Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The Cross of Lorraine has many virtues - but also some serious flaws.It is gripping and involving, and has excellent performances and characterisations. Gene Kelly's excellent performance gives the lie to the claims by most of the leading film critics (eg. Leslie Halliwell, David Quinlan) that he couldn't really act (Halliwell said that his acting ability was 'minimal', whilst Quinlan said that he 'never convinced' as an actor). Had they forgotten his terrific performance here? As another reviewer has also said, the half-forgotten German character actor Tonio Selwart is also very good as the German commandant, as is Jean-Pierre Aumont as the hero.The film is also very well directed, for the most part, and has many good scenes.However, there are some disturbing aspects, partly due to the presence as co-scriptwriter of Ring Lardner Jr. Lardner was a member of the American Communist Party, despite the fact that Communism had been responsible for millions of deaths in Russia in the 1920s and 1930s. His sympathies can be seen in the film in a number of ways. The traitor, Duval, played by Hume Cronyn, is shown as a capitalist wine merchant who puts business above loyalty. The traitor could have been given any occupation at all by the scriptwriters (French collaborators were from all sorts of occupations in real life) but Lardner had to make a heavy-handed swipe at capitalism.Similarly, the Spanish republican, Rodriguez (Joseph Calleia), is shown as as a heroic figure even though this charming character's aim in life is to kill as many fascists as possible. His positive portrayal is despite the fact that Spanish republicans were responsible for the murder of thousands of priests, nuns, middle class figures and other 'enemies of the state' in republican-controlled areas of Spain in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39).There is also another uncomfortable aspect to the film, due presumably to a combination of script and direction. The film positively revels in the slaughter of German soldiers in the climatic battle - even though in actual fact those particular Germans hadn't killed anyone in the village at the point when the insurrection starts. The film gleefully shows German soldiers being burnt alive, bludgeoned to death, and so on, seeming to take pride in allocating them grisly deaths.So, although this is a high quality film in most respects, it is also deeply flawed.

The POW movie is a genre that was at the height of it's popularity in the 1950/60's sometimes giving an amusing almost nostalgic gloss of the treatment of prisoners during WW2, therefore this movie (made in 1943) is an entertaining if somewhat historically dubious entry into the category.The movie opens just before France falls to the Germans in 1940, with a group of French soldiers rounded up and placed in a camp ran by the most sadastic Nazi's Hollywood conjure up, amongst them one of the 1940's favourite villain's Peter Lorre. The movie is gritty, the Nazi's gleefully watching the men tear each other apart over bread, shooting a Priest for praying or brutally kicking chained up men in the face. Seeing Gene Kelly's battered face, (effective and shocking make-up)what patriotic, moral human wouldn't want to spit a huge, gob of saliva in a Nazi's face or cheer when the hero stabs a Nazi in the throat. In fact some of the scenes were so shocking when the film was first shown, audiences walked out as the gore was just too much. Yet the movie was never charged with exaggeration as it was based on "A Thousand Shall Fall" by Hans Habe, himself a refugee from the Nazis.In reality, POW conditions of Western prisoners while not a holiday were tolerable, one character even shouts "this is not a concentration camp I have rights" but it is not in the interest of the producers to dwell on this or the Geneva Convention. The movie stirs patriotism from the minute La Marseillaise booms over the credits. Gene Kelly is effective, as a hot headed Frenchmen that refuses to bend to the rules. Hume Cronyn is suitably sleazy as a treacherous POW only wanting to serve his own interests while lead Aumont only serves as the moral voice of the story, his transgression from idealistic law student to a daring member of the Resistance not that realistic. Underused as always is Peter Lorre, who in the first few scenes is typically evil but latterly has a couple of the very few lighter moments as he smuggles contraband across the French border, making his character a little less two dimensional and it's a pity he wasn't used in more scenes.

This movie is an oracle of french Independence before it one year by the symbol of liberty (Charles Degaulle) in 1944 with American aim in the beginning of (Normandy operation) but he decided to make the liberty of Paris by french resistance without any aim from foreign countries to put the french trademark in the eternal pages of history by his speeches that he announced his invitation for french people (men , women , students) to take their arms for liberty and free France under his administration of pending government of (Free France) and the symbol of (Cross Lorraine) the saint cross of (Joan of Arc) the holy spirit of victory in 15th century against English occupation at France but he quoted this symbol by the spirit of 20th century and he did it for France and his famous shout after victory and during the vectorial ceremony (Vive La France).

I read some reviews on IMDb that I felt were a bit too harsh for this film, calling it "propaganda" or complaining about how the Germans were all portrayed as evil. And my answer to that is of course it's propaganda and one-sided--plus, they were Nazis (and that IS bad if you paid any attention in your history classes). You need to understand the context---it was made during the war and was intended not as a perfect representation of the Nazis and the Free French movement but as way to bolster support for the war effort at home. In that respect, the film was a tremendous success and stands as one of the better wartime propaganda films made by the Americans. I respect the film for its ability to touch the viewer--ever today when it's easy to laugh at the jingoistic style of the film since the Nazis seem like a distant memory.The film begins with the war in France in 1940. When a group of soldiers surrendered after the traitorous French government made peace with the Nazis, instead of being returned home they were sent to a German prison camp and starved and beaten in attempt to break their spirits. The Nazis were all the usual stereotypical bad guys you'd expect, though it was interesting to see the German actor Peter Lorre actually playing a Nazi. Despite his background, during the war he often played French or other non-German characters--this is a rare chance to see him play a German in an American film.To me, the most interesting characters weren't the Germans or even most of the French prisoners, but the collaborators who actually worked for the Nazis and thrived. Hume Cronyn played a juicy role as a Frenchman only too happy to side with his captors and betray his people. His character was very chilling, but true to this style of film, he got his ultimate reward for his treachery (sort of like way Peter Graves in STALAG 17). Jean-Pierre Aumont, another collaborator, is another story. While he reluctantly worked with the Germans to save his skin, he could not live with himself unless he continued to resist and fight them covertly--setting up an exciting escape towards the end of the film.The film ends on a very bloody and exciting note. In fact, now that I think about it, for a Hollywood film of the 1940s, it was an exceptionally bloody and violent film--though considering the subject matter, this WAS necessary. One particularly brutal scene that actually shocked me and my wife was when Aumont stabbed a German in the throat and it was done realistically and in a close-up shot! The bottom line is that most people viewing this film probably left the theater angry and wanting to kick Nazi butt--a good sign that the film achieved its goal. In fact, the film was so patriotic and uplifting that Aumont himself left the safety of the US after finishing this film and he joined the Free French himself and earning a lot of respect for his heroism.