Making a war movie isn't an easy feat. I have to acknowledge the work that went into this, but it's unfortunately wasted due mostly to bad editing and (yikes) English with German accents like Hogan's Heros. But there's also the bad acting, annoying music and many mistakes, including endless, meaningless shooting during which there's no apparent urgency; some soldiers aren't even ducking. I didn't make it to the end, but this movie definitely isn't your best choice and offers nothing new that I can see.
13 Reviews
An attempt was made...
masterbadger27 June 2022
Another WW2 film that takes footage from a fairly impressive large scale re-enactment and attempts to edit it into a film. Yes, there are a bunch of these littered around streaming services. This one is pretty much par for the course; you have a sort of boring, poorly acted story crafted around fairly elaborate staged battle scenes.
On one hand a lot of effort was definitely put in by the re-enactors. There are lots of actual WW2 vehicles and equipment on display, which is actually pretty neat. Unfortunately this is supposed to be a film and none of it really 'feels' real. The soldiers often move sort of clumsily, uniforms are pristine clean, and the editing often makes things something of a mishmashes mess. It really is sort of uncanny watching a scene where some elements look convincing and then you have someone fall down in what can be best described as real time slow motion. There is also a combination of fairly impressive re-enactment pyrotechnics combined with some far less convincing after effects style ones. Technically it is really all over the place. Besides the confused editing at times, you can watch a 2 minute scene of this film with color grading that is different in almost every shot. It is all very jarring.
My relative is a re-enactor and I can understand the thought process. We look like WW2 soldiers (basically act as them) and have all this equipment, how hard can making a film be. Sort of ignoring the fact that writing a convincing script let alone convincingly performing it are what actually constitutes a convincing movie. I can respect the effort put into the battle scenes on a sort of technical level. They are at least from a scale/equipment perspective something. Unfortunately some re-enactment footage alone does not a good film make. Really, when you see that the lead actor is also the producer, director, etc. It becomes quite clear. One fairly amateur auteur is spread way too thin on his passion project. Unless you want to watch a bunch of re-enactors live out their own little WW2 German war scenario for almost 2 hours, you can do much better. This would have been MUCH better served as a short film that was tightly edited. Land that before attempting a feature film.
On one hand a lot of effort was definitely put in by the re-enactors. There are lots of actual WW2 vehicles and equipment on display, which is actually pretty neat. Unfortunately this is supposed to be a film and none of it really 'feels' real. The soldiers often move sort of clumsily, uniforms are pristine clean, and the editing often makes things something of a mishmashes mess. It really is sort of uncanny watching a scene where some elements look convincing and then you have someone fall down in what can be best described as real time slow motion. There is also a combination of fairly impressive re-enactment pyrotechnics combined with some far less convincing after effects style ones. Technically it is really all over the place. Besides the confused editing at times, you can watch a 2 minute scene of this film with color grading that is different in almost every shot. It is all very jarring.
My relative is a re-enactor and I can understand the thought process. We look like WW2 soldiers (basically act as them) and have all this equipment, how hard can making a film be. Sort of ignoring the fact that writing a convincing script let alone convincingly performing it are what actually constitutes a convincing movie. I can respect the effort put into the battle scenes on a sort of technical level. They are at least from a scale/equipment perspective something. Unfortunately some re-enactment footage alone does not a good film make. Really, when you see that the lead actor is also the producer, director, etc. It becomes quite clear. One fairly amateur auteur is spread way too thin on his passion project. Unless you want to watch a bunch of re-enactors live out their own little WW2 German war scenario for almost 2 hours, you can do much better. This would have been MUCH better served as a short film that was tightly edited. Land that before attempting a feature film.
Deserves To Be Court Marshalled And Shot...
lewilewis199714 June 2022
Ever seen those home made YouTube vids where teenagers make a 5 minute war movie so they can pretend to be a hero? It helps them forget that they're the runt that gets bullied every day.
Imagine if one of them was given a few thousand dollars? This is what they'd make.
The directing is so bad, lots of pointless close ups on bad actors. The special effects are laughable and not special at all.
I have no idea about the story because I lasted less than 10 minutes. But considering the clichés it started with I was certain that it wasn't going to get any better.
At best this is a late night made for TV film for a low budget station, nothing more.
Imagine if one of them was given a few thousand dollars? This is what they'd make.
The directing is so bad, lots of pointless close ups on bad actors. The special effects are laughable and not special at all.
I have no idea about the story because I lasted less than 10 minutes. But considering the clichés it started with I was certain that it wasn't going to get any better.
At best this is a late night made for TV film for a low budget station, nothing more.
horrible
decimatorcortez16 August 2022
So clean
acplc23 June 2022
I rarely write reviews but felt compelled to here. The film obviously had quite a good budget, given the amount of original (mostly) tanks, artillery and weapons shown and whilst it tried very hard to be realistic it failed in the basics. The first 40 minutes or so was a mainly non-stop battle scene where the heroic Germans had been pinned down and surrounded for some time, yet, everything was pristine. No rust on the barb wire, posts freshly cut, everyones uniform was spotless, most laughable the medical officer who wore red cross bib and armband that were immaculately white. Same thing when the action swaps to Normandy. I'm not being over picky here but as ex-forces I know that after 10 days of simulation we looked like tramps. This cleanliness took away for me any resemblance of reality and I feel a good chance to make a good film was wasted here. Also, terrible acting, bad sound, tedious music, awful effects and no real plot.
Geography, anyone
larry-green47-24-10473214 June 2022
Don't waste your time
Shanghai_Expat15 June 2022
I like war movies and I'm very lenient, but this one is just too terrible. Reverse angle on the filing, and the numbers are backwards... Bad acting... obvious he actors never fired a gun before... bad special effects...
I tried... I tried really hard, but I only lasted 10 minutes before I gave up on this one.
I tried... I tried really hard, but I only lasted 10 minutes before I gave up on this one.
This is a great re-enactment show!
drummerchang17 July 2023
Let's say it is a well made re-enactment show with sloppy CGs and some acting. Then, you will not be disappointed. Quite a lot of ww2 vehicles and equipment. Don't expect more than that!
A bunch of jumbled division patches on the shoulders of GIs with all kinds of mixed uniforms in an unknown beach, ranger, 29th, big red one, 4th and airborne but it is true they were in Normandy anyway... Nice try, though! Nice to see the real tanks, tank destroyers, jeeps, m8 greyhounds and halftracks.
4 stars to the movie, 8 stars to the director. I can even sympathize with the his agony and hard work for the low-budgeted war movie.
A bunch of jumbled division patches on the shoulders of GIs with all kinds of mixed uniforms in an unknown beach, ranger, 29th, big red one, 4th and airborne but it is true they were in Normandy anyway... Nice try, though! Nice to see the real tanks, tank destroyers, jeeps, m8 greyhounds and halftracks.
4 stars to the movie, 8 stars to the director. I can even sympathize with the his agony and hard work for the low-budgeted war movie.
War never looked so bad...
paul_haakonsen2 February 2023
I have to admit that I was initially lured into watching "Iron Cross: The Road to Normandy" as I found the movie's cover rather interesting. Though the fact that I enjoy World War II movies as well, and it being a movie that I hadn't already seen, also played in to make me sit down and watch this 2022 war movie.
Right, well I have say that director Tino Struckmann delivered an abysmal movie. However, it should be said thumbs up for attempting to make a war movie. That counts for something at least. But the storyline in "Iron Cross: The Road to Normandy" was non-existing, and the majority of the movie was just one long combat scene. Mind you, it wasn't a compelling, exciting or thrilling combat scene, not even remotely. And it was really hard to buy into the whole concept, especially since there were so many things wrong with the entire setup.
What worked for "Iron Cross: The Road to Normandy"? The uniforms, props, weapons and vehicles. That all looked great and definitely had a Word War II vibe to it. However, everything was just too shiny, clean and in mint condition. It didn't have a shred of believable conviction to it. War should be gritty, grimy and dirty, not clean and mint condition.
And what didn't work for "Iron Cross: The Road to Normandy"? Just about everything else. The acting performances in the movie were wooden, rigid and unconvincing, and the fact that all soldiers spoke English with oddly added accents just didn't pass as believable. The whole lack of convincing warfare and skirmishes just didn't play out well enough, especially because it looked like an amateurish war reenactment play. The lack of a storyline just didn't work out at all, because there was no enjoyment or entertainment to be had here.
I wonder how Olivier Gruner and Kim Sønderholm agreed to participate in this project.
If you enjoy war movies, then spare yourself the anguish of suffering through "Iron Cross: The Road to Normandy". Some of us did, so you don't have to.
My rating of director Tino Struckmann's 2022 attempt at a war movie lands on a two out of ten stars.
Right, well I have say that director Tino Struckmann delivered an abysmal movie. However, it should be said thumbs up for attempting to make a war movie. That counts for something at least. But the storyline in "Iron Cross: The Road to Normandy" was non-existing, and the majority of the movie was just one long combat scene. Mind you, it wasn't a compelling, exciting or thrilling combat scene, not even remotely. And it was really hard to buy into the whole concept, especially since there were so many things wrong with the entire setup.
What worked for "Iron Cross: The Road to Normandy"? The uniforms, props, weapons and vehicles. That all looked great and definitely had a Word War II vibe to it. However, everything was just too shiny, clean and in mint condition. It didn't have a shred of believable conviction to it. War should be gritty, grimy and dirty, not clean and mint condition.
And what didn't work for "Iron Cross: The Road to Normandy"? Just about everything else. The acting performances in the movie were wooden, rigid and unconvincing, and the fact that all soldiers spoke English with oddly added accents just didn't pass as believable. The whole lack of convincing warfare and skirmishes just didn't play out well enough, especially because it looked like an amateurish war reenactment play. The lack of a storyline just didn't work out at all, because there was no enjoyment or entertainment to be had here.
I wonder how Olivier Gruner and Kim Sønderholm agreed to participate in this project.
If you enjoy war movies, then spare yourself the anguish of suffering through "Iron Cross: The Road to Normandy". Some of us did, so you don't have to.
My rating of director Tino Struckmann's 2022 attempt at a war movie lands on a two out of ten stars.
An abomination
simbogdan200714 February 2023
I saw a lot of war movies, few hundreds may be, but this is one of the scariest. Because is a total and absolutely failure.
Nothing is on its place.
It's hard to believe that someone can throw money and produce something like these, but it's just happened. It's a total waste of resources and energy both for those who produced it and for those trying to watch it. This movie is a shame for its genre. I don't know why is called a war movie, cause it has nothing to do with a movie. Do not torture yourself by trying to watch it.
Neurons don't regenerate anymore and watching this so-called movie will surely destroy them.
Nothing is on its place.
It's hard to believe that someone can throw money and produce something like these, but it's just happened. It's a total waste of resources and energy both for those who produced it and for those trying to watch it. This movie is a shame for its genre. I don't know why is called a war movie, cause it has nothing to do with a movie. Do not torture yourself by trying to watch it.
Neurons don't regenerate anymore and watching this so-called movie will surely destroy them.
Lots of WW2 armour and aircraft
johnclayton-117499 January 2024
The negatives of this movie are well documented by previous reviewers (poor acting, no storyline, looks like a re-enactment society, clean uniforms, dodgy special effects, lack of tension/fear etc.) so I won't dwell on this.
However, like everything it also has it's plus points:
A) a massive amount of WW2 armour, field guns and aircraft appear in the film. Their hire budget must have been gigantic. A Tiger Tank (a very good replica, I believe, as there is only 1 running original -'Tiger 131' of Bovingdon) appears. Well worth watching to see all the different vehicles in action, which was excellent.
B) the movie picks up when it gets to the Normandy phase.
C) The American GI actors are good -believable and authentic feel
D) The massive battle scenes are worth watching for the spectacle
E) It's filmed on location i.e. In original German concrete bunkers, and with the massive Leopold cannon
F) the pilots are utter legends. Crazy low flying. I don't believe that this is realistic (it was normally shallow diving attacks to strafe) , but great fun to watch in this film.
G) mass para drop from Dakotas was impressive
The film is not in the same league as major war films like 'Saving Private Ryan', but put that aside. I still enjoyed elements of it (particularly the vehicles and aircraft in action), and it was worth watching.
However, like everything it also has it's plus points:
A) a massive amount of WW2 armour, field guns and aircraft appear in the film. Their hire budget must have been gigantic. A Tiger Tank (a very good replica, I believe, as there is only 1 running original -'Tiger 131' of Bovingdon) appears. Well worth watching to see all the different vehicles in action, which was excellent.
B) the movie picks up when it gets to the Normandy phase.
C) The American GI actors are good -believable and authentic feel
D) The massive battle scenes are worth watching for the spectacle
E) It's filmed on location i.e. In original German concrete bunkers, and with the massive Leopold cannon
F) the pilots are utter legends. Crazy low flying. I don't believe that this is realistic (it was normally shallow diving attacks to strafe) , but great fun to watch in this film.
G) mass para drop from Dakotas was impressive
The film is not in the same league as major war films like 'Saving Private Ryan', but put that aside. I still enjoyed elements of it (particularly the vehicles and aircraft in action), and it was worth watching.
Awful. Just awful.
tommahon-3456930 August 2023
Horrid acting. Worse dialog, so many clichés. Zero plot, comically amateurish special effects. Clearly no budget for dialogue coaches, many Germans speak with American accents, or worse, obviously faked German ones.
Looks like WWII reenactment units stumbled onto a movie set. The opening ten minutes is a battle, obviously fought between reenactment groups, everyone desperately trying to keep their precious uniforms clean during the dust up. In fact EVERYONE has pristine uniforms, even the wounded. Apparently no one got dirty during World War II.
Three stars for very accurate equipment.
Avoid this stink burger like the plague. Honestly I didn't make it even half way.
Looks like WWII reenactment units stumbled onto a movie set. The opening ten minutes is a battle, obviously fought between reenactment groups, everyone desperately trying to keep their precious uniforms clean during the dust up. In fact EVERYONE has pristine uniforms, even the wounded. Apparently no one got dirty during World War II.
Three stars for very accurate equipment.
Avoid this stink burger like the plague. Honestly I didn't make it even half way.
Iron Cross
rhousley-7079225 May 2023
This is a dud. Bad acting, bad fake tanks, bad effects, a complete dud.
I watch WW2 movies from all over the world on a regular basis, this is easily the worst I have seen. I have no clue as to the budget, but geez, it was a complete waste. Teenage tic tocks are made better.
I made it 22 minutes and 46 seconds and I am wondering who woul make a movie and put such low effort into it. The title caught my attention.
Recently I have watched allot of quality films made in Russia, even with the subtitles, great views. I am at the reviews because after the aforementioned 22 minutes and 46 seconds, I wanted to see how bad the reviews were.
I watch WW2 movies from all over the world on a regular basis, this is easily the worst I have seen. I have no clue as to the budget, but geez, it was a complete waste. Teenage tic tocks are made better.
I made it 22 minutes and 46 seconds and I am wondering who woul make a movie and put such low effort into it. The title caught my attention.
Recently I have watched allot of quality films made in Russia, even with the subtitles, great views. I am at the reviews because after the aforementioned 22 minutes and 46 seconds, I wanted to see how bad the reviews were.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
