Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

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....

alain-bednar Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline.

GentleKnight1 I couldn't disagree more with the teenager that watched it for school. This was terrific acting of an episode in history that affects any resident of the world. Well acted by the leading characters, good explanation of the historical context of the situation, and a fascinating portrayal of the differing interests of the three nations involved. I was riveted to it. The stakes involved for each country were enormous beyond belief, and I appreciate that it wasn't trivialized by Hollywood by throwing in love interests, happy endings, and 'awesome' special effects. Rather, it's an editing and re-enactment of actual words, meetings, press releases, etc that nevertheless is very dramatic and straightforward. I have watched this show, and, in addition, the Band of Brothers mini-series, and Patton for a good understanding of the interrelationships, tribulations, and objectives of WW II at the leadership level, the military's level, and at the level of the guy in the trenches. It all makes sense when you put it all together, with each reinforcing the other.Old movies never die, they just fade away (apologies). Frankly, I don't buy many DVDs, but I will be looking for this one!Since I first wrote this in 2004, I have just discovered (May 2007) that it was released on DVD back in Feb. ! I'm anxiously awaiting delivery.

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.