Hell on Earth (1931) User Reviews

Ahead of It's Time, Unfortunately

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 11 June 2019]

Promptly banned by the Nazis in 1933, 'Niemandsland' was for many years a lost film, and largely a forgotten one by the time Siegfried Kracauer dismissed it fifteen years later in 'From Caligari to Hitler' as an "aesthetically interesting film" which was however "thoroughly abortive" which "with its emphasis on international fraternisation is thoroughly evasive", and that "German militarists did not have to fear the German pacifists". Seen today the Soviet-inspired first half bears a marked resemblance to sixties agit-prop like Santiago Alvarez's 'Now' (1965) and the work of Godard's Groupe Dziga-Vertov, while the second half strongly anticipates John Boorman's 'Hell in the Pacific' (1968).

Of the five principal cast members each representing a different nation the two I recognised were Ernst Busch (who eventually settled in the GDR) and Vladimir Sokoloff, who in 1937 settled in Hollywood where one of his last film roles was in 'The Magnificent Seven'.

Wishful Thinking WW 1 Film - Hell On Earth

[arthur_tafero · 6/10 · 18 March 2022]

This is a very romanticized and unrealistic WW 1 film that viewers might like because of its universal condemnation of war in general. But in reality, it was almost impossible to have happened, and certainly not a situation that provided any realistic view of what happens in no man's land (the area between the two fronts of trenches). Generally speaking, all property between the two fronts of WW 1 battles was obliterated by constant artillery fire. However, this is an interesting fantasy to watch.

A simple human statement against war

[diacad · 10/10 · 10 February 2003]

"Niemansland" (No Man's Land) is one of several early talkies produced in the last years of Weimar Germany that the Nazis targetted for total elimination. As with "Kongress Tanzt", and "Dreigroschenoper", not all copies were destroyed. Long thought lost, a print of Niemansland surfaced in the United States and was restored by film archivist Maurice Zouary in 1969. It has now been distributed on VHS by Inkwell Images, Inc.

This film makes a simple human statement against war through brief parallel personal histories of five men, who encounter each other at the nexus of life and death. The culminating scenes are those at the battlefront in World War One. The sympathetic portrayal of a Russian Jew, and the depiction of a rather cosmopolitan and resourceful black man, especially infuriated the brownshirts, perhaps as much as the basic message that war was (and is) the supreme enemy of all.

"Niemansland" must be appreciated as an artifact of its time (1931). The silent era lends much to the acting and pacing, where exaggerated gestures and, frankly, stereotypes of various kinds, bridge the gaps due to the lack of sound. Perhaps this is understandable, since the film is multilingual (the first such of very few in film history), although English is predominant. There is an obvious influence of the silent Eisenstein and his gospel of montage. The musical score by the famous communist composer Hanns Eisler (who first fled Hitler to Hollywood, then fled Joe McCarthy to East Germany, there composing the GDR national anthem) is a fine finishing touch, and actually has been available on LPs and CDs for many years. And Ernst Busch, who was the streetsinger in "Dreigroschenoper" (Three Penny Opera), made the same year, plays the German soldier. Although the German Left was involved in the film's production, the message is pure and simple; there is not a trace of dogmatic sectarianism.

"Niemansland" would make good viewing today for those who are troubled (or should be) by the possibility of yet another war.

An important historical document, but there simply are better films of its type worth seeing.

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 22 July 2010]

This film shows men from several different nations all pulled together in war and discovering the humanity in the enemy. The film is made almost completely without dialog.

From a purely historical perspective, this is a very important film in that it shows a film created by the anti-war crowd that was very important and vocal in Germany before the Nazis obtained control in 1933. Today you might not know that such a movement was strong--as the memory of the awful Nazi years and the Nazi government's efforts to eradicate this movement were mostly successful. Copies of Erich Maria Remarque's book "All Quiet on the Western Front" and films like "Westfront 1918" were systematically destroyed by the new fascist government--and it's a miracle that "Hell on Earth" survived. Apparently the opening titles were obliterated but restored well after the war.

However, from an entertainment point of view, the film has A LOT to be desired. It apparently was produced for an international audience and as such, dialog (and unfortunately the story as well) are severely simple--too simple. As a result, the many scenes of war and its awfulness experienced by these multinational soldiers in the film come off more as film snippets than a real honest to goodness narrative. It's a noble experiment...but also a very boring one.

So am I recommending you don't watch this film? Not exactly. I recommend instead you see the better examples of the 1930s anti-war films first...then, if you must, see "Hell on Earth". My advice is for the best German-made film of the type, see "Westfront 1918" (mentioned above). Then, watch the 1930 American film "All Quiet on the Western Front". It is THE best film of the era and is very sympathetic to the Germans AND unrelenting in its awfulness in the depiction of war. Then, you might try seeing the 1930s remake of "J'Accuse" or the German movie (not really a war film--but still having the same message) "Kameradschaft" or the American films "The Eagle and the Hawk" and "Ace of Aces". Then, STILL look for other films of the same bent...then, after seeing all of them, you might finally try "Hell on Earth".

All in all, a film that is simply poor viewing and dull--and there are so many better films that manage to make exactly the same statement...only better.

By the way, you might wonder why the black man dances so fast in the film. This dancing scene was obviously shot as a silent piece using an old-style camera that would normally play the film at between 16-22 frames per second. However, when you play this film in a normal sound projector (which always goes at 24 frames per second) it appears way too fast--particularly if the cameraman originally filmed it at about 16. So, unless you deliberately record the event too slow in the first place, you can't just stick silent clips into a sound film and have it look normal. So that's why he appeared to have ADHD!!