The three scenes mentioned, the dead bodies behind the barn. Glasha slowly walking with blood running down her legs and the barn scene. It was sickening.

The scene where Florya returns to his village and we see a quick glance of a pile of dead bodies. No scene in any movie has ever had such an impact on me. I had to pause the movie and just process what had happened for a minute.

Ha! Surprised nobody mentioned the half baked uncle lol

It lasts only for a second, but to me the most disturbing scene is when Florya and Glasha run towards the swamp, she turns her head, sees a pile of dead bodies and then a death knell sounds. I thought that was creepy as hell.

The entire church fire scene was horrifying, especially seeing all the different weapons that were used to kill or maim the civilians. I would think that with all the machine gun fire that was used by those Nazi soldiers, most of the people inside the church were already dead by the time the church was blowtorched. And all of the sounds during that scene, especially the bloodcurdling screams were just too much to take. I actually had difficulty sleeping the night I saw the film.

Beside the barn burning and the nazi soldier trowing the baby, the partisan sticking the finger in the ass of the poor slow loris of the captured nazi commander. Pet animals are completely innocents of what human owners do, and I can figure it had a sad ending

Everything everyone has mentioned and also the first foreshadowing of the horrors to come when Flor accidentally steps on some eggs on the ground, and looks back to see bugs crawling on the stomped feathers.

If it's any comfort, the woman who has been gang-raped isn't Glasha, although Florya momentarily imagines it's her. The victim is actually the woman who jumped out of the barn window with her child, only to be dragged off by the hair and thrown into the back of the Germans' truck (where, presumably, the assault took place).
I would probably have found Glasha seeing the villagers' bodies the most disturbing bit, were it not for the fact that I'd already seen it in Mark Cousins' documentary 'The Story of Film'. So I knew that bit was coming.
But the 'which bit was most disturbing?' game is a bit pointless. The entire film is disturbing - that's the point.

The girl towards the end with the blood coming down her legs was awful. This whole movie is full of disturbing scenes.

The guy being burned and left alive didn't help my disposition much. Not to mention the sight of Glasha who had obviously been gang raped.

But because the Germans in this movie are given such unique personalities, to me the movie is saying that the soldiers were not just robots following orders
you surely don't have a problem up to this point.
but that they were all crazy sub-humans who enjoyed making the poor innocent Soviets suffer by raping and burning them alive.
Thing is, while you've clearly explained yourself, I'm just not at all persuaded. Certainly this is what YOU see in the film. I never saw that when I watched it. Actually the personalities of the soldiers spoke, to me, of the fact that these were ordinary people NOT demons from the pit. One of them is crying when he obeys the order to open fire on civilians. How does that make him seem demonic?
My point is that this movie has a very biased point of view.
So? Why shouldn't it? Do you need a war movie to be objective journalism? Surely the only thing that needs to be objective journalism is something that claims to be objective journalism.
Indeed, find me a war film that isn't biased. And how does one depict hideous war-crimes without appearing to be biased? Isn't the very depiction of these things tantamount to bias since you cannot but have an extreme emotional response to them, and thus be pushed into a position on the matter?
But at the same time, at what point does this affect your political views? In this film? Never. Where is the pro-communism? Where, for that matter, is the anti-Nazism? Sure, we know Nazis when we see them - but what if we didn't? The only time an attack on Nazism as a political ideology takes place is in the scene where an SS officer ACCURATELY expounds his party's attitude toward communism/slavs. Even that is not there as a criticism of Nazism per se, but of human Evil.
The film was nearly called 'Kill Hitler', and it has been repeatedly stated that the title refers not just to Adolf Hitler the Chancellor of Germany but what Hitler represents - human malice and destruction. It argues, intensely, that we should kill Hitler wherever he is found - including within ourselves.
That could absolutely be construed as a critique of more than just Nazism. Note that the climax of the film has the boy attempting to glory in the deaths of the captured germans, burning them alive, but he is prevented from doing so - and then we see him shoot at the image of Adolf Hitler repeatedly as time reverses but he STOPS at the point where he sees Adolf Hitler as a child.
The film is clear in its imagery. It is saying - fight your enemy, but do not become your enemy.
This argument, coming from a Russian in 1985 that isn't an unambiguously pro-Stalin position. Quite the opposite.
Even Hollywood movies manage to get in a glimpse of the horrors done by American soldiers at times.
Pfah, yeah, but rarely and it's usually made broadly palatable for the audience by compromise - notice that in The Last Samurai much is made of the guilt of American soldiers for their crimes against the native peoples during the Indian Wars. One has to wonder why, if everybody was so against it, they ever managed to kill a single Indian civilian. You know?
I'm taking offense with not just how the movie is obviously biased, but with how some posters continually make hateful comments decrying how terrible the Germans were, while completely ignoring that this was not a one-sided war, and that attrocities were committed on all sides, so making such statements is only creating hatred.
Okay, thing is, your statement is ostensibly reasonable but your line of reasoning is taking you to unfortunate places.
For example - you are absolutely correct that this was not a one-sided war. But how on earth is that observation relevant? You can make it of practically any war. I would suggest that you are letting your own personal antipathy toward Stalin's Russia (and quite a sound and valid antipathy that is) interfere with your ability to view this film clearly. It is not pro-Stalin to be pro-Civilian when the Civilians are Soviet. It is not pro-Stalin to be anti-Nazi. I'm sure you do not watch American or British war films and have a problem with the fact that the crimes of both nations in that era are totally overlooked. Why would you?
Thing is, your issues with Stalinist Russia are entirely sensible - Churchill, you may remember, directly made a comparison between his alliance with Stalin and being allied with the Devil. What they are not is a valid basis for film-criticism.
Ultimately I'm afraid I have to say this - your comment that atrocities were committed on all side is quite alarming. It's absolutely correct, but I'm most used to hearing that phrase from Serbian nationalists who want to explain (accurately but with an overt agenda) that they were victims of war-crimes too in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Sure, it's true - but truth can be deployed for a variety of purposes, and it can also lead us to questionable places.
To give you an example. Kristalnacht was comm

combatreview's last comment was detailed and learned.
I'm british and have seen a lot of films. War, psycological horror included. I love history too. It's what we all are.
Well aware of how the victor writes the history.
I don't see this film as anti-german. It shows a period of history.
One could make the same kind of film about how the English, under Cromwell (to name but one period), raped and slaughtered the Irish. It wouldn't make the film anti-English, it would show that one particular aspect of history.
I'm well aware of how Stalin was unfortunately worse than Hitler, but as one of our allies, the fact he killed more people, including jews, is little remembered. "The Nazis are the worst people of history. It wasn't us! No one else could ever treat other human beings like that." There is bad in all men. The aim of society is to assuage that mentality. People born in the past, in what is now modern Germany, are no worse or better than any other humans. Same as people born in my home town just outside Manchester. We're all as good or as bad as each other. Conditions and situations prevail.
I felt this film was a reflection upon what happened at that time, in that place. To show the Soviet attrocities, in this film would not be accurate. They did not occur in that situation. Give it a year or two and in exactly the same place you'd see the Red Army committing the same crimes against the retreating Germans. And later when they entered Germany they took revenge against the German civilians. That's well documented too. However, this film is not about that. It's a film about a certain historical event. Fictional, but yet historical.

i watched this film about 3 years ago.
the bit i remember as being the worst for me was the burned up old man.

I agree "JOY DIVISION" is a good companion piece to "COME AND SEE" except that 1/3 of the film is set after WWII in the cold-war periodother than that I agree, the SS Division is swapped for a Red Army Division / the Beylorussian boy and girl are swapped for a Silesian boy and girl. The two films are very simillar and each very accurate to Beylorussia 1943 and Silesia 1945.

verschiedenes you make very interesting points. I recently rented the WW2 movie "Joy Division", on many levels it works as a good companion-piece to "Come and See", you and some of the contributors on this board should watch it if you have not already.

Explain to me how you could maintain the historical accuracy of the movie while also depicting soviet atrocities?

First of all, I'm not German. Yes, I have "German blood". I also have blood from other nationalities flowing in my veins, including some Russian, I am sure, as my ancestors spent considerable time in Russia.
I do not at all get upset when I see depictions of Germany's brutal past. Wait, you'll probably twist those words into saying that I enjoy depictions of Germany's burtal past and cheer for the offenders. There's no doubt that German soldiers, whether they were Nazis or not, committed attrocities. I've been saying this all along in previous posts. The problem I have with this movie is that it gives the German soliders unique personalities, while the non-Germans (Belorussians, Soviets, whatever) perfectly blend into the background. If the movie wanted to portray German soldiers as evil mindless raping, killing machines then I would just write this movie off, like I write off any Hollywood propaganda portraying their enemies as generic human-shaped demons. See almost any movie about the Vietnam war. But because the Germans in this movie are given such unique personalities, to me the movie is saying that the soldiers were not just robots following orders, but that they were all crazy sub-humans who enjoyed making the poor innocent Soviets suffer by raping and burning them alive. Now, I am sure that some did enjoy it. But that's not the point. My point is that this movie has a very biased point of view. Even Hollywood movies manage to get in a glimpse of the horrors done by American soldiers at times.
More importantly, again, if you'd read any of the previous posts, I'm taking offense with not just how the movie is obviously biased, but with how some posters continually make hateful comments decrying how terrible the Germans were, while completely ignoring that this was not a one-sided war, and that attrocities were committed on all sides, so making such statements is only creating hatred.

If you are primarily trying to bring the horrors of war to the screen, then showing one side as demons and the other as angels is not helping any anti-war sentiment. It is helping in creating hate towards one side.
Yes, it is a fact that German soldiers, not even just Nazis, killed innocent villagers. I've been saying this all along!! BUT to keep pointing this out, calling them sub-human, etc., also doesn't help anti-war sentiment, and fuels hate that some people still feel against the Germans. If this was a German movie about the Soviets invading Berlin, and all Germans were shown as innocent victims, while all the Soviets were portrayed not just as mindless, order-following soldiers, but as sadistic sub-humans who get enjoyement out of every second of pain and humiliation they can inflict on someone, while posters were commenting on what a great movie it is - the greatest anti-war movie ever - and how those Soviests did all those things a million times, enjoyed them, etc., you can be sure that I would be calling foul the same way.
You just won't find this sort of film. Instead you'll find novels like "All Quiet on the Western Front", that portray soldiers on all sides as scared and 'innocent' HUMAN victims of the war. And movies such as "Die Bruecke" (1959 - I haven't had a chance to see the 2008 version yet), which wonderfully illustrates the pointless waste of human life. It actually portrays the "enemy" (the Americans) as far more human and caring than the German officers.
Yes, "Schindler's List" is a completely different kind of movie. I don't know that I called it more "accurate" (will have to look back at my comment), but I do think that it is a more balanced movie, and also a much stronger anti-war movie.
What is my agenda, pray tell? I have not made any 'pro-German' statements, repeatedly acknowledged the horror of the actions committed by the Germans, and only pointed out the horror of the actions committed by others making strong anti-German statements. I guess I do have an agenda; I want people to stop being so ignorant and making hateful and biased comments, completely ignoring the other side of what happened.

I didn't see this at all as a pro-soviet anti-german movie?
If I were a Belorussian film director, I would not have been too concerned about presenting a "balanced" view. It is Nazi-Germany that marched into Russia, and not Russia into Nazi-Germany.
Primarily
, this is
a film that brings the horrors of war
to the screen, a fact that is being increasingly more recognised these days by the appearance of this masterpice in critics' best lists.
. . . but im pretty sure most Einsatzkommando troops (the german soldiers portrayed in this film) killed innocent villagers in the name of nazi germany. . .
No need to be just pretty sure, it's a fact.
. . . you've wasted a lot of time defending yourself in an argument that is really devoid of any point other than the underlying fact that you get upset when you see any depictions of germany's brutal past.
That appears to be the size of it making it appear that the poster verschiedenes has an "agenda". I have read a fair number of articles on this film, and have never come across anyone with the same take on it.
"Schindler's List", verschiedenes points out somewhere here, is a more "accurate" film, not recognising that it is completely different 'type' of film from "Come and See".
As an aside, I thought "
Der Untergang
" to be an excellent (10/10) film.

I think you're just overly defensive of your german blood. Too much pride.
It's blinded your judgement of this film - I didn't see this at all as a pro-soviet anti-german movie? I just saw the horror of war, through a fictional story that is applied within the historically accurate context of the German blitzkrieg through Soviet Russia. I saw belorussian peasants being forced by their older peers to defend their village against invaders. It's true, not all german soldiers were nazis, but im pretty sure most Einsatzkommando troops (the german soldiers portrayed in this film) killed innocent villagers in the name of nazi germany as part of the DEATH SQUADS that made up the Einsatzgruppen. If they didn't depict these german soldiers as violent murderers then it would be historically inaccurate and wouldn't rightly depict the severe violence of war would it?
Soviets killed alot of innocent people too, whatever, this movie isn't telling that storyWe're not idiots - we know about the gulags and Stalin and the millions of deaths he caused, preaching on and on about it to us on these forums just makes you look like a bit of a sour dick mate,, you're not telling us anything new. This movie isn't about which side was worse.Quite frankly I don't know how you could portray that side of the soviets in this film and still remain historically accurate, seeing as for the most part the BELORUSSIAN characters are mostly peasants from small villages that have little or no affiliation with soviet killing squads or NKVDSo you're really barking up the wrong tree herePlus you've wasted a lot of time defending yourself in an argument that is really devoid of any point other than the underlying fact that you get upset when you see any depictions of germany's brutal past. Get over it.

Please, enlighten me!
What is most certainly eluding me is how this is an anti-war film when in fact it disproportionally portrays one group people as "good" and another group of people (who have very distinct personalities, making them more than just a stereotyped figure) as "evil", even though both committed terrible acts during that time in history.

Having read your numerous posts here, verschiedenes, I have come to the conclusion that, apart from anything else, "Idi i Smotri" completely eludes you

No, I'm not a troll and I'm not sh.i.tt.ing you.
Have you seen the movie? Also, have you read through the message boards?
I admit that I could have gone a bit lighter on the sarcasm. But just in case you didn't read through the message posts, I'm having a bit of an issue with hannah_yacob's posts, which can only create more German hatred. Don't get me wrong - I'm not pro-German, but I am very strongly anti-anti-German in this case. If you've read my other posts you'll see that I've condemned Nazi-actions numerous times. On the other hand, it isn't right to make comment after comment claiming that everything shown in the movies is really true when it comes to what the Nazis did, especially when you are calling all German soldiers Nazis, which is false, while at the same time not admitting that the Soviets were not all that innocent as they are portrayed in the movie.
If you were offended by me saying that I thought the best part of the movie was the boy standing there with a silly ("sheepish" might have been a better word) smile on his face, then you got my intention all wrong. I find this movie to be extremely biased, and therefore not a very good anti-war movie. For me an anti-war movie has to show that EVERYONE loses, and that horrible things are committed against ALL sides. It has to allow for all sides to be human, and not for one side to be the innocent victims, and the other side to be subhuman monsters. Movies like that only create more hatred.
The boy having the big smile on his face, to me, had the most effect because you know that whatever he is expecting war to be, it won't. He is, in effect, a sheep being led to slaughter, and being led there willingly and with a (sheepish) smile on his face. Even though this stands in stark contrast to the "old" boy at the end of the movie, and makes a strong statement that there is nothing to look forward to in war, the Soviets are shown as innocent and only defending themselves, which is an outright lie and propaganda.

He's not a troll but a little skinhead with a suitable IQ and chronic incontinence of speech.
I'll start with the last part and work myself forward
You may have a point when you say I have "chronic incontinence of speech". My posts can be a bit lengthy, because I want to ensure that I am expressing myself clearly; English isn't my first language either.
Good word, by the way! I had to look up the meaning of "incontinence", though I guessed that it meant something along the lines of "unable to contain".
Regarding my IQ, I'm not sure what to respond. I would consider my IQ suitable in general, though I'm not sure what the average IQ of a skinhead is. Not knowing you personally, I also cannot make any comments relating to your IQ, though I will say that insulting someone else's IQ is hardly an indication of having a very high one oneself.
Now to the "skinhead" bit. I feel personally insulted, not only because I am happy to say that I have a full head of hair, but because I consider myself a very open-minded person. My friends have all kinds of skin tones, from white to black and everything in between. I believe that all people are part of the human race, and that no race is better than any other. There are good and bad things in every culture, and yes, there are some cultures I generally dislike, and others I generally prefer. My posts have never been insulting of individuals or peoples, or claiming that one is superior to another. Yes, I have made posts pointing out heinous acts that were, and are, being committed by non-Germans. But I have done this to call you out on your hypocritical statements that promote hatred. Never have I claimed that any of these are any excuse for what the Nazis did, and in fact condemned their actions.
Lastly, although I strongly disagreed with the anti-German statements you have made (being myself not pro-German, but anti-anti-German), I even complimented you, including on the way you responded in a reasonable way without personal insults. I'm afraid you have just shown yourself for what you truly are, and that any derogatory comments you make about any one (person or peoples), are meaningless, as you have no moral high ground whatsoever.
I do hope that one day you will be able to overcome the brainwashing you have been through, and become the true opposite of what you are accusing me of being.