Assault on Hill 400

How to do a better job on this production?

First, hire a military consultant. That would get by the majority of the issues.

Next, hiring an acting coach. Not a really expensive one. Maybe a director from the Little Theater of east New Jersey.

Taking these two steps would great enhance the production value of this movie.

Then the next step would be to follow just a little of the historical facts associated with this battle.

This film is almost a disservice to the memory of the heroes that fought in this battle.

Dialogue is awful, could could have used a little polishing.

If nothing else I learned to never watch a film directed by this guy.

Bad acting for the most part with a weak plot. Michael Madsen and Billy Baldwin's performance is severely lacking. These actors (and I use that term loosely for this movie) need to hang it up, if you see their names in a movie, it's going to be one to avoid. The best acting came from the nurse, who has a minor part and Eric Roberts is underutilized; mainly just clicking a camera every few seconds.

Some of the gear and uniforms were okay, while others are really poor quality; you can see better at a reenactment. It's apparent that there was no technical advisor and the Germans are for the most part laughable.

After managing to not gag (with some effort) at the cliche'd lines being uttered during the innitial brief of the mission near start of the film, i could watch no more due to the annoying cameraman following the platoon clicking his camera shutter loud enough to drown out the lines being uttered by the overly talkative patrol moving thru the woods, presumably expecting to be attacked at any time from their stances, but never in a million years expecting to be ambushed behind enemy lines from their incescant talking.

Since i could'nt watch it further in disgust at known actors putting their name to an asylum movie as much as the annoyance at the film itself i probably shouldnt have wrote a review, but thought i may as well in hope people who like to make their own minds up about how bad a movie is like me may think twice about actually bothering if i described how far i got into the movie before gave up and wished i had taken notice of the reviews mysel in this preticular case ;P.

The fact that "well trained and resupplied German soldiers" (not the weak Polish kind, as the General described them), can be seen shooting a Thompson at 5:38 (behind the German holding an MP40), and another one shooting a Grease gun at around 5:59 (hiding behind the tree) made me giggle. If they are what the General describes, then there's no need for them to use US weapons. Not to mention the poor tactics, use of ranks, lingo, and what not.

Also, this movie only portrays what seems to be a incomplete squad from 2nd Rangers. Some of the roles in the squad seem to be replaced by ordinary riflemen. It should be mentioned that there were at least 457 enlisted men and 27 officers from 2nd Rangers who went up that hill. And a whole bunch of infantry before them, sustaining a minimum of 16,000 casualties.

It's inaccurate, the acting is stale. I can't say much good about this movie. This movie clearly missed out on military advisors, and perhaps some acting classes.

I am an avid war film watcher. The acting in this film is one of the worst I have seen. Helmets that don't fit and over their eyes, shooting from the most ridiculous positions you can imagine, and a pillbox that apparently can fire bullets that come back and it the wall below from slot they are firing from /facepalm

Then there is 5 soldiers that take out a farmhouse without being noticed by the obs point in an upstairs window, despite crossing a 300m open field!

As someone else mentioned German soldiers standing in open spaces in the line of fire waiting to get shot my goodness...

don't waste your time folks.