As a WWII reenactor and history enthusiast, I tend to be rather harsh on movies, but in this case I think a low rating is justifiable. I can appreciate Mr. Struckmann's enthusiasm for working with reenactors in film, but it is simply not working out for him. He seems to bite off more than he can chew in this movie, given his roles as lead actor, producer, executive producer, director, and writer. The plot was barely discernible, and even though I did sit through the whole movie, I'm still not exactly sure what happened. Perhaps if Tino decided to stick with one role, be it acting, directing, or whatever, and practiced it a great deal, then he might have more success. In addition to the flaws with the story, the historical inaccuracies are so glaring that they seriously made me contemplate shooting my television. Many of the "top of the line" troops are overweight and middle-aged, and the wide variety of individual reenactors with different impressions means that you have many people with different gear congregating where they shouldn't be (E.G. Heer, SS, Fallschirmjäger, and Luftwaffe troops guarding a Gestapo prison). While I appreciate that working with reenactors allows the movie access to plenty of period vehicles, weapons, and pieces of equipment for a minuscule price, it doesn't make the movie very convincing at all thanks to their often unprofessional appearance and actions. Overall, I can appreciate the amount of work put in my Mr. Struckmann, but I think that this movie spends too much time trying to be an epic with hundreds of troops on screen and not enough working out the many kinks in the story to be worth more than a laugh.
51 Reviews
It must be a re-enactor film!
ETO_Buff11 August 2015
Let's see...
Atrocious acting, overweight soldiers, pristine uniforms, non-period costume elements, ultra-low budget effects... It must be a re-enactor film!
Full disclosure: I am not criticizing re-enactors in this review. I am, in fact, a World War II re-enactor and historian myself. That's why I recognize this film for what it is.
It would be much too time-consuming to point out all of the gross errors in this film, but my favorite part is when Klaudia, a German nurse, jumps into the machine gun pit and starts shooting at the Americans with an MG-42. Here are just a few of the many, many other things that were wrong with the script:
> Many scenes take place in a large, multi-story, walled prison facility near Omaha Beach. No such place existed in 1944, and still doesn't.
> Civilian police (Gestapo) have authority over the military.
> A private in the 29th Infantry Division on Omaha Beach has the helmet insignia of the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division on his helmet
> The private mentioned above addresses his sergeant as "Sir".
> The sergeant then says, "We gotta get off this beach, our Airborne is taking a hell of a pounding!" How does he know what the Airborne is doing? Why is he concerned about the Airborne instead of his objective? The Airborne troops are all over Normandy, too far inland for him to assist them with anything!
I would love to have enough money to make a ridiculously unrealistic film and run around in my WWII-era uniform. It looks like it was a lot of fun for the re-enactors and vehicle collectors in the cast, and the whole thing was clearly done in only one take, so no one would have been waiting around between takes and getting bored. I also like how they threw in a token Brit to be politically correct, but give no explanation as to why he's there.
It's interesting that the female lead (Klaudia Schiller, portrayed by Claudia Crawford) was left out of the credits. I know her acting was terrible, but so was the acting of everyone else in the film, and they credited all of them. At least her character's name was the same as her real first name so she wouldn't get confused when she was being addressed in the film. I wonder if they just licked her lips and stuck her to a wall when she wasn't needed for a scene.
Atrocious acting, overweight soldiers, pristine uniforms, non-period costume elements, ultra-low budget effects... It must be a re-enactor film!
Full disclosure: I am not criticizing re-enactors in this review. I am, in fact, a World War II re-enactor and historian myself. That's why I recognize this film for what it is.
It would be much too time-consuming to point out all of the gross errors in this film, but my favorite part is when Klaudia, a German nurse, jumps into the machine gun pit and starts shooting at the Americans with an MG-42. Here are just a few of the many, many other things that were wrong with the script:
> Many scenes take place in a large, multi-story, walled prison facility near Omaha Beach. No such place existed in 1944, and still doesn't.
> Civilian police (Gestapo) have authority over the military.
> A private in the 29th Infantry Division on Omaha Beach has the helmet insignia of the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division on his helmet
> The private mentioned above addresses his sergeant as "Sir".
> The sergeant then says, "We gotta get off this beach, our Airborne is taking a hell of a pounding!" How does he know what the Airborne is doing? Why is he concerned about the Airborne instead of his objective? The Airborne troops are all over Normandy, too far inland for him to assist them with anything!
I would love to have enough money to make a ridiculously unrealistic film and run around in my WWII-era uniform. It looks like it was a lot of fun for the re-enactors and vehicle collectors in the cast, and the whole thing was clearly done in only one take, so no one would have been waiting around between takes and getting bored. I also like how they threw in a token Brit to be politically correct, but give no explanation as to why he's there.
It's interesting that the female lead (Klaudia Schiller, portrayed by Claudia Crawford) was left out of the credits. I know her acting was terrible, but so was the acting of everyone else in the film, and they credited all of them. At least her character's name was the same as her real first name so she wouldn't get confused when she was being addressed in the film. I wonder if they just licked her lips and stuck her to a wall when she wasn't needed for a scene.
Limited Appeal
johnflewis7 January 2014
I rented this from a Redbox just before a winter storm. I had never heard of the film, but I expected to be snowed in and everything else was out of stock. The title has been shortened to just "Normandy" and the leading lady's name omitted from the credits. This isn't so much a movie, as an excuse for reenactors and military vehicle collectors to show off their hardware, and the hardware is fascinating. I can't imagine how one goes about maintaining 70 year old German tracked vehicles. Normandy also has lame dialog, wooden actors, anachronistic mini-skirts and chubby soldiers. If you can get past all of that, and Claudia Crawford's freakish lips, it is actually rather entertaining. If you are interested in old military hardware, this movie is well worth $1.27
Possibly the Worst WWII movie
trapyds-390-5782796 June 2012
This is my first movie review. I have seen just about every WWII movie available. Most balance the action and underlying plot fairly well. The sub plot on this one was a romance between a German officer and his long time girlfriend. The acting was worse than a bad high school play. The majority of infantrymen looked mostly over 60 years old with a few in their twenties thrown in for realism? Being a small arms collector of that era, they did get that part fairly accurately..hence my one point rating. Obviously this was a low budget film since most of the armored vehicles were filmed from other angles to give the illusion of greater numbers. Most of the war flicks from the 50's outshine this one. Don't waste your time or money.
Worst Movie of all Time???
iamacamera-422-79868314 July 2012
The jacket is by far the most interesting part of this movie and it isn't the worst movie of all time it certainly is in contention. At first I thought it might be a foreign film with dubbed in subtitles. Then I thought it was, perhaps, a Russian propaganda movie made to glorify the Russian military. My final conclusion, just before it was ejected from the DVD tray was that it was a high school movie class's final project. But even then it would have to improve. The director,producer and all the actors should be sued for malpractice! The acting is beyond stiff. The photography is dreadful with out of focus scenes and the script was awful. All in all it is a stinker and there's nothing good to be said about it.
Worst Movie...
jader-398-40582216 June 2012
I am a teenager who loves historical, war and action based movies. I saw the cover and rented it and watched this movie. Worst dollar I have ever spent, I thought I have seen the worse movies before I saw this, I stand corrected, This movie not only has the obvious features of low budget independent film, but the story line seems like it was written by a child. During the first scene when they talk, it was obvious from their "great" acting skills that this movie was going to suck, but i never thought it was as bad as it actually was. I do admit the weapons in the movie are quite spot on, just their firing effects draw your attention from the nice weapons to terrible effects. I found this movie to be more of a comedy then a action movie, because i couldn't stop laughing at this movie, if you are looking for a movie to watch to learn about WWII then this movie shouldn't be your first, second or even last stop. If you are looking to laugh at a film trying to be serious with terrible acting, directing, camera shots, war scenes and more, this movie is worth the dollar you could get it for at the Red Box.
I tried to like this.. but NO way...
virenkickedpresass7 June 2012
I saw this movie last night- the title changed to "Normandy"- I can honestly say this is by FAR the worst movie I have EVER seen- war, or otherwise- it's one of those where you stay with it, because you believe in NO WAY could it get ANY worse, and then it DOES- The D-Day invasion was so pathetic- two landing crafts, and nine soldiers... and somehow, they manage to take over the entire Wehrmacht...
OK, I understand they were working with an extremely limited budget, and the majority of actors donated all of their time, as well as costumes, vehicles, arms, etc. But even with that taken into consideration, this movie makes "Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies" look like an Academy Award winner...
OK, I understand they were working with an extremely limited budget, and the majority of actors donated all of their time, as well as costumes, vehicles, arms, etc. But even with that taken into consideration, this movie makes "Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies" look like an Academy Award winner...
This Film should be a comedy
g-sporle2 November 2012
I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I watched this, I laughed quite a bit. Shiny Tanks that have just come out of the museum, laughable beach landings, the wooden acting was so bad I have seen better at my sons Primary school and the accents were so poor they were that bad even the American ones sounded awful, lol. I think I heard one attempt at a German accent in the whole film.
Strangely though there is a good enough story/plot to it but you cannot take anything seriously. The German Nurses uniforms were just so wrong and Klaudia looks like a porn star, too much lipstick and botox.
I got this film as I thought it would be refreshing to see a war film from the German point of view to a certain extent but oh dear. I can't decide if this is the worst war film I have seen, this and pearl Harbour I think.
Strangely though there is a good enough story/plot to it but you cannot take anything seriously. The German Nurses uniforms were just so wrong and Klaudia looks like a porn star, too much lipstick and botox.
I got this film as I thought it would be refreshing to see a war film from the German point of view to a certain extent but oh dear. I can't decide if this is the worst war film I have seen, this and pearl Harbour I think.
A bad joke!
rule-391-5810737 June 2012
Like a previous reviewer, this is also the first time for me to write a movie review. When I read the other reviews, I had to laugh because they both expressed my same sentiments about this unbelievably bad war movie. In the scene where the landing crafts come ashore, the ocean behind them is completely "empty"! No supply ships - no Navy cruisers or destroyers firing at the German strongholds (bunkers, etc.) during the landing or any of the other approximately 5000 (total) vessels that history tells us were present on D-Day. It's clear to me now: a low budget film and the Normandy invasion don't go together lest it becomes an unintended comedy and a possible insult to the men that died on those beaches 68 years ago!
I've now seen the worst.
fatpigannwilson7 June 2012
I rarely do reviews, since I don't like to harm a movie, as generally there is something, somewhere that makes it have at least some minuscule quality to it, but I can honestly say that I have found a movie that has none. Nothing. Nunca. Niet. Zero. I am sure they had a small budget, but at what point do you need to say, "Hey. We have no money. Maybe we should re-evaluate even doing a movie, rather than risk turning out a piece of junk, and damaging our reputation so severely, that no one will ever give us any funding to ever do this again."?
Oh, wait a minute. There was a V W beetle painted in camouflage, and I like V W beetles. There. Now I feel justified in giving it a "one".
Oh, wait a minute. There was a V W beetle painted in camouflage, and I like V W beetles. There. Now I feel justified in giving it a "one".
Tino Struckmann could save the U.S. economy
BigBobFoonman19 June 2012
How did he get ANYBODY to give money for this phony crapfest? Answer that question, and apply the technique to saving the USA from the 15 trillion dollar catastrophe Osama Bin Laden caused us all here in the Country That Supports the Whole World.
Is Claudia Crawford the ULTIMATE WOMAN with her vaginal mouth? Whose idea was it to paint those lips fire-engine red? Does she call herself an actress? She does have great legs, but I don't think German nurses dressed like her and her BFF's in the film. Mini skirts for the Wehrmacht nurse brigades? Were there ANY actors, REAL actors, in this film?
My vote for best acting goes to the P-51 pilot in the cockpit during those fly-over scenes.
Why did I watch THE WHOLE FREAKIN' MOVIE?
Is Claudia Crawford the ULTIMATE WOMAN with her vaginal mouth? Whose idea was it to paint those lips fire-engine red? Does she call herself an actress? She does have great legs, but I don't think German nurses dressed like her and her BFF's in the film. Mini skirts for the Wehrmacht nurse brigades? Were there ANY actors, REAL actors, in this film?
My vote for best acting goes to the P-51 pilot in the cockpit during those fly-over scenes.
Why did I watch THE WHOLE FREAKIN' MOVIE?
Amazing old fashion war film - how did they get all that??
donzimmerman-419-71369010 July 2012
I have watched just about all war films there have been made, and I am amazed they were able to make a real good solid war film with all that equipment in it, in a day and age where everything is digital, they actually found real crafts, planes and a ton of tanks, I even saw a Goliath in one of the battle scenes, I mean where on earth would they find that. very well researched and put together, now it could have been shot and edited a bit better sure, but its a low budget film with more hardware then any studio film I've seen. I hope Hollywood takes note of these guys and gives them a chance at the big money. it seems the critics of this film have more of a personal bone to pick then are actually giving a well balanced review. sure that dress were a bit short but like Roger said, she had nice legs. Damian Chapa and Tino Struckmann did a great job
Film supporters vs. many critics :-)
elcoat3 December 2019
This was an intriguing film to watch. I was amazed at all the T34/85s for the Russian Front scenes.
For the Western Front scenes, another Sherman or two would have been nice, but small unit actions were often exactly that.
I don't understand why the nurses weren't waving white flags to surrender and save themselves, although things were happening fast and people were dropping everywhere.
As to some guys being overweight, our GIs were not all perfect athletic specimens.
They should have stuck with the P-51s Mustangs and not tried to impersonate P-47 Thunderbolts with AT-6 Texan trainers. A Bridge Too Far made the similar poor choice.
All in all, not a bad film effort at all, although the Waffen-SS should not be shown in a favorable light, considering 2.SS PzDiv's massacre - 600 men, women, and children burned alive ... to death ... in the village church - of Oradour on 10Jun44.
For the Western Front scenes, another Sherman or two would have been nice, but small unit actions were often exactly that.
I don't understand why the nurses weren't waving white flags to surrender and save themselves, although things were happening fast and people were dropping everywhere.
As to some guys being overweight, our GIs were not all perfect athletic specimens.
They should have stuck with the P-51s Mustangs and not tried to impersonate P-47 Thunderbolts with AT-6 Texan trainers. A Bridge Too Far made the similar poor choice.
All in all, not a bad film effort at all, although the Waffen-SS should not be shown in a favorable light, considering 2.SS PzDiv's massacre - 600 men, women, and children burned alive ... to death ... in the village church - of Oradour on 10Jun44.
Couldn't stop watching
jimandsusie-614-4338643 November 2014
I have watched many war films over the years some good, some bad and some in between but as a base to build on this film is, overall, the worst I have ever watched.
The dialogue and acting were poor at best but the worst aspect was the terrible German uniforms which appeared to be made of horse blanket as a one size fits all and even a low budget movie should stretch to shortening the trousers by 3 or 4 inches of some of the smaller soldiers. One of the tank crew was wearing shoes and a young soldier wore a very smart modern checked shirt with his uniform. Even in 1944 senior officers had doeskin tunics.
The uniforms of the US troops appeared to be motley but authentic and, although I know little about small arms, the weapons had an air of realism about them.
If the film is to be believed, obesity seems to have been a problem for both armies and whilst the Germans were scraping the barrel for manpower, hence the large numbers of pensionable aged soldiers on set, the allies did not and the average age on D Day was about 22. Some of the troops looked old enough to have taken part in the actual landings although I suspect there were more than 2 landing craft and a dozen men then.
I've tried to find something positive to say about the film and I suppose some credit must go to the male lead who managed to keep the side of his head away from camera where his ear was inside the hat to keep it on, it being a couple of sizes too big. The female lead was riveting, as in I couldn't take my eyes off her enormous mouth highlighted by crimson lipstick. Her dress length was not common until the 1960's but they did show off her excellent legs.
Somebody thought it a good idea to use a VW Beetle as a war machine but didn't realise that this car wasn't mass produced (and therefore available to the German army) until 1945.
I look forward to the sequel...surely they won't have the gall to do one.
The dialogue and acting were poor at best but the worst aspect was the terrible German uniforms which appeared to be made of horse blanket as a one size fits all and even a low budget movie should stretch to shortening the trousers by 3 or 4 inches of some of the smaller soldiers. One of the tank crew was wearing shoes and a young soldier wore a very smart modern checked shirt with his uniform. Even in 1944 senior officers had doeskin tunics.
The uniforms of the US troops appeared to be motley but authentic and, although I know little about small arms, the weapons had an air of realism about them.
If the film is to be believed, obesity seems to have been a problem for both armies and whilst the Germans were scraping the barrel for manpower, hence the large numbers of pensionable aged soldiers on set, the allies did not and the average age on D Day was about 22. Some of the troops looked old enough to have taken part in the actual landings although I suspect there were more than 2 landing craft and a dozen men then.
I've tried to find something positive to say about the film and I suppose some credit must go to the male lead who managed to keep the side of his head away from camera where his ear was inside the hat to keep it on, it being a couple of sizes too big. The female lead was riveting, as in I couldn't take my eyes off her enormous mouth highlighted by crimson lipstick. Her dress length was not common until the 1960's but they did show off her excellent legs.
Somebody thought it a good idea to use a VW Beetle as a war machine but didn't realise that this car wasn't mass produced (and therefore available to the German army) until 1945.
I look forward to the sequel...surely they won't have the gall to do one.
War is hell.....but watching this is worse
RondoHatton27 May 2014
First, looking at the 5 or 6 rave reviews, I'd have to guess that producer/director/star is up to his Amazon tricks of giving great reviews of his own product. Next, all the people who gave this piece of scheiss 2 or less stars were right on. One thing I must mention is that Struckmann needs to take a firearms safety course......the way he fires a pistol reminds me of nothing so much as Natalie Portman in 'Leon: The Professional', just hold the weapon up and start blasting. If this guy really "served 10 years in the ARMY and finished his Military service as an instructor in Germany" (as IMDb puts it), I hope it wasn't the US Army.....
Normandy
ban52320 November 2012
I strongly suggest that no one ever watches this movie. I bought it for five bucks at a red box and realized it was the worst five bucks I have ever spent in my life. Everything was ridiculously fake looking as well as just plain. I knew it was some type of private company film when the men would get shot and just fall, no blood, nothing. I'm not a mean person, but whoever helped make this movie should really consider a new job approach. I am 19 and a big fan of World War 2 films and I have no problems saying this is one of the worst I've ever seen. After fifteen minutes of watching this movie, I realized I couldn't take it anymore, I had to stop it, I almost threw it away/broke it in half, but my Dad said to keep it. Let's put it this way, I would rather break the movie disc in half and let out anger than watch another ten minutes of this movie.
I wanted to vomit!!!
psnewson7 September 2012
I have unfortunately squandered 1h40 of my life which I shall never get back. This is by far the worst film I have ever seen.
The general plot was made worse by the historical inaccuracies that, despite being a low budget film, should have been addressed. Even in the first few minutes on the Eastern Front seeing an immaculately clean grey Tiger tank next to a APC in the mid 1944 dark yellow cameo scheme made me cough up my drink. Such basic detail. The accents were pathetic and in line with those of Enemy at the Gates when Bob Hoskins introduces himself as Khrushchev in the most Cockney accent possible. And two landing craft on D-Day? If you've got a cheap budget, don't be over-ambitious like in this film where we can't help but be drawn to the constant mistakes plus the poor acting.
What a useless film!!!
The general plot was made worse by the historical inaccuracies that, despite being a low budget film, should have been addressed. Even in the first few minutes on the Eastern Front seeing an immaculately clean grey Tiger tank next to a APC in the mid 1944 dark yellow cameo scheme made me cough up my drink. Such basic detail. The accents were pathetic and in line with those of Enemy at the Gates when Bob Hoskins introduces himself as Khrushchev in the most Cockney accent possible. And two landing craft on D-Day? If you've got a cheap budget, don't be over-ambitious like in this film where we can't help but be drawn to the constant mistakes plus the poor acting.
What a useless film!!!
comedy all the way
loobidoo5 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
strangely i couldn't stop watching this! imagine a WW2 re-enactment taking place somewhere and a woman doing the walk of shame stumbles across it and they all play lets pretend for an hour or so that is this film!! comedy to say the least ....when fish lips dies Klaus keeps looking at his hands (looking for blood but there's none to be seen) this is the point where i very nearly wet my pants .....my grandfather fought in the war he was and English pilot so i like to watch the occasional war film. Its definitely more dads army than Saving private Ryan. If its on TV and there's nothing else at all to watch waste an hour or so but you have been warned!
Terrible Acting and More!
donske22 September 2012
I streamed this awful movie from Sony's "Video Unlimited" service. To say that I was speechless after just ten minutes of watching this movie would be an understatement. The trailer, of course, looked good. Lots of action and nice soundtrack so I streamed it for $3.99! As stated by another reviewer, I would have been better off renting it for a dollar at RedBox, but who knew it would be so bad. The acting was so bad I thought maybe it was supposed to sound that way. You know...everyone shell-shocked from the war or something! Yikes! I could barely finish it. There was no character development. That is to say, you couldn't feel anything for anyone being portrayed in this movie. Total trash. Don't even waste a dollar.
terrible awful movie
avowels28 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I would vote -10.. I'll admit most of RedBox's movies are pretty good and when you pay only a dollar and something cents for a movie, I can't really complain.. but after watching this movie I really wish reviews were included. If your smart and read the reviews before renting the movie then trust me when I say this, don't rent it. Don't waste your time or money on this movie. It is the worst movie I have ever seen... and well its just terrible. I was watching this with my friend while less than ten minutes into the movie I got bored and started playing games on my phone. I kept wanting the movie to hopefully get better.. but it just went downhill as soon as I pushed play. Now don't get me wrong, I love historical movies like Schindler's List and Defiance, etc. But this movie was a joke. The acting was absolutely terrible along with the "special effects." Helllooo people, were in 2012 now. I get that this movie was made between 2010 and 2011, but when I was watching this movie I thought it was made in the 1920s or even earlier *which would not have even made sense due to dates and stuff, I know* but the effects and acting and even picture quality was just that bad. I understand they had a low budget etc but if your gonna spend a lot of money producing a movie at least make it somewhat decent. Hands down, the worst movie I have ever seen.
Hopeless, hapless, inane, pathetic attempt at cinema
cosmo-bongo26 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I thought this was a poor parody or a dreadful comedy about the Third Reich, having just stumbled on it on TV. It purports to be a serious motion picture, however. Oh Dear!
The acting is less than 3rd-rate, the script a joke. Even the uniforms do not fit too well.
One of the "actresses" who is a Nazi nurse wears a skirt several inches above her knees and apparently has just received uber-excessive lip- plumping, for she cannot close her mouth properly, looks like a fish gulping; her face is like a mask, almost frightening.
There is some kind of plot or storyline, but I could not detect it, and I could not bear the thought of watching this cinematic dross through to its conclusion. There is a romance involved, and I suppose the Nazis end up losing the war, as usual.
Truly, this is one of the weirdest films I have ever encountered. It will very quickly be forgotten, though, and I advise you NOT to bother with it at all.
In a word: "abysmal".
The acting is less than 3rd-rate, the script a joke. Even the uniforms do not fit too well.
One of the "actresses" who is a Nazi nurse wears a skirt several inches above her knees and apparently has just received uber-excessive lip- plumping, for she cannot close her mouth properly, looks like a fish gulping; her face is like a mask, almost frightening.
There is some kind of plot or storyline, but I could not detect it, and I could not bear the thought of watching this cinematic dross through to its conclusion. There is a romance involved, and I suppose the Nazis end up losing the war, as usual.
Truly, this is one of the weirdest films I have ever encountered. It will very quickly be forgotten, though, and I advise you NOT to bother with it at all.
In a word: "abysmal".
Production note to all
tinostruckmann11 June 2012
When we shot this movie we had a near non-existent budget and yet we managed, to bring in all the real pieces of hardware from a real Hetzer, T-34's, M-10's, we, have a running Tiger and a Sturmgeschutz. We went out of our way to shot real pieces of hardware never before shown in war films. So it is sad that those who critique us only pick out the mistakes that slipped. We had a Goliath, a Nebelwerfer, a Swimmwagon, a real French artillery piece near the beach, who else had that? we even shot full moon after D-Day. And our depiction of the situation in the German side before D-day was all correctly researched and not before touched upon in other movies. We even shot some of our D-day landings on June 6th. Most of us producers are former military veterans and military historians and at times we had to take shortcuts for the sake of logistics and visuals, and those people involved in film making know this is sometimes necessary, although it is hard to explain. But it would be nice if some of the vivid remarks would also point out all the things we got right and next time we shoot a war movie come out and take part of the production and see for yourself. Sincerely Tino Struckmann Director
Great War film, amazing detail and hardware
almightydog8 July 2012
I really enjoyed the film, sure it was not a large studio film but as opposed to studio films where everything is digital, in this film the producers went out of their way to find all the real tanks and planes etc, it gives the film a realness, that its clear that everything is really there. and there were some great shots in the film, like when the American plane went 10 feet over the ground right over the heard of the actors and tanks, it was real and Im amazed they could do it. the story line wan nice, no real holes, and they paid great attention to historic detail, I have read other reviews and it seems to me that they are more a personal attack at the producers then a true audience review and that is a shame, as obviously these guys went out of their way to make the money go a long way and for a low budget independent film they did an amazing job, I have never seen any independent WAR film on low budget get anywhere near this grandness into a film. I mean who finds a Tiger tank and landing crafts just to name a few. I am a former soldier and I loved it, and my friends did too, watch it for what it is and enjoy I say Chris
Watchable and I've seen a LOT worse
EdeBorrett1 January 2015
Other reviewers do have some valid points on the movie - the acting is not the greatest and at times you can see the low-budget effects but this has been GREATLY overstated.
The script is good and, most of the time, the direction is passable albeit that sometimes the acting is wooden (and I did say "sometimes"). A great plus for me is that there is a serious attempt, thanks to the large number of re-enactors involved, to use accurate uniforms, weapons and equipment (btw the bright red lipstick shown was very fashionable in the 1940s) and there is some real feel of combat in a way that there is not with a great many other war movies ('The Longest day' and 'Saving Private Ryan' being particular exceptions).
'The Rose of Normandy' will never be a classic and could have been better edited to reduce the times when you can see the low budget effects (we didn't need to see the totally empty sea behind the landing craft...) but the "Worst WWII Movie Ever" ? NOT by a very very long way.
Have the other reviewers not seen 'The Battle of the Bulge', 'To Hell and Back', 'The Heroes of Telemark', 'The Big Red One', 'Operation Crossbow', and all of those other movies where the Producer/Director has not even tried to reflect 1940s uniforms, equipment and fashion because they really couldn't be bothered and may well have had a simple contempt for their audiences ? No, as I said, "Normandy" is not a great movie but is well worth the hour and a half indulgence
The script is good and, most of the time, the direction is passable albeit that sometimes the acting is wooden (and I did say "sometimes"). A great plus for me is that there is a serious attempt, thanks to the large number of re-enactors involved, to use accurate uniforms, weapons and equipment (btw the bright red lipstick shown was very fashionable in the 1940s) and there is some real feel of combat in a way that there is not with a great many other war movies ('The Longest day' and 'Saving Private Ryan' being particular exceptions).
'The Rose of Normandy' will never be a classic and could have been better edited to reduce the times when you can see the low budget effects (we didn't need to see the totally empty sea behind the landing craft...) but the "Worst WWII Movie Ever" ? NOT by a very very long way.
Have the other reviewers not seen 'The Battle of the Bulge', 'To Hell and Back', 'The Heroes of Telemark', 'The Big Red One', 'Operation Crossbow', and all of those other movies where the Producer/Director has not even tried to reflect 1940s uniforms, equipment and fashion because they really couldn't be bothered and may well have had a simple contempt for their audiences ? No, as I said, "Normandy" is not a great movie but is well worth the hour and a half indulgence
Well, at least they tried...
paul_haakonsen20 August 2013
As far as World War II movies go, then "Red Rose of Normandy" is definitely not amongst the best. This movie was really bad in many ways, and still there was something good to be found here as well.
The good part was that there was a lot of action in the movie, almost non-stop throughout the entire movie. And also there was a good touch to the costumes, uniforms, weapons and such.
But the bad things in the movie outweighed the good by far. And as such, it was a rather bad movie experience. For starters, both the Russians and Germans speak English. At times you had the Germans speaking English with the stereotypical Hollywood-induced German accent, and other times they spoke English with thick American accents. Then suddenly out of nowhere some would speak a line or two in German. Wow, are you kidding me? Pick one style and stick with it. It was such a messy result with all the accents and languages.
Also, I didn't know that they had plastic / corrective surgery back in the 1940's. What was going on with Kladia's lips? It was an atrocity to look at. And it just didn't fit into the movie one bit.
Given all the shooting and firing of various firearms throughout the movie, most of the time you had no indication at what people were shooting at, and it seemed like they were shooting weapons just to shoot weapons, so the director had something to put into the movie. Most of the scenes were devoid of any sense of combat, where people were just running around shooting here and there.
I wonder why no vehicles exploded, even though several were hit by tank firing at them. The explosions would always occur at the wheels or underneath the vehicle. Not a single car exploded in a plume of fire and smoke. That was sort of weak. I guess it was too expensive to blow up an actual vehicle.
Finally, as the bad things go, then the whole scene with the landing at the Normandy beach. Wow, it was so bad. There was no sense of panic, or massive warfare there, and there were less than 20 or 30 people on the beach. It was just out of scale and totally didn't work out as it was planned to.
The acting in the movie was wooden and forced, and no one really stood out here in any way.
"Red Rose of Normandy" seems to be a B-movie in every aspect. But thumbs up to director Tino Struckmann for trying to make a World War II movie, just a shame that it failed utterly and miserably.
If you enjoy World War II movies, then stay well clear of this movie, because it simply isn't worth the effort. The movie does no credit to tell neither the good or bad things that took place during World War II. At best, it seemed like a theatrical rehearsal of a World War II re-enactment.
I am rating "Red Rose of Normandy" a 3 out of 10 rating, simply because of all the action and at least they had the uniforms and weapons right.
The good part was that there was a lot of action in the movie, almost non-stop throughout the entire movie. And also there was a good touch to the costumes, uniforms, weapons and such.
But the bad things in the movie outweighed the good by far. And as such, it was a rather bad movie experience. For starters, both the Russians and Germans speak English. At times you had the Germans speaking English with the stereotypical Hollywood-induced German accent, and other times they spoke English with thick American accents. Then suddenly out of nowhere some would speak a line or two in German. Wow, are you kidding me? Pick one style and stick with it. It was such a messy result with all the accents and languages.
Also, I didn't know that they had plastic / corrective surgery back in the 1940's. What was going on with Kladia's lips? It was an atrocity to look at. And it just didn't fit into the movie one bit.
Given all the shooting and firing of various firearms throughout the movie, most of the time you had no indication at what people were shooting at, and it seemed like they were shooting weapons just to shoot weapons, so the director had something to put into the movie. Most of the scenes were devoid of any sense of combat, where people were just running around shooting here and there.
I wonder why no vehicles exploded, even though several were hit by tank firing at them. The explosions would always occur at the wheels or underneath the vehicle. Not a single car exploded in a plume of fire and smoke. That was sort of weak. I guess it was too expensive to blow up an actual vehicle.
Finally, as the bad things go, then the whole scene with the landing at the Normandy beach. Wow, it was so bad. There was no sense of panic, or massive warfare there, and there were less than 20 or 30 people on the beach. It was just out of scale and totally didn't work out as it was planned to.
The acting in the movie was wooden and forced, and no one really stood out here in any way.
"Red Rose of Normandy" seems to be a B-movie in every aspect. But thumbs up to director Tino Struckmann for trying to make a World War II movie, just a shame that it failed utterly and miserably.
If you enjoy World War II movies, then stay well clear of this movie, because it simply isn't worth the effort. The movie does no credit to tell neither the good or bad things that took place during World War II. At best, it seemed like a theatrical rehearsal of a World War II re-enactment.
I am rating "Red Rose of Normandy" a 3 out of 10 rating, simply because of all the action and at least they had the uniforms and weapons right.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
