GamerTab That was an excellent one.

AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Aspen Orson There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

SimonJack When a very solid movie has been made on a true event, based on a book, or both, the Hollywoods of the world are hard pressed to repeat success with a remake. A rare few have been as successful when they copy an original hit movie. The vast majority either have failed outright or have had much less audience appeal. Yet, if one has a good story, or maybe a couple of good stories that you can change and mesh into a new tale of sorts, it's worth a try. That's what we have in this TV mini- series. "Colditz" was produced by Granada TV and aired on the BBC two nights in March 2005. The movie title is taken from the famed German POW camp for Allied escapee officers. The filming in the Czech Republic gave some reality to the period and the place. And, it has some similarities to real prisoners who had been imprisoned at Colditz. The most striking of these is the character of Willis, played exceptionally well by Laurence Fox. Ironically, the real person he portrayed, Michael Sinclair, was called the Red Fox by the Germans. They had distributed his picture throughout Germany. The red-headed British captain may have been the most expert escape artist in WW II. He escaped nine times, including twice from Colditz. In this movie, Willis is finally killed when a German soldier shoots him. This scene is depicted about as it happened to Sinclair. He jumped the fence and was running to the woods when he was shot. He was the only prisoner in the six years of the Colditz camp to be killed while escaping. But, this film otherwise has a major detraction from the story about Colditz Castle and the escape attempts. The first film about Colditz was in 1955. It had to condense much and the filmmakers made some changes, but it told the story as written by one of the first Colditz escapees, Patrick R. Reid.Another American movie was made in 1971; and in 1972-74, the BBC ran a series with 28 episodes. Reid advised and worked on that series, and had written a follow-up book with more details. Now, jump forward 30 years, and someone at Granada TV thought this would be a good candidate for a remake. But, it couldn't copy the original. In fact, it should have the gratuitous female for romance and then some. So, the writers came up with a new story that they hoped would have appeal to modern audiences. The two-installment mini series was the result. I don't know why they bothered to identify it with Colditz, except for the likely appeal from the name and real story. That was another way to draw people to the series. And, to be fair, it does show some realistic scenes about prisoners and escape attempts. But the story is much more about betrayal than it is about romance or escape from a POW camp. Those things surely are part of the story. But this more clearly is a story about a faithful girlfriend during wartime; a self-centered, rebellious and uncaring British soldier; and betrayal of another soldier, his girlfriend and his country by lustful persistence, lies, deceit murder and treason. So, for all of this, this rendition of "Colditz" is captivating and quite good. It has strong interest and entertainment appeal. I found myself wanting and looking forward to justice being done with the betrayer and lout. I've not used character names here to keep the intrigue in the story for anyone who hasn't yet seen the film but would like to watch it. And by all means, if you haven't yet seen the original 1955 film with John Mills and Eric Portman, by all means watch for it to air or look for it in stores. It's worth the purchase price to have the real story and film.

kluseba I enjoyed watching the two part television series about the Colditz Castle even though I have known better escape movies such as "Papillon" or "The Shawshank Redemption" and even though the melodramatic love and treachery stories were rather predictable and some historical details had not been taken into consideration. There were also some things that I would have liked to see further developed such as the escape at the beginning of the movie, the death of the electrician and the fate of Sawyer but these things are only details.I think that this movie got too many severe reviews on this side as the actors do some great efforts and the movie succeeds to keep the pace and attention quite high over more than three hours. I liked the fact that the plot spent some time on developing the different characters and the human conflicts which gave a philosophical and moral twist to the movie and treated topics such as desperation, drug abuse, treachery, bribery, love, dreams and freedom. The characters were authentic and diversified. The escape plans were mostly original and quite entertaining and it was good to see that an equal time was spent on the escape story and on the complex love story itself. That's why this movie was rather diversified and mixed action and drama passages with more romantic passages. I think that this dynamical mixture is one of the main factors that carried this good movie on.In the end, if you like historical movies about the world wars or complex escape stories, you might pretty much like this film even if it is not a highlight of the genre. You will though get a well done and very entertaining movie that will make you think and learn a lot about history and life.

benbrae76 Does anyone do any research for programmes any more? The holes in the production of "Colditz" were too numerous to mention, and the plot too ridiculous to contemplate.The history of Colditz must be so well documented that practically everyone must know that the first Brit to make a home run from the castle was Airey Neave, and he did not escape by way of disguising himself as an electrician and borrowing his three-wheeler. (Such an ingenious impersonation was tried, but the would be escapee was caught and photographed next to the unfortunate tradesman.) To be fair, the feature movie "The Colditz Story" was also at fault here, as it depicted Pat Reid as making the first Brit home run, but it's closing remarks did make an acknowledgement of Neave's achievement.In this latest effort little was made in capturing the flavour of situations and events (or hunger). Even a smattering of truth would have made all the difference, but then the silly love triangle turned the whole thing into a laughable fiasco. I have nothing against the inclusion of romance into such historical series, but here the facts were changed to fit the story. This should never be done but sadly it often is. As for the misguided depictions of mock executions, all surviving Colditz POWs (and indeed guards) seeing this, must be shaking their heads in utter disbelief.The closing credits included a statement that the production was based in part on recent documentaries. I suggest the producers etc. should study them a little closer and talk to survivors, instead of resorting to uninspired artistic licence. I also suggest they should read the many books and websites on the subject. It's not difficult to find the truth if the time is taken to look for ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airey_Neavehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colditz_Castle

malcolmgsw I have to disagree strongly with other reviewers.I have had the opportunity of visiting Colditz and talking to inmates of the prison.I have to say that if there was any authenticity in this feeble effort it was more by accident than design.For example when the prisoners are greeted at the camp by the security officer they are told that they will be shot if they try to escape.This is palpably incorrect.The treatment of prisoners was governed by the Geneva convention and this did not permit such a punishment.Prisoners could be shot if they were caught in the act of escaping and refused to surrender.This unfortunately did happen.As for the love story was this written by the ghost of Barbara Cartland.The dialogue was dated 40 years ago.I resent the fact that the exploits of some very brave men were cheapened by this feeble effort.Thankfully It will now sink without a trace so that we still have the evocative feature film to refer back to.