Company of Heroes (2013 Video) User Reviews

No attempt to be a realistic war movie

[mike-ryan455 · 4/10 · 26 February 2013]

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.

where's Capt. Dye when you need him?

[smaaback · 4/10 · 2 March 2013]

With seasoned war film veterans this film really disappoints. Mainly because of the 1990's CGI effects and not being realistic.

They use several clichés; unlimited ammo, inaccurate spraying of bullets when they shoot they're machine pistols, guys falling BEFORE the shot hits, and they fall several meters when they get shot, the Russians and the Germans speaks perfectly good English.

I don't know how much Jürgen Prochnow got to play a part in this movie, judging by his acting, not enough...

The only good thing is that that you get to see Vinnie being Vinne and beats up several guys on his own, which would be expected.

A lot of not great acting in this movie..

Below Average

[theLemondReport · 5/10 · 8 July 2013]

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/

Not the worst WW2 movie in recent years

[bill-2158 · 1/10 · 6 December 2014]

I can't call this movie a total waste of time, because I was reading my email while suffering through it. I had to quit watching halfway through. I could take no more.

Here's what to do if you know you are making a bad WW2 movie. Get actors that performed well in great WW2 productions, pay them whatever you have to in order to get them in your stinker, and hope they draw people in. Unfortunately, Tom Sizemore from "Saving Private Ryan" + Neal McDonough from "Band of Brothers" + Jürgen Prochnow from "Das Boot" + a bad movie, still = a bad movie.

This movie was obviously made by people that know nothing about the military, and didn't care enough to consult with people that do. I knew the movie was in trouble when people kept calling a sergeant "sir" throughout the whole movie. Even if a character was supposed to be ignorant of this, the sergeant would have corrected him. How many times have we heard lines in a movie like, "Don't call me sir. I work for a living."

You gotta love how worried they are about a "German" tank they encounter. They had to stop this tank before it overran their whole base, but they use their Bazooka rounds on the accompanying soldiers before FINALLY using it on the tank. This "Super Bazooka" is so powerful, that one shot at the tanks track blows the whole tank up in a huge fireball.

"The Guys" also have this capability to become things that usually take quite a bit of specialized training and time. Instant snipers. Instant spies.

OK. I realize getting the right equipment and weapons is difficult, if not impossible. Still, if you are going to disguise what is probably a Russian T-34 tank as a German tank - at least make it look like an actual German tank, like they did in "Kelly's Heroes". The makers of this movie were content with just hanging pieces of whatever all over these tanks so they looked like anything besides what they actually were.

The best equipment goof was the train engine seen in most of the close shots. A typical old steam locomotive usually seen in old westerns, and of the type used in the late 19th century, complete with "cow catcher", large stack and cab.

This movie doesn't seem to know what it is trying to be either. Is it trying to be an alternate history, like "Inglourious Basterds"? That would be the only way to explain the Nazis having anything close to nuclear weapons capabilities. Is it trying to be like a graphic novel, with all the blood squirting, body-squishing tank scenes? Is it a comic book, with it's main antagonist adorned with some weird metal leg brace, walking cane, and serious (bad) comic book persona.

The only thing that looks halfway decent is the uniforms. Some people have commented about wrong patches and insignia, but the overall look-and-feel seems right. OK. I've never heard of anyone in the RAF (Vinnie Jones character) wearing berets or calling themselves the British Air Force or anything other than RAF.

A terrible movie with so much wrong with it that all I can say is that it MIGHT be better than "Ardennes Fury". Watch it for free if you want a good laugh.

Pick a cliché, any cliché . . .

[eelpie_03 · 3/10 · 20 September 2013]

What a load of hooey.

First they're in the Ardennes. Then they're in Germany, at a secret weapons test center, no less.

Then, in full uniform, they decide to hop a train to Stuttgart, in the heart of the Third Reich! Implausible, far-fetched, and inane.

Of course the one girl is attractive, and taking a bath, with the door open, in a house full of soldiers. Will someone please call Kelly McGillis, and tell her the scene from 'Witness' has just been hi-jacked.

Worst yet, except for the Thompsons and one .45, none of the weapons carried by Americans were American. What, no Garrands had made it to the Bulge? I want my seventy-five cents back . . .

They don't make war films like this anymore.

[dndcullens · 2/10 · 31 March 2013]

Well, yes, they do, apparently. In the old days war movies used to be full of inaccuracy's, have stupid plots, really stupid action sequences and the occasional love story. They were enjoyable for what they were - a piece of entertainment but without the seriousness to stop you enjoying s good old fashioned shoot-em-up war flick. Then came movies like Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down to spoil the lot. All this realism, slight adherence to facts and decent story lines really wrecked the genre. So thanks be to God there is still someone out there who doesn't give a f**k about all of that and can still make the same pile of do-do we got in the 1960's. Guns that can shoot endless rounds of ammo, bazooka's which can blow up tanks, tanks that look like nothing you are ever likely to find in any book about tanks, German's who can line up as if on parade to get shot, prisoners who are well fed, camps which look like building sites, etc. etc. etc. This is not the worst war movie I have ever seen but it was close. What the f**k Tom Sizemore and Jurgen Pronchnow were doing in it only their pay check knows. And, yes, there is a nude scene for no apparent reason. Like the rest of the movie you ask yourself WHY??????

stupid, ridiculous and unconvincing screenplay salted with

[rightwingisevil · 3 March 2013]

terrible acting of all the roles. those escaped pows looked like guys full of stomachs all the time. stupid sound track tried very hard to be sublime and patriotic. the lame dialog further deteriorated the performances of all actors. the fire-fighting scenes looked so staged. this is one of the worst wwii war movies i've ever seen. the whole movie fell so flat that you automatically disconnected yourself. got on a train to stuttgart before the nazi Germans, yet those Germans could have reached there so easily. the g.i.s, Russian and British pows all used sub-machine guns? and the ammunition they carried seemed to be never used up. then there's the opera singer, then the Russian could walked up to the guard and asked him to light the cigarette for him? my god, this movie is so awful and laughable!

Some good action, but the weapons are almost completely wrong

[rrclerk68 · 6/10 · 26 August 2017]

General George Patton once wrote, "The M1 Garand Rifle was the greatest battle tool ever devised". Well, don't worry. There are none in this film.

Instead of a Springfield M1903A1 which was the standard US sniper rifle in WW2, the sniper runs around using a German Gewehr 43 with a sniper scope. Outside of a few Thompson machine guns (M1928A1 Thompson and M1A1 Thompson) and an M9 "Bazooka", the rest of the US soldiers are using the bolt action Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk 1 which was the standard rifle for the British and Commonwealth troops. Both the M1 Garand and the Browning Automatic rifle, which were standard for US troops fired the .30-06 cartridge, completely different than the .303 cartridge used by British Commwealth troops. I realize that getting accurate weapons for movie use is expensive and difficult, but come on, guys, at least use American weapons for American troops, not something the enemy or another ally would use.

Also, every one has a big American flag on their right shoulder. Big-no-no. NOBODY in the US Army at that time would sew one on, it was a damn good target. Brassards were issued during some invasions, but these were easy to dispose of.

Enjoyable action, but I mostly rented this on Amazon because Tom Sizemore ('Saving Private Ryan''Blackhawk Down')plays a tough sergeant (former busted officer) and Neil McDonough ('Band of Brothers') appear in the film, The other actors make a good team and generally portrayed US Army soldiers adequately.

Bad Company

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 5 March 2013]

This is a film that tries to market itself as Alasitar McLean meets Quintann Tarantino meets BAND OF BROTHERS . One worries though how the much hyped casting of Tom Sizemore may go down since it's sixteen years since he appeared in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and one envisages him being more likely cast as the American equivalent of a character from DADS ARMYrather than a veteran combat soldier still able to kill Nazis . Thankfully the the years have been physically kind to Sizemore and the early scenes of COMPANY OF HEROES are relatively impressive . You do believe the film has transported you to the cold , snow covered Ardennes of December 1944 and any fears that you're going to be watching something on a par to the laughable 1960s big budget version of THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE are unfounded . Don't speak so soon

Despite having some good cinematography and music there's little else to recommend . As soon as the Germans turn up in force you'll be surrounded by so many things wrong about COMPANY OF HEROES . One thing is type of tanks the Germans are using - they're certainly unlike any tank the Germans used but are also unlike any tank you've seen . It's also very obvious that the explosions are created via CGI on a par with the ones used in SyFy Channel productions . You'll also notice that the American weapons aren't American weapons from that period

You can overlook these errors and perhaps suspend disbelief that the Nazis were close to developing the Atomic bomb if there was a compelling storyline but the screenplay is incredibly clumsy and strewn with errors that don't make sense within the film's own internal logic .For example :

On watching the Americans escape on a train bound for Germany the chief Nazi villain states " So now the hunt moves to Stuttgart " . Wouldn't a better idea be to just stop the train and shoot the Americans ? Also fortunate for the story that the railway line is intact after all that allied bombing

A Soviet character introduces himself and says he was a POW of the Germans . The problem is he's several pounds overweight , not something Soviet prisoners of war suffered from at the hands of the Nazis . I kept thinking this guy was a plant put there by the Nazis but as it turns out he is a genuine Soviet POW

A character introduces himself as " 'Allo I'm Willoughby British airforce " . No Briton would ever describe themself in that way . It might be British royal airforce " or British RAF " but never British airforce

Two characters walk down a busy street in Stuttgart speaking English and no one over hears them

A character mentions the Nazis have developed an atomic bomb and yet no one asks the obvious question " What's an atomic bomb ? " I'm led to believe even the crew of Enola Gay hadn't heard of the term until they were on the flight to Hiroshima

A character mentions they must " flee with the atomic bomb before the allies bomb the factory tomorrow " Would an OSS agent be told of the bombing schedule of the allied airforces ? If the allies want to get their hands on the bomb why not wait to see if the mission is a success before bombing the factory ?

This had the potential to be if not a good wartime action adventure then certainly better than the mediocre mess that it ended up as

Too low for me

[comabi4 · 6/10 · 18 January 2015]

In these weekend I just re-watched The Thin Red Line and Platoon and then I just want to watch something else. I hoped for a surprise and I didn't check IMDb. Indeed this movie is something else. It was a big surprise for me. But a negative one. In the beginning, when I saw Tom Sizemore (Saving Private Ryan) and Neal McDonough (Band of Brothers) I really believed that it would be a excellent movie to continue those that I watched first. But is terrible. It's a fraud of a movie. If u know a little history and u like those kind of movies, don't waste time with it. If u're under 15, maybe u'll enjoy it. Too many mistakes, both historical and screen playing, lack of feeling and so on and so on. Forgive my English, but I was so disturbed and disappointed that I really wanted to write this review. I don't know if will help somebody, but it's helping me to cope with those kind of movies.

Could have been much better with simple Director changes

[Sharpe528 · 5/10 · 15 February 2013]

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".

Better Than You Might Think

[lgcsissypool · 8/10 · 25 February 2015]

Most of the reviews that have been posted here say the movie is "unrealistic" and "Doesn't follow history"; well, they're right, it doesn't. That might be because the story line actually follows "Company of Heroes" THE GAME! That's right, a game. SPOILER ALERT: This is probably why you were wondering how they had an Atomic bomb and the fact that it wasn't actually true. This is not based off of history it's based off of a game set in World War II. This being said, it is a very well made adaptation of the game and I too enjoyed seeing all the past War movie actors play a part in this. This is highly underrated simply because people didn't do their own research and find that this is simply a reenactment of a GAME!

This movie is a must see! ENJOY!!! (^_^)

Well I enjoyed it.

[Toocooltoobefooled · 7/10 · 29 December 2018]

The reviews for this movie are generally horrible on IMDB, but still I enjoyed it. If you are a WWII history buff or looking for an accurate portrayal of war/WWII this isn't it. As others point out reloading weapons is an unnecessary option here and more akin to the movies of the past were bullets were endless and guns did not need to be reloaded. I am no expert on military weapons of the period, but many will point out that they are not accurate for the period or even for the unit weilding them. None of these bothered me though, having grown up watching old war movies where much of these flaws were always present, I've suspended those facts in favor of entertainment. The biggest short coming for me were the cgi effects which were equal to what you might find on the SCIFI channel. Beyond that I enjoyed the actors and the action held my interest throughout. The action is relatively constant and the characters enjoyable enough to carry the movie, if that is what you are looking for. That was enough for me on a slow Friday night with not much else on to watch.

Because one (1) was the lowest rating available

[galwaychase · 1/10 · 3 March 2014]

This could easily make the list of worst WW II movies ever made ... not 'the' worst (because there are so many bad ones already) but I doubt this could have gotten anymore historically inaccurate or filled with bad and out of period cliché's. Watch this if you are only in solitary confinement and have no other choice or if you are the kind of person fascinated by road kill (you know it's ugly but you look anyways). The whole thing reeks of low budget nonsense. Likely the only thing that would have been more entertaining would have been watching the footage from a hidden camera during the pitch meeting in which this stinker was discussed and ultimately bought into by a studio. The movie embodies everything about modern Hollywood that can and should be criticized.

Even Alcohol Can't Save This Movie

[dafttar · 1/10 · 11 July 2013]

This is one of those movies that makes me wonder why people spend money on it when there are so many starving children in this world.

The acting is sub-par (on a good day), the script is something I would expect from someone in high school or lower, and the whole production is just painful.

I have seen horror movies with more credibility than this. Why anyone, would spend good money to watch this, let alone produce it, is beyond me.

You'd be better off watching Saw Part 26 then this piece of ill contrived drivel. It insult even one who had anything to do with the second world war, including those not born yet.

The best alternative ending, would have been to line up the production crew against a wall, and shoot them. It insults everyone's intelligence, and and anyone's taste. Please let this die a quite death in some film morgue that no one cares about.

In short, it should be shot in order to put us all out of our misery.

The film raises a fundamental question

[david_duval_tulsa · 1/10 · 1 June 2013]

There are countless extraordinary stories from the war years. And many stories intertwine with other stories. A person involved in creating films would have thousands upon thousands of fantastic, harrowing stories to choose from. I've read many and I just read for entertainment. A true historian could lead one to thousands. Why can't Hollywood take advantage of technology and reproduce some of them accurately? They could make very entertaining, exciting movies. They would never run out of scripts. Truth is stranger, more unpredictable, much more fascinating than any fictitious tale, specially during the incredibly events of that time. The stories lie in the individual experiences. Not so much in the epic, major campaign, major battle subject manner. In this movie, the language/slang of the time, scenario, combat events, characters, equipment, geography, are all inaccurate. It serves as a display of how ignorant Hollywood is of history that is really hardly history at all being that the war ended just 20 years before I was born.

Glaring Inaccuracies make the movie impossible to watch

[jeffmartis · 3/10 · 16 March 2013]

From incorrect uniforms to incorrect weapons to incorrect armored vehicles to 4 engine bombers making a bombing run from what appeared to be about 300 feet this movie was constantly throwing so much comic book fiction stuff in your face it was impossible to follow the plot.

It also felt like a video game as a large squad of about 8 guys kill off hundreds of German troops. It was almost as bad as showing the little pac man life icons and then subtracting them in scene after scene as yet again the character implausibly survives to kill dozens more.

Too bad this movie could have been so much better just by someone paying attention.

Rating 3 stars

Good acting for the most part but highly historically inaccurate.

[Bush_Pilot · 28 February 2013]

I am a WWII buff and have been for most of my 69 years. This movie was a big disappointment, despite the talented actors doing a pretty good job with the story and script they were trashing history with. In this day and age where writers are too lazy to even research and write accurate stories of events, it is a shame. Especially since we have so many new research tools at our fingertips compared with the fifties and sixties when more accurate WWII flicks were in their heyday. Of course, the forties were loaded with propaganda because we were either in the war or recently finished with it and trying to counter red propaganda.

The Germans were never even close to setting off an atom bomb. Certainly the allies were worried about that possibility and the Germans certainly were trying at various times during the war to develop the thing, but they blew their chances when they imprisoned, shot, or exiled the majority of their scientific talent in not only Germany but conquered eastern block nations. They just basically shot themselves in the foot when they stopped the Jews from participating. The A bomb program was so unorganized, fragmented, and doomed from the start, (Imagine this. Goring was actually put in charge near the beginning) that it never had a prayer of beating the allies. The movie infers that we not only stopped them by rescuing the brains of their efforts, but that it made some kind of difference as to whether we could accomplish the bomb ourselves without him. Hogwash and a terribly irresponsible revision of history by the story tellers. Other reviewers have pointed out the absurdness of ending up with an American, a Russian, and a Brit working together. The British worked with us on the bomb in the US and the Russians had several successful spies working on the Manhattan project feeding them nearly everything anyway.

A high ranking German officer wearing a horrific brace that is meant to be menacing I suppose. How likely is it that he would have spikes protruding on the inside where they could catch on the inside of his other leg and eventually cripple him completely. What a comic book idea that one was. What are the odds of him being everywhere they went, even beating the train to Stuttgart ahead of them. Neat too that he happened to be at the Opera for the same performance our hero had to attend. They managed do this all this as a fighting group instead of a lone infiltrating spy which is the only way to pull that off. They even did it without speaking German, other that a few WWII movie cliché quotes.... That tank crushing that soldiers head and body made me choke on my popcorn though. I guess you can file that one under sensationalism.

overall good film

[lakotta-354-343882 · 7/10 · 3 July 2014]

I came in with no expectations and not expecting historical accuracy. Just watching for the entertainment value. I am a WW2 buff by nature and could easily sit and pick the movie apart as others have but it had everything, tanks, planes, trains etc if your looking for a good movie with action and a WW2 story line give it a go if your looking for a documentary or band of brothers well better stick with them

I liked the actors and thought they did a good job, yes some of it was cheesy but again entertaining so it was all good. the characters were believable and you actually got to liking them hoping they would make it through.

dieser film stinkt

[tb_bear · 1/10 · 23 February 2022]

Schnell! Schnell! This film doesn't even deserve to be called a film. What a waste of acting talent. The producers should be rounded up and put on a train to Stutguart!

Decent Company

[galahad58-1 · 7/10 · 16 March 2013]

Company of Heroes is an entertaining WWII movie. Nothing about the movie will jump out at you, but even though the acting, directing and script are all average--it still is a good film to watch.

Is this movie a historical view of WWII? No. The movie is based on a video game and not on the actual events that happened during the war. Why people are bashing it on that basis confuses me because the same folks liked Inglorious Bastards which is a far fetched fantasy movie with absolutely less accuracy than Company of Heroes. Personally I prefer this movie over the foul mouthed Inglorious Bastards because you have more likable characters and a few who are actually rounded out to create a connection to them.

Tom Sizemore is good in this movie. He raises it above what it would have been with a lesser actor in the role and he makes the rest of the cast serviceable.

Entertaining for entertainment purposes and not for a history lesson.

One of the worst war movies ever made

[grantss · 1/10 · 13 September 2020]

Surely one of the worst war movies ever made. Uses every cliche at its disposal, plus has one of the most contrived and unrealistic plots you'll ever see. Acting is equally woeful. Even the special effects are bad: e.g. they didn't even use computer graphics to generate WW2 tanks, they had to use non-WW2 tanks.

Avoid at all costs.

Entertaining but not too realistic

[audrulyte · 8/10 · 24 February 2014]

While many complain that this movie isn't set in reality much, and is all kind of bad and wrong, personally I have found this movie to be entertaining and quite watchable for at least one time. Yes, it's full of anachronisms, logic is sometimes totally missing and other not so very well made stuff, but it is like some good old shoot 'em all computer game, e.g. Wolfenstein series or similar, during which none expects much of a realism, but comes for loads of silly shootouts, and straight line story development. So if you're looking for a solid and Oscar or whatever else sort of movie, you just might want to skip this one entirely. On the other hand, if a somewhat cheesy - for the lack of better word - WWII movie with almost decent story and a strong shooter style video game premise don't scare you, you might just try watching 'Company of Heroes'. Doesn't work for you during first ten minutes? Stop watching. Passed first ten minutes, might just keep watching. It doesn't get any better, but it is still entertaining.

On one hand...

[billteller · 7/10 · 6 June 2021]

On one hand, it's a war film with lots of action. On the other, there are apparently, if you read other reviews, so many inaccuracies and anachronisms it might lead you away from watching it.

No it isn't as good as Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan. But you should ask yourself if you've ever heard of this movie. I'm assuming most people haven't. But this doesn't mean it isn't a good movie. It's quite enjoyable. Take the time to watch it for enjoyment not for a historical documentary.

Off to a good start; lost it along the way

[dadsink · 3/10 · 20 December 2013]

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.