The story of men in the Guards Armoured Division in WWII, from basic training through to battle.The story of men in the Guards Armoured Division in WWII, from basic training through to battle.The story of men in the Guards Armoured Division in WWII, from basic training through to battle.
Rufus Cruickshank
- Sergeant Dean
- (as Rufus Cruikshank)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
"They Were Not Divided" is a British WWII film about a Welsh tank unit that also seems to have a lot of Americans, Englishmen and Canadians among them. It takes place from just after Dunkirk in 1940 and ends with the fall of Germany.
The story is VERY episodic and character development is seemingly unimportant. This makes the film a bit less involving and cold than a typical war story...which is its biggest weakness. As a result, it comes off like a Cliff Notes version of the war in Europe. It's not terrible at all but could have been better.
By the way, most of the 'Americans' in the movie sound exactly like Brits TRYING to sound American. I think British viewers would not have noticed this, but Americans sure will be able to tell they aren't from home! Now I know how Brits feel when they watch American films with horrible British accents...such as Bert in "Mary Poppins"
The story is VERY episodic and character development is seemingly unimportant. This makes the film a bit less involving and cold than a typical war story...which is its biggest weakness. As a result, it comes off like a Cliff Notes version of the war in Europe. It's not terrible at all but could have been better.
By the way, most of the 'Americans' in the movie sound exactly like Brits TRYING to sound American. I think British viewers would not have noticed this, but Americans sure will be able to tell they aren't from home! Now I know how Brits feel when they watch American films with horrible British accents...such as Bert in "Mary Poppins"
I was hoping for a more compelling film; but there was far too much dialogue, and not enough action. Especially, after the basic training section of the film, which is actually the better part of the movie.
There were just too many bromides and cliches that were continually interfering with the natural evolution of the film. The actors did a competent job, as did the director, but the production values, to say the least, were slipshod. Maybe it was because it was an armored division. Armored division films of WW all seem to suffer from similar shortcomings; with the exception of Patton. Films like The Battle of the Bulge, The Battle of Alamein, Desert Fox, Rommel, and even the modern Fury with Brad Pitt, all had character development problems, action sequence problems, and pacing problems.
Doing dialogue for these types of films is very difficult to accomplish; that is why very few of them are highly praised compared to infantry, naval, and air force films. The natural confining aspect of a tank does not lend itself to good development of dialogue. However, to be fair, the film is watchable and entertaining, and will satisfy most WW 2 genre fans.
There were just too many bromides and cliches that were continually interfering with the natural evolution of the film. The actors did a competent job, as did the director, but the production values, to say the least, were slipshod. Maybe it was because it was an armored division. Armored division films of WW all seem to suffer from similar shortcomings; with the exception of Patton. Films like The Battle of the Bulge, The Battle of Alamein, Desert Fox, Rommel, and even the modern Fury with Brad Pitt, all had character development problems, action sequence problems, and pacing problems.
Doing dialogue for these types of films is very difficult to accomplish; that is why very few of them are highly praised compared to infantry, naval, and air force films. The natural confining aspect of a tank does not lend itself to good development of dialogue. However, to be fair, the film is watchable and entertaining, and will satisfy most WW 2 genre fans.
The BBC recently aired this on a lazy Monday afternoon in mid-August when probably not many were watching. But as this was made by Terence Young (future director of some prolific Bondmovies) I happened to tape it.
What a great surprise this proves to be. Probably about the sole movie account of a (chiefly) British tank battalion journey into France and Belgium after D-Day.
I will admit it's all very "stiff British upperlip" (jolly good show boys and so on)and especially the romance segments have dated badly, but there is a true feel of authenticity, not only that it's made about 4 years after WWII, but the director gives a realistic and almost documentary-like style to the battle scenes.
It all moves along at a brisk pace, and being a bit of WWII buff, it gave me a very rare insight and almost 'behind the scenes' view of a tankbatallion in action in 1944.
I'll doubt if it is available on DVD so you will maybe have to wait till the BBC airs it again, in 10 years or so !
What a great surprise this proves to be. Probably about the sole movie account of a (chiefly) British tank battalion journey into France and Belgium after D-Day.
I will admit it's all very "stiff British upperlip" (jolly good show boys and so on)and especially the romance segments have dated badly, but there is a true feel of authenticity, not only that it's made about 4 years after WWII, but the director gives a realistic and almost documentary-like style to the battle scenes.
It all moves along at a brisk pace, and being a bit of WWII buff, it gave me a very rare insight and almost 'behind the scenes' view of a tankbatallion in action in 1944.
I'll doubt if it is available on DVD so you will maybe have to wait till the BBC airs it again, in 10 years or so !
An interesting movie due to its quick overview of the trials and tribulations of a British armored division during WW2. And when I say quick, I mean in every sense: the events narrated, the editing, the dialogues. Everything seems to be rushed, and events unfold one after another at breakneck speed. Surely, it's part of the film's objective to showcase the swiftness of an armored division, in contrast to infantry, which has a slower, more tedious pace if you will. But in haste, it's very easy to make mistakes, and this film has a few. I understand that everything advances so rapidly, but advancing the Anzio landing to 1943 when it actually occurred in 1944 is pushing it too far.
Nevertheless, the film manages to pique some interest; the fast-paced editing appears quite contemporary and appealing, although modern filmmaking tends to overuse this narrative device. The cinematography is spot-on, with good shots and evident artistic ambition, featuring deep and dramatic black and whites and pronounced chiaroscuro that would easily meet the basic requirements of any selection for the Magnum Agency.
In terms of storytelling, it falls quite short in depth, with the typical snappy dialogues that don't delve into the psychology of the characters. Perhaps the problem lies in trying to encompass the entire geographical journey of this armored division in a single movie spanning more than four years of war across Europe. From a war cinematography perspective, the film is interesting due to its display of resources; it's even possible to catch a glimpse of an original German Tiger Tank, something that cinema would take decades to see again. However, like the rest of the film's resources, this aspect is also treated superficially; there's no time for more. There's no time for real battles, no time to face the enemy head-on, hardly any casualties, and the enemy is almost invisible, nearly nonexistent, an enemy that offers no resistance to the frenetic advance of the swift division.
But of course, the director doesn't want to show us the bitter face of war; he only aims to cement the already evident Anglo-American relations with a propagandistic film. In its final sequence, with the two flags, the British and the American, overlapping, it definitively seals this alliance.
Nevertheless, the film manages to pique some interest; the fast-paced editing appears quite contemporary and appealing, although modern filmmaking tends to overuse this narrative device. The cinematography is spot-on, with good shots and evident artistic ambition, featuring deep and dramatic black and whites and pronounced chiaroscuro that would easily meet the basic requirements of any selection for the Magnum Agency.
In terms of storytelling, it falls quite short in depth, with the typical snappy dialogues that don't delve into the psychology of the characters. Perhaps the problem lies in trying to encompass the entire geographical journey of this armored division in a single movie spanning more than four years of war across Europe. From a war cinematography perspective, the film is interesting due to its display of resources; it's even possible to catch a glimpse of an original German Tiger Tank, something that cinema would take decades to see again. However, like the rest of the film's resources, this aspect is also treated superficially; there's no time for more. There's no time for real battles, no time to face the enemy head-on, hardly any casualties, and the enemy is almost invisible, nearly nonexistent, an enemy that offers no resistance to the frenetic advance of the swift division.
But of course, the director doesn't want to show us the bitter face of war; he only aims to cement the already evident Anglo-American relations with a propagandistic film. In its final sequence, with the two flags, the British and the American, overlapping, it definitively seals this alliance.
This is quite an interesting drama-documentary that largely sets out to reinforce the inter-reliance of British and American forces during WWII. It follows the training and perilous escapades of an armoured regiment from the Brigade of Guards as they take their tanks into the low countries towards the end of the war. It cleverly interweaves actuality footage with the dramatised action delivering superbly shot scenes married with some more intimate assessments of the characters we are following. The actors themselves are far less important to the overall message - the two principals being the American Ralph Clanton ("Morgan") and Edward Underdown ("Hamilton") - they develop and come to represent the bond that binds the two armies, nations - with a message that what they have in common is not necessarily a tangible thing, but the higher purposes of freedom etc. There's a more substantial role for Michael Trubshawe ("Maj. Noble") equipped with a formidable moustache and the eagle-eyed amongst us might spot Desmond Llewellyn and Christopher Lee amongst the solid supporting effort. It's is a bit slow at times, and the dialogue pretty stilted - loads of stiff upper lip stuff - but overall, it's an informative, if at times, speculative glimpse into wartime attitudes and behaviour on the front line that is well worth watching.
Did you know
- TriviaOne of the only movies, until Fury (2014) that used an authentic Tiger tank.
- GoofsAn on screen caption reads "1943 Anzio and the war being won in Italy". The Anzio landings actually took place in January 1944.
- ConnectionsReferenced in 30 Years of James Bond (1992)
- SoundtracksThe British Grenadiers
(uncredited)
Traditional
Arranged by Jacob Kappey
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Pansarbrigaden
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 42m(102 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content