Hell Hath No Fury

Good actors, the dialogues need polishing, nice story for Tarantino.

Much better than the other Reviewers say.

I'd watched worse for sure. This is a nice small story in WWII.

It was a decent low budget production. When I first saw the utterly ridiculous low overall rating at 3.7, I flipped over to see what the professional critics thought on Rotten Tomatz (88%), so I'm glad I did.

Sure this is no epic Hollywood big budget war film, but is well casted and acted, especially Mandylor and Murphy as the battle-worn and ready American fighters, and Bernhardt as Von Bruckner. The alluring little rocket Nina Bergman was great until the cemetery acts; she either over-acted or looked angry all the time, for no reason. But her performance overall was noteworthy.

The cinematography was excellent and the directing great. The writing by the two amateur writers was lacklustre for the most part, with many plot and technical issues. The 94 min runtime screenplay needed many cuts and edits. It was too long for the barely climatic and too-short storied screenplay.

Yet still, for pretty much a one location set, low budget B film, it's a good one time watch. It's a well deserved 7/10 from me.

Funny that the title of the movie actually would turn out to be a dead give-away on the contents of the actual movie. Who knew?

When I sat down to watch the 2021 war movie "Hell Hath No Fury" from writers Katharine Lee McEwan and Romain Serir, I must admit that I was expecting a tad more than what the movie actually delivered. Now, don't get me wrong here, because I am not saying that "Hell Hath No Fury" was a bad movie. It was just bland and somewhat anti-climatic. Especially since the movie's cover/poster lead on to believe t hat there was a lot more action in the movie than it turned out.

The storyline told in "Hell Hath No Fury" was simple to follow, for better or worse. However, for my liking, then the simplicity of the storyline was inadequate, because it made for a less than mediocre movie experience. And especially so since you could essentially leave the movie running for an extended time and come back, only to find you have missed out on nothing important to the plot.

They did have a good ensemble of performers in the movie, with the likes of Nina Bergman, Louis Mandylor and a very well-cast Daniel Bernhardt. I will say that especially Louis Mandylor and Daniel Bernhardt stood out in the movie with their individual performances, and they really made the movie watchable.

"Hell Hath No Fury" was sort of disappointing for a war movie. And I had expected a tad more from director Jesse V. Johnson here. But it was watchable, if that counts for something.

I am rating "Hell Hath No Fury" a bland and mediocre five out of ten stars.

Every movie i check out anymore has the exspert critics to remind us that this movie is a rippoff or borrowed stuff of another movie or similar.. So WHAT...if it's entertaining to me doesn't matter... not looking for perfect movies if they even exist.. everyone trying to out-critic the other person like it's a mission. It's a movie not a science exspiriment that has to be disected frame by frame...either like it or you don't. Don't have the time anymore to read all the Rodger Ebberts takes on every movie here.

I thought this film was well done - had solid cast, camera work et al but lacked any unique or memorable aspects and was rather weak as a story. The idea that deadly enemies suddenly trust each other seems unrealistic, but the story hinges on it anyway, making the end a double disappointment for me. If you miss this one you're not missing much :)