Micitype Pretty Good

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

jvdesuit1 This everlasting subject of the relations between the three major leaders in charge of defeating the Nazis and settling a lasting peace in the world benefits here of an original staging.All along the movie the director gives us the impression that a dialog was set between the three leaders, while in reality we know it was a dialog between deaf guys.Churchill knew from the beginning that Stalin was a liar, deceitful rascal, FDR was already too ill to oppose the cynical Stalin and had to sustain the eternal isolationism of the American people (we must really thank Japan for Pearl Harbor because otherwise Europe would be one of the Nazi provinces), Stalin was in Russia murdering his opponents, fighting against Germany and would have probably concluded a separate peace treaty with the Nazis if Churchill and FDR had not fallen into the trap he presented them at Yalta.As far as the casting of the three head of states, the poorest choice was Bob Hoskins impersonating Churchill. He did not have the looks, he did not master the speech. Michael Caine makes a splendid impersonation of Stalin although his face is still far from the dictator's one. John Lithgow is a very credible FDR. As for Harry Hopkins there is no resemblance but this is not important in itself. Molotov aka Jan Tríska was not a bad choice.There are of course errors in the staging. Stalin used always an interpreter. I'm not even sure he could speak English.As for the historical facts they are accurate as you can't change such important events which shaped the world history and the fate of millions of people.The merit of the movie is it emphasizes the blindness of the USA President as regards USSR and the sinister cynicism with which poor Poland and many other eastern countries were treated and still are.Nothing has changed since, the USA are always the poorest international diplomats abroad because of their stubbornness to impose their language to the rest of the world forgetting that to understand a foreign country's culture and mentality it is mandatory to speak its language. We've seen the result in Irak, in Vietnam, in Egypt, in Lybia and in Afghanistan now. Force is not the sole solution, it generates humiliation and anger. That was the case with Germany which lead to WWII and the Nazis.Will the lesson be understood one day? I doubt, splendid isolationism which was before the attribute of England, is now anchored in the USA's people mentality whatever their leaders' declarations may be....

skallisjr Since this just appeared on DVD, I rented a copy and screened it with my wife. She said, "This was taken from a stage play, wasn't it?" Basically, it showed the interactions between FDR, Stalin, and Churchill. But the interactions were "conversational," even though from the screen display the three principals were often actually separated by thousands of miles. The background of battle/newsreel footage probably makes it confusing to younger viewers.The film conveys a lot of the undercurrents of the relationship between the three men, but it helps to have lived during the war years. It's entertaining for those who have an appreciation of the personalities involved, but it might be confusing for a viewer who's trying to gather historic data.

George Parker Dubbed "Then There Were Giants" on cable, this made-for-tv two part film spends three hours presenting a theatrical digest of the communication which ostensibly took place between FDR, Churchill, and Stalin during WWII. Against a backdrop of file footage and the various sets required for conferences (Teheran, Yalta, etc.), the trio of heads-of-state build complex relationships of diplomacy as they map out plans for D-Day, the UN, and more. Lithgow, Hoskins, and Caine turn in excellent performances in this sterling characterization of the men who occasioned some of the 20th centuries most momentous events. Great stuff for WWII history buffs.

sbox [Warning: Spoilers Ahead.]This very rarely seen gem is the brainchild of Hoskins, Caine, and other financial sources who thought it a good thing to present the political realities of World War II in the form of a close up drama. The result, if you are lucky enough to find this film is your own private play available in the comfort of your living room. It goes without saying that the cast is spectacular, or should I say the film was spectacularly cast.Hoskins delivers perhaps the best Churchill as I've ever seen. Audiences might recall that he also portrays another giant of contemporary history, Nikita Krushchev in Jean-Jacques Annaud's, "Enemy at the Gates." Likewise, Caine delivers a poignant and striking "Uncle Joe." As for Lithgow, I am amazed at how much he looks like F.D.R. in makeup, when in real life he looks nothing like Roosevelt. His performance is also excellent. My favorite scene involving Lithgow is when he is receiving very dire news from his allies and they wonder if the U.S.A. can provide just a little more aid per month. Lithgow interrupts the request and deadpans, "double it," invoking the limitless pocketbook of American resources.Normally, I abhor the use of films as educational tools for high school students. I will make an exception with this film. This is not an action packed, mindlessly scripted, Hollywood explosion fest. On the contrary, this is more akin to watching an Arthur Miller play, with the exception that the script in this one in non-fiction. I do not pretend that a high schooler will walk away from this epic with a complete knowledge of World War II. On the contrary, hopefully he or she will be left with more questions than answers. I do hope they realize that the Allied cause was a full partnership between the Big Three.This movie rates eight out of ten and should not be missed.