21 Brothers

this movie is so poor ... The version I watched had even had the title changed(from "21 Brothers" to "1914") which actually made things worse...it gave me the impression that the movie was actually set in 1914, well, would YOU suppose that a movie entitled "1914" is actually set in 1916...........? Foolishly assuming that the title meant the year the film was actually set in, found me criticising the fact that the troops were wearing helmets, which weren't in use until 1916, also being critical of the fact that they were Canadian, and of course in 1914 the Canadians were not on the Western Front, then add in the ludicrously inaccurate representation of the trench, which at most must have been 18 inches deep, which might possibly have prevented the men manning that sector from being shot in the ankles, but would have provided no other protection at all, especially since the sides of the "trench" had no supports, revetting or strengthening whatsoever, and would have collapsed with the first artillery hit, or even after the first heavy rain......... there's no signs of any kind of communication, support or supply trenches, in fact the "troops" are basically overweight actors in a shallow ditch in a meadow in summer, and anything less like bitter, desperate frightened men in a frontline trench in the midst of the bloodiest land war in history would be difficult to imagine.......let's ignore the mediocre acting for a moment, the over-excessive use of the f--- word which was quite inappropriate and not really representative of the time, when the Sergeant happily sat down with his lieutenant for a drink and chatted with him using his first name I lost patience and gave up watching such dross.........I cannot imagine any instance of a senior NCO in the British army in any year of the Great war taking such liberties in the presence of even a junior officer..... my friend who has also seen this movie actually expressed all you need to know about it in one sentence........."this is'nt the worst war movie I'd ever seen, but it IS in the top one............."

I was looking forward to seeing this movie based on its subject, but after watching it all I can say is was very disappointing. The movie from the beginning presented as poorly made and clearly lacking in detail as well as the character and texture of a war movie. In regards to the filming it looks a lot of the time over exposed and filmed on what seems to be a very sunny day. The consequence is a lot of the detail is "burnt" out.

The trench setting the film is shot in is totally unconvincing and the set design lacks any character or feel of what one would imagine a WW1 trench to look and feel like. It certainly does not reflect any appearance of the old black and white photos of the era. In addition the trench is way too shallow with the soldiers walking around with their heads and upper torsos above the top of the trench. The sandbags look very new and trench set is without duck boards or any timber hoarding, which is not how trench walls would have been built. One of the soldiers gets trench foot, but the trench environment looks very dry and parched. Not the type of environment conducive to trench foot.

In addition to the above most of the actors appear some what over-weight, again not typical of young physically fit fighting men of the first world war. This combined with very average acting added to the film being difficult to engage with.

In summary give it a miss its boring, plain and seemingly low budget. Nothing like Passchendaele, Beneath Hill 60 and certainly nothing like All Quiet On The Western Front.

I checked out this film after reading about it in the Globe and Mail. Here is the review by Globe and Mail critic John Doyle.

"Among the truly important programs is 21 Brothers (it's on video-on-demand across Canada this weekend), made by Michael McGuire of Factory Film Studio in Kingston Ontario. The full-length movie is a "faux" documentary that chronicles Canada's 21st Battalion as the troops prepare for the Battle of Flers-Courcelette on Sept. 15, 1916. The idea was to document the build-up to the battle in real time, and it was filmed in one long take – recognized by The Guinness Book of World Records recently as the "Longest Uncut Film in the world," running 91 minutes and eight seconds. It's not showy or preachy; it's a vivid, meaningful portrayal of young soldiers and officers who are homesick, terrified and brave."

JOHN DOYLE The Globe and Mail Published Saturday, Nov. 10 2012

Please do not make the same mistake as me and buy this professionally packaged film, unless you want to watch 10 overweight Reenactors mess around with a video camera for a couple of hours. Personally I managed 20 minutes, and then had to stop watching.

Do not buy , unless you are curious to see just how bad it is. I would welcome comments from anyone involved in this amateur dramatics to justify how it can be on the shelves of shops.

I see on the film info page here that it has an estimated budget of $4000,000 .Don't make me laugh. The budget of the film looks like it wouldn't even have come to the price i paid for the DVD.

Disappointed. Don't bother. I usually like war movies, but could watch past the first 10 minutes because of the cursing.