Al final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, un duro oficial británico lidera una banda de comandos aliados en territorio enemigo en Baviera en una última misión imposible para sacar a un estadoun... Leer todoAl final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, un duro oficial británico lidera una banda de comandos aliados en territorio enemigo en Baviera en una última misión imposible para sacar a un estadounidense rehén de los nazis.Al final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, un duro oficial británico lidera una banda de comandos aliados en territorio enemigo en Baviera en una última misión imposible para sacar a un estadounidense rehén de los nazis.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Opiniones destacadas
Of the many recent low budget war movies, most are just plain terrible. I would not call this movie terrible, but neither would I say it was a blockbuster. I was not disappointed to watch it.
The CGI and pyrotechnics were obviously poorly done, however, I found the quality of acting fairly good quality.
The authenticity of the vehicles, weapons and uniforms was correct for the period of time, but the film locations and sets was off putting. Supposedly set in Bavaria in Germany, which is high alpine country, this movie was obviously filmed in British countryside with no mountains at all or even a high hill to be seen. The buildings were clearly English cottages, not at all even resembling Bavarian architecture.
The goofs came regularly throughout the entire movie. For example, the parachute harnesses were incorrectly worn and there was no hook before jumping, nor did the parachutes have a rip chord. The occasional modern vehicle sighted in the background, or a modern electrical switch on a wall stuck out like sore thumbs while watching the movie, as did a modern hand grenade being thrown down the stairs. Also staring the viewer in the face were the armbands of the Germans, who were foot soldiers, however, the emblem (wolfsangel) was actually that warn by the SS2nd Panzer Division of WW2.. However, even with all the negatives within the movie, the storyline was good and plausible, and the movie did not fail in delivering that story, although, I think the length of the movies was more than it needed to be. There was way too much dialogue which in most parts, was not relevant to the story.
In all, not a top notch war flick, but is passible.
The CGI and pyrotechnics were obviously poorly done, however, I found the quality of acting fairly good quality.
The authenticity of the vehicles, weapons and uniforms was correct for the period of time, but the film locations and sets was off putting. Supposedly set in Bavaria in Germany, which is high alpine country, this movie was obviously filmed in British countryside with no mountains at all or even a high hill to be seen. The buildings were clearly English cottages, not at all even resembling Bavarian architecture.
The goofs came regularly throughout the entire movie. For example, the parachute harnesses were incorrectly worn and there was no hook before jumping, nor did the parachutes have a rip chord. The occasional modern vehicle sighted in the background, or a modern electrical switch on a wall stuck out like sore thumbs while watching the movie, as did a modern hand grenade being thrown down the stairs. Also staring the viewer in the face were the armbands of the Germans, who were foot soldiers, however, the emblem (wolfsangel) was actually that warn by the SS2nd Panzer Division of WW2.. However, even with all the negatives within the movie, the storyline was good and plausible, and the movie did not fail in delivering that story, although, I think the length of the movies was more than it needed to be. There was way too much dialogue which in most parts, was not relevant to the story.
In all, not a top notch war flick, but is passible.
Cable TV has a lot answer for. And that 'lot' is the number of very poor quality movies (those rating less than 5 stars on IMDB) being pumped out and not worth the effort of hitting the play button. I can only presume this is to give the growing horde of cable channels some "content".
They are awful, cheap things that are worse than time-passers, films that can be used to do just that. No, they are time wasters. That time being the 20 minutes one spends giving it a chance, before switching it off in contempt.
Poor benighted "Wolves of War" here is just yet another one. I have taken aim at it here because I just spent 2 hours trying to find a historically based movie to watch. I tried 4, 2 set in Roman times and 2 in WW2. They were all garbage.
And it is not just today, but for months I have flicked through the cable dross and found hardly anything to watch. To review this movies, which is my job here, I will say that it is: merely adequately acted, (no one was anything other than a cliche)', poorly budgeted (it looks cheap) and full of technical errors, (a character gives his main weapon to someone else while he goes out alone to operate the radio. In enemy territory!). But these just few problems are not "WoW"s sins. There is a plethora of the said "bill fillers" that work exactly the same way. Even the opening credits of the different movies use the same regimen, Black and white historic stills fading in and out of ones of the cast "acting".
But being one who is here to help let me suggest: Movie makers, pool your resources and make a few quality movies rather than copious poor ones. That way you should be able to afford a good director and historical/technical advisors who actually are knowledgeable, instead of just thinking they are, thereby cheapening the whole production down to garbage level.
Near enough is never good enough, when the customer is paying for it.
They are awful, cheap things that are worse than time-passers, films that can be used to do just that. No, they are time wasters. That time being the 20 minutes one spends giving it a chance, before switching it off in contempt.
Poor benighted "Wolves of War" here is just yet another one. I have taken aim at it here because I just spent 2 hours trying to find a historically based movie to watch. I tried 4, 2 set in Roman times and 2 in WW2. They were all garbage.
And it is not just today, but for months I have flicked through the cable dross and found hardly anything to watch. To review this movies, which is my job here, I will say that it is: merely adequately acted, (no one was anything other than a cliche)', poorly budgeted (it looks cheap) and full of technical errors, (a character gives his main weapon to someone else while he goes out alone to operate the radio. In enemy territory!). But these just few problems are not "WoW"s sins. There is a plethora of the said "bill fillers" that work exactly the same way. Even the opening credits of the different movies use the same regimen, Black and white historic stills fading in and out of ones of the cast "acting".
But being one who is here to help let me suggest: Movie makers, pool your resources and make a few quality movies rather than copious poor ones. That way you should be able to afford a good director and historical/technical advisors who actually are knowledgeable, instead of just thinking they are, thereby cheapening the whole production down to garbage level.
Near enough is never good enough, when the customer is paying for it.
The bad: this is just a cheap copy of a war story, that has already been told and filmed so many times before. Lots of war movies have similar storylines, but what is terrible about this movie is that everything is amateurishly done...
The actors are B-listed actors, who usually would only star in tv series, wherein acting quality isnt paramount. The photography is not terrible, but certainly not very good either.
But what is most annoying though is the fact that this story is NOT thrilling whatsoever. The few action scenes are almost laughably amateurish.
Wow. I really had to struggle not to start laughing. But in the end I really was struggling not to fall asleep.
The actors are B-listed actors, who usually would only star in tv series, wherein acting quality isnt paramount. The photography is not terrible, but certainly not very good either.
But what is most annoying though is the fact that this story is NOT thrilling whatsoever. The few action scenes are almost laughably amateurish.
Wow. I really had to struggle not to start laughing. But in the end I really was struggling not to fall asleep.
Out of loyalty to Rupert Graves for "Room with a View" (1985) and "Maurice" (1987) I can't go lower than a five for this, but it's really not very good. Indeed, that star of stage and screen features for just about five minutes of this otherwise rather cheaply presented story of a group of British soldiers sent to retrieve this brilliant (American) scientist and his daughter from the hands of the Nazis. Led by "Norwood" (Matt "Busted" Willis) and assisted by a terribly wooden Ed Westwick ("Wallace"), Sam Gittins ("Deegan") and Jack Parr's "Owens" we have quite an easy-on-the-eye group of squaddies facing a tough task navigating the forest to find their target, all whilst the dastardly "Von Sachs" (Max Themax) - straight from "'Allo 'Allo" - is routinely slaughtering the locals and anyone who comes into contact with them. Their escape plans suggests "Roops" only had one spare filming day, or that he lives next door to a favour-owed director, so much of the film is actually about their duel with the enemy as they try to escape. The cameraman has probably had the best of it, placing his kit inside bushes and trees and at times that does help give this just a semblance of menace, but for the most part this just looks like what it is. An assembly of seriously mediocre talent trying to tell a serious story in the manner of an under-resourced pantomime. I really wouldn't bother.
I love WWIi films but not this one. So bad in so many ways. Like a 1" thick wooden table could really serve as a shield against a machine gun. Like military men in that era turning their machine guns horizontally while firing or the two handed hold on a pistol grip? I don't think so. Or bombs being dropped and grenades exploding with nearly zero damage to soldiers going unscathed. So hard to watch this very misguided update to such small things that for me, made this film nearly unwatchable. Even though the the story was supposedly based on a true story, I didn't really care if the good guys finished their mission successfully or not. Total waste of time.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe truck used by the protagonists is an actual vintage truck of WWII Germany. On the rear panel of the truck are the white painted words, "Abstand 100M", which translates into, "Stay back 100 meters". This message is a legal requirement in modern Europe for slow moving vehicles, including historical vehicles, that have limited rear view.
- ErroresIn one scene, combatants are seen hiding behind a genuine German car called a "Kübelwagen". This vehicle is likened to a "mini-moke". It's panels are made of thin aluminium, and yet, somehow the bullets ricochet off the thin alunimium panels.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Wolves of War?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 13,625
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 27 minutos
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta