clanciai The film is hopelessly marred and scarred by its propaganda nature, which brands it with a character that debases it for history when the war once is over, which is a pity, for it's a great story with great actors, who all do their best, and there are some instances which are more realism than propaganda, especially towards the end, as the intrigue thickens, when prisoners start to escape. It's Jean-Pierre Aumont's film, he is the most interesting character, as you never really know where you have him, as he constantly has to change footing according to what is happening around him, while finally his character emerges in full glory. Gene Kelly is also quite good as an impossible slugger who is completely quashed by Peter Lorre and his Germans, but his annihilation is not quite complete. You can't keep down Gene Kelly for long.It's the boy in the end who introduces the cross of Lorraine and lifts the whole performance to a higher level. This is very far from one of the best war films, but it certainly has some good scenes worth seeing.

alanrhobson The Cross of Lorraine has many virtues - but also some serious flaws.It is gripping and involving, and has excellent performances and characterisations. Gene Kelly's excellent performance gives the lie to the claims by most of the leading film critics (eg. Leslie Halliwell, David Quinlan) that he couldn't really act (Halliwell said that his acting ability was 'minimal', whilst Quinlan said that he 'never convinced' as an actor). Had they forgotten his terrific performance here? As another reviewer has also said, the half-forgotten German character actor Tonio Selwart is also very good as the German commandant, as is Jean-Pierre Aumont as the hero.The film is also very well directed, for the most part, and has many good scenes.However, there are some disturbing aspects, partly due to the presence as co-scriptwriter of Ring Lardner Jr. Lardner was a member of the American Communist Party, despite the fact that Communism had been responsible for millions of deaths in Russia in the 1920s and 1930s. His sympathies can be seen in the film in a number of ways. The traitor, Duval, played by Hume Cronyn, is shown as a capitalist wine merchant who puts business above loyalty. The traitor could have been given any occupation at all by the scriptwriters (French collaborators were from all sorts of occupations in real life) but Lardner had to make a heavy-handed swipe at capitalism.Similarly, the Spanish republican, Rodriguez (Joseph Calleia), is shown as as a heroic figure even though this charming character's aim in life is to kill as many fascists as possible. His positive portrayal is despite the fact that Spanish republicans were responsible for the murder of thousands of priests, nuns, middle class figures and other 'enemies of the state' in republican-controlled areas of Spain in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39).There is also another uncomfortable aspect to the film, due presumably to a combination of script and direction. The film positively revels in the slaughter of German soldiers in the climatic battle - even though in actual fact those particular Germans hadn't killed anyone in the village at the point when the insurrection starts. The film gleefully shows German soldiers being burnt alive, bludgeoned to death, and so on, seeming to take pride in allocating them grisly deaths.So, although this is a high quality film in most respects, it is also deeply flawed.

MartinHafer I read some reviews on IMDb that I felt were a bit too harsh for this film, calling it "propaganda" or complaining about how the Germans were all portrayed as evil. And my answer to that is of course it's propaganda and one-sided--plus, they were Nazis (and that IS bad if you paid any attention in your history classes). You need to understand the context---it was made during the war and was intended not as a perfect representation of the Nazis and the Free French movement but as way to bolster support for the war effort at home. In that respect, the film was a tremendous success and stands as one of the better wartime propaganda films made by the Americans. I respect the film for its ability to touch the viewer--ever today when it's easy to laugh at the jingoistic style of the film since the Nazis seem like a distant memory.The film begins with the war in France in 1940. When a group of soldiers surrendered after the traitorous French government made peace with the Nazis, instead of being returned home they were sent to a German prison camp and starved and beaten in attempt to break their spirits. The Nazis were all the usual stereotypical bad guys you'd expect, though it was interesting to see the German actor Peter Lorre actually playing a Nazi. Despite his background, during the war he often played French or other non-German characters--this is a rare chance to see him play a German in an American film.To me, the most interesting characters weren't the Germans or even most of the French prisoners, but the collaborators who actually worked for the Nazis and thrived. Hume Cronyn played a juicy role as a Frenchman only too happy to side with his captors and betray his people. His character was very chilling, but true to this style of film, he got his ultimate reward for his treachery (sort of like way Peter Graves in STALAG 17). Jean-Pierre Aumont, another collaborator, is another story. While he reluctantly worked with the Germans to save his skin, he could not live with himself unless he continued to resist and fight them covertly--setting up an exciting escape towards the end of the film.The film ends on a very bloody and exciting note. In fact, now that I think about it, for a Hollywood film of the 1940s, it was an exceptionally bloody and violent film--though considering the subject matter, this WAS necessary. One particularly brutal scene that actually shocked me and my wife was when Aumont stabbed a German in the throat and it was done realistically and in a close-up shot! The bottom line is that most people viewing this film probably left the theater angry and wanting to kick Nazi butt--a good sign that the film achieved its goal. In fact, the film was so patriotic and uplifting that Aumont himself left the safety of the US after finishing this film and he joined the Free French himself and earning a lot of respect for his heroism.

Boba_Fett1138 This movie does provide a good and realistic view of French POW's in a German camp. The story and its characters are gritty and those are the main reasons why this movie is quite a good one.It however is too bad that it's too obvious that this movie was a piece of allied WW II propaganda. This movie was made in the middle of WW II and it's quite ridicules to see how incredibly black and white the story and its characters are at times. The Nazi's are made to look incredibly ruthless and without an heart and conscience while all the French prisoners want to do is practice their religion, be kind to each other and make the best out of it. The story and its characters are so incredibly black and white at times that the movie becomes quite ridicules and not a credible one to watch at times.The movie also obviously tries to send out a message. To POW to keep fighting and resisting against the Nazi's, to French citizens to revolt against the oppressors (according to the movie, they should even burn their houses down, just like the Russians used to do, so the Germans will find nothing but ashes along their way) and to help the resistance in any way they can. The whole message and propaganda elements in the movie are all way too obvious. It makes this movie really a ridicules one to watch at times.There are some good actors in the movie but due to the simple way of directing and storytelling, none of them really shines. The talents of Gene Kelly (in one of his first movie roles) and Peter Lorre are wasted in this movie.Still I can't rate this movie any lower than a 6 out of 10, since the story and atmosphere are quite good and also have some nice elements in it. I guess it's a pretty good though rushed, early, low budget WW II movie that intends well but is too obvious with its propaganda. Not much interesting is really happening in the movie and the action toward the ending comes too late to makes this movie a better paced- and in general a better and more interesting movie to watchA watchable movie that however by no means is a must-see or a really recommendable one.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/