Murder Company

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.

Had to make this just to say that while the movie is indefensibly bad, a bunch of these reviewers are talking about the soldier at the beginning having a German gun. These reviewers apparently have no idea what an M3 Grease Gun is and thus shouldn't be criticizing weapons in any movie.

So don't complain about people not doing their homework when you haven't done yours either.

In regards to the movie, it definitely has the feeling of a student film. Like one of those someone made as their final assignment when they hit their Kickstarter limit. But there are certainly worse ways to spend an hour and a half.

The plot was pretty flimsy. The acting performances were reasonable considering everyone is an unknown other than Grammar with an almost cameo appearances. The fighting action would have been better if it was more realistic. Also some of the killings were just plain lazy film making. I am not a fan of 20 foot apart open ground machine gun battles. Much of it was not realistic, and some of it was quite cheesy. Nevertheless, it was not a complete waste of time, and it was slightly entertaining. Music was uninspired to say the least. Dialog was not great, but not terrible either. Direction was quite weak. It is entirely forgettable.

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.

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.