Brothers War

I began to feel embarrassed for another person (the director/producers) while watching this movie. Probably one of the worst feelings out there. Embarrassed, that is, until I discovered the title similarity to "Brothers at War" (also 2009) which made me realize the director/producers are simply trying to make money off of people grabbing this "movie" by mistake. This really put the low budget situation in a different light.

Utter waste of time.

I paid $1 for a rental and feel overcharged.

How can I say it again? I'll try....The electricity to run your TV/DVD player would be better spent running a washing machine.

To the actors: not really your fault

This flick was terrible,wooden acting ,cheesy + it shows so much that it is an zero budget C-film..I love WW2 films..I tought I would enjoy this movie,I knew it wouldn't be in the calibre as say Enemy of the gates or Saving private Ryan etc but nope...they should have hired a decent military adviser and got the details right(even if that is not THAT important if the story is good and it sucks you in from the beginning,which it failed to do here).. But that even more draws attention to the flawed script and cheesy action sequences,it looked like a bad film student film at the worst,and a really good one at the best..some of the action was over the top and seemingly copied from some 30 year old John Wayne movie,NO realism whatsoever(THE ALLIES CANT FIND OUT OUR EVIL PLAN MUHAHAHAHA!)I mean come on! the British guy talked with a horrible phony accent,I could keep on listing things but I digress. To the makers: You shoud have tried harder,much harder,taken your time with the script and not relied on predictable clichés..and tried to actually research the subject matter.. Are you on some personal quest to be the new Uwe Boll?

Okay I WAS going to start by saying this movie is simply atrocious BUT now I have had the pleasure of reading Hugh Daly's comments (please read them for yourself) my opinion has changed. I admit that I am guilty of armchair directing and picking holes in movies - I often comment that the movie must have cost a fortune to produce so why did they not realize how bad it was?

Well, Hugh Daly has let us know that not all movies have huge budgets and when you bear this in mind, things come into perspective. The actual premise of the movie is an interesting one and I rather liked the pairing of the British guy and the main German guy. I did not find Hugh's acting that wooden, and the German lead's acting was great throughout.

I am left wondering if German soldiers would refer to oncoming Russian tanks as "Panzers" - maybe this is a generic German term for "tank"? Of course I am only used to referring to German tanks as Panzers, but what do I know anyway? The uniforms, vehicles and similar things are very well done - the producers are to be commended. However trying to rate a movie of this type when it has had to deal with budget restraints is difficult. We all know that SPR and BOB were brilliant efforts and they have set the bar. Does this mean that we cannot forgive other war movies that try to tell a story with less resources?

Hugh Daly, I salute you and want you to know that it is refreshing to read feedback directly from the source!

Go into watching this movie with an open mind, knowing that it is NOT to be compared to the Spielberg efforts. You might like some or all of it.

A few poster seems to have problems that at the beginning of the film some Germans are using Russian weapons, and Russian use German tanks. One even made a comment about the Germans call it a panzer. And for this call it an unrealistic militarily and a joke. Well...

About the history, plot, characters performance, etc, I leave for others to judge. But a simple note regarding uses of weapon.

1. It's a well know fact, that the Germans and Russians used each others weapon during the WWII. Especially at the end of the war it become more and more usual. Both the Finish and Germans repainted the Russian tanks and used them. Just as the Russians repainted captured German tanks, etc... For you non belivers regarding this, I suggest you take a visit to a WWII museum in Finland or even better the fantastic tank museum outside Moscow, Russia... Enough said! 2. What's so funny that the Germans calls a tank a panzer? Panzer happens to be the German word for a tank. Panzer Division, etc.

So claiming this movie is historical wrong, well yes it have it's flaws. But does it claim to be based on true story or actually events? Even the sun have it's dark spots, and movies like Enemy at the Gates and Saving Private Ryan that some praise, are surely more fiction then facts just as well, and they surely have their own flaws. But who cares, they are both damn good movies. For you WWII fanatics I recommend the movie "Talvisota" (possible buy with English subtitle).

the Producers brought forth by some very capable people to bring to life a larger then life story of the debt of mankind and horrors of the war on the Eastern front, also with the added masonic twist strewn therein, it have obtained some very good reviews so far. the producers have my respect. it is very hard nearly impossibly to pull of a World War film on a low budget but they did it anyway. naturally it lacks to the Band of Brothers budget. but we truly believe our story tells the truth as it happened at those days. it is well made and the story line flows through out the movie. we can only hope the audience will enjoy and learn from it