bellino-angelo2014 The movie is about a episode that happened in 1944. When France was still occupied by the Nazis, they decided to steal paintings from the Paris museums. This film is about a shipment that the French has to save before he ends to Germans, but they also don't want to be destroyed in the process.Burt Lancaster stars as a French train engineer that has to transport the shipment. At first is not a easy task, but he succeeds in the end. Meanwhile he becomes friend with a hotel owner played by French actress Jeanne Moreau (that passed away last year). And the other members of the cast are fine. Paul Scofield as a German general is great (and Scofield also starred in other great movies after this), and it was a treat seeing French comedian Michel Simon in a war movie (just like Bourvil in THE LONGEST DAY).This movie had great direction by John Frankenheimer, great performances by all the actors, and also great photography in Black and White. Although a bit dragged in some places, it was still great to watch! And as a fan of the history from 1850 until these days, I liked the movie for his accuracy and his action scenes.

James Hitchcock In August 1944, with Allied forces closing in on Paris, the German forces seize a number of art masterpieces from the Musee du Jeu de Paume and attempt to move them by train to Germany. The officer in charge of the operation, Colonel Franz von Waldheim, orders Paul Labiche, a French railway official, to arrange the shipment. Unknown to the Germans, Labiche is also a member of the Resistance, and Mademoiselle Villard, the curator of the Museum, asks him and his cell to delay the train until Paris has been liberated. At first Labiche is unwilling to help her as this will mean putting human lives at risk for the sake of what he considers "mere paintings", but later changes his mind after Papa Boule, an elderly engine driver, is executed for attempting his own private act of sabotage. (This story is, very loosely, based upon true events).It would appear that the film's original director, Arthur Penn, was sacked and replaced by John Frankenheimer at the behest of by its star Burt Lancaster, who wanted to turn it into more of an action movie, which he felt would do better at the box-office. (Lancaster and Frankenheimer had earlier worked together on "The Birdman of Alcatraz" and "Seven Days in May). As a result, the script was also rewritten. I would not generally approve of this sort of ego-driven string-pulling by movie stars, especially when a director as gifted as Penn is one of its victims, but have to admit that in this particular case it had some interesting consequences. Lancaster certainly got his action sequences, and some of them are spectacular. A train crash was staged using real trains, and an Allied air raid on a rail yard was filmed by blowing up a real rail yard. (The French railway authorities had long wanted to demolish it but had lacked the funds to do so before the film company did the job for them).In the film as originally conceived, Labiche was to have been an art lover, risking his life to save his country's artistic heritage. In the film as actually made he is not particularly interested in art and has never visited the museum to see the pictures which he is now trying to save. He is motivated by, at most, a patriotic view that the Germans should not be allowed to steal anything belonging to the French state. It is Waldheim who is the art lover. This does not mean that he is a "good German". In many ways, especially his cruelty and disregard for human life, he is a typical Nazi. In one respect, however, he is very untypical of the Nazis indeed. The looted art works are all by Impressionist or Post-Impressionist artists like Renoir, Monet, Van Gogh and Cezanne, whom the Nazis despised as degenerate. Waldheim does not despise these artists at all- he loves them with a passion. Although he tries to justify his operation to his superiors in terms of the financial value of the paintings, suggesting that the Germans might use them as a bargaining-chip in peace negotiations, it is clear that he is driven more by his private obsession than by any political or military considerations. His attitude becomes clear in his final arrogant speech to Labiche: "A painting means as much to you as a string of pearls to an ape..... The paintings are mine. They always will be. Beauty belongs to the man who can appreciate it".It seems odd that a film about art should have been made in black-and-white (something fast falling into disuse in the mid-sixties), but I think that Frankenheimer's choice was the right one. We only see the pictures themselves for short periods, and the gritty monochrome photography seems appropriate to the railway stations, marshalling yards, industrial premises and working-class neighbourhoods which form the backdrop to much of the film. One could almost describe it as a kitchen-sink action movie.We cannot know how Penn's projected film might have turned out, but Frankenheimer's is certainly a very good one. At its heart are two excellent performances from Lancaster as Labiche and Paul Scofield as Waldheim. The increase in the number of action sequences does not detract from the film's central moral question; can the preservation of a work of art, however, valuable, justify the loss of a single human life? (This is a question which has once again taken on relevance with the recent deliberate destruction by ISIS and other militant Islamic groups of artworks deemed offensive or un-Islamic). The film also raises a second question: can any moral value be ascribed to the appreciation of great art when a knowledgeable connoisseur like Waldheim can also be an amoral brute? These two questions are probably unanswerable- certainly no definitive answer could ever be given- but that does not mean we should not ask them. "The Train" is a rare example of a wartime adventure which combines action not just with kitchen-sink realism but also with philosophical depth. 8/10 An odd coincidence. I doubt if the use of the name "Waldheim" for the film's villain seemed in any way remarkable in 1964. After, however, subsequent revelations about the wartime career of Kurt Waldheim, the former UN Secretary-General and Austrian President, the scriptwriter seems to have been strangely prescient in choosing that particular surname.

michaeljayallen Of course this film wasn't very successful originally. It's a black and white European art film with an American budget. It's got long periods of silence, including toward the end. The black and white cinematography is consistently gorgeous, aided by the dramatic lighting. Steam at night? Are you kidding? No, the Nazis aren't clichés but believable. Jeanne Moreau is of course right there. Never a beauty really, and close to 40 here, but always perfect. Burt Lancaster never tries a Frenchy accent, although everyone else speaks English with a bit of German or French accent. At least he doesn't sound as old time New York City as his real accent probably was. It doesn't matter. He's great.The situation is that the war is about over and everyone knows it even if some of the Germans don't want to admit it. So the French heroism is even more heroic or maybe foolhardy than before, and the Germans are even more crazed than they might have been earlier. A perfect situation for existentialist drama.There are a few obvious melodramatic stating the obvious speeches, but given the period not many at all. The story is mostly made up, but the Nazi art theft and destruction is real. Nothing looks like a set. Everything seems real, if better lit than reality. The cinematography/lighting is as stunningly good as anywhere. Highly recommended.

sjmaione I agree that this movie is one of the greatest. One way to judge the quality of a movie is by how many number times one can watch it and still not be bored. After some movies I never want to see them again… ever. The Train, however, is one of those movies that I have watched many times over, and will again.However, the main reason I am writing this review is to mention that the DVD I have, like many new DVD's, has an option to play a talk-over by someone associated with the movie. Here John Frankenheimer has that role. I believe his work here is the best and finest talk-over job ever done for a movie DVD. His performance here should be held up as the finest example of this type of work. Anyone considering doing a DVD talk-over for a movie should listen to Frankenheimer here and replicate the approach. How many times have I turn on a DVD movie talk-over and then, after a few minutes, turned off the babbling nonsense that has nothing to do with the movie. Frankenheimer performance here matches the movie. He does not talk about anything else but the making of the movie and follows his comments with the action seen on the movie. I enjoy this immensely. You should, too