troybeer
Amateur, stilted, uninspired acting, boring dialogue, heavy-handed use of close-ups, bad lighting, inconsistent sound, muted color alternating with too-vivid color, and excruciatingly slow story development are just the first five minutes. The lack of any connection between the overwrought music and the action (actually the total lack of action) on the screen is confusing to the point of being aggravating. The characters are not developed and remain two-dimensional. The language is anachronistic, and the director seems to have instructed everyone in a uniform to be as expressionless as mannequins until it is their turn to look confused. Every shot is an extreme close-up or an extreme oblique angle for no apparent reason. I get that the color, music, camera angles, etc. are used for effect. But when the effect is so obvious, it becomes a distraction. And this film does nothing else but distract the viewer. Unfortunately, nuance and subtlety are the two effects that were not used in this film. Even if none of that bothers you, having a paratrooper jump into enemy occupied territory without a weapon is just plain stupid. If you're making a war movie, you give the actors playing soldiers some guns.
will-leitch
I'm not surprised Amazon allow you to watch this for nothing. That's because it's terrible. Really wooden acting in the first thirty minutes, terrible long stretches of uninteresting dialogue where genuinely nothing whatsoever seems to happen.The scene where a soldier allegedly visits the English home of his girlfriend is, quite frankly, laughable. If you really had found a house and interior looking like that in 1944 England, the owner would most probably have been related to the King. Churchill would've been jealous. Once they jump it doesn't pick up. What a pity - I had hoped for better. I suspect there may just have been some military expertise connected with the making of this film but sadly no screen writing expertise at all.Plot spoilers aren't allowed. But the Allies win.
bravesfan35
I can easily see why some war movies aren't promoted as much as others and some just aren't promoted at all. This movie was clearly low-budget. The grenades had hardly any explosive effect to them whatsoever. The first hour or so of the movie featured way too many close-up shots. If you can't stand the sight of blood, this movie is okay to watch because there was no blood seen anywhere in the film. The acting was very poor as well. I'm a big fan of war movies but the only way I can enjoy a film is if the acting is at least decent, the effects are genuine, and it's historically accurate. This film wasn't as hard to get through as Brother's War was but it's not far off in the level of horrific film making.
james-ross-822-974923
This 'film' moved like frozen syrup. Poor acting, unnecessary..........pauses for dramatic effect. Dialogue which made no attempt to move the plot forward and enough close ups that I now have to visit my optometrist. I could only bear about forty five or so minutes and that was with the aid of a fast forward button. Could either side have shown any emotion, you know, with them being in life and death situations and all? As for historical accuracy I'm pretty sure I saw a laptop on a desk in the briefing room, it wouldn't have surprised me. This movie made me sorry the allies won the war, perhaps then it would not have been made. My only saving grace is that it was the 'the free one' on the tail end of a rent one get one free new release coupon!
AD
