This message has been deleted.

Perhaps because they are not communists.

The females below 18 like it.

Perhaps because this might be the worst date movie ever? No idea really, some female ratings on great films baffles me.

Though this could be classified as beating a dead horse, Id like to make a contribution to the history department discussion.
This movie was based on research done by three Belorussian writers traveling in a run down car from one village to the next asking war survivors about their experiences. Though this obviously cant testify to how true to life some particular scenes were, especially the massacre scene (where a church, mind, is burned down, not a barn), I would like to believe, since Elem Klimov was known to have integrity and not one to bow down to his soviet masters (the script took 8 years to get approval), that he at least tried to accurately represent the psychology of war, both of its victims and culprits. And in fact his vision is not that black and white: if you pay attention you'll see a German soldier crying while shooting at the church, as you would notice a Belorussian Nazi, or one of the so-called glorified bunch being just as much a war criminal as the Germans to save his own skin (and I think there was some confusion as to him running around in his underwear, which was attributed to a lack of discipline on the side of the Germans). As to the aforementioned lack of discipline in the German army depicted, I personally think they pulled off genocide pretty efficiently in the movie, could hardly think of a better way to do it. Or is it that they should have neatly stood in battalions shouting heil hitler?
As to Nazis being depicted as villains in the movie, as opposed to other works where the enemy is more human, Id like to point out two of these works are from a WWI perspective, a trench war where everyone was equally screwed over in a war motivated by a decaying political system. In particular All quiet on the westen front is just the first in a series of books written by Remarque as an open question from his lost generation to the people who started the war and made all these young men cripples, and his views on the morality of war and those people is just as clear cut as come and see. In a way, its a manifest against the enemy within rather than around, which as far as I can tell is the same for the bridge, though I haven't seen it, but then why would it depict Americans as villains when they weren't? This also goes out to another argument saying there should have been another line about soviet soldiers equally killing other men. First of all, the Soviet Union lost 23 million people in the war, Nazi Germany 9. I think you'll agree theres a difference there. Secondly, where the allies did kill, they killed in at least a pretense of self defense (of their whole nations, not particular individuals) rather than for the purpose of "clearing out living space. With this in mind, I don't see how they could be made villains. Really, enlighten me, should the Belorussian partisans have stood by idly going Well you've killed all our loved ones, but were not going to do anything to you, after all, you're people too so as to be more humane? Or should they have been drinking vodka and swearing to be more believable? All and all, I think the whole argument comes down to confusing subject matters and thinking that if anti-war movie A I liked was like this, then anti-war movie B should be similar, and sorry, thats just not how life works.
On the matter of is the movie anti-war or propaganda, it's most likely a question of perspective more than not, but again, Elem Klimov pictured this as a sort of vision of the apocalypse meant to warn future generations, that sounds pretty anti-war to me. If it is propaganda though, it must be the only soviet propaganda movie I've ever even heard of with no mention of Lenin or Stalin. That in itself is admirable.
As to cheap effects used.. no. Choreographed bomb sequences (as in the woods) are by definition not cheap. And I'm not an expert on gun machines and the light effects they produce, but regardless of accuracy, pyrotechnics are not something to be taken lightly. And scenes of a village burning would obviously take considerable skill to compose and produce, since fire has that icky habit of spreading chaotically and such. That argument is simply invalid.

I'm a female, studied this film at uni and think it's one of the best ever made. The graphic post rape scene probably churns a lot of stomachs.
Its not just men who suffer in war you know.

because its not a chick flick

This message has been deleted.

WTF? I hate blockbusters, why do you think I was watching this movie in the first place?
I meant that I wasn't sure how to explain my feelings during the movie (or lack of). Some movies will connect with me, some won't. And this was one of the latter. It doesn't matter whether it was based on real life, I didn't feel anything at all during the movie. That doesn't mean I don't think war is terrible and I don't feel anything about the real events, just that, I didn't care for the movie. There's those movies where you think 'wow, that sucks for them' and then those movies where you feel total anger towards the people who did that to them and you totally sympathize with the characters. I didn't feel that way at all with this movie. I didn't get any messages or emotions it was trying to portray and therefore I didn't like it. The barn scene was the only scene in which I did feel those emotions.
I just blue myself.

///I'm not really sure how to explain it.///
Guess you are just overfed with a blockbusters.
Well, it's only the movie, but it's based on that what was
really
happened. Wake up, you're 19 and mature enough.
Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

Well, it was the only scene that had any 'feeling' in it. The rest of the movie left me cold (and bored). I'm not really sure how to explain it.
I just blue myself.

///Although, I did like the barn scene.///
Wasn't
boring
, you mean?
Good for you for your sincerity
Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

I'm 19 and female. I didn't like it because it was boring. I generally like war movies and I also generally like 'disturbing' movies. I didn't find it disturbing it all. It was just stupid. Although, I did like the barn scene.
But I should also note that my favourite genres are sci-fi and horror and that probably strips me of any credibility regarding movies such as these
I just blue myself.

because women tend to be a little less sociopathic than men.

I'm a woman and this is the finest war film I have ever seen. Well, I am Russian, and I have been brought up in reverent terror of WW2, but still, ladies, wake the hell up! Pearl Harbour is a lie made by the government to control you.
Pretty please, with a cherry on top, clean the beep car.

Basically shows how women are actually worse when it comes to war and war propaganda since they never are expected to do the heavy lifting, they just think war is icky and disregard it's reality. They probably loved Pearl Harbor though.
I am terrified of Palin winning as she would send this country to war in Iran in a heartbeat

Yeah, but no. The Nazis were pretty bad; they fully deserve to be reviled and vilified at every possible opportunity.
There were, I'm sure, many Nazis who just followed orders. There were also many others who took pleasure/were indifferent in the pain they caused. Both groups helped to commit some of the greatest atrocities ever seen in human history.
There's no amount of fanciful unicorn wishing or nationalistic pride that will whitewash that away.

Mac_Alain, at least you thought better than contesting the second part of my ugly tirade Well, I reciprocate by assuring you that there are many Russians today who admire the Nazi ideas or the ideas the Nazi drew from, myself having been under the spell a while.

Just another one of
verschiedenes
's inane comments. I can assure you,
mastholte
, that there are many Germans, myself included, who liked, if that's the correct word, this film.

strangely enough, Germany is the only country that has ever taken any real responsibility for the world wars
He, who started, has taken, what's strange about it? Or did you mean that, in this world, it's rather strange to get a square deal? In that case, I agree. Stranger still it would be if a German liked and defended this Soviet movie or - the strangest of all - really feel, at least for a second, what we, former Soviets, feel about this war, and what those, who suffered that very occupation, felt.

Does a movie have to be graphic and brutal to qualify as "good" or "the best"? Although this movie is definitely more graphic and brutal than "Schindler's List", the latter is still far superior. It is a better anti-war movie, because, although it clearly shows the Nazis as being wrong, it does not outright vilify Germans, and allows for some humanity even in Nazis.
Germans in "Come and See" are portrayed as a bunch of psychos. Nobody is arguing that many Soviets (among others) were killed. Entire villages, even. It was not, however, done by crazy guys in shorts, and other ridiculous characters, but by a well organized army who strictly adhered to orders. In my opinion, the reason why the German soldiers were portrayed as crazy idiots is to show that they WERE NOT robots (as people like to say when it suits their argument), but individual people who chose to commit these acts purely out of their own enjoyment, and not because they were blindly following orders. One more thing - maybe at the end, when they appeal to our emotions by saying how many villages including the villagers were burnt down, they should have worded it something like this "6xx villages, along with all women, children and men unable to bear arms, were burnt during WWII. All capable men, meanwhile, were out burning villages of their own, raping and killing women and children"
In my opinion, the best war movie ever made is "Die Bruecke" ("The Bridge"). Why? Because (spoiler alert?) there is no enemy to vilify, other than war itself. When the Americans finally make an appearance at the end of the movie, they are the furthest from an enemy one could imagine, and it is clearly shown how the main protagonists (German soldiers) become the victims of the ideas of war, and not the enemy himself.
Another great anti-war movie is "All Quiet on the Western Front", though the book is so much superior to the movie adaptation.
And yet another movie I would strongly recommend is "Joyeux Nol", which has a completely different angle, but makes some very strong points against war.
Strangely enough, all of the above are German (at least based on a partly auto-bigraphical novel by a German soldier and/or German co-operation); you'll have a hard time finding a German war movie that glorifies Germans and vilifies the enemy. Also strangely enough, Germany is the only country that has ever taken any real responsibility for the world wars, and still has a sense of national guilt, even though there were plenty of other nations who were at least as guilty in what happened as Germany.

Crap movie

I'm in that age group and I think Come and See is the best movie about WW2 ever made. Why? Because there is no Hollywood involvement. The movie is graphic, brutal and to the point. One of the reviewers was right-Come and See makes Schindler's List look like Sesame Street.

Sometimes logic eludes men, even in desperate times and there is no time more desperate than war. I would like to respond to your criticism towards the director and his "lack of knowledge" towards the subject he decided to depict.
Even thought German army and it's soldiers were role models of discipline, obedience and heroism which all came from their Prussian officer class, with the introduction of Nazi ideology those lost some of their edge due to their conflicting nature. It is no secret that the Wehrmacht discouraged their officers (and many of them were descendants of a long line of military men) from being active in politics. It is also no secret that there was an open dislike between the regular army (das Heer) and the military wing of the SS, the Waffen-SS, whose soldiers we see depicted in this movie. The Waffen-SS men were ideological soldiers and were expected to fight along side the regular army, on the front. They also, with some special units from the SS, conducted behind the front operations fighting against the partisans and enforcing racial laws. Even though they were disciplined their main motivation was their ideology, for which they were ready to die for. First divisions were made up of Germans but later in the war Waffen-SS expanded to become, first Germanic (volunteers from Norway, Denmark), European Waffen-SS (Dutch, Belgian, French, Muslims from the Balkans, Volksdeutschers, Ukrainians, Cossacks and even Russians). These troops were in no way true representation of the German Army but they filled the holes that were left by so many dead in the later stages of the war. In the movie we clearly see several Cossacks of which most notable is the man that carries two double-barrel shotguns and jumps from the barn tower after it has already been set on fire which earns him an applause from the troops. One unit that became the most infamous was the Dirlewanger brigade (later renamed to a division) which was run by an convicted rapist Oscar Dirlewanger and consisted of poachers, rapists, Russian POW-s and other convicts who wanted to earn a pardon by wearing a uniform. I say wearing a uniform because they did very little fighting and mostly did atrocities behind the front and when they were thrown into a real battle most of them fled.
I hope I managed in this short segment to show who were the men wearing the German uniform in this movie. They didnt care about the ammo, about the war, they were hedonists with an open tab in war time. They orchestrated their own orgy of violence and should not be identified with the members of the regular German army and even with some more respectable units of the Waffen-SS. They had a job to do, to kill, to purge, and means of doing so were left to them!