★ 4 / 10
Come Out Failing...
GianfrancoSpada
There is a particular strain of low-budget war cinema that seeks to evoke the grandeur and grit of WWII without the financial or artistic muscle to support its…
There is a particular strain of low-budget war cinema that seeks to evoke the grandeur and grit of WWII without the financial or artistic muscle to support its ambition. The film in question attempts to embed itself within the tradition of microhistorical WWII narratives-focusing on underrepresented aspects of the war effort, particularly the contributions of African American tank crews. While the premise carries promise and historical relevance, nearly every technical and cinematic decision made here undermines what could have been a powerful entry in the genre.From the outset, the visual language of the film struggles under the weight of incoherence. The cinematography, rather than constructing a sense of tactical geography or dramatic composition, resorts to overused shaky cam techniques that rarely enhance the immediacy of action and more often obscure the events on screen. The editing compounds this problem-disorienting cuts between unrelated shots, mismatched eyelines, and abrupt transitions fracture any narrative continuity. This approach denies the viewer any spatial orientation or emotional buildup, leaving battle sequences to feel more like chaotic montages than structured engagements. When compared to similarly budgeted works like Saints and Soldiers or Company of Heroes, both of which manage to deliver clear, disciplined action with coherent visual grammar, the shortcomings of this film are stark.Technically, the production oscillates between anachronistic detail and cosmetic mimicry. Authentic WWII-era vehicles are present-Sherman tanks, German half-tracks, and even a Tiger-but their inclusion appears more as ornamental dressing than functional parts of the mise-en-scène. Battle choreography fails to utilize the assets meaningfully: tanks remain stationary during supposed combat sequences, artillery fire lacks any kinetic realism, and visual effects often resemble those from an early-2000s game engine. The ME-262 jet sequence, likely intended as a set piece, feels entirely disconnected from both realism and the surrounding narrative fabric, lacking context, buildup, or tactical logic.The use of CGI is both excessive and ineffective. Muzzle flashes appear as floating overlays; explosions look as though they were copy-pasted from stock libraries without attention to lighting integration or scale. There is a distinct lack of interaction between actors and environment-the terrain is clean, uniforms remain inexplicably pristine even in the aftermath of shelling, and props show no wear that would convey battlefield exhaustion. Even wartime staples such as dirt, mud, and smoke are rendered with minimal effort or authenticity.The sound design, far from immersing the viewer in the combat environment, often distracts. Gunfire is exaggerated and repetitive, lacking spatial realism or appropriate reverb, while musical cues aim for grandeur but feel overbearing and misplaced. Most egregiously, the audio mix buries dialogue beneath overzealous scoring and ambient noise, which only draws further attention to the weak writing.Dialogue, when intelligible, is hampered by a script that veers between banal platitudes and awkward exposition. Characters speak in declarative clichés, often invoking patriotic slogans devoid of nuance or context. A misquotation of Patton's famous line serves as a particularly grating example-not just historically inaccurate, but emblematic of a broader disregard for textual fidelity and period tone. These script deficiencies rob the performers of any chance to ground their portrayals in believable human stakes.The performances themselves are uneven. Some actors-particularly those in leading roles-attempt to salvage dignity from the material, with brief glimpses of internal struggle or emotional restraint. Tyrese Gibson and Michael Jai White do show signs of having envisioned more grounded portrayals, but the script consistently undermines them. Others deliver performances better suited to melodrama or parody, possibly due to a lack of directorial control or unclear tonal direction. There is no cohesion in performance style; scenes often feel like isolated rehearsals stitched together in post-production.Where the film most blatantly falters is in its depiction of military tactics and behavior. Assaults are staged without regard for cover, line of sight, or coordination. Soldiers shout commands with no tactical awareness, flanking maneuvers are nonexistent, and critical concepts like suppressive fire or unit cohesion are ignored entirely. A supposed ambush unfolds with participants casually walking into open fire zones, lobbing grenades at implausible distances. These errors transcend budgetary limitation and signal a fundamental lack of research or consultation with military advisors. Even low-budget productions like Red Tails or Fury (though far larger in scale) demonstrate how accurate consulting can vastly enhance a film's tactical credibility.While the film aspires to honor the 761st Tank Battalion-an invaluable and long-overlooked part of American military history-it stumbles over its own narrative missteps. The story gestures toward racial dynamics within the military, but does so with such cursory treatment that it feels more like a checkbox than a theme. Character interactions meant to highlight the racism endured by Black soldiers are rendered with such superficiality that their intended poignancy is lost in flat delivery and pedestrian direction.What is perhaps most disappointing is that there are moments-fleeting, buried moments-where a more capable hand could have coaxed something affecting from this material. A lingering shot on a shell-shocked soldier, a whispered moment of doubt before battle, or a glimmer of camaraderie between tank crew members hint at what might have been achieved. Unfortunately, these moments are drowned out by the surrounding noise-both literal and cinematic.In the end, this film serves as an unfortunate example of a missed opportunity: a worthy subject treated with insufficient craftsmanship. It attempts to join the lineage of WWII cinema that blends battlefield storytelling with overlooked historical perspectives, but its execution-marked by subpar visuals, disjointed narrative structure, poor technical control, and a lack of historical veracity-fails to meet even the modest standards set by its contemporaries. For those who seek films that evoke the true pathos, complexity, and intensity of the Second World War, this offering is likely to provoke only frustration.
Read full review
★ 5 / 10
Good story poorly executed
0DegreesKelvin
I'm a big fan of some of the actors in this movie, like Michael Jai White and Tyrese Gibson. This movie has a few good points but many bad. But it's not the…
I'm a big fan of some of the actors in this movie, like Michael Jai White and Tyrese Gibson. This movie has a few good points but many bad. But it's not the worst WWII movie I've seen. It does portray the stress of battle well, showing how Lt. Hayes is suffering from battle fatigue (PTSD) and how that can affect soldiers, and Hyram Murphy did a good job portraying that. Tyrese Gibson also did a good job portraying a tank commander who has seen too much. The movie did an okay job of showing how black soldiers faced prejudice during the war, such as white soldiers refusing to salute or doing so grudgingly, but I feel that could have been done better. Many of the battle scenes were poorly executed and the CGI effects, which would have been decent for the early 90s, are about unforgivable for 2022. Overall it was okay, but many moments left me groaning and asking "seriously?". There was obviously either a very poor military technical adviser or none at all, as many of the battle tactics and maneuvering were haphazard and sloppy. The story doesn't specify (or I missed it if it did) what month/year it took place, but unless it was mid-1944 or later, seeing the German ME-262 jet fighter would have not have been realistic. However, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and accept that the timing could have been correct for its appearance. Overall, I rated it a 5 because I liked the story, but this movie could have been executed much better with an experienced director and military technical adviser. Worth the watch? Honestly, I can't give a positive answer.
Read full review
★ 3 / 10
Difficult to Describe How Bad This Film Is
hewilson2-72-796868
First of all, there is the basic premise: that there are two types of soldiers. One type of soldier is always competent and effective. The other type is not…
First of all, there is the basic premise: that there are two types of soldiers.
One type of soldier is always competent and effective. The other type is not only always bumbling and incompetent, but arrogant, nasty and mean-spirited to boot.
Then there is the glaring incorrect portrayals of military protocol and tactics.
In this film, officers routinely salute non-coms and hold the salute until the non-coms return it, not the other way round which is reality.
It depicts an Army without coordination of infantry, armor and artillery. In one scene, artillery and forward armor are both firing on the same position simultaneously while forward motorized infantry are engaging that target in close quarters battle. Insane.
And then there is the decision to have German characters speaking English with German accents. Reminded me of Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther series.
The acting is not terrible but the dialog is amateurish.
It is just an all around bad movie.
Read full review
3.7/10
2.1K
•••
I liked it, it is a well done B movie...