LouHomey From my favorite movies..

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

scottbirch-30953 The comic relief in the picture is pathetic. This isn't comedy, it isn't slapstick, its pathetic.

James Hitchcock At the beginning of this film the narrator, Sergeant Clarence Cook, states that although there are plenty of films about World War II you don't see many about the experiences of prisoners of war. This is certainly one of the earliest war films to deal with this subject, although not the very earliest. The earliest I can think of is the British-made "The Wooden Horse" from 1950; this was to be followed by the likes of "The Colditz Story", "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Danger Within", "The Great Escape" and "King Rat". Strangely enough, "Stalag 17" was made in 1952 but not released in that year, apparently because Paramount believed that audiences would not be interested in its subject-matter. They changed their minds the following year because the end of the Korean War and the subsequent release of American prisoners had focused public attention on the problems facing POWs.The action takes place during December 1944 in a German POW camp "somewhere along the Danube" and concentrates on the inmates of one particular hut in the camp, all of them sergeants in the U.S. Air Force. The film opens with two men from the hut attempting to escape through a tunnel, but when they emerge outside the barbed wire fence they are shot dead by the guards. (This is unusual but not impossible; German guards generally preferred to recapture escaping prisoners alive rather than shoot them, although there were exceptions). The inmates conclude (correctly) that one of their number must be an informer who is letting the Germans know about planned escape attempts. ("Danger Within" also had a plot involving an informer inside a POW camp).The most obvious suspect is J J Sefton, an enterprising would-be capitalist who has a knack for turning any situation to his own profit. (He is in many ways similar to King in "King Rat"). Although the other prisoners are happy to take advantage of Sefton's illicit alcohol and gambling rackets, he is not a popular figure, partly because of his cynical attitude- he regards escape attempts as foolish- and partly because he has no qualms about doing deals with the German guards for luxuries such as eggs, silk stockings and cigarettes. Of course, Sefton is so unpopular and such an obvious suspect that the audience will immediately realise that he must be innocent- indeed, much of the film is taken up with Sefton's efforts to clear his name by exposing the real traitor.When I reviewed "From Here to Eternity" I had not yet seen "Stalag 17", so said that I would reserve judgement on the justice of William Holden's Best Actor Oscar, an award which he won ahead of Burt Lancaster and Montgomery Clift. Holden, in fact, always felt that he did not deserve the award and, having now seen "Stalag 17", I am inclined to agree with him. Certainly, his performance here as Sefton is a good one, but I felt that both Lancaster and Clift were better.The film as a whole has the potential to be a very good one; it has an exciting plot, some well-observed characterisation and some well-written dialogue. Like some other reviewers, however, I feel that it suffers from the defect of too much inappropriate humour. It is, of course, quite possible to write a comedy set in a POW camp – the television series "Hogan's Heroes" was an example- but "Stalag 17" is not really intended as a comedy. It is, for the most part, a serious drama- it opens with two men being shot dead, and towards the end another character finds himself in danger of his life. Against this backdrop the antics of the German Feldwebel Johann Sebastian Schulz- clearly a frustrated comedian in civilian life- and of the American Sergeant Stanislas "Animal" Kuzawa- equally clearly a congenital idiot- seem rather out-of-place. "Animal", in particular, seems so mentally defective that I could not imagine why the U.S. Air Force ever accepted him in the first place, let alone promoted him to sergeant. I have heard it said that director Billy Wilder, himself a Jewish refugee from Nazism, found himself psychologically unable to deal with the subject of the war unless he leavened his seriousness with humour. That may be so, but I nevertheless feel that "Stalag 17" would have been a better film had it concentrated on its serious main plot rather than on its would-be humorous sub-plots. 6/10

Hitchcoc This is the first German prisoner of war movie I ever saw. While this is comedic at times, it is actually a serious drama (unlike an abomination like "Hogan's Heroes" which is loosely based on this film). The strength of this is the ensemble acting where we get to meet and enjoy the different prisoners. William Holden, because he is enterprising, becomes the focus of his own men when it seems that the Germans are getting information from inside the barracks. Because he seems to have the ear of the commandant, they are sure that he is he rat. It will be his job to find out who is really behind all this. Sometimes the dialogue is dated and the situations a bit hard to accept, but it is a good drama with a sort of mystery novel premise.

TheLittleSongbird Billy Wilder was a truly great director, whose best work was up there with the best films ever made (i.e. Sunset Boulevard) and even lesser films like The Emperor Waltz were still worth watching. Stalag 17 is not quite one of my favourites from Wilder but that doesn't stop it from being a classic.As always with Wilder's films, Stalag 17 visually is a very well-made film, and German PoW camp life is very effectively and accurately depicted as claustrophobic. It's beautifully photographed and atmospherically lit, still managing to look aesthetically pleasing while still making the claustrophobic setting as evocative as possible and never looking too flashy or static. As always, there is nothing really to fault Wilder's direction, his visual and writing always shines and he doesn't fail to make the story or characters interesting. Franz Waxman's score is another winner from him, stirring, luscious and haunting while always being appropriate to the film's mood and not being too syrupy.Stalag 17 has a very compelling story, with a good mix of the hilarious, the poignant and the foreboding, emotions are never forced, the pacing is both controlled and exciting, for me the comedy didn't get too much or too goofy and the suspense and tension reach nail-biting heights. The script superbly balances comedy, drama and even satire, what the film tried to be and do not once coming into question. The comedy, a lot of it deliciously dark, is genuinely funny and quite endearing, it may be too much or too goofy for some viewers (depending on whether the antics of Animal and Harry are to your tastes or not) but it appealed to me just fine, and Animal and Harry's antics were appropriately light-hearted and gave the film its heart. The drama doesn't fall into clichés and doesn't slow the film at all, also avoiding the mistake of some comedy-dramas seen of jarring with the comedy to the extent the film feels like two different ones. It's also very charming and poignant. The satire is sharp and biting without falling into attacking or bitterness, never does it feel like it's too much.The performances are spot-on from a top notch, and they are advantaged by the fact that the characters are interesting and their situation relatable without falling into stereotypes (even when more stylised that's even including the Germans). William Holden got a well-deserved Oscar for his powerful performance in a somewhat unsympathetic role, while Robert Strauss is funny and moving as Animal, the character that can be seen as the heart of the story, and Otto Preminger (in a surprise piece of casting, considering I know him better as a director) mesmerises as a particularly nasty character, looking like he was having a whale of a time. Harvey Lembeck, like Strauss, was part of the original Broadway run, and it's easy to see why in a fine performance that endears far more than it annoys. Sig Ruman gives a character that could have easily been a buffoonish caricature some welcome subtlety and genuine menace while clearly having a ball.Overall, another Billy Wilder classic. 10/10 Bethany Cox