Stalin (1992)

Truth

A true characterization of a truly pathetic individual. Historically, Stalin & Hitler were no more than two lost souls, losers in every way, that found a home in subjective, reactive rhetorical organizations.

Stalin used his power to turn his delusions into reality, and untold
horrors for the Russian people. This movie accurately portrays the
beast and his place in history. May 29, 2008

History or Hollywood? STALIN delivers an excellent balance

I agree with Leaming. Any time Hollywood depicts history, there are going to be issues of inaccuracy, artistic license, etc. In the case of the film STALIN, this is mostly due to the need to compress about thirty years into less than three hours. The portrayals of the primary characters are sometimes simplistic and inaccurate, but Bukharin and Kirov's characters (for example) are portrayed so as to accentuate the perception of Stalin as a monster (which is accurate). In other words, the truth is adapted somewhat to generate a dramatic foil. Films are never a substitute for reading the real history, but I find that they often whet an appetite when one did not previously exist. The mini-series PETER THE GREAT with Maximilian Schell in the title role is another great example of a film that generated popular interest in Tsarist Russia. SHOGUN, ROUGH RIDERS, LAST SAMURAI, GLADIATOR, GODS AND GENERALS, SHARPE'S RIFLES -- all are examples of films that prompted people to actually read history. So, take the films for what they are -- all in all, everyone who loves history should encourage this terrific trend in film-making! February 8, 2004

nevermind the "purist" reviews - this is an excellent film

This film is historically excellent. What most reviewers seem hung up on are accents, make-up and costumes. Most comment that it is historically inaccurate but give nothing very specific. The film is a broad overview of the life of Stalin and could never include every element of his life. All the important stuff is there: the Revolution, the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin, Stalin's rise to power, The great famines, The Great Purges, WWII, etc. The film gives great insight into Stalin and the paranoia that he experienced and how that paranoia influenced the way he ruled over the Soviet Union. Sure, many of the other characters were somewhat glossed over, but the film is essentially about Stalin and what made him tick - not about the intricate backgrounds of other revolutionaries and supporters. If you don't come away from the film thinking what a bastard Stalin was, then you simply missed the point. The way that he treated his family, friends and so called counterrevolutionaries is illustrated correctly in this film.

The end of the film brings up a very important question that I think many previous reviewers had difficulty with. Fact: under Stalin the Soviet Union industrialized to levels never seen before. With industrialization, this could enable the USSR to compete in the world on par with the US. It would also lead to the development of a nuclear and hydrogen bomb, on par with the US. The film brings up the critical question of whether or not Stalin was necessary for the USSR. That is a powerful and thought provoking question that one carries away from this film. Any film that lingers and makes you think has merit.

The history channel put out a video on the parallels of Hitler and Stalin. As I was watching it I kept thinking, "Gee, everything in this documentary is in the film Stalin."

Is it a perfect film? No. Is it historically innaccurate to merit throwing it away? Absolutely not... Robert Duvall does an excellent and convincing job of portraying a monster. January 28, 2004

Good Characterization of Stalin, Bad History

In the past, apologists for Stalin (including many of his victims) said that Stalin was good, but he was surrounded by bad people. This film turns this on its head saying that Stalin was bad, but he was surrounded by good people. Both of these are wrong--the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution and the leaders of the USSR in the period following the revolution were all up to their necks in blood. Robert Duvall gives an excellent portrayal of Stalin, emphasizing that he, unlike his ranting partner in mass murder Hitler, was soft-spoken and basically uncharismatic. Duvall correctly does not use a "Russian" accented English because Stalin spoke Russian with a heavy Georgian accent. Having said this, the historical aspects of the film are very poor. First of all, Maximilian Schell's portrayal of Lenin is way off base. The Old Bolsheviks like Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Ordzhonikidze and Kirov are shown to be basically well-meaning people who got trapped in Stalin's web. This is untrue, they were all involved in mass terror, justifying it in the name of a "higher good". In Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago", he points out what a pathetic man Bukharin really was and how he so freely shed tears for the injustice committed to his person, and yet he had no pity on the millions of others who suffered. At the end of the film, Khruschev says that Stalin's crimes ("the millions" he liquidated) had to be accounted for, whereas,in reality, he himself took an active role in the Great Terror.
The film shows very little of what the effect of "Stalinism" was on the average Soviet citizen, with the exception of a scene where Stalin's wife confronts the effects of the mass famine in the Ukraine. The film does not really show the "cult of the personality". It would have been effective if the film had shown how, when Stalin would enter a hall full of people, the crowd would applaud for a very long time because everyone was afraid to be the first to stop clapping. Similarly, towards the end of the film, we see a physician nervously examining Stalin without any mention of the infamous "Doctors Plot" frame-up in which Jewish doctors were falsely accused of trying to murder top Soviet officials which would explain the physicians hesitancy in examing his famous patient.

In spite of the many faults of this film, I have still given it three stars rating because it is important for people to become aware of what this monster did to so many millions of innocent people and who was supported by millions of otherwise good people, both inside and outside the USSR. August 17, 2003

Problems abound

To all the reviewers who think Duvall captured the "real" Joseph Stalin, please run to a bookshelf and consult a non-fictional history of the man. The real Stalin does not appear in this sometimes facile, oftentimes inaccurate biography of the Russian dictator. Originally airing as an HBO TV movie, there are an abundance of errors in the script, as well as a host of other problems.

First, the make-up is amateurish and truly detracts from the viewing experience. Duvall's mustache is a clear paste-on job and in several scenes, the left side of the whiskers almost falls off his face. It's comical at times but ultimately becomes ludicrous in the extreme. His wig is also absurd and fake looking. While this might seem a minor criticism, the make up on the other chief characters is equally ridiculous and cheap. The costumes are also inaccurate in many instances. The color of Stalin's uniform at Yalta in 1944 was not yellow, the color of his uniform at Postsdam in 1945 was not blue!

The historical inaccuracies in the movie are continuous. The characteizations are facile, transparent and weak. Of course Stalin was evil incarnate and a paranoid schizophrenic, but the script doesn't bother to delve into the question of why this was so. There is little material about either of his two wives, or his children. All of that is glossed over. Another silly aspect are the abysmal accents that all of the actors

The only reason I give this a generous rating of 3 is because Duvall is a brilliant actor. Though horribly miscast (and made up to resemble more of a circus clown that Stalin), his acting abilities do shine through. But as far as accurate history goes, this movie is a complete joke. July 20, 2003

More reviews at Amazon.com ...