i think this film was right on in regards to depicting actual wartime. the acting wasn't the greatest but i guess Sean Penn or Tom Hanks arent cheap. the set design was top notch and even some of the special effects were pretty cool. there's this one shot of a bullet going through a guy and out his canteen. very realistic without being overly bloody.
i liked this film a lot. it was different than the typical stuff hollywood throws out....
"very realistic without being overly bloody."
Sorry guy, but you pretty much just proved the whole title of your thread invalid with that one statement. Think about it.
Seriously, I'm really starting to wonder what else most other Americans out there consider GOOD war movies...?
And YOU only watched ten minutes of it, how can you be so sure?
"allseeing fly" are you sure your nick ought not to be "blind fly"? the OP signed up to only comment and review this film and never did anything else on IMDB. He is a shill.
I have a good tolerance for imperfect films. films on a low budget and films without access to top talent. That said this film is TERRIBLE.
Yeah, well. That was a year and a half ago... .. .so... .. . Right! As expected.
shareI don;t think this was a bad film they had restrictions on what they could do seeing as this was a indapendent film. But there was alot left to be disaired with it as well. I was defently thrown off with some of the dialog or maybe how the people deliverd it not sure about that but it would take me out of the story from time to time and make me remember it was a indapendent film. To the top poster the bullet going through the canteen was not infact a bullet becasue they were not under gun fire but shrapnel from a shell bursting behind him although Not a expert I don;t belive that would actualy happen. John wayne:If you say three you will never hear the man count ten.
[deleted]
Realistic??? Never in a million years. A German panzer division consisting of one tank, I don't think so.