Company of Heroes

This is clearly a movie which the directors and writers didn't bother to achieve correct reconstruction, American using ENFIELDS instead of GARANDS or even M1903, the sniper is using a G43 (German) with a loose scope, the Germans use T34(russians) instead of Panzers or such.

Well I'm not saying it couldn't have happen, but as it is a movie they at least should be wearing proper equipment.

It's watchable but for someone with 5 minutes of knowledge in WW2 and they would grow somewhat tired of watching so many mistakes...

The effects are also a bit cheap, tank round that explode like a tin can of petrol, semi-auto rifles that don't circle and bolt action that can shoot 2 or 3 rounds in a row without cycling the bolt.

these are simple enough things to acquire but they didn't bother with such...

I am watching Company of Heroes presently. The story is set in the Battle of the Bulge period. The force on the attack are Americans. Normally in a war one uses the weapons of your own side. The "sniper" hero is carrying a post-war FN-49 rifle. It was first issued to a military unit in 1949. Another soldier in the unit was carrying a British issue Number IV Mark 1 or Mark 2 SMLE infantry rifle.

Their historical sins were not limited to the American unit. It may sound trivial, but the babe spends half the movie in pants. That may sound trivial but the Feuhrer forbade women to wear pants. She wouldn't go into a Nazi base in tight fitting slacks.

Well, you may think that's all trivial but that's just immediately ended the suspension of disbelief for me. It only gets worse from there. The plot is equally ludicrous. Let's just say that by the time the whole mess had happened, we have managed to run into a Russian who speaks excellent English and a British bar brawler who both save the day in their own way.

So, is it a "stay away" movie? No. If you REALLY need something to soothe your craving for some violence or a 21st Century politically correct WW II movie, this will fit the bill quite well. But that's about all.

I watched the movie with my uncle, an infantry veteran who was a radioman during the Battle of the Bulge in the area the movie depicts. He was excited to see his unit's insignia, Indian head on a Star, and looked forward to the action. He came away disappointed. The story is fictional as explained in small print in a disclaimer by SONY in the rolling credits after the movie. The attention to detail was appreciated but missed a lot. He said tommy guns were a rarity to the infantryman. Eight shot M-1 was standard issue. The ease with which the enemy positions were penetrated was impossible. The weather conditions were brutal, not spring-like with melting snow and puddles on water. Troops sitting around with open jackets; really? No, in reality, the ground was so frozen, you couldn't dig a hole to hide from the incoming artillery! So, if you are looking for a Band of Brothers type of movie or Saving Private Ryan, you won't get it here. I am not totally dissing it; I appreciate the effort put into it. But it could have been so much better. The big question is "why not look for a plot based on factual context?" It is out there and other directors have had success with it.

I like WW2 movies. It's not that I expected a lot from this one. Overall it let me down. I have enjoyed some of the main actors in other movies. The premise was solid. But the overall feel of the movie was it was trying too hard. This is a B movie at best. I watched the entire movie and was mildly entertained. Set your expectations low. It seems that any "new" war movie is either a blockbuster or a sub-par offering. My personal rating system is fairly simple. If I watch the movie in it's entirely it automatically gets a 5, because it did what it was supposed to do. It entertained me. Company of Heroes will go on my shelf and probably never be watched again. It must of been a straight to DVD release. http://thelemondreport.blogspot.ca/

On viewing this film I was excited by the cast. As a fan of both Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers seeing cast members from both made me giddy with anticipation on watching the film.

All in all the film story is quite good - I liked it. The acting is fine on most parts as you would expect from the cast - lets face it, several of the cast crew are more than qualified to fulfil their roles.

I cannot believe the annoyance allowed to be taken over by this film by the dull and out of place sound effects and music - music being my main gripe. What on earth was the sound production crew doing? If you watch any good war film dating back to the 40's the music is not the bug of any film, until I saw this. There was absolutely no need for the music over the scenes, it made the film feel cheap (OK it is low budget) where no music would had made it feel realistic. The sounds of tank movements, back ground noise, shots, explosions would have made this film feel 200 times better rather than the music. Why? The sound effects ruin the picture and atmosphere.

In general, the effects on video are OK. If there was a way to improve this picture just leave the voices in, delete pretty much all music and replace with sound effects. Score would then be an 8/10 (for a low budget film).

I am at a loss why the hell the director commissioned the music.

This could probably be sorted with someone with skill re-recording the sound. It takes away "the edge".