MovieChat Forums > Allies (2014) Discussion > Decent performances but technically poor

Decent performances but technically poor

posted 9 years ago by magnumbd
3 replies | jump to latest

Others have mentioned the technical flaws in broad strokes - I'd like to get a bit more specific.

Weapons: Every rifle; submachine gun, and pistol (or revolver) is clearly a non-functioning replica. Probably Denix brand from Spain. The belt-fed MGs and the Brens are also non-functioning, but these appear to be more authentic. No depiction of charging handles moving back and forth, no slide or toggle movement on the pistols, no ejection of spent shell casings, barely any muzzle flash (actually a bit more factual, but a movie audience needs the visual cues). Heck, airsoft guns would have worked better; at least with an electric or gas blow-back weapon you get the simulated functioning to a large degree.

For heaven's sake, even the bolts are forward on the Thompsons and MP40s at almost all times! The real weapons fire from an open bolt: the bolt is normally held to the rear and kept in place by the trigger mechanism. When the trigger is pulled the bolt is released and moves forward to strip a round from the magazine and push it into the firing chamber. As the round seats in the chamber the firing pin strikes the primer with the full forward momentum of the bolt, causing the round to fire. The back-pressure from the firing cartridge causes the bolt to recoil to the rear, where the process begins again, provided that the trigger is still held back for firing.

Uniforms: Someone else pointed out errors with the ribbons and so forth- I'll take them at their word on that. But doesn't a lot of the German SS camouflage look suspiciously like modern German Flectarn pattern? Not every bit- the production team clearly engaged many reenactors as soldiers. But enough to make me notice. Share what you observed if you agree or disagree.

Tactics: Straight from Sgt. Rock comic books! Both Allies and Germans standing in large clumps upright in the open and blasting at each other with endless magazines, ammo belts, en-block clips, and so forth. Not a single MP40 stock was unfolded to it's normal firing position. The military advisor should refund his fee to the production.

The vehicles looked decent- most appeared pretty close to the real deals, especially the jeeps and Kubelwagons. Any more thoughts here?

For a 3 mil USD project they sure dropped the ball on the last hundred meters. All of the weapon effects can be added in post-production using cheap or free templates in AfterEffects, to name one resource. The death scene of the one soldier had him with a completely bloody lower face in one shot, and barely two rivulets of blood on his chin in the next cut- and then back and forth from there. The continuity person should also refund their fee.

I really wish I could have enjoyed it more, but too many things wrong that can't be ignored end up taking you out of the story - and that is the one sin a filmmaker must not ever commit.

[–] Bourne1886 9 years ago

Gordon Bennett!

How in the hell can you enjoy any film if you're concentrating that much on technical details!
You must have paused it in every scene!

I have just watched this on Netflix and thought this was a good little film. What they achieved on such a small budget was really very good.
I think some are being too harsh on it.

Question:-

"How can anyone enjoy a film when they are dissecting it too much?"

It's a film made for entertainment purposes and shedding light on the events of world war 2. Not every film made about the war is completely accurate.
They achieved a great deal on such a low budget. Maybe the tactics etc etc etc in the fights weren't correct but for me I thought it was well directed, had good action,was engaging, heartfelt and was really enjoyable and interesting,not once was I bored. I enjoyed the story even though some of you are saying it was far fetched, give me a break it's a film not a documentary. Ever heard of suspension of disbelief! If a film keeps me entertained for 90 odd minutes and I enjoy it then it's done its job.

I'd like to see you do better.

[–] magnumbd 8 years ago

Thanks for an entertaining read- it's rare to see somebody virtually spluttering.

As for your last sentence: Normally, grade school level attempts at taunting get the attention they deserve - nothing.

But in this case, actually, I have. This eight minute short that I was heavily involved with (on- and off-camera) with no budget runs circles around "Allies" as far as the points I made in my post.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4278152/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3

Therefore, knowing what me and my friends did with no budget makes it all the more sad that a large budget indie couldn't reach the same level.

http://theforgestudios.vhx.tv/

[–] tentinquarantino-83498 8 years ago

Seriously, Bourne1886?

The film was made by people with no idea how to tell a credible story. Even with the obviously low budget it should have been possible to suggest to the actors that they try to behave like soldiers behind enemy lines might, or for the Germans to send more than two soldiers to search a farmhouse that could potentially hold any number of allied troops. These two were so far from their own support that nobody responded to the sound of gunshots.

When I was eleven I might have believed that a US captain and a British marine could kill waves of Germans without being hit themselves, or that a foot injury with two amputated toes would not impede the ability to run, but those days are now far behind me.

There is a difference between suspending disbelief and accepting the ludicrous. I'd love to know what light you think it shed on the events of WW2, particularly since it did not even claim to be based on any real mission?