Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

LeonLouisRicci This Obvious Whitewash of Russia for Propaganda Purpose Picture was basically Commissioned by FDR. He wanted Warner Brothers to Film Ambassador Joseph E. Davies Book to Brain-Blast Americans to Lighten Up on Russia because We Needed Them in the Fight Against Fascism.America had to View Them as an "Enemy of Our Enemy" and Ignore Stalin's Atrocities, at Least for Now.To Say that Director Michael Curtiz and Screenwriter Harold Koch Delivered is to Say that They Delivered a Movie so Over the Top and Sensational is to Understate the Overstatement.The Film Ended Up being so Fawning and Fatuous that its Original Intent was Overshadowed by its Inability to See just how Ridiculous the whole Thing turned out.Nonetheless it was Released and for the Uninformed, Unaware, and Uneducated Folks of America it might have Convinced a Few that an Alliance with a Brutal Dictator was Necessary and would Save Countless American Lives by the End of the War.After the War, the Overreaction to the Soviets was just as Bad as this Overreaction during the War. It Resulted in the McCarthy Witch Hunts and a Cold War with the Soviets that Lasted a Very Long Time, and an Arms Race that Proliferated the World with Thousands of Nuclear Warheads on Both Sides.This Movie, in Retrospect, really wasn't Needed in 1943 and Making it and Releasing it was a Mistake with the Benefit of Hindsight.But, it is Worth a Watch for it was Made and it was Released during a Time when the Politicians of America and the Movie Makers of America were not Thinking Straight and is a Good Example of the "Fog of War".President Roosevelt, Warner Brothers, and Yes, Ambassador Davies should be Forgiven, because Their Intentions were Pro-American and Not Pro-Soviet, although when Viewed Today it Seems that way.

middsgo-956-41818 I just don't see the value of the rantings about the misrepresentations of fact that may or may not occur in this movie. It is unquestionably a piece of propaganda of questionable quality and believability. There are parts that are comical if you have any sense of history. It is said that Soviet audiences themselves found it laughable, although one reviewer here of apparent Slavic origin seemed to like it. But whether you detest the use of propaganda or see it as a fact of life doesn't seem really relevant in rating the film. Not much to go on about, there either.I don't see artistic value in it worthy of discussion.I'm just curious as to why propaganda was thought necessary in 1942-43 (presumably it took some time to make the film - when was it conceived/begun?) by which time the U.S. was fully engaged in the war effort. Or has our overload of films from both the time of the film and since, which focus purely on WWII heroics, been a bit inaccurate? In the movie "The Best Years of Our Lives" there is one scene where a citizen criticizes the U.S. involvement in the war in the face of some returned veterans. Dana Andrews loses his cool and assaults the man for showing disrespect. Has our view of history glossed over the number of people who were not so supportive of the war effort, either as pacifists or isolationists? I don't know the answer, but if it was actually significant, that might explain the perceived need for this film. Or, were there really significant anti-Soviet rumblings in the U.S. populace at the time? Or was the influence of certain right wing politicians on public opinion feared? It is known that U.S. veterans who fought beside Russians spoke of the latter's bravery, loyalty, and moral quality, but this would have been mostly after-the-fact, so not pertinent to the possible notion that this propaganda was necessary to back the war effort at the time it was produced and released. If the film, as propaganda, bombed at the box office, why was that? There could be a number of reasons. For me, this is the one interesting thing that came out of watching the film.

DarthVoorhees Joseph Stalin certainly wasn't a builder for the betterment of mankind, the millions he sent to the gulag are a testament to that. 'Mission to Moscow' is a terrible film, but not because it tries to glamorize Joseph Stalin. If someone wanted to make a film canonizing Stalin I'd say all the power to him. Art is a concept deeper than political ideology. I'd have no problem giving a good review to a film that thought highly of Stalin, the problem is 'Mission to Moscow' isn't a good film.The problem with 'Mission to Moscow' is that it assumes it's audience is incredibly stupid. One general rule about propaganda is that the audience should be able to suspend their preconceptions to be subjected to it's message. You know while watching 'Mission to Moscow' that you are watching a propaganda piece. Compare that to say 'Saving Private Ryan' which is a very good film, but has a blatant fetish for the military. Or if we wanted to stay in the realm of the Soviet Union any of Sergei Eisenstein's films. Even a film critic that believes Communism is a philosophical evil will say that "October" or "Battleship Potemkin" are great cinematic achievements. 'Mission to Moscow' goes for cheap emotional triggers. The performances are so over the top and tongue in cheek to have any credibility to them whatsoever. The fourth wall is consistently broken. Walter Huston who was by all accounts a very capable actor is terrible in this picture, but then again what could he have done with this terrible script? Americans are more susceptible to images than they are to anything else. If 'Mission to Moscow' wanted to truly glamorize the Soviets it wouldn't have Huston narrate everything. Images are more powerful than words with propaganda.And if we want to talk about negative propaganda, why don't we talk about how the film portrays FDR? Franklin Roosevelt has an almost Stalinist Cult of Personality in this film. We aren't even allowed to see his face. The only thing Stalin and Joseph Davies can agree about America is that it has "a great President". If you learn one thing from the terrors of Stalinist Cult of Personality in Russia learn this, no man or political ideology is God like.

Robert J. Maxwell Winston Churchill, on military deception during World War II, is said to have remarked, "The truth must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." This movie demonstrates that the reverse can also be true.President Roosevelt in 1937 sends Ambassador Davies (Walter Huston) and his family on a mission to Europe to find out if war is inevitable. The merry group arrive in Hamburg where they are treated with condescension by the Nazi government. Then a much longer period in Soviet Russia where Davies views with amazement the industrial progress and the esprit of the ordinary Russian citizens. He investigates the situation in England, Austria, and, well, all over the place -- and at taxpayer expense. Never mind war. I want to know if he took his family skiing at Gstaad on our dime! Is the movie sympathetic to the Soviet Union? You bet. When this movie was released in 1943 Russia was getting a pounding from Germany and the Brits were struggling the Balkans and with Rommel in North Africa, with American aid. The Russians needed us and we needed them in order to keep Hitler fighting a war on two fronts.This was one of several propagandistic flag-wavers from the war years, condemning Germany and Japan, making light of Italy, and lauding our allies overseas, of which the Soviet Union was one of the principles. What irony that five years after this release, those involved in the production, or any production like it, were suspected of being comsymps and sometimes punished for it.The history we see is risible, though. Let me just recount one or two queer twists in the presentation.You know the Stalinist purges of the late 1930s? The ones in which Uncle Joe Stalin had most of his high-ranking generals and politicians arrested and either kicked out, sent off to Siberia, or executed? The purges that consolidated Stalin's power and left him almost helpless when the Germans invaded? Well, apparently, that wasn't Stalin's idea at all. In this movie, Stalin, is frank, sensible, and a little like an uncle you're fond of. The purge, it seems, was the result of a plot to depose the Soviet government and help Hitler conquer Europe. The plot was hatched by Leon Trotsky and a bunch of treacherous commies. (The word communism is never mentioned.) Stalin didn't want to rid himself of possible rivals but after all he couldn't let Germany take over Russia. Trotsky, by the way, having been driven out of Russia by Uncle Joe, was living in Mexico at the time and was soon to be dispatched by a botched lobotomy performed with an ice ax. It's unclear who sent the assassin.At the trials, the suspects confess freely to all kind of shenanigans. Q: "And you admit that no pressure of any kind has been brought to make you confess?" A: "None." Here's another interesting quote: "Russia has no aggressive intentions but is ready for anything that comes." (No mention of a Soviet occupation of half of Poland.) After the Japanese demolish Shanghai some Chinese children are brought to Moscow and treated in a hospital. Huston asks a Chinese diplomat why these children were brought to Russia. "Because Russia is our friend, Mr. Davies." The film seriously suggests that the appeasement at Munich was deliberate on the part of England, meant to encourage war between Germany and Russia, so that when the two nations had fought themselves to exhaustion, Britain could step in as savior and take over.All of these propositions ring with irony today, but they're all handed to us with the utmost sincerity. The pace never flags as Ambassador Davies, his wife (Ann Harding) and daughter (Eleanor Parker) take this FREE TOUR of the Europe and Asia, gobbling down caviar, swilling champagne and oysters, dancing at fancy balls, gawking at the performance of the famous ballerina Galina Ulanova (Cyd Charisse!), clapping at parades, visiting museums, ice skating in Gorky Park, cozening up to celebrities, buying cameos in the little shops near Vatican City, chatting over fish and chips with the Beatles in Liverpool, catching some rays at Cap D'Antibe, smiling and waving at the home movie camera in front of Maxime's, shouting drunkenly at the dancers at the Folies Bergere, smoking dope everywhere they go, giving the finger to the beggars in Calcutta, and who knows what all -- and all of it on TAXPAYER MONEY! The story is propelled by Michael Curtiz's always zippy direction and editing. If there was a foreigner working at Warner Brothers in 1943, you'll find him listed among the cast here. Native nationality is of little consequence. Ethnic Russians are played by Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Greeks, Belgians, and Texans. And those are only the actors I was able to identify right away.It's a time capsule. The entire project is in fact so absurd that from time to time it elicits a smile or even a chuckle.