matters would notice or care about. The main character wears what appear to be lace up gaiters as worn by the American troops instead of the puttees universal among British Empire enlisted ranks; although such local individual adaptations did occur, particularly when such items could be "acquired" from other troops (the Australians were noted for this, particularly after Hamel), at the time in which this story is set it is unlikely that a Canadian soldier could have been in contact with AEF troops to obtain such items. The waist belt buckles appear to be more like the style used in 1937 pattern web equipment, as worn throughout World War 2, instead pull through style buckle correct for Great War Bristish style belts. However, one of the most obvious omissions is the lack of respirators. No front line soldier by that stage of the war would have been without a gas mask.
  • heddlu24 February 2010
    I watched this with high hopes - but I have to say that I never lost the feeling that I was watching a movie (ie unlike the famous first 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan at Normandy). A lot of the characters were 2 dimensional - the English major esp was the kind of stereotype that one would expect in a US film - sadly even people here seem to fall into that - one reviewer wrote "It was the Canadians who did all the real hard work in this war" - sorry it was the British Army and French Army who fought from day 1 that took the heaviest casualties - not to diminish the role of the ANZAC troops - but there is no need to disrespect our war dead either and rather like the anti-Monty comment in Saving Private Ryan, the whole blundering British thing is a cheap shot - ultimately it was the development of a early combined arms doctrine esp in the British Army in 1918 using tanks, artillery etc along with all the Allies that broke the German Army. The film also seemed overly full of clichés and cinematic coincidences etc - the crucifixion scene at the end particularly especially, given that earlier on, Sgt Dunne comments that the 1915 Canadian crucified soldier story is just that - and then he (as director) goes and repeats it - it makes no sense as having crucified that annoying git, the German NCO/officer then lets him be returned to the Canadian lines! Kudos to Paul Gross though for trying to make something about a period that seems unfashionable and for which he obviously has a strong interest (as Tom Hanks did for WW2 in terms of making Band of Brothers which incidentally managed to reverse clichés brilliantly by for instance the scene of the demobilising German troops, where their commanding General in effect says that they too were a band of brothers who had gone through suffering together). I do suspect that this film exemplifies the danger of being script writer,director and lead actor - it becomes a pet project when in fact you need someone strong enough to say "NO" to certain bits.
  • rps-231 October 2008
    At last a genuine Canadian movie... Calgary is Calgary... The Americans didn't win the battle, didn't even turn up anywhere... There were no Stars and Stripes in every office. Okay, the plot --- a sort of WW1 Saving Private Ryan effort set against the bloody Belgian battle --- is a little far fetched. But the scenes --- both in 1916 Calgary and in the mud and horror of the battlefield --- are as good as those in any WW1 movie I've seen. There are believable characters well portrayed both in the script and by the actors. The effects are superb. The lighting and cinematography are sensitive and creative. And how very impressive that Paul Gross was a triple threat man. He wrote it, he directed it and he starred in it. That totals 300% This is as good as they come.
  • The subject has immense potential - Passchendaele was described by then British Prime Minister Lloyd George as 'the most grim, futile and bloody fight ever waged in the history of war, the result of stubborn egotism unsurpassed among the records of disaster'.

    Grim and bloody struggle was certainly shown in the film but the futility of it and the blind arrogance and stupidity of the commanders was not. This is a major failing. Formula films are always artistic failures. And Passchendaele is a formula film. The obligatory romance and attractive men to attract the female audience, the rabid battle scenes to excite the young males and the historical context to attract the educated were all included. And yet it fails because at the moment critique towards the end of the film something so ridiculous happens that one questions the common sense of the whole team.

    Often such failings are the result of egotism in the film production and when the writer, director and lead actor are the same man this is often the case. Paul Gross is undoubtedly talented but given too much rein, as he was here, the result becomes self indulgent.

    And the casting of Joe Dinicol as the young soldier was inept. Joe may or may not be gay - there is no statement on this unmarried 27 year old - but he certainly comes over in voice, manner and style as a stereotypical 21st. century fag who has just stepped out of a gay sauna. In short he simply doesn't fit the context of a Canadian villager born in 1899.

    I thought very highly of the battle sequence (until the absurdity at the end) and the questions raised about the unnecessary killing of a young German soldier begging for mercy at the beginning. These were strong points that allow me to raise a score above 5. But the rest of the film is weak and would not even be tolerated were it not for the excellent war sequences.

    Have a look at the film by all means - but don't expect too much.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    On a scale of 1 to 10 I would give this film a –9. The themes are trite, hackneyed, and, frankly, an insult to the memory of all those who served or died at Passchendaele. To begin with, the film has very little to do with that battle. So why call it Passchendaele? The director would have been more accurate to call the film Passion in Dale or Sex on the Battlefield or Something Silly in Passchendaele. If the battle is only a backdrop to the plot, then don't mislead by calling it by the name that immediately invokes the battle. At least the English Patient had the good sense not to be titled El Alamein! I mention the English Patient, which I also disliked, but it is quantum leaps better than this film, which seems a very weak copy. Nurse meets soldier; nurse falls in love with soldier; soldier dies before nurse. Mr. Gross have you every heard of, read, or seen War and Peace? Perhaps the film should have been called Mr. Gross Goes to War since the director is front and center of this film. Of course sergeant Gross, a.k.a. Michael Dunne the protagonist is a hero, but not just any hero. Rather, he is a Canadian hero, heck no, not just Canadian, but an Albertan hero! You know what I mean, the silent cowboy type, man of action and integrity, but heck, no hick here, he can also wax poetic when talking about the land before his girl. And oh yes, you have to have horses here, even at the end, the riderless horse, no doubt about to carry our hero's soul to heaven. We see his noble side: helping his girl kick the drug habit, after all, got to make the film relevant you know, and it seems he does it all in one night, because if the scene was meant to portray several nights or weeks I sure didn't get it. Besides, since the evil English major already had his eye on the good sergeant, don't you think he would have known? Oh yes, clichés. The spit and polish bombastic English major, the pukka, pukka type who will be shown up as incompetent and a coward. He stands in total contrast to our down-to-earth Hoser true-man-of-action hero. We had the same representation in the film about the Canadian ascent of Everest: spit and polish but all hot air. Well, guys give it a break. When you repeat the same path in literature or film you become guilty of thinking in clichés! But let's get back to our hero, Mr. Gross, a.k.a. sergeant what's-his-name. He can't be perfect now, can he? He has to have a flaw. You know the old story about heroes having a fatal flaw. Well the good sergeant's flaw is that he shoved a bayonet through the head of a young German asking for mercy. Oops, you know he will have to pay for that. The clichés in this film are nothing compared to the idiocy of the plot. Boy meets girl. Girl says No. Then Maybe. Then Yes. But there is a hitch; she has a brother, who in his mixed up passion of lust-love, hatred and patriotism is tricked into signing up by his scheming future father-in-law. So off he goes and our good sergeant goes off to look after him as he had promised his girl. Well you know what is going to happen. He will save the boy's life and die. Yes die, because that is how that clichéd story goes. But wonder of wonders, it's not just the sergeant who turns up by the side of the boy; the baddie English major also turns up at the front in the same battalion because he wants to get back at the sergeant! At this point, ladies and gentlemen, we have flown the realm of common sense and entered the never-never coo-coo land! An over-aged major who served in the Boer War 18 years earlier, he decides to give up the comfort of his recruiting job to get back at our hero! But wait, it gets even better. The nurse also turns up at the battle. What incredible coincidence! Well, you know what's going to happen next. They just have to have sex, and of course, it's the nurse who initiates it because, after all, our upright, ethical, cowboy is above such things. Director Gross seems to like flying bodies, so the typical battle scene is one of bodies flying about like men on a trapeze. But that is nothing compared to the tour de force: the wounded brother hanging like a Christ on the cross on the German line, and, of course, our hero has to get to the boy to save him. But just to make sure that the audience understands the scale of justice and the stupidity of war, Director Gross has to hit us over the head with the symbol: shell shocked or wounded young Germans, kids in fact; remember, the good sergeant killed one in the heat of battle. So now we are primed for his death, but not before he heroically carries the boy back on his makeshift cross. Our hero is not only a man of integrity and tough, but he is super strong! He's been shot – serious enough to die from his wound but he still manages to carry the wounded boy back through the mud, the German officer in charge having given the nod – ah yes, we must also have nobility in the battle front. I forgot to add, my friend mentioned that in the midst of trench warfare, mud, rain and blood, Sergeant Gross had wonderfully white teeth! But then, he is an Albertan super hero.
  • cyberscribe4 February 2009
    Wow. Great flick!

    Besides being an admitted movie addict, I'm also a retired professional soldier and a combat veteran who's served in multiple theaters of conflict.

    I usually find myself quietly disappointed with war movies in general, and their vain, highly stylized, cliché-laden attempts to realistically portray infantry warfare, and high-intensity warfare's effects on soldiers. Film-makers invariably seem to fall far short in their attempts to capture the essence of what war can be (or was) like, and what exposure to it can do to the people involved, both mentally and physically.

    To his great credit, I think that in Passchendaele Paul Gross seems to have actually managed to capture a reasonably authentic glimpse into both the nature of such hellish environments and the men caught up in them.

    The acting was superb. The performances were so convincing that the notion that I was just sitting watching a movie didn't even occur to me until the credits began to roll by, I was so totally engrossed.

    This film was easily one of the best that I've seen in quite some time.

    I'll definitely be keeping my eyes open for any future films by Paul Gross. Passchendaele stands as an extremely impressive testimonial to his obvious talents.
  • 6.4/10

    "Greater love hath no man than this, that man lay down his life for his friends"

    The only time I remember watching this film, was when it first came out in 2008, and I was young, and still considering joining the military. While this film didn't impact my decision on joining. It gave me a sense of pride, as a Canadian, to see a war movie that referenced my nation.

    This film is actually quite good despite the fact it focuses heavily on romantic relationships. However, the love interests aren't as cheesy as that of "Pearl Harbor" (2001), and they don't detract from the stories end goal. Sacrifice.

    The acting overall is good. Paul Gross does well depicting the hardened war veteran, and Joe Dinicol equally portrays the recruit. Caroline Dhavernas and Meredith Bailey bring forth the love interests in a compelling light.

    The pacing of the film is alright as at one point it begins to drag on, and my interest in the film began to wane. If they cutdown on the build-up it perhaps would've been more interesting, but for what we're given, by the time the fighting parts happen, I'm ready for the film to end.

    Lastly, I was impressed with the cinematography and sound by how well it's held up ten plus years later. It still feels like war. Minus physically joining the actors in the mud and the rain it does feel like you're in the thick of it with them. Therefore bringing more energy and emotion to the forefront.

    Overall, a film that I would recommend checking out at least once if you like the genre of military. Emotionally this film was impactful, but is lacklustre in its pacing.

    Thank you for reading my review. Until next time.... Enjoy the show!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I had really high hopes for this movie. The trailers kind of sucked me in. To me it looked like a Canadian war movie, maybe like Saving Private Ryan in realism. There was a flash of love story in the preview. Would it be 80 percent war movie, and 20 percent Love story? Nope, completely opposite, and the love story is bogged down in a "Canadianized" slant, that ruined it for me. They couldn't just leave the nice guy to meet the nice girl. They have to make the nice girl a morphine addict. This is just an example of the rest of the story. Don't get me wrong, i love a good love story (The Notebook!) But not this one. And the whole crucifixion scene??? Unrealistic, out of context, over edited. On the plus side, the scenery around southern Alberta was spectacular.
An error has occured. Please try again.