Stoutor
It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.
Dynamixor
The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.
Gurlyndrobb
While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.
patridge-14855
I had high hopes for this movie especially I read on the cover it was "based on true events" . It was awful the worst war movie I have seen since Where Eagles Dare. Man the Germans were terrible soldiers, Vinny Jones did not a gun to take out about 20 German Soldiers, about 20 American soldiers killed over 100 German soldiers and never ran out of Ammo --so far fetched . At the end of the movie I was expecting to read about the true events but not word about this movie based on "true events" .The acting is okay but the Company of Heroes is about realistic as Die Hard movies
Al Diehl
It's like a train wreck. You don't want to watch but, you can't take your eyes off of it. Right off the bat a US 2nd Infantry Division soldier is armed with a German G43 rifle with a US M82 scope mounted on it. Gimme' a break. Then, all of the other soldiers that weren't armed with M1 Thompson sub-machine guns were all, yes all, carrying No4 British bolt action rifles. Was there no consulting or, was there just no attempt at authenticity. Heck, even an internet search nowadays could have given them the information without paying a consultant. I believe it was more of a money thing. It was probably cheaper to rent the wrong weapons over the correct ones. At least the Germans were using German "Schmeisser" Machine Pistols and Mauser 98k rifles. Anyway, as a veteran and WWII history buff, I can tell you this movie is "Sad" at best. Cheap and Cheesy. Enjoy.
jenkinsbrigade
I suspect there are actually reviews being posted here that are paid for by the studios. That is the only reason I can think of for anyone to laud this particularly putrid film.This film is terrible on many levels. The music is detracting. The camera shots wobble on some characters in a scene, but not on others, to no obvious cinematic benefit - it's just annoying. The dialog is lame. The characters are unsympathetic. The CGI effects are unconvincing.But for me, what absolutely killed any desire to continue watching this film were the repeated, blatant violations of historical accuracy that kept coming like a runaway freight train. These included (but are by no means limited to): 1) The actual initial German assault of the Battle of the Bulge took place during a very harsh winter, often during driving snowstorms, and during a period of time when Allied aircraft were grounded by weather. The location for the film, however, was obviously experiencing a thaw, complete with running melt water and sunny skies enabling Luftwaffe fighters to make sorties.2) Tom Sizemore and Neal McDonough both playing lieutenants, even though they are both far past the average age of a WWII lieutenant.3) The tanks, gads, the tanks! Really, really bad attempts to pull off convincing German AFVs. In fact, with one exception of a cameo appearance by what appeared to be a Soviet-era SU-85 or SU-100, the tanks don't resemble any tanks ever used by anyone anywhere.4) In one battle scene, the camera keeps coming back to a close-up of the barrel of a Vickers water-cooled MG. I keep looking for the Allied soldiers manning it, but there aren't any. Apparently it's supposed to be a German MG.5) The soldiers are cut off behind enemy lines in blizzard-bound Belgium, then suddenly they are deep inside Germany?? 6) The Germans have conducted an a-bomb test. Right.7) The GIs, on the lam in Germany, run into a Soviet soldier, also running loose deep inside Germany, who speaks flawless English. Sure.And, being unable to take any more, that's about where I turned it off. I understand the need to suspend some belief in order to enjoy a movie, but this one was asking for more than a suspension of belief - it was an all-out assault on the sensibilities of any knowledgeable person who enjoys the war film genre, coupled with amateurish film-making. And that, my friends, is how films like this earn miserable one-star ratings.
dnolan714
I always look forward to a good WW 2 movie or TV show but I noted so many issues with this movie. The rifles the American soldiers are carrying are British Enfields, a .303 bolt action that American soldiers did not carry. M-1 Garands, M-1 Carbines, maybe a .45 Grease Gun, B.A.R. Would have been correct. The Thompsons are fine but those rifles are all wrong. The uniforms are slightly off too. Flags worn are wrong for the period as are some ranks displayed. The German uniforms are all mixed up with SS, Wehrmacht and even Luftwaffe blends of various rank and insignia. There are some fine actors in this film such as Tom Sizemore from Saving Private Ryan, Heat, etc. He's making a comeback after some poor choices in his life. Hopefully he will stay on the wagon and keep his sights on his acting career. Vinnie Jones, a fine actor and usually a bad guy did good. Mixed in with some cameos by Neal McDonough, etc. There are some fine younger actors in the film but overall the production fell short in many areas. The movie does not have the quality of SPR or Band of Brothers, etc.
