I like Stone's films. I think that Stone's turn to cover Stalin is 65 year too late. If Stone had real guts-rather than recycling harmless pastiche into critical interventions [I.e. who killed JFK], he would have done a film about Stalin during the Cold War. Why Stone not done a film about Stalingrad, the siege of Leningrad? The Battle of Kursk? Call me a cynic but Stone needs Stalin now for the sake of controversy and nothing more. Stone is recycling very American discourse of pastiche rather original engagement with the history of WWII. Stone has never bothered to tell the carnage at the Eastern Front! He has chosen the minor events in Vietnam, instead. It is Platoon that is the reference point for the Americans not the battles of Stalingrad, Kursk, or the fall of Berlin. Thus, Mr. Stone has played a central role in the production of U.S centric view of war and peace and of history.

Sara, If you want to see a rather accurate portrayal of Stalin, and his Georgian sidekick, Beria, try to obtain the 1991 film called "The Inner Circle". It was filmed entirely in Russia, and much of it in the Kremlin. The movie is based on a true story of life in Stalinist Kremlin. I consider this film one of the most underrated and don't understand why it never came out in DVD. The film is available in VHS only and is hard to find, but well worth the effort to search for it. Stalin is an unusual individual. He was a paranoid psychopathic butcher of millions, and at the same time he stood up to Hitler and brought a devastated USSR into the nuclear age.

Kihnu thanks for the reference. I wonder if anybody has upload it on You Tube? There is a Russia site often go to, it has more than 1500 Russian/Soviet films. I will look if "The Inner Circle" has been uploaded into that site. What do you think of "the Grey Wolves"? I've watched on You Tube.

@ Sarah, If you want an example of an Oliver Stone film that deals with a very current controversial political leader, check out "South of the Border," it's about Hugo Chavez and also includes some other leftist South American leaders. Sure, Chavez is no Hitler, Stalin, or Bush, but to be fair, the U.S. media does tend to portray him as such.

Lou Thank you for the reference. But I may have missed my initial comment. I saw ads to Oliver Stone’s Hugo doc but that nothing but I saw John Pliger’s brilliant work about Hugo Chavez and has many docs about the U.S against democracy around the world. Oliver Stone is the product of Hollywood. He has never done anything that goes the scale which challenge the U.S viewers. Perhaps, this is the reasons he has not touched the most significant battles of the 20th centuries such as war on Stalingrad, the battle of Kursk, and siege of Leningrad. Neither Staley Kubrick nor Oliver Stone could touch the Eastern Front because it was the Cold War and Hollywood will allow the cinematic representations of the Eastern Front. 35 Million people dead in the East Front and but Hollywood has never ventured on full cinematic representations of the Eastern Front even though archives to the actual killing fields were and are easily obtainable in the Western media archives. Stone's Hugo Chavez does not bit. Americans have been killing weaker brown skinned people since the end of WWII and they have never won battles of the magnitude of Kursk, Stalingrad and they did not bring about the fall of Berlin [aerial bombing never wins a war]. And that is the real reason Stone was allowed to make Platoon but he could not think making a film about the battle for Stalingrad [Enemies at the Gates is a joke! I recently saw a great German film about Stalingrad]. I bought a copy but the film is also on You Tube. It is worth the watch. Then go back and see Hollywood's Enemies at the Gates and notice the difference.

Dear Sarah: Lou is correct, "The Inner Circle" is outstanding film in the the treatise of Stalin as a man and leader of the Soviet Union at the time, and a very well made film, since filmmakers did their homework on that time period.. Fortunately, I have copy in my VHS library. I compel you to re-visit your view on the war in Eastern Europe, Russia is, was, and will always be a land power. Given its history from Princess Catherine Great, to the present. Platoon is just that, a movie, don't base your view of history in Hollywood films, they make films to make money, the real history is left as an after-thought. You are correct, the battles of Kursk, Stalingrad, and Berlin were enormous struggles by battle-hardened, brave and detemined Russia troops on the Russian homeland, and millions died as result on both sides. I have read and studied the political and tactical aspects of each one. However, I cannot let the brutality and scale of the Pacific War against the Japanese Empire pass. Russia did not have a World Class NAVY to cope with an enemy as Japan on the scale of the PACIFIC OCEAN. The US NAVY did the job, over thousands of miles of open ocean and in the jungles of the South Pacific, against a well-trained, disciplined, dug-in determined enemy that gave no quarter, and willing to commit suicide to win, over one-fouth of earth's surface. The only major industrial power to take on Japan was The United States and WIN. Moreover, recall that much of the supplies and war material came from the United States to Murmansk via the Murmansk Express Convoys. Regards, Thomas