Horrors of War |
USA • 2006 • 99m •
   • Directed by: Peter John Ross, John Whitney. • Starring: Jon Osbeck, Joe Lorenzo, Daniel Alan Kiely, C. Alec Rossel, David Carroll, Chip Kocel, Kim Carey, Sean Velie, Jason Morris, Louie Cowan, Milan A. Cargould, Brandy Seymour, Megan Pillar. • Music by: Jim Ballard.      'Feeling the pressure from Allied advance, Hitler unleashes his secret weapons giving rise to a type of warfare the world has never seen. Throughout the European theater of WWII, Lieutenant John Schmidt comes face to face with these "weapons." The Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S., precursor to the C.I.A.) initiates missions behind enemy lines to find the source of the weapons terrorizing U.S. soldiers fighting the Third Reich. Schmidt is joined by Captain Joe Russo and his group of war-hardened GIs who have experienced for themselves the all-too-real horrors of war in battle. Together, they must find and destroy Hitler's horde of nightmare weapons before his horrific vision can be fully realized.
|
Trailers:
| Length: | Languages: | Subtitles: |
Review:
In the indie film world, you cringe at most film festivals. You feel like you have to forgive the filmmakers. In this case, I was wholly satisfied. More so, I was amazed by how much more was on the screen than I had imagined. And I had read the original script! The way that both segments, written and directed by two different people, were woven together was incredible. There didn't seem to be any kind of indication that hands were being changed. This can't be said for most movies like this. "From Dusk Till Dawn," "Sin City," "Four Rooms," "The Time Machine," etc. Time and time again, when directors change, there's an indication of it and the movie suffers for it. This movie is clean and comprehensive.
The acting is good (aside from maybe one or two line reads that fall a bit flat, but aren't laughable at any stretch of the imagination). The filming was great. The make up was pretty good too (I think Yvette's was a bit overdone). The only thing I had a bit of criticism with was in the battle scenes. This is purely my opinion, and it is based only on seeing the film once. I had trouble following the combat scenes. I've found that the clearer the establishment of a battle in a war movie, the more the film lends to the drama of the situation. While there were parts that were very clear, most of these scenes were a fury of running and shooting, and I had a bit of trouble keeping up with the objective that is usually highly important in a war movie. That being said, for a first movie, this is a very small thing to look past. I wouldn't have a clue as to how to shoot the scenes even half as well as they did. Most importantly, the scenes still worked.
This movie is worth a watch. Heck. It's worth a purchase!
Review by PaulSquall from the Internet Movie Database.
Movie Database