A Midnight Clear is a gem among modern WWII films. It manages to be wonderfully realistic without the heavy emphasis on blood and gore. This movie centers upon the experiences of some very human individuals, rather than famous battles and vast armies. It employs a very solid cast, most of whom were relatively unknown at the time of production. There is no simple division between Good Guys and Bad Guys; the young German soldiers are very human and likable, while at least one American officer is not. A Midnight Clear does a commendable job of demonstrating the absurdity and ultimate futility of war, without either preaching or denigrating the heroic service of the soldiers of that war. Highly recommended.

There were three scenes in this movie which ultimately turned me off. 1) The de-virginization gang bang with the soldiers and one women. I found this scene just plain wrong. 2) The washing of the dead soldier. 3) The squeezing of the blood from the dead soldier.I don't know if anyone else found these scenes off-putting at all, but they ruined the movie for me. I would have liked the movie if it were not for these three scenes. I've watched many perverse and disturbing movies, "Bad Lieutenant" and "Seven" to name a couple off the top of my head. However, I was unable to properly digest the scenes in "A Midnight Clear" and found they destroyed the movie for me.

I always have admired Keith Gordon's adaptation of William Wharton's novel ever since i first saw it when i was younger. Its effective, emotional, draws strong performances out of its young (well, at the time) cast, but most importantly, its unique. Different has always been good- it makes things more compelling. Its a WWII movie unlike any other, and it shows a different side of war. M. Gordon's directing is excellent, and i've heard the same thing from many young filmmakers that i know. I won dwell much on the story because IMDb's policy is so strong and this is my first time writing a comment, but i'd recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys quality cinema: You don't need to be a die-hard war movie fan to get something out of this movie. Kudos for drawing such a strong response out of the cast on such a interesting story.

It is worth noting that Keith Gordon (director) met with William Wharton (book author and war veteran) on several occasions and was left with the impression that the 'story' Wharton told is true. Neither author or director could use the 'based on a true story' epitaph simply because the events are completely unverifiable; but reading the book -- and watching the film to a certain degree -- does give a sense that these events did occur.Knowing that the film is a reasonably accurate portrayal of real events -- William Wharton was said to be impressed by the final cut -- makes the events portrayed in the film even more moving. It also explains why the director chose to focus on certain scenes to keep the story flowing, it was as if he wanted to commit the 'story' to film before it was forgotten.Having said that, there are touches of directorial brilliance and subtlety in this bleak and wintry tale. For example, the panning shot of the squad of soldiers walking through the forest which finishes with the still picture of a frozen hand -- if you even notice it -- is unforgettable.These were true events according to the author; it is worth keeping that in mind when you watch the film.