MovieChat Forums > Red Rose of Normandy Discussion > I think some of the 'goofs' listed on th...

I think some of the 'goofs' listed on this page are nitpicking

posted 11 years ago by StoneGriffin
3 replies | jump to latest

Apparently this was an ultra low budget film using lots of historical reenactors (i.e. free actors with their own gear). I cringe when I see criticisms like "the real Normandy invasion had 7000 crafts" and we only see 2 for the scene. Heck, if I were making an ultra low budget movie, I'd be impressed if I got two!

A lot of the critics seem to be nitpickers, picking apart the mere fact that this production did not have a 100 million dollar production. Those types of critiques are unfair.

Now LEGITIMATE criticism can be laid upon bad acting and bad scripts or ridiculous mistakes (like having a modern anachronism that just stands out). Those are well within the power of any low budget filmmaker to do right. So I hope folks will slam the errors that are reasonable, and not complain that they didn't have 7000 naval vessels and 800 landing crafts and dozens of original German armor because that type of criticism is ridiculous.

Dr. Kila Marr was right. Kill the Crystalline Entity.

[–] LobotomyKid 11 years ago

Haha I hear you about the 7000 crafts comment but the vast majority isn't nitpicking at all, they mention the horrible script, acting, cinematography...this crap flick has no redeeming features whatsoever!

But what I didn't see pointed out so far is that "director" Tino Struckmann is trying to push the ratings by posting not only a positive review himself but using other sock accounts (or friends, people who worked with him) to post multiple "this movie is great" reviews and giving it 10 ratings. Reminds me of eBay shilling tactics, just highly dubious and something no self-respecting filmmaker would ever do. Check out the said accounts, they all reviewed this flick plus the other stinker "Code 207" he was involved with favourably and rate it a 10.

The exceptional (wooden that is) actress "Claudia Crawford" is probably his wife. He wrote her mini-bio entry (conveniently forgetting to mention her birthdate)and I'm afraid paid also for the gruesome botox job some quack did on his Klaudia. What the entry mentions though is that she's the vice-president of the Struckmann Foundation. Seems they are god fearing people working tirelessly to help keep women safe from sexual predators out there. Turns out the crappy website of said foundation doesn't list her under staff, the site was made years ago yet not one entry under campaigns but they gladly accept your donation by Paypal, haha. Btw Struckmann is listed under donations&inquiries with a hotmail addy! Anyone doing business knows this alone is a red flag as any serious person uses an email from their own domain.

So this guy's not only someone who fancies himself a filmmaker yet has zero abilities but looks also like a phony in my book. And I'm being polite here...

[–] StoneGriffin 11 years ago

Interesting, but you seem more obsessed with his personal life than his film. Sure, falsely upping your score using sockpuppet accounts is bad, but I've seen it on other films. Frankly it's more work and hassle than it is worth. The final project should speak for itself.

Frankly, I think that some of those guys out there who use fake accounts and friends to slam (rather than elevate) a film's score are more pathetic. I have a friend whose short film received an unusually high number of "1" scores, all from the same demographic as their "ex". hmmmmmm. nothing suspicious there. ;) And I saw the film and it was pretty good, but to get a 1.2 score, you gotta wonder (don't worry, it's not on the IMDB bottom 250 because there are too few votes to make it qualify).... but people wronging voting on films works both ways.

You seem to have put a lot of effort into researching this guy's life, his wife(?) and their background. My only question is .... "why"? Why the obsession with stuff that has nothing to do with filmmaking? I, like most folks, know there are honest folks out there and dishonest folks out there all making films. I still only judge what I see on the screen. I don't give a damn about the histories of the persons in the credits (for the most part).

I'll hate some actors because of their politics, but I don't deprive myself of the pleasure of seeing their great work for my own politics. I put the external stuff aside. (One target of such hate is Tom Cruise). Personally I don't care how weird Scientology is. It has no bearing on whether I like a movie or not.

So what about you? Were you a part of this movie? I'm just curious because you seem to have a lot more insider knowledge than the casual viewer.....

Dr. Kila Marr was right. Kill the Crystalline Entity.

[–] LobotomyKid 11 years ago

No I wasn't a part of this flick and I don't know anyone involved. I'm also not obsessed with Struckmanns personal life. After suffering trough his masterpiece I looked up the Imdb entry, went trough the reviews, noticed the shilling and then checked his bio. Googled his site, browsed a bit, did a whois..you know, took me maybe 15 minutes to get a better picture of him. Just not a very favourable one in this case.

But I look up tons of stuff, basically everything from useless trivia to serious knowledge. You might say I have too much time on my hands but I'm not just interested in filmmaking and frankly the boards here are 90% filled with non-filmaking related stuff. I do like to expose people who deserve it in my books however, especially religious hypocrites.

And I agree that what an actor does in his personal life should have no bearing n how you judge a movie. That should go without saying.

You know what I noticed too: C. Crawford isn't listed in the credits (at the end) in the version I saw, the latter one. So what was once project "Red rose of Normandy" became "Normandy" resp. "Kesselschlacht in der Normandie" (like that title way better) in the German version and she vanished from the credits (and his Foundation). I guess Struckmann is a lonely man these days.