Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Robert J. Maxwell I'd like to recommend this movie because it deals with a subject of such historic significance, but I found it confusing. It meanders all over the place, like the Seine. The Germans have been ordered to destroy the city, including its historical monuments, by an insane Adolf Hitler, if it is ever in danger of falling into Allied hands. That's clear enough, but then the waters turn turbid. The General in charge, Gert Frobe, is reluctant to follow the order for humanitarian reasons but will evidently do what he's told. He's held up by the French resistance, who gather their small arms and fire on German patrols. (They were a lot more organized than I'd realized.) A messenger is sent to the Americans to ask them to divert from their plans to destroy the German army and aid in the liberation of Paris. The request reaches General Bradley who agrees. The Free French Army enters Paris, followed by the Amis, and shortly the Germans are subdued and the city saved.For me, the most stirring moment is when two men activate the bells of Notre Dame. What a job. The huge old chimes weight tons and are covered with cobwebs and it takes a heap of huffing and puffing to get the clappers going but this is the liberation of Paris.It's one of those "spot-the-stars" movies, with more famous faces than you can count, and every other time one of them first appears on screen, the director, Rene Clement, moves the camera in for a close up in case you might miss the dimple in the middle of Kirk Douglas's chin. Well, maybe it's understandable since you've only got about 30 seconds to spot it. A central character would probably have helped to integrate these loosely linked tesserae.The sound is so terrible it distracts a viewer from the already fragmented story. The voices are all dubbed, of course, and only occasionally by their real-life owners, like Orson Welles and Tony Perkins (in a stereotypical and dispensable role). The gun shots sound as if they were lifted from an inexpensive Italian war movie. Loud incidental noises have been added to the sound track -- the crunching of boots on gravel, the clicks of a bolt action rifle. Maurice Jarre's score isn't bad, however closely it resembles some of his other works during this period.The visuals are okay. Some black-and-white news footage from the street fighting is integrated into the drama. But it's not a gripping film and not very innovative. If a man is shot, he twirls around and dies in conventional Hollywood fashion. Nice shots of some Parisian tourist spots though. We get a good look at Napolean's tomb.I'm glad that Paris wasn't destroyed. The greatest sandwich I ever had was at a nondescript café in the Gare du Nord. And it's good to see the Free French Army in combat in a movie like this. They may have been organized in exile but they did a splendid job alongside the rest of the Allies in Italy, particularly at Monte Cassino.

ChiefKickingAss The dubbing and miscasting of Kirk Douglas as Patton aside, this film is definitely the best of the WW2 flicks from the sixties. I have not seen The Longest Day and I remember The Bridge at Remagen as plodding and slow. I own The Dirty Dozen, The Great Escape, and Patton. These are great films, indeed. But, if you have seen just one of them you have, essentially, seen all three. The war movies from the sixties were all about the rugged tough guys wanting to stick it to some German commandant (except Patton)."Is Paris Burning?" is a documentary-style film that puts you right in the heart of the war in Europe. But, many things are missing, things like: the stoic RAF commander who sleeps around (The Battle of Britain), the US Navy airman who falls in love with a Japanese girl (Midway), or every guy in the film being referred to as "Mister" (any war movie from the sixties). In other words, Is Paris Burning? does not deviate for one second from its story. The flow is strong and the action is simply mind-blowing, especially for 1966. Moreover, as much as we have a reason to not like the French at the moment, they deserve their due honor and respect in history. Go ahead, call me a traitor and tar-and-feather me. The cinematography in Is Paris Burning? is daring and articulate. The cinematography is also reminiscent of The Passion of Joan of Arc (silent) and Schindler's List. I loved this film!!! It made we wish I was with the Resistance in Paris back then.

Robert Bouchet Don't waste your time. This is a movie about WWII from the French perspective so I wasn't completely shocked when it depicts the French as the sole liberators of Paris from "those damned Nazis". I was very disappointed in the portrayal of Americans as reluctant combatants that couldn't fight if not urged on by the French!SPOILERSSPOILERSAt one point, a French General wants to know why an underling hasn't cleaned himself up because "we have to look good liberating Paris!" Another great scene is when a fire team barges into an elderly Parisian woman's living room to fire down on some Germans. She calmly sits sipping tea while the firing is going on around her. Oh, those brave Parisians! The fire team leader then thanks the lady and orders his men to pick up their spent shell casings.As I said before, don't waste your time (unless your French and you like fairy tales)!

perfectbond Before I comment I should note that I haven't read the book nor am I that familiar with figures in the French Resistance. One thing that I did notice was that the portrayal of the Nazis in this film wasn't quite as stereotypical as in most World War II movies. Of course Hitler has to be a rug chewing psychotic but many of the other Germans were actually depicted quite humanly. Gert Frobe (Goldfinger) is very believeable even sympathetic as the General in charge of Paris. On another note the star casting works in the case of Welles (Nordling) and is pointless in the case of Kirk Douglas and Anthony Perkins. All in all a fair war picture, 6/10.