Hart's War (2002) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
197 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Good Old School Film-making
bh_tafe317 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"When the most likable character in your film is an evil nazi, you've got problems," one reviewer noted of this film. He was wrong.

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

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

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

Shunned by critics and audiences upon its original release, but deserves reappraisal and a second look now.
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hart's War or McNamara's Band?
uds321 September 2003
If one were to place too great an emphasis on many of the smug and self-serving views expressed by various contributors here, it may well appear somewhat of an enigma that HART'S WAR still rates 6.3 overall. Obviously many who have voted have not posted a review. Equally obviously, to offset its many detractors...a significant number of people must have liked it. I'm one of them!

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

Yes its longish and it would be fair to say it is extremely dark for the greater part of the film. It is ultimately though a worthwhile addition to other POW films. You could do a lot worse.
95 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Doesn't give it all away but does give some hints
hotdudepetey12 September 2002
Having grown tired of the typical action packed glorified war films (Pearl Harbor for example), I sought out more of a human interest story. I wanted something that delved past the cliché romances, battle wounds, and graphic violence we have become accustomed to. To me, Hart's War exemplified exactly what others have failed to do. It was an inside glimpse into the lives of a WW2 POW camp, but more so. It dealt with the struggle for power, respect, and honor in an unlikely situation. The stellar performances by Bruce Willis and Marcel Lures stole the show away from the title character, Lt. Hart (played well by Colin Farrel). There are times when you don't know who the token hero or villain is, just by the way that each commands their region. If you missed this movie in theaters (as I am guilty of), easiest way is to catch it is on pay per view - it's still going to be running for a while. Enjoy!
49 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not bad
w2amarketing11 August 2003
This film is absorbing because you are kept guessing until the very end. Hart, the lead character, isn't exactly an angel; and the Nazi Kommandant conjures up a measure of sympathy, with other motives of characters such as Col. MacNamara (Willis) truly unclear until the end.

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce Willis is clearly a supporting actor in this film, but I felt he had a strong and important role and was, arguably, the CENTRAL character while Colin Farrell is the LEADING character. However, Willis gets top billing for one simple reason -- TO SELL TICKETS. It worked for me, at least.
24 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I may be alone, but I liked it
ShitStirrer17 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I'm so glad I didn't miss this one - ordered it on pay-per-view the other day. Not only does Bruce Willis give the performance of a lifetime, but I was able to be introduced to the talented Marcel Iures. He was phenomenal as the sometimes you like him, sometimes you hate him as the German Colonel of the POW camp. Both performances are intense and emotional. And it was interesting to see a movie delve into the issues of honor and respect within war times, racism, and the courtroom drama story line.
48 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
If you're looking for a different kind of POW story . . .
pbrugalett18 February 2002
If you're looking for action in your war film skip this one. But if you don't mind an interesting drama about prejudice among Americans in a German POW camp, which although slow at times, leads to an interesting pay-off with a twist that (kinda) makes the whole thing worth it, then check it out. I especially enjoyed the subdued though "grizzled" looking Bruce Willis as Colonel McNamara and Marcel Iures as the camps' German commander.
41 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Read the book.
nvincent18 February 2002
What a squandered opportunity.

Hart's War is yet another example of why movies rarely if ever live up to the book upon wich they are based. The novel of the same name by John Katzenbach is so clearly suited for the big screen it is almost frightening, and yet one has to wonder whether screenwriters Billy Ray and Terry George actually read the entire book or merely relied on cliff notes. The writers have taken an immensely engrossing tale of life in a German POW camp during WW2 and commercialized it with needless explosions and manipulative and improbable plot twists. The movie's thorough lack of character development hinders the best efforts of the actors (Bruce Willis, Collin Farrell, and Terrance Howard all do comendable work with the restrictive material they are given) to make the audience identify with them - resulting in an emotional climax that is supposed to evoke sympathy and respect but instead falls flat on its face. It is still beyond me why the makers of this film felt compelled to change the ending from the book - perhaps they feared it was too compelling and thought-provoking for their intended audience and felt obligated to dumb it down into as many cliche ridden speeches and improbable acts of courage and honor as possible. Whatever their reasons, the resulting lack of subtlety in this film is nothing less than insulting.

If I am being more harsh than other reviewers it is because I have read the book and know just what could have been accomplished. Do yourself a favor and read the book - it is far superior to this film or any other recent Hollywood offering.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's all Colin Farrell - you see him, hear his voice, from beginning to end
ruby_fff5 May 2002
For what it's worth, I appreciate the film medium interpretation of a book's story, and not try to compare or expect how detail or more poignant the book's descriptions were. Viewing a film, audio and visually taking in the collaborative efforts of a film production is not the same as someone reading a novel. Reading also depends on the environment that you're in: while traveling with people around you, or being quietly by yourself. Reading is very much one person's own interpretation - as one reads, one can conjure up the possible sight and sound in one's mind and imagination. While in a cinema viewing a movie, we are exercising our senses - visual and audio - of what's presented on the screen. The experiences are uniquely different.

In HART"S WAR, Colin Farrell who portrayed Lt. Hart is very much front and centered, while Bruce Willis' role of Col. McNamara, his (humane) attributes are more subtle and from within - his aching insides from the years of war and isolation. There is the struggle/conflict of the war veteran vs. the clean cut affluent background of young Hart. We see Willis' McNamara's treatment with Farrell's Hart more evidently, but for McNamara himself, say the quiet scene where he visited the flyer in isolation waiting for trial - more imminent of death, we simply see him giving Lt. Scott a book; when Scott opens it, it's the New Testament. It is later while Hart's talking with Scott outside the trial room just before the closing arguments, that we learned the book was Scott's own, with a picture of him and wife and child kept within the Bible's pages. So off camera, we may gathered that McNamara must have silently gone through Scott's belongings and took that New Testament to Scott, with the understanding that Scott may find solace in seeing the family picture again and as most soldiers would, felt duty above all else.or would he? And Hart, representing Scott as his defending lawyer, would he let him? Such are the subtle layers to the storyline.

Director Gregory Hoblit's previous films were no simple Hollywood plots. They all require some mind stimulating thinking: 1996's "Primal Fear," the crime and lawyers film with Richard Gere, Laura Linney, and the fascinating debut 'hell' of a performance from Edward Norton; 1998's "Fallen", one devil of an intriguing storyline where Denzel Washington, along with Embeth Davidtz, tackling the many faces (Elias Koteas included) of the elusive Lucifer (music was by Tan Dun of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"; 2000's "Frequency" was the mind-twisting time-bending drama of son and father team, Jim Caviezel and Dennis Quaid. Here in HART'S WAR again, there are no simple answers to the questions raised: moral dilemma, military honors, ravage and trying times of war and being POWs - no escape of endurance tests. It's a well produced film with fine cinematography of stark snowy scenes from Alar Kivilo (who also did "Frequency" with director Hoblit); score to this war film was complemented (unexpectedly) by British composer Rachel Portman; and performances by a talented cast. I did see "Stalag 17" and "The Great Escape" again, but my sense is "Hart's War" stands on its own, it's not really a humor filled "17" not an action packed "Escape" movie, it's more of a humane story at its core, offering an aspect of life's outlook, military or not.
34 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good if not great
reggimann4 February 2003
I don't know what y'all are complaining about: this is a good movie! It has fallen pray to mismarketing like so many good films before. Farrell is good (he'll be BIG soon, mark my words), Marcel Iures fills the screen with his presence and performance. Willis however, I must admit, play Willis. But hey; I like him for what he is.

The plot is well thought out, intelligently blending the lines between the war- and the courtroom genre. Don't tell me you anticipated every twist in the plot.

For all it's worth; the movie was very different in a great way from all war movies in last couple of years. Different in quite a smart way, too.

15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A different WWII POW movie.
Sarge-237 March 2002
I thought Hart's War was an excellent movie. It touched a lot of areas, and was very entertaining. Much better than We Were Soldiers (which was pretty unrealistic - - most of the soldiers in Vietnam were young guys barely out of kidhood who did NOT have wives) or Black Hawk Down (a standard horrors-of-war movie). This movie was thought-provoking and had plenty of twists and turns to keep you interested. Have to read the book, now.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very solid war film, that's quite engaging, with a good story, and fantastic performances!
callanvass24 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very solid war film, that's quite engaging, with a good story and fantastic performances!. All the characters are great, and extremely likable, plus Bruce Willis is simply amazing in this!. The ending is very powerful, and quite sad, and it had a pretty cool unexpected plot twist as well, plus Colin Farrell surprised me here once again by giving another top notch performance!. The court scenes are actually pretty interesting, and this one works more on story then War action, plus it's very well made and written as well. Don't expect Bruce to be the main star in this film,granted he does have a fair amount of screen time, but Colin Farrell is definitely the star in this movie, plus Terrence Howard is especially good in his role as Scott!. I did find it a little strange that the Nazi's were so nice to the soldiers, and it did drag in certain spots, but it was never boring, and quite engaging most of the way, plus it will keep you guessing throughout. This is a very solid war film, that's quite engaging, with a good story and fantastic performances, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Gregory Hoblit does a great! job here, with very good camera work, solid angles and keeping the film at an engaging pace for the most part. The Acting is top notch!. Bruce Willis is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is intense, very likable a very honorable man, and while he is not the star in this film, he still put on a very powerful performance, and the scenes involving him and Farrell were especially good! (Willis Rules!!!!!!!). Colin Farrell is in top form here, he is very emotional, focused, had some standout scenes with Willis, had a great character, and this was his film, he is seriously beginning to grow on me!. Terrence Howard is very impressive here as Scott, he was really likable, and had some very good lines, I liked him a lot. Cole Hauser is very good as the asshole Bedford and did his job very well. Marcel Iures is good as the main villain. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Willis at his Scowling Best-- sort of...
artzau10 July 2002
This film has its moments. But, to buy into it, you have to suspend any knowledge about WW2, Nazi POW stockades or likely situations. The action focuses on Willis as the brooding leading officer in a POW camp, Colin Farrell is the law student pressed into becoming a defender for a Black Pilot wrongly accused of murder. What transpires is a Machiavellian game with the Commandant, well played by Rumanian Actor, Marcel Iures, with plots and subplots, motifs and counterplots. But, it really does not go anywhere. There are some nice twists at the end but the ending before the final credits I found to be cheesy and unsatisfying (I've always found it irritating to switch to an ending narrative when there was none to introduce the story). Viewers who like Willis will not be disappointed and Colin Farrell is sure to delight the ladies with his Irish good looks, dark "little boy" eyes and expressions. Cole Hauser, back from getting eaten by an alien in Pitch Black, makes a wonderful sleazy villain but the rest of the cast seems to walk through their parts. Also, Look for Joe Spano from NYPD in a bit part in the opening, but don't expect a lot from the rest of the show.
21 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great Acting, Gives Basic Plot Line
lovemetrue9021024 September 2002
HI everyone! I just watched Hart's War on Pay-Per-View and I highly recommend those of you who haven't had a chance to see it to do so. This film totally did not receive the recognition that it deserves; the performances by Bruce Willis and Colin Farrell were extraordinary, and I am sure we will be hearing much more about Colin Ferrell's career in years to come. This film deals with the prejudice that existed amongst POW soldiers within the Nazi camps and takes you through an emotional-moral-roller-coaster ride when Farrell is asked to represent a soldier accused of "murdering' another solider who was vehemently racist. Meanwhile, Bruce Willis uses this distraction in order to seek justice for himself against the Nazi's captors. If you are in the mood for a suspenseful and intellectually stimulating film then definitely catch this one before its too late.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Well crafted and thoughtful entertainment
anthonymfb13 February 2002
I recently had the good fortune of seeing an advanced screening of Hart's War. It took a good half hour for me to warm up to it but once the many plots twists took hold, I was pretty well hooked. Collin Farrell displays a good deal of screen charisma as Lt. Hart. Surprisingly, Bruce Willis is in a supporting role. Although the trailers I have seen would lead you to believe otherwise.

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

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

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

8.5 out of 10
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This movie will not get an academy award because it is a good movie
TheEightiesAreBack22 November 2003
To sum it up in one sentence: This is probally one of the most emotional and best movies in a while. My grampa, being a war vet, loved it and said it was Bruce Willis's best dramatic role...this movie is a story of honor, no matter what color your skin is. This movie has great action and an emotional,well acted screeplay. Definitly rent it.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A war story that defies credulity
FlickJunkie-227 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
It is hard to imagine a more contrived story than this WWII POW film. There are just so many unrealistic plot elements that the story loses all credibility. Director Gregory Hoblit, (`Frequency', `Primal Fear') has delivered good dramatic films in the past, but this one simply loses its grip on reality. While the production values are excellent, Hoblit doesn't seem to notice or care that plot and the behavior of his characters range from inconsistent to implausible.

Take Colonel Werner Visser (Marcel Iures). The workup on him shows him to be evil, intolerant, cruel and autocratic and those are his nicer qualities. Then suddenly, for no reason we can discern, he develops a soft spot for Lt. Hart (Colin Farrell). This is a conniving, manipulative, hard hearted creature and just because he went to the same college as Hart, he becomes his avuncular advisor and benefactor. Let's get real here.

Yes, and I am sure they are going to send a lieutenant assigned to headquarters and privileged to strategic information, who has never been in combat, to shuttle another officer to the front lines so he can get captured and spill his guts to the enemy. That detail would have been given to a non commissioned officer with no exposure to such intelligence.

The one bright spot in this film is the acting of Colin Farrell. Farrell combines rugged good looks and excellent dramatic skills to bring this film whatever shred of credibility it has. He manages to make his character believable, despite the unbelievable nature of everything that is going on around him. Bruce Willis gets top billing in this film, but doesn't log 20% of the screen time that Farrell commands. Willis plays the hard shelled West Point officer well, although his switch from heartless malevolence to heroic nobility is just a bit too abrupt to accept.

Everything about this film stretches credulity. By the end of the film, my eye sockets were sore from all the eye rolling. I rated it a 5/10. Despite some good performances and technical elements, this kind of drama needs realism to be effective and in this regard `Hart's War' fails spectacularly.
19 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
11th September moral in 1945
stensson21 May 2002
It starts all right. The grey-tone scale in the prison camp is well photographed and you think you are watching a rather exciting war drama. But that's only what you think. It tends to be Sunday School drama with that kind of morality included and lots and lots of empty words about honour, sacrifices and so on. bin Ladin has really done lots of damage.

Bruce Willis is OK as the American colonel; he is an underestimated actor. But Colin Farrell's puppy-like looks are not even a parody on themselves, they are only tiresome. And Marcel Iures' German colonel is the same character we have seen in too many films, starting in 1945 probably.

You ought to miss this one!
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Started out promising but ended up terrible
robertjmr7222 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the most disappointing movies I have ever seen, the reason I say this is because it started out really awesome and then slowly turned into a terrible movie that is totally forgettable. I would say that the movie is actually really good up to the point when the African-American prisoners are brought into the prisoner of war camp and then what started out as a really interesting movie about the conditions of POW's in WWII turns into some kind of misguided statement about racism. In the end, I couldn't really understand what kind of statement or message this movie was trying to make. On the one hand it seemed to be about the inequality of US soldiers during WWII but on the other hand that whole thing was just a cover-up for some clandestine sabotage operation. The ending was completely unbelievable but by that point I didn't care because I wanted to watch a "War" movie not a courtroom drama about racism that was just a sideshow to hide an operation that no one, watching the movie, knows about until the very end(and it wasn't one of those "wow, what a cool endings" either, it was just a "WTF just happened?" ending that was stupid. I seriously doubt that this movie was an accurate portrayal of how POW's, even of different races, would treat one another.

Conclusion, to make a long post even longer ;), This movie starts out really good and you think you are about to see a really awesome WWII movie but instead you have been tricked and what you end up with is a boring courtroom drama that in then in is completely meaningless because it was just a cover-up for some larger goal, and top off the stupidity the unarmed Bruce Willis character walks unopposed back into the prison camp, through the front gate...seriously, and basically let's himself get killed. This movie makes me mad because from the beginning you can tell this thing had potential and then someone, I guess the writers and director just quit caring about making sense and just told a complete fiction and nothing even remotely close to a good fictional WWII movie like "Inglorious Basterds".
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not what I expected.....
arosedec25 February 2002
Warning: Spoilers
After seeing the trailers and commercials, this was not the film I expected it to be. I expected a "Bruce Willis kicks Nazi butt: film, and that is not what this is. I'm not going to add any spoilers to this review, but Collin Farrell's performance isn't that bad. Willis' character was played in what has become his commonplace style as of late, but it worked. And Marcel Iures was a devilish but almost likeable Col. Werner Visser. This film is more about internal conflict within the US Army than it is about conflict with the Nazi's.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
just so stupid
k_bruzelius20 December 2002
Would the Germans really let the prisoners have a trial?

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

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

/Greetings Bruze (and Peter)
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
spencerdouglass326 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I thought this movie was rubbish. It was very disappointing to watch a film for which there were good reviews and find out that it was very poor indeed. Why did I dislike it so much? Well, the main story is fine, a sort of racial discrimination version of 'A Few Good Men', and the background military story (which is supposed to be the covered up main story) is alright too. However, the entire plot is completely unrealistic and the story far too contrived. The story is set in a German POW camp, presumably not a very comfortable place to live, yet the Americans happily stroll around the camp smoking cigarettes, playing American football and insulting their German captors freely. There is no sign of any hardship or suffering, no one gets ill in the freezing cold weather and the German captors are extremely friendly and accomodating. So when Colonel McNamarra (who seems to hold more power than the Germans) suggests a trial when one of the soldiers is killed and a black man suspected, the German colonel immediately agrees and gives them a building to use for it. Most of the film then revolves around the racially biased trial of the black lieutenant. This strikes me as a completely contrived and nonsensical backdrop to the war, as one would assume that the soldiers would be focussed on escaping, fighting back against the Germans or something else useful rather than discriminating against each other. In addition in a real situation, they would probably be under too much strain and discrimination from the Germans to worry about creating more problems of their own. Finally when the trial is revealed to be a farce even within the film you are once again reminded of Hollywood's desperate need nowadays to try and make their films more interesting or seem deeper than they are. The final scene when Bruce Willis exchanges his life for his men's and the German colonel bears his loss with a wry grin and a joke or two, stretches the boundaries of disbelief. Without even a drop of imagination, it must seem obvious that the German colonel would be furious and undoubtedly kill all the men involved, and should the great colonel McNamarra turn up to be shot with his men at the last minute this would merely be icing on the cake.

A completely ridiculous film, unrealistic and poorly thought out. Don't watch it.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
could you be any more inaccurate?
jschafbuch22 April 2003
I like Colin Farrell and I like Bruce Willis, but they know nothing about history when they read this script. The very idea that a company commander could choose where prisioners go in 1944 is just stupid. The germans are desperately loosing the war and the commander wants to do a trial? If this had been somewhat more real, the Germans would have been much more brutal. I can go on and on, but this is an awful movie.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
mm-3916 February 2002
This film is so sappy I gave it a 3. It has all the cliches, I have seen before. Bruce Wills as the hard hearted leader who did it all for his men, the air man who just wants to make a difference, the officer who tries to make up for past mistakes, and the evil German commander. This film is so sappy; it is time to get out the crying towel. Everyone wants to sacrifice themselves. The lead character is too preachy, and righteous, and I find the reason for this is too hide the lack of story. I left the theater and found no real point in the movie, it did not rap up into a big conclusion. Moreover, the court scene and the talking with his client was over kill. When we finally find out the plot twist, the movie dragged what should have been 15 minutes into an hour and an half.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
IcePirat18 February 2002
This flick was underwhelming and totally average. There were just too many plot points that were brought up and abandoned. e.g. Senator's son, both went to Yale, Hart's lie, etc. The German Colonel was almost the most sympathetic character. None of the characters were very well developed at all. I think this film was either edited poorly, or written without a cohesive point. If it did have a point, I didn't get it. This movie was worth the money I paid to see it, but not worth the time it took. If that makes any sense. It was also really damn slow.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Prison camp flick Hollywoodized for your enjoyment
=G=13 July 2002
"Hart's War" is a stalag flick which tells of events among the American soldiers suffering hardship in a WWII prison camp. The film scores points for good art, technicals, and performances. However, it trades reality for drama and spins a somewhat convoluted story about racism, murder, and smoldering secrets inside the compound which it finds difficult to sort out and ultimately fizzles in the end. "HW" is solid Hollywood style entertainment which should be a pleasing watch for those into WWII POW dramas. B-
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed