Horrors of War (2006) User Reviews

This movie is a horror itself

[charlesdias · 3/10 · 21 October 2006]

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

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

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

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

Nazi zombies! Beware! Bad!

[michaelRokeefe · 3/10 · 12 December 2007]

A war movie of a strange ilk. As if war itself isn't enough to fear. With Hitler in desperation, and an obsession with science and the paranormal...a secret weapon is needed. The maniacal leader orders a lab to create impervious super-soldiers to fight the Allied troops. The prototype zombie-like Nazi warrior attacks like a deprived animal. The American army reassigns soldiers to find and destroy the lab that created the wild eyed crazed creature. The actual war scenes fall short of looking real. With a bigger budget this movie could have been something worth remembering. The cast includes: Jon Osbeck, Joe Lorenzo, David Carroll, C. Alec Rossel and Jason Morris.

Could had been fun but unfortunately just wasn't.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 3/10 · 2 April 2010]

Man, I just don't know why I keep falling for such movies. Their concepts sounds greatly entertaining and silly enough to expect a good and fun movie from but rarely do this kind of movies ever work out as such.

It's not hard to say what is the foremost problem with this movie. Thing is that this movie of course has a totally ridicules and far from convincing main premise but yet the movie decides on taking a serious approach with it all. When you have such a low budget and so minimal resources there simply is no way that you can make this movie work out as a serious one. Had they decided on a more entertaining and over-the-top approach the movie would at least had been fun to watch. It now is mostly a boring one that is awfully bad looking.

The movie is a mixture of WW II and horror in which all different kinds of monsters show up. Sounds exciting perhaps but it just really isn't. The movie gets never tense because it's all done quite poorly. It's good and fun and all that the film-makers actually had the resources and the money at hand to make the movie their way but it's clear that they just aren't the most talented people around and the fact that the movie is so cheap looking works really distracting from the movie and prevents the story to ever work out. You just never get into this movie or any of its events are characters, that all remain amazingly flat. I really can't tell who's who in this movie.

The story is also pretty messy. Things seem to happen pretty randomly and often the story is all over the place. The story makes often sudden jumps as if whole sections of the movie are missing from it. It prevents also the story from really ever flowing well and what it is lacking as well is a main plot line.

Because of the way how cheap the movie is looking, it also often becomes a laughable one, for all of the wrong reasons. I don't even think the movie intentionally tried to be bad, since as earlier mentioned, the film-makers fully seemed to go along with a full serious style of film-making. The special effects are ridicules and look like something everybody can make on their home computer. The costumes of the soldiers don't even seem to be authentic looking and lets not even get started on the creature effects.

Horror fans also won't really enjoy this, not even the ones that enjoy watching bad B-movies. There simply is no excitement, scares, surprises, creative originality or any gore.

The movie is just one bad looking and badly made bore-fest.

3/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Why Do People Make These Things?

[garythemessage · 1/10 · 23 July 2006]

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

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

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

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

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

One of the worst movies I ever saw

[gaborlake · 1/10 · 3 September 2007]

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

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

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

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

Bad!

[mark-aston · 1/10 · 10 December 2006]

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

Bad movie

[vcupid23 · 1/10 · 16 November 2006]

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

When WWII re-en-actors Go Bad

[JoeB131 · 1/10 · 11 November 2007]

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

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

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

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

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

Good WWII monster flick

[ultra_tippergore · 6 September 2007]

Horrors of war is a very ambitious movie for an independent one. Its a horror movie set in the World War II, with the costumes, the weapons, etc. The makers of this one should be crazy to tried such a "pharaonic" project with a B-movie budget, but they succeed. Horrors of War is a good movie, well made and entertaining. Its about a group of American soldiers in the WWII that, in the middle of the battle, discover some super strenght zombie Nazis (and monsters, and werewolves....yes its crazy). Maybe the bad thing about this movie is that it takes itself too serious and the plot, with all the zombies and monsters, isn't exactly "serious". But, its a good movie. Worth a watch or two. 7/10

...A pile of half sun-baked dog dirt!

[mantripp1010 · 1/10 · 27 July 2006]

This movie really is the pits. I don't know if a load of college gin-ks have got together to make this pile of half sun-baked dog dirt but it really is truly painful to watch. We see from the start of the film some edgy CGI war plane effects, followed by a load of greased-up unknown actors in dodgy war clothes prancing up and down in what looks like someone's back garden or a public park, to some very dodgy hand grenade explosions and fire crackers from all the toy guns everyone is holding. They look like a bunch of weekend warriors. There are some occasional nice cool acting scenes but only sporadically and these are generally followed by cheesy one liners such as "Sir, I think there is another one!" Keep an eye on the graveyard and you'll notice some of the grave stones wobble about like polystyrene blocks when the actors fall behind them, probably because they are just that. The editing is just as painful and the watcher finds it difficult to assess the scenes that are amateurishly put together becoming lost in the boring and pointless plot. The "monsters" are not scary and look like something out of the local amateur dramatics society...cheap looking face masks and all! This is one movie to avoid. Only watch if you are a die hard weekend warrior or 'B' movie fan . Ouch! Where is the aspirin?

Worst WW2 movie ever

[scaar · 1/10 · 21 July 2006]

Oh well, here I was, seeing the high rating and reading about Nazis and werewolfs. Well, there are probably some Nazis in it. I guess. From the bad acting, they could have been drunks in German WW2 clothings.

About that WW2 factor: That were some of the most awful WW2 combat scenes I've ever seen. The special effects sucked big time, the sound effects were so damn wrong, and the CGI muzzle flashes and blood gave me the rest.

Oh, but wait, there are monsters too. Monsters that looked as horrible as in Uwe Bolls infamous House of the Dead. Was I scared? Yes, that this horrible bad movie will never end. From the crappy intro to the long awaited end credits, this movie is an awful war movie and an even more awful horror movie.

Do yourself a favor and run if you see that movie. If you like the WW2 themed horror movies, there are better titles of that genre available. Most of them aren't good, but at least they are better than this crap.

Nice indie genre picture

[tilcamus · 10/10 · 2 May 2006]

I was visiting a friend in Columbus last week, and happened to catch a mention of this picture. We went not really knowing much about it, but have since found the web site. Bloody great stuff there.

As for the film, I thoroughly enjoyed myself. As a fan of independent cinema, and of all types of genre films, this was refreshing. It was clear in watching the film that the filmmakers were working as true independents with a love of film and film-making.

Obviously done with a with a less-than "Hollywood" budget, this picture is nonetheless ambitious and delivers. The performances were solid, with a balance of internal human performances along side scenes that call for old-school Hollywood stalwart heroism. Nicely done.

The trappings of the film, the uniforms, weapons, vehicles, etc., along with the special effects and CGI work... all very nice - real production value here. Surprising to see on this level in that they really went for realism. I've seen a LOT of indie genre films, and when they use CGI, digital effects, makeup effect, and all of that, they usually go way over the top....or it just plain looks bad. Not so with Horrors of War. These guys made the effects work for their film and stayed within the realm of realism not accounting for werewolves and super soldiers, that is. :) What I also found interesting about this film was that it plays as much as a war drama as it does a scifi/horror picture. The main characters of, Schmidt and Russo I think) are very well drawn, and are given dimension and depth which feels reel (kudos to the actors). I also liked the range of supporting characters, a staple of any good war movie. The young sergeant and the sniper were strong as was the "bad" captain, and the rest of the team brings a lot of personality to the picture.

Overall, this was a well-made little indie genre gem. These guys really have it together. Hats off.

good but not great...worth a watch

[undeadmachine669 · 7/10 · 1 June 2006]

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

missed potential...my critique

[darth_schneider67 · 5/10 · 27 April 2006]

I love Monster, Zombie & War movies...I wish this movie could have decided what it wanted to be. Were the real "Horrors of War" your fellow soldiers attitudes? How they treat civilians? The decisions you must make to redeem yourself and save others? Mad Scientists? Nazi Mutant Zombies? French Werewolfs? Well, I was really hoping for more of the latter 3, (and more gore) but this could have worked as regular a war movie with any Nazi super weapon, the monster element seemed tacked on (especially there whole werewolf part, it seemed very much a pointless sidebar). I'd have rather seen more of a real Monster threat in a war setting.

from here on out.... >SPOILERS<

> The monsters came one at a time, and slowly. there wasn't much of a perceived 'Monster threat' leading to a big showdown, the big showdown was...well, awkward. Out of nowhere the Mutant Mad Doc and Werewolf start fighting, and the werewolf dies like a vampire...then after the "sacrificial choice", between a family man and another man, the man shown missing his family, sacrifices himself, mutates, and walks up, kills the doc in one punch...no real threat, then mutates back. We go from French werewolf's, to giant Super Nazi zombies to the climactic old man zombie in a lab coat?...in his secret lab guarded by a handful of Nazis and just one zombie. Where are the multiple monsters? all it takes is a shot of magic potion, there should have been a zombie training ground, ARMIES of Zombies...or an Uber-Monster, a Zombie Mutant Werewolf, all the components were there! I was expecting some twist, the evil Doctor maybe being a Vampire creating undead and supernatural beasts to rule the world through Hitler, the power coming from something extraordinary, or at least explained, mutant monster hybrids, civilians being poisoned to turned into a village of the dead army....Instead we get an old dude in a lab coat in a bombed out building, crying one second then somehow going Incredible Hulk the next....then taking one punch from a mutating soldier who just shot up...after a brief pointless few minute werewolf fight. We didn't get to care about the werewolf guy (he seemed very much an after thought, the entire wolf story had no point, that whole part could be excised and wouldn't really have been missed), the scientist, the main guy (who's name escapes me) It played like a video game (complete with scene break briefings) with a dull climax. Entertaining but to many things could have been better. Makes me wish I would have pursued writing, I could have beefed it up. I type like crap but I have great ideas! LOL! The one thing that really cheesed me off, was the extremely lame climax...dispute over who would sacrifice themselves by taking this syringe laying on the table..."A normal man can't beat that thing!" (even though they have already defeated 4 other larger ones with bullets to the head and they have a werewolf with them/ scene wipe/ there he is apparently he started fighting...oops he died like a vampire...all the while these guys were in another room, they didn't know the werewolf was dead, they didn't need to make that sacrifice yet. they should have taken the juice for 'intel' then been forced to take it to save themselves after wolfy died, and Mad Doc was after them. as a last resort. instead he shoots up, run ups and BAM kills the baddie in a second, then the 2 other soldiers spend 5 minutes deciding who would kill the Incredible Russo...then here comes the hero...BAM, OK, it had to be done...where was he in the mean time? Did he go take a dump while Russo-Hulk ran up to save the day and then writhe in agony? I was kind of reminded of a college paper that has to be 10 pages and you get 9 1/ 2 pages and say OK, this needs to end really quick, after 9 pages of filler...

The acting was good, I mean if an actor can make me think he's an a**-hole, that means to me he did his job. The potentially interesting characters needed fleshed out more, the only one really fleshed out were Russo, and the guy that had "fun" with the French women. We found out what motivated them, Russo had a family, and was losing his 'family'. The other guy was just a bad person, as told from his back story, (who shortly after gets his just due...I wish it had been gory though, and clearer as to why/how the girls brother became the wolf, I thought for sure the Nazis were creating them, but no, just one mutant can be created at a time)

Maybe the sequel...(there is potential... I have some good ideas, even integrating the additional post credit footage, which was great....if there was more of that in the actual movie!)

An utter waste of everything.

[TheEmulator23 · 3/10 · 8 November 2007]

First of all how this garbage gets made is beyond me. I'm all for independent cinema, but this is plain embarrassing. I will admit I didn't watch the whole thing because I was laughing so hard about how utterly stupid it was. I realize the budget was probably a 100k or less, but c'mon who greenlit this? I am not only ashamed I rented this, I'm sad for everyone involved. This has to be one of the worst things I've ever seen. This makes some of the terrible original sci-fi channel flicks look like Oscar material. Please whatever you do, don't watch this unless you want to laugh at how bad everything in this is. This isn't even worth the material it's printed on. On a side note this isn't going to be great because without a minimal budget it is tough to get the goods. Even though this was really bad, you gotta respect what they were trying to do. I'm sure they are actually a good bunch of normal guys trying to make a movie with such a little budget. I will still watch these guys just to support them in the future.

Boring combination of war flick and zombie movie.

[The_Void · 2/10 · 27 January 2008]

A general rule of thumb when it comes to movies is: if it involves Nazi's, don't watch it. From the crappy Nazisploitation genre that was unjustly popular in the seventies to 'Nazi zombie' movies like Shock Waves and Zombie Lake, there's rarely anything good that involves Nazi's - and "Horrors of War" not only does nothing to buck that trend, but is actually worse than most of the other Nazi crap that I've seen. The film features a World War 2 setting and focuses on the popular myth about Hitler having an interest in the supernatural and trying to incorporate it into his army. Basically, we end up with a bunch of soldiers 'researching' Hitler's new weapons. The main problem with this film is that it's boring. All the characters are basically the same (and all portrayed in the same, downbeat, way) and therefore are impossible to care about. The plot formula features the soldiers sitting around talking to each other, walking around, and every now and then happening upon a zombie soldier which they kill, and then sit around and talk about it. The film was obviously shot on a very low budget as it all looks very cheaply done. This also extends to the zombie make-up too, which is rubbish. I am surprised that I actually sat down for ninety minutes watching this piffle. Naturally, I don't recommend that anyone else does so.

If it only were half as good as the movie poster

[TdSmth5 · 4/10 · 25 March 2012]

Horrors of war isn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it's so bad in an entirely different way.

It begins in Germany during the end of a war when US soldiers run into a Nazi zombie soldier. Then we are taken a couple of months back when soldiers run into a soldier who was taken captive by the Nazis. He tells if a creature that killed all the Nazis and of a man who seemed to be in charge.

Lt. Schmidt is sent to investigate to France and his platoon runs into this creature that turns out to be a werewolf for some reason. He returns with a report that no one believes. Then he sent to investigate something else and this time they run into a Nazi super soldier zombie. He returns with his report and this time is sent to investigate the man who may be responsible for all unexplained events- the man the soldier saw earlier. The Lt. is joined with Capt. Russo and they don't get along. They find a factory were they run into more zombies and find the researcher responsible. In the process, a US soldier who was bit by the werewolf turns into a werewolf and fights the zombie. Then for some reason, the Americans decide there is no way to kill the zombie unless one of them takes the zombie research serum! This is a low budget movie were the production team put in an awful lot of effort, they managed to get ahold of tanks, jeeps, and tents of the era. The acting is quite good by the leads. Voice-acting is excellent. Action-acting so to speak isn't. Almost everyone looks terribly goofy pretending to be soldiers and shooting a rifle. Remarkably, all the characters are great shots with their little rifles and wipe out squadron after squadron of Nazis with machine guns, artillery, and tanks.

The real problem is the story. In the behind the scenes featurette we learn that this was supposed to be an anthology of three 30 minutes stories. And it would have worked better that way. For some reason a producer made the completely erroneous decision to force the team to come up with one story out of those three. And that's why so little works here. He must have thought Nazis, werewolves, zombies, sounds good! but it doesn't, it's not a video game. A few days before shooting began, the writers were put in this bind and they just couldn't make it work. All the blame falls on the one producer. I can appreciate the effort and the acting but the story just doesn't add up.

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

[nautilusaquaticsohio · 1/10 · 3 December 2013]

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

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

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

Leave the War Movies to Spielberg & Ridley Scott

[Falcon07 · 4/10 · 22 July 2006]

In my opinion if you like all the good war films, I wouldn't run to see this one..perhaps walk. The acting is bog standard, as is the script, soundtracks don't do it for me either.

There is no sense of atmosphere that makes you want to keep watching unlike band of brothers, black hawk down etc etc.

It was the monstrous ring figure that really made me laugh, seems like the director couldn't decide whether to make a horror or a war film, so decided to do both.

On the plus side, there are bullets & blood

Sorry 4/10 for me !

this movie is in class of its own!!!a Z class movie!!!

[KAYOWAS · 1/10 · 20 January 2008]

I don't really know why some guy insists on hanging on to a camcorder and filming his beer buddies playing soldiers vs. monsters!!!it's plain silly!grow up!after seeing this i thought a six year old produced the movie!but then i realized that this is just wrong even for a child!To summarize :acting - bad ,story - bad,FX - horrible...what else remains? i gave it one star for two reasons: 1.the site won't let me give it a -10 and 2.one good thing:they've managed fairly accurate guns&uniforms!but that's all!So we must complain Hollywood is very childish and unrealistic when indie movies go far beyond that????The discussion is long but the cast&crew of this movie leaves me with the feeling that even if they would have had a triple budget this would still be rubbish!so long!watch this movie and see for yourself!

lol.. ... :(

[zouzou_wads · 1/10 · 24 April 2009]

when i first bought the movie, i was encouraged by it's front picture and the 4 awards on it! i knew it was low budget but the sight of Hitler and the march of his soldiers was tempting... any way, i watched it and then got depressed for 4 days straight... it's an awful movie with the same scene repeating itself and with monster/zombie masks as if it was 50 yrs ago! i really liked the doctor who is by far the worst actor in the world.. who doesn't know how to cough.. i am able to make a better movie with only a few of my friends, a camera , some masks and guns ,and not more then 5000 dollars :) p.s: the only way a person would watch this movie is because of the picture on the cover :S

Midnight Movie perfection

[angrywhiteman · 10/10 · 27 February 2007]

This is the type of movie you see at the drive in or at 3:00 A.M. on U.S.A. network and we would love it. The acting stands out as realistic and intense. The special effects are great for low budget, but not too much.

Get over expecting some Saving Private Ryan quality movie and we can all kick back and enjoy the show. People need to get over the whole multimillion dollar expectations.

I give it the full ten stars. I totally got into this flick. It looked and felt like a 1970's horror and war movie all in one. There was not a lot of gore or blood, which was something that could have made the movie even better if it had blood flowing like a creek and got even more silly.

Not bad at all, definite potential there.

[artyfilmsareformongs · 6/10 · 21 July 2006]

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

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

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

One of the worst movies i have ever seen ( if not the worst)

[kenny_ek93 · 1/10 · 23 March 2008]

There not much more to say about this movie than that it's super uber-crap. The acting was terrible and the story was dumb as hell. This movie is a big disgrace to all WW2 movies, like Schindler's list and the pianist. I know this is a horror movie but still.

I don't know what the director was thinking at time, i'm guessing he was drunk or had used drugs when he said: "Yes i like this story, i'm gonna make a really crap movie out of this."

All i have to say is: don't waste any money on this piece of crap movie.

Utter crap. 1/10

Please Don't Watch!

[slade146 · 1/10 · 30 March 2009]

Take my word for it, this movie is horrible. I would be ashamed of myself to be an actor and have my face shown in this movie. I have never posted a comment on any movie ever and i felt it necessary to post a comment on this movie to warn everyone. I myself love watching ww2 movies and this one i stopped watching about three quarters of the way through. The idea that this movie had was a good idea about Hitler's paranormal likings but the movie should in a high budget Hollywood film.

I rented this DVD and im just happy that it only cost 1 dollar to rent where i live. Im so sorry for anyone who rents this film.