The Eastern Front

I can't say I am an expert in WWII overview and detailed scrutiny of the events our grandparents witnessed. Yet I can say I've gone through enough literature to claim this film has nothing to do with either WWII or dramatic interpretation of it at least. It seems like men who shot the film do not have an understanding of what they are portraying.

Atmosphere. As many noted it is just a walk by countryside landscapes. It is not like that at war. The war is about the thought you could die next second. Is about endless tension wrenching out your guts. It is about disgust and nauseating feeling gripping you unrestrainedly. What we have here is debates over what we do next and how it would feel like when we do.

Behavior of characters. Let me think...From odd to sometimes foolish. German soldiers are polite, gentle and even nice at their actions. Good guys ended up in a wrong time and place. Just read what was happening at the front from chronicles. Russian female soldiers are gentle, sympathetic yet witty. The scene they convince their enemy to spare their lives in exchange for nursing a wounded German the truthfulness of the film events is questioned firmly. The seen a fragile medic easily shoots a combat German thug carelessly strolling out - kills the film instead of a character.

War. Where is it? We see a group of men in uniform and it doesn't mean the war is happening somewhere around.

Plot. I am a hater of low-budget Russian series devoted to WWII, yet watching this movie I had no other option but to redeem my point of view to a better, much better level.

Total - disappointment. Not recommended for watching.

Unfortunately this movie exhibits all the normal amateurish flaws that result when a movie is written, produced and directed by the same person. A lot of hard work, time and expense wasted in a final product which should never have been released in its current state.

Nothing to say in favor, but that it is worthless.....

There are far too many examples of writers putting pen to paper on subjects out of their comfort zone and failing to find the necessary 'heart' because they either don't have a real interest in what they're writing about but feel it is 'current' and they should, or they have no idea how to research and find the authenticity that is needed. Added to that producers who haven't a clue on the subject either and are not discerning enough to pull the script apart, and you are doomed to a very particular kind of failure. Of the 'we really didn't care enough' kind. Writers should write what they know, or are confident in researching. Neither occurred in this instance. There are many much more accomplished films, even short ones, than this where the filmmakers found the required passion in the short narratives they were trying to tell. Camera work in this overly long effort too is pointless - cameras express an observation, or a motivation, or something narratively that audiences are supposed to focus on. The use of the camera here was pretty aimless. Something down to both the director and the cinematographer. And the accents?! Well less said here the better. Completely pulled out of the viewing experience from minute one. World War 2 was the setting for so many exciting and mindblowingly brave stories the filmmakers could have chosen any number to tell utilising British actors and their distinctly British accents. Especially if going out to make a film with your mates. But no, they chose to represent Germans in the mid winter of retreat on the Eastern Front, without snow or landscape that was particularly European yet alone with the cold, bleak tones of winter and desolation. One only has to watch Stalingrad to get a real feel of what it was like for the ordinary German soldier. This felt like a story made for the sake of making a movie. Little or no script development, filmmakers without the necessary experience or knowledge to pull off a war-driven movie, a director who doesn't know how to elicit performance or to generate excitement through camera shot choices, and a cast just going through the motions of what they imagined they should be doing. This feels like a film school project Year 1 assignment piece drawn out to feature length. The Director really needs to hone his craft on shorter pieces, and the Screenwriter really should go back to basics and learn how to research properly, and then to tightly structure a purposeful story for a pleasing, focused, and multi-layered audience experience. War films by their very nature are pretty budget hefty affairs. It's impossible to do one any sort of justice on a short film budget or worse. And certainly not without the proper preparation, research, and development. For a job well done check out Sean Ellis's 'Anthropoid' - a story told at least four times cinematically over the decades, and here told well, even as a remake, with flair and a certain eye on narrative intensity, even though the outcome is known to all. And as tight as that was in terms of locations, set pieces are the production's biggest asset. Lessons needed here, are easily found elsewhere.

Those of you bored by the lack of movies out at the moment might be tempted to take a punt on this indie war film. The cover looks quite good, there's battles and tanks and loads of action.

Don't judge a movie by it's cover. Never has saying been more true. The tank on the cover? Not in the movie. The war ravaged buildings on the cover? Not in the movie. The barbed wire fences on the cover? Not in the movie. The soldiers running through battles? Not in the movie. You get the picture.

This is a disappointing movie. Instead of "this is hell on earth" the tagline should have been "a walk in the countryside".

I could go on about the bad props, the mismatching uniforms, the terrible British and American accents, the anachronisms, the fact that none of the soldiers know how to use their weapons, they have guns with infinite ammo, weak editing, poor directing, etc. but you would be as bored as I was watching the movie.