Murder Company

Retired 24 year veteran says... I really can't add much insight that many of the other reviews already offer. It's historically bad, costumes rate a "meh", and the weapons...oh, the weapons are CGI wonders of imagination. Imagined by someone with very little to ZERO weapons experience. Seriously, it's a war movie so at the very least they could have Googled, Wikipedia'd, watched a YouTube video or two about the weapons. This has the appearance of a "Call of duty" video game weapons expert with CGI muzzle flashes, zero recoil, and in many cuts, no expended brass being ejected. Hahahahaha!

Okay, all done with the nonsense stuff. I suspect we all know Kelsey Grammer, he's very good. The character he plays however, well, good thing they got Kelsey Grammer to play him. Joe Anderson is a pretty good as well. That said, I didn't think it was the acting that made this movie bad. Bad writing, check! Bad directing, yup! Bad military "stuff" across the board, yeah. The actors, familiar or not, did pretty well with the hands (or lines) they were dealt. I watched it through to the end and only mostly regretted the time spent.

Watched the first 30 minutes, then quit.

The first.1 minute had a parachute drop with 101st, ok... yes that's accurate, but then the sergeant (first character) had a MP40 in has back. He meets a private with a Thompson. So if you are going to have one guy with a Thompson, why give the sergeant a German SMG?

That's where it started, and it didn't get any better. Tried to give characters a backstory, with some dialogue about 'what would you do if you weren't in the war" and answer was "well I wouldn't be here that's for sure!".

Come on... if you want to spend time on development, give them something the audience can relate to.

I have thought about this for a long time and will share my thoughts. There are so many low-budget war films out there and they all share the same qualities: less than 10 soldiers on each side running around a forest which could be your backyard; no wide angle or crane camera shots - everything looks like it was filmed with an iPhone; and less than riveting acting and dialogue. There are occasionally actors familiar from the 80's like Toms Berringer or Sizemore. I'm sure it is the same in all genres but I notice it most in war films. They just don't cut it. Maybe there is the odd Blair Witch low budget gem out there but I haven't found it.

From the start, there were some red flags I noticed pretty quick. Any period piece has to do due diligence on the locations, costumes, and jargon. The locations were ok, but the uniforms and jargon were off. Their conduct during operations were questionable as well. Generals do not give operational briefings to troops. It runs down-hill for the officers to the sergeants. The sergeants told the soldiers only what they Need-To-Know.

For example, you do not salute while in theatre of operations (combat zone). Saluting to an officer told any would be sniper who they should shoot ant. Also, officers did not wear shiny rank or medals for that same reason. Army issued field rank would be subdued for all ranks. The shiny stuff was only worn in garrison.

A two star general would not typically be that far forward to enemy lines. Generals could not be in-harms-way, the capture of military intelligence from a high ranking officer could be devastating.

As for jargon, the Army loves its acronyms. In a movie, you have to sprinkle some in to make the movie believable; too much and you lose the civilians.

During WWII, the Army was still segregated. Soldiers of color typically served as cooks, drivers, and maintenance workers with only a few exceptions. President Truman ordered desegregation in 1948.

The costumes (uniforms) were close, but they obviously didn't have the budget to do the movie justice.

For a few thousand dollars the producers could have hired a military consultant and got most of this if not all this right.

Hiring a few head-liners is not going to be save a movie. The devil is in the details.

Overall, the characters were likable and most were believable.

A World War ll movie with no military discipline or courtesy. This movie is so amateurish it is horrible; it is also sloppy. Uniforms are wrong; military weapons are incorrect; story line is pathetic. This is a high school story which is nothing but dribble. How anyone should be happy to make this movie only indicates how desperate they are for the work. What a complete waste of my time. I wanted to like it, but I could not; I laughed in too many places that were funny to me, but the writer did not intend this. This is a movie the writer should return to college for a history of World War ll and learn how 6 June 1944 was accomplished. This to a movie that should languish on the shelf.