
"Mission to Moscow" was made at the behest of F.D.R. in order to garner more support for the Soviet Union during WWII. It was from the book by Joseph E. Davies, former U.S. Ambassador To Russia. The movie covers the political machinations in Moscow just before the start of the war and presents Stalin's Russia in a very favorable light. So much so, that the movie was cited years later by the House Un-American Activities Commission and was largely responsible for the screenwrit... (Full plot summary below)
Enjoy FREE movies and series with your Prime (USA) subscription or when you start a 30-day free trial!
Links compiled using automated software. Availability of offers subject to change / might be region specific / out of date.
"Mission to Moscow" was made at the behest of F.D.R. in order to garner more support for the Soviet Union during WWII. It was from the book by Joseph E. Davies, former U.S. Ambassador To Russia. The movie covers the political machinations in Moscow just before the start of the war and presents Stalin's Russia in a very favorable light. So much so, that the movie was cited years later by the House Un-American Activities Commission and was largely responsible for the screenwriter, Howard Koch being Blacklisted.
Leave your thoughts about Mission to Moscow.
| New York PostLou LumenickCurtiz' superproduction deserves to be far better known as the supreme example of haute Hollywood craftsmanship deployed for the sort of propaganda commonly associated with films from the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes. |
| Ozus' World Movie ReviewsDennis SchwartzA fascinating propaganda film released during World War II. |
| User ReviewAnti RA realistic and honest presentation of the Soviet Union of the 1930s which prepared its struggle against Nazi fascism and racism. The questionable point of this period is mentioned with honesty. Excellent movie. Aged better than Casablanca. |
| User ReviewScott RA fascinating propaganda film released during World War II. |
| User ReviewDavid BI doubt Stalin himself could have commissioned a film more supportive of his regime and the soviet union of the time. Even the purges and show trials are portrayed as a fair process with Trotsky convicted in absentia of being a fascist patsy. Whilst doubtless necessary to sanitise the soviet union in the eyes of the American populace it is hard to imagine that it would have been effective. Even the most anti fascist of the American populace would recognise this as the pure propaganda that it is. But the film is fascinating for those interested in the politics of the time, |
| User ReviewNoel VIt's uh--wow. Michael Curtiz, fresh off of Casablanca, directed this, and with all the energy and speed he poured into the project, it moves as swiftly as quick-drying cement. Politics, politics, politics, the occasional cameo by a world leader (played by some actor in thick makeup). Only thing that makes it bearable is Walter Huston, looking as earnest as all his actorly powers can manage, which is considerable. He cares, and his expression suggests that you should care too. It's propaganda, of course. That they could have treated the material straight (I'm talking hypothetical--Davies had control, and the president himself asked Warner for this effort) and it would be more compelling stuff--allying with a mass murderer in charged of a fascistic country--that's the stuff of epic drama. Watching the actual results, the vast whitewashing and ass-kissing involved, that's a different kind of epic drama, more jaw-dropping for sure. |
| User ReviewMichael Wintreresting view of life during the war and I find even more interesting the soft power this film garnered in the soviet union |