IMDb > Horrors of War (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Horrors of War
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Horrors of War More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 29 reviews in total 

37 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Why Do People Make These Things?

1/10
Author: garythemessage from Florida
23 July 2006

I gave this a "3" because my wife wouldn't let me turn it off. I know this is a "B" movie, but so what? Why make it at all? The constant time shifts made it needlessly confusing. Why do that at all? And the actors all looked very similar - it became difficult to keep up with who was who.

And the effects! Bullets hitting the dirt nearby - Sparks! In the dirt? Uh, lead doesn't create sparks, but especially not in the dirt. And lead bullets certainly wouldn't make sounds like firecrackers when hitting the dirt. While there were some cool sound effects when bullets hit armored cars/cannons, the grenade explosions were also like cheap fire-crackers. Seriously. Cannons would send shells that exploded 6 feet from a soldier, a poof of smoke, and the soldier wasn't even fazed. If cannons were so pathetic - why would armies use them at all?

Another very laughable (pathetic) moment was when a captain ordered his troops to cut across an open field. The lieutenant complained, but the captain said they could save hours by cutting through the field. Then the men began their trek, never getting further than 10 feet from the tree line. How freaking ridiculous. Why didn't they just stay within the cover of the trees? A different group of soldiers mentioned that very strategy earlier in the movie, so it's not like the director didn't know. How could you not miss that? The guys are getting massacred and they never once think to run 10 feet into the trees. Instead they hide behind tiny gravestones, or run around in plain sight. Inexcusable.

I don't want to spoil anything, but this movie becomes absolutely juvenile towards the end. I'm shocked that the people filming this would actually believe adults would buy into this. Shocked and insulted. Maybe I shouldn't say juvenile. That might insult young people. This movie became infantile.

There's more specifics, but why bother. People are still gonna make tripe like this. And some dork somewhere is gonna defend it. It boggles the mind. At least I didn't pay for it! Skip this film. It's absolutely hokey.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Bad!

1/10
Author: mark-aston from United Kingdom
10 December 2006

Really bad, just because its a B movie and made on the cheap doesn't excuse how bad it is. Most action sequences are in the same bit of wood with the same line of trees. We only see the top of the factory in wide shots. How did the Captain know there was an old abandoned church when he was behind enemy lines and had not done any recon. Who thought they could pass an early 20th Century style middle American church off as an old European one. That might pass in America but it would hit any European in the face straight away! There is the sequence where you can see the squibs exploding in the dirt. The time line is ambiguous and I know there are flashbacks but they don't fit properly, and who could possible forget the night of the landings! Why did they say that, show the flashback and say it again? I think the biggest problem was just careless editing and no attention to detail, and I don't mean the authenticity of weapons and uniforms, if the film is good enough you don't notice that. But if you are bored enough you will look out for faults. Oh yeah and why, in the graveyard battle sequence, was there are truck in wide shots but close-up shots were of an armoured car that hadn't driven on to the battlefield - when they ran into the clearing there was only the field gun so where did it come from?

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

This movie is a horror itself

3/10
Author: charlesdias from Brazil
21 October 2006

If you like class B WWII movies, you'll love this one.

It's a low budget WWII movie around a weak history full of clichés, lacking coherence a lot of times and very confusing other times. I think they could use a better history but they didn't it at all.

The production is very simple (I think they used the same farm or park for filming all the movie), makeup is a little more than basic (just some masks and basic "monster" makeup) and there is almost no special effects at all, just some basic CGI and computer altered frames.

OK, the movie is a class B one but I think the actors did a good job with the material they had to work.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

good but not great...worth a watch

7/10
Author: undeadmachine669 from United States
1 June 2006

This movie is very B but far from a lot of the shot on video trash you will see in video stores across the globe. It was, in fact, shot entirely on film...16mm, 35mm, and 8mm for flashbacks respectively. It has a cinematic feel, and though some of the acting is lacking and the pace could be trimmed a hair, it is an enjoyable film. I have heard it called one of the most ambitious genre indie films ever made, and I have to agree. The attention to uniform and vehicle details from the WW2 era are astonishing, given the obvious meager budget, and the make-up effects were very effective. The acting, for the most part, was a step above acceptible, and the drama and horror blended seamlessly. Some of this film contained bits of unintentional humor, but it only works in favor of the overall feel. The CGI was also well done, and thankfully sparingly used. The directors and two actors at the showing all seemed very down to earth and really made me want to buy this film when it comes out on DVD in the fall, and I suggest any horror or war movie fan do the same.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst movies I ever saw

1/10
Author: gaborlake from Germany
3 September 2007

This was one of the worst movies I ever saw. I was really positive about it when I read the cover of the DVD, and I was aware that this was a low budget movie, and I have quite a lot of sympathy for ambitious movie makers with a restricted budget. Its about improvisation and imagination.

But honestly this movie is real crap. Everything is bad, from the acting, to the attention to the detail, to the special effects and the filming as well.

Some movies are so bad that they are at some point funny, but this was just dull and silly.

Its rare to find a movie that is able to even disappoint low expectations, but that is certainly one of them.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Bad movie

1/10
Author: vcupid23 from Egypt
16 November 2006

i have some comments about that movie , it is not good at all , because : 1- Very poor story , you cant feel exactly that u know what is going on .. 2- The scene of raping and killing the french girl has no meaning at all , and adds nothing to the story nor to the idea of the film .. 3- About the monsters , they don't differ so much than Buffy & Angel vampires , that was not expected by me , i was expecting little more action , war scenes , some special effects !! 4-Even the shots and bombs have a weak effect , as they are just children's games .. 5-It is obvious that this movie costs only 10,000 $. I think the idea is good , but it needs to be remade with a higher budget

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Not bad at all, definite potential there.

6/10
Author: artyfilmsareformongs from United Kingdom
21 July 2006

Well.. Quite enjoyed it actually, you can see the very limited budget, but they did well with what they had. It was a good balance of War and horror. Personally like to have seen more horror as there was huge potential on that story, but thats just my preference.

It kinda reminded me of wolfenstein. I definitely feel the movie could have benefited from a larger budget as well. The acting was dodgy in places but in others surprisingly good. Effects were OK, but as I say, considering the budget, they did well.

If there's nothing on the box and you've nothing to watch, take a look at horrors of war. Its not the greatest film out there, but its by no means shoddy as well. Its an above average action/sci-fi/war/horror movie, and a fairly original movie with great potential. I for one would love to see a follow on from this, and with a larger budget, it could be a hit!!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Horror's Of War or Horror's Of Run Time?

1/10
Author: Jason Russell from United States
3 December 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Mr Dark's Film Review: Horrors Of War 2006 UPDATED Horror's Of War or Horror's Of Run Time? Film Review NO SPOILERS!!

I have decided to update this review due to the amount of turmoil it has caused with the filmmaker. This particular indie film was held in a little higher anticipation due to the fact that the filmmaker also has a show called FRAMELINES which he attempts on public access television to make better films. So it stands to reason that someone who would have a show about making films and is really good at tooting their own horn, would be able to produce a pretty good and better than average independent film. I mean wouldn't you say? That was my reasoning. I have no animosity towards this filmmaker, in fact I do not even know them, and aside from the fact that he went on a public group forum and proceeded to argue with me about the review. I felt the review was in need of an update as this person seems to think it was personal. I will point out that this film came out several years ago, but it was locally produced in the area and with a local artist to boot. So the age of the film is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was made and if it is worth watching or not. The period gear was OK. the cinematography was just simply not very good. All of the CGI was bad. All of the acting was bad. I thought the building scene with the zombie attack was poorly done. When the creature turns its head you can clearly see the makeup applications. It was just a really poorly done film and now on to the original review....

OK so I had seen this film's cover at a half price book store or something before, and I feel terribly sorry for whoever bought it in the first place and then was only able to recoup whatever half price bookstore offered them for this royal nugget of silliness. If you think I do not have anything good to say about this film, then you are correct. It has shitty cheap looking CGI, it has the worst acting you have ever seen. I mean really, and I think they were intentionally playing some of it off to try and do a hybrid updated version of an old 1950s style b movie late night style flick. However what they failed to realize is that a lot of those films are actually pretty good, and they certainly have much better acting. I just feel sorry for anyone who invested in this hybrid Wolfenstein wanna be piece of crap. I mean seriously folks, there is just nothing but a bunch of talk scenes, a little crappy CGI, and a whole lot of stupidity in this film I am afraid. I am sorry but this is just exactly the same sort of film I have been talking about and why we need reform in indie film. You make a crappy film and you need to be held accountable. It is because we allow crappy films like this to be made and then we go on and pat the guys back even though it is an unwatchable piece of garbage. I mean I am sorry there was just no redeeming qualities about this one. It is exactly the type of film I have been criticizing that Ohio doesn't need to be making. Or anywhere else for that matter. If you are an indie filmmaker and you made a film like this, then you should probably find another avenue to work in. If you are a consumer, then please don't bother with this one. It is a serious snoozer. I usually have something good to say, but really this is just the sort of indie film I am sick of seeing. Ed Wood made better films than this, much more enjoyable anyway. so rent Plan 9 From Outer Space, or the other throwback film that came out in recent years Alien Trespass. I will review that one here in the near future for you. P.S. If you happen to read any of the comments posted please understand my responses are from 48 hours worth of dealing with 40 plus private messages and continued harassment from the people who made the film and their friends.Scott Spears said this to me in an email "But, the filmmaking community in Ohio is very small and if you hope to continue to work it in, I'd refrain from posting reviews like this. You've heard the old adage, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all." So as you can see that is a veiled threat. There are no contextual problems. that is merely a blatant veiled threat so you can see what I have dealt with for 2 days. I am tired of their responses. It is a legitimate film review and if you want good reviews then make good films Bottom Line. Click on Mr. Dark's Photo for a link to the trailer for this horrendous tragedy.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

When WWII re-en-actors Go Bad

1/10
Author: JoeB131 from United States
11 November 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was made with a bunch of WWII re-enactment types, and it shows, with a bunch of overweight, middle aged guys wearing WWII uniforms.

Throw in some werewolf makeup and some zombie makeup, and there you go.

The plot line goes something like this, the Nazis are developing hard to kill zombies to reek havoc on the advancing allies. Except these Zombies tend to kill German soldiers as indiscriminately as they kill allied soldiers.

So the guy who first encounters them is sent on another mission to scout out a factory, but he never gets there because his squad stops off to rape some French babes and get mauled by their werewolf brother. Except one of his surviving squad members is infected with lycanthropy, and they send him out to help find the Nazi Zombies on the next mission. Can we call them Nazombies for short?)

Toss in some bad CGI, some filming of some WWII re-en-actors, and voilà, you have a mess of a movie made for about $12.65.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Worst I ever seen - maybe worse than any other war film I ever seen in my life

1/10
Author: stanzisaenz from United States
24 November 2013

The title of the film seemed appealing as well as the photograph of Hitler and his Nazi soldiers. They mentioned no such thing as zombies. Even if they did, it wasn't obvious. Right when it ended, I vowed never to watch it again; if anyone wants to make a film about war and historic points of view, then they just need to make it - and NOT involve anything that involves horror - such as zombies. I'm not a fan of horror films, and this one, I must say - pretty much narrows it down to what kind of film I think it is. Seeing Inglorious Basterds, Valkyrie, Saving Private Ryan, etc - they're nothing compared to this film. And where in the world was Hitler while the zombies were being 'murderous'? I saw no sign of him, whatsoever. Absolutely despicable film in my eyes. TO THOSE WHOM ARE WAR/HISTORY LOVERS OF THE FILM INDUSTRY: DO NOT BUY THIS FILM; IT'S A TOTAL WASTE.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history