The Point of No Return

Only because of the name watched it. Those who all are going to watch it with lots of expectations be sure you are going to be disappointed.

They obviously had a shoestring budget and it shows. The writing is second rate as is the acting and the directing. That it was filmed in the leafy lanes of southern England is obvious; the vehicles, uniforms, and weapons are all obvious inaccurate stage props. It has the feeling of a movie made by the Scunthorpe Amateur Dramatics Society who somehow got some money to make a film but they had to use Mrs Minge's back garden as a set and find whatever props they could from the basket back stage at the Town Hall theatre.

This movie is a mildly interesting story about some women caught up in the eastern front during WWII. Unfortunately the implementation is pretty dire. I'm assuming that the director made this as his student film, so I don't want to be too harsh, but it's hard to make a movie this weak. It looks like it was filmed in the actors mates garden with a collection of very British and American actors who made no attempt to pretend to be German. This is all well and good but the Russians in the movie all had phony Russian accents.

As expected for a very low budget film the historical accuracy isn't great; the uniforms aren't right, the guns are unlikely and the vehicles are implausible even if they are the right vintage. You really need someone who knows about guns and the army if you are going to make a war movie. There was clearly not a single person on set who knows anything about army tactics.

There is no sense of urgency throughout the film even though the characters are constantly talking about the impending Russian assault. I guess there wasn't the budget for a real battle.

If you don't have the budget to do the story justice, then maybe the film should have been about a bunch of lads on a camping trip on a golf course. Write what you know.

I hope the director got a good grade, but he really shouldn't be charging people to watch this.

Nothing to say in favor, but that it is worthless.....

There are far too many examples of writers putting pen to paper on subjects out of their comfort zone and failing to find the necessary 'heart' because they either don't have a real interest in what they're writing about but feel it is 'current' and they should, or they have no idea how to research and find the authenticity that is needed. Added to that producers who haven't a clue on the subject either and are not discerning enough to pull the script apart, and you are doomed to a very particular kind of failure. Of the 'we really didn't care enough' kind. Writers should write what they know, or are confident in researching. Neither occurred in this instance. There are many much more accomplished films, even short ones, than this where the filmmakers found the required passion in the short narratives they were trying to tell. Camera work in this overly long effort too is pointless - cameras express an observation, or a motivation, or something narratively that audiences are supposed to focus on. The use of the camera here was pretty aimless. Something down to both the director and the cinematographer. And the accents?! Well less said here the better. Completely pulled out of the viewing experience from minute one. World War 2 was the setting for so many exciting and mindblowingly brave stories the filmmakers could have chosen any number to tell utilising British actors and their distinctly British accents. Especially if going out to make a film with your mates. But no, they chose to represent Germans in the mid winter of retreat on the Eastern Front, without snow or landscape that was particularly European yet alone with the cold, bleak tones of winter and desolation. One only has to watch Stalingrad to get a real feel of what it was like for the ordinary German soldier. This felt like a story made for the sake of making a movie. Little or no script development, filmmakers without the necessary experience or knowledge to pull off a war-driven movie, a director who doesn't know how to elicit performance or to generate excitement through camera shot choices, and a cast just going through the motions of what they imagined they should be doing. This feels like a film school project Year 1 assignment piece drawn out to feature length. The Director really needs to hone his craft on shorter pieces, and the Screenwriter really should go back to basics and learn how to research properly, and then to tightly structure a purposeful story for a pleasing, focused, and multi-layered audience experience. War films by their very nature are pretty budget hefty affairs. It's impossible to do one any sort of justice on a short film budget or worse. And certainly not without the proper preparation, research, and development. For a job well done check out Sean Ellis's 'Anthropoid' - a story told at least four times cinematically over the decades, and here told well, even as a remake, with flair and a certain eye on narrative intensity, even though the outcome is known to all. And as tight as that was in terms of locations, set pieces are the production's biggest asset. Lessons needed here, are easily found elsewhere.