Stometer
Save your money for something good and enjoyable
ThrillMessage
There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.
Isbel
A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.
denzil-09434
Possibly the most stupid WWII movie I have seen. Virtually everything about it is nonsense but the biggest plot fault, if you can even call it a plot, is that the whole thing hinges on them riding a train from France to Stuttgart. They have to fight their way into the train whilst it is in the station, yet the Nazis allow the train to depart and don't stop it en route. I think that's the stupidest part of the plot but I may be wrong. Everything else is pretty stupid too.If it was funny or a musical or something maybe this would be forgivable but there's no merit to this at all. It insults the intelligence of the audience. I won't even criticise the cast. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. They must have been paid well to make them take the script back out of the trash after first reading.
adonis98-743-186503
American soldiers lost behind enemy lines during the WWII make a horrific discovery: Hitler has a super bomb in development. Against all odds, they set out to find the scientist in charge of the program who is looking to defect. The first time i saw Company of Heroes i actually didn't like it at all but after giving it a 2nd chance i gotta say it was an enjoyable flick but if you expect something like Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down or Hacksaw Ridge you are going to be very disappointed. The acting is good for the most part (even Vinnie Jones is good somehow) of course the film has a pretty small budget and the effects alongside the cgi blood look bloody awful but the action is actually quite good and the characters are alright. If you don't expect much you might actually enjoy it. (7/10)
Al Diehl
It's like a train wreck. You don't want to watch but, you can't take your eyes off of it. Right off the bat a US 2nd Infantry Division soldier is armed with a German G43 rifle with a US M82 scope mounted on it. Gimme' a break. Then, all of the other soldiers that weren't armed with M1 Thompson sub-machine guns were all, yes all, carrying No4 British bolt action rifles. Was there no consulting or, was there just no attempt at authenticity. Heck, even an internet search nowadays could have given them the information without paying a consultant. I believe it was more of a money thing. It was probably cheaper to rent the wrong weapons over the correct ones. At least the Germans were using German "Schmeisser" Machine Pistols and Mauser 98k rifles. Anyway, as a veteran and WWII history buff, I can tell you this movie is "Sad" at best. Cheap and Cheesy. Enjoy.
jenkinsbrigade
I suspect there are actually reviews being posted here that are paid for by the studios. That is the only reason I can think of for anyone to laud this particularly putrid film.This film is terrible on many levels. The music is detracting. The camera shots wobble on some characters in a scene, but not on others, to no obvious cinematic benefit - it's just annoying. The dialog is lame. The characters are unsympathetic. The CGI effects are unconvincing.But for me, what absolutely killed any desire to continue watching this film were the repeated, blatant violations of historical accuracy that kept coming like a runaway freight train. These included (but are by no means limited to): 1) The actual initial German assault of the Battle of the Bulge took place during a very harsh winter, often during driving snowstorms, and during a period of time when Allied aircraft were grounded by weather. The location for the film, however, was obviously experiencing a thaw, complete with running melt water and sunny skies enabling Luftwaffe fighters to make sorties.2) Tom Sizemore and Neal McDonough both playing lieutenants, even though they are both far past the average age of a WWII lieutenant.3) The tanks, gads, the tanks! Really, really bad attempts to pull off convincing German AFVs. In fact, with one exception of a cameo appearance by what appeared to be a Soviet-era SU-85 or SU-100, the tanks don't resemble any tanks ever used by anyone anywhere.4) In one battle scene, the camera keeps coming back to a close-up of the barrel of a Vickers water-cooled MG. I keep looking for the Allied soldiers manning it, but there aren't any. Apparently it's supposed to be a German MG.5) The soldiers are cut off behind enemy lines in blizzard-bound Belgium, then suddenly they are deep inside Germany?? 6) The Germans have conducted an a-bomb test. Right.7) The GIs, on the lam in Germany, run into a Soviet soldier, also running loose deep inside Germany, who speaks flawless English. Sure.And, being unable to take any more, that's about where I turned it off. I understand the need to suspend some belief in order to enjoy a movie, but this one was asking for more than a suspension of belief - it was an all-out assault on the sensibilities of any knowledgeable person who enjoys the war film genre, coupled with amateurish film-making. And that, my friends, is how films like this earn miserable one-star ratings.
