Pathfinders: Vers la victoire

Three companies of paratroopers travel in a deadly mission to France to prepare the drop zone for the airborne attack on the D-Day. They have to install an Eureka transmitter and searchlight to guide the planes in the Normandy invasion.

"Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers" is a dreadful and lame war movie - maybe the worst I have ever seen. The "untold and lost story" is disrespectful with the true Normandy invasion and the screenplay is awful without character development and poor dialogs. The direction is also awful with permanent close up camera and terrible soundtrack of machine gun all the time. The acting is ridiculously amateurish. The "battle scenes" are so fake and there is one particularly corny scene, when the German soldier throws a grenade in the trench, one paratrooper shows it to the others and uses his body to contain the explosion instead of throwing it back. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Desbravadores: Na Companhia de Estranhos" ("Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers")

Note: On 20 March 2021, I saw this film again.

I have never posted before, never seen the point as some one else tends to have said what I think already but after watching this film I felt compelled to say something.

The only positive comments seem to stem from the amount of time spent on the film and/or the small amount of money it cost so let me tackle this first.

Time spent on the film: If the film took this long then why did it look like it had been improvised the day before? The script was shocking. Why were the camera angles so bizarre and laboured? Where is the evidence of this?

Size of budget: I have not been able to find anything saying how big the budget was so cannot provide a definitive comparison. That said there are numerous examples of people taking small budgets and working them into something that the actors can say they have been in with pride. A small budget does not equal a poor film any more large budgets guarantee a good film. Money should not have made as much of an impact unless it meant that they obtained the services of a director, script writer, camera man etc really cheap because they were in a coma. I could have forgiven you a few small inaccuracies with kit due to a small budget but the deficiencies with the film far exceed anything to do with money.

I have seen excellent performances within theatre performed entirely by amateur dramatists that are on par with professional pieces. You have to take account the woeful script but big questions need to be asked of the person in charge of casting & the director. I'm not going to attack the actors here (though the performances were poor) because even the best performances possible would have been lost within the putrid mire of the rest of the production.

As said previously I would never tell someone not to watch a film but I would strongly recommend thinking again before watching this. Even 'Teeth' (normally my lowest marker) was better than this.

I like a good war film and this is not a good war film. Awful close ups all the time. They should be used for dramatic effect not in every scene or cutaway. Terrible sound as if recorded in a toilet. This was shot on 35mm? What a waste. Civilian period costumes awful. The English country house? Obviously set in in USA. We did not have double glazed front doors, Lelandi firs, and a totally terrible period interior. Dialogue lacked lustre and to be quite honest I didn't care what they said after an hour of meaningless trite dialogue.Acting from the school of bad acting.Fast pace? What movie were you watching? Lighting done with a forty watt bulb and at other times with a exterior floodlight from the Home Depot. The locations were a joke. Have you ever been to Normandy or even researched the locations? They don't have a re-occurring picket fence and country paths but high hedgerows and flat plains. It looked as if it was all filmed on someones country estate. As for the largest exterior set used in a low budget film, I would ask for a refund. Didn't you you do any research yet again. I note the DOP is not mentioned in the enormous credit list. I take it he was too ashamed to put his name to it. Everything was seriously flawed in one way or another and I could go on and on but I have wasted enough time on this already. Why did I give it a 2? The aeroplanes, you could have made more of them.

From the first note of the opening song, this film blunders from anachronism to anachronism with the gay abandon of a film club of 10 year olds. Carefully chosen music that wouldn't be heard for 40 years; vehicles chosen perhaps for comfort rather than any likeness to anything that may have been seen in the US Military; a fascinating variety of guns, most of which bear more resemblance to plastic toys than actual weapons; military huts ordered direct from today's DIY catalogues; trees and casual wild life purportedly in England that never grew outside North America. In the end it's more a game of spot the idiocy than watch the film. Lighting and cameras compete with the director to find the most artistic shots, that of course don't work as art or film, and simply mystify as to their part in a plot which is harder to find than the Pathfinders' actual landing point. Tension is created more by having actors squabble than from real tension points. Characters you don't care about, in places that never existed, doing things that don't make sense ... badly. War films are just too well-researched and lovingly and accurately put together these days for this rubbish to shine in anything except ... well ... a rubbish dump! This is an insult to the real people who really suffered doing real heroic deeds.

*Lousy acting (lots of unnecessary emoting) *Awful sound (muddled in parts, unnaturally sparse in others) *Questionable historical sets/settings (is that even France?) *No directing (everything is in close up!) *Laughable dialog ("Why, you're as ugly as soup!!") *Even the soundtrack is the wrong era (retro big band music??!).

This is just a bad community college play captured on film.

If this movie cost $50, someone spent $40 of it on hookers for the crew.

I understand that this is an Indy film and all, but come on, they made decent war movies in the 50s and 60s with small budgets on the back lot. Why can't these folks (in 2011) come up with at least a watchable film about such an important story?