keane11180

If you saw the trailers for this movie, you would think you were getting a movie, like "Saving Private Ryan" with great battle scenes and a story that arouses patriotism in everyone. This is not the case. There are very few battle scenes, and the ones you do get look like they were copied straight from Private Ryan. The story is insulting to the WWII generation and is very anti-amercian government. The main point is that these guys raised the second flag, but got their picture in the paper which is used to sell the war to a public that was losing faith. They make the American government look so horrible for "making up this story", like they are jerks for "fooling" the public. I hate to tell you Clint, but had it not been for this "fabricated story", the public would not have bought back into the war and America would have lost! Also the end is insulting to people like my grandfather who fought in WWII. The author says that his dad and his friends did not want to be heroes, and maybe they weren't. This is a horrible message. Every soldier who fights is a hero whether they raise the first flag or the tenth, or whether they save a friend or don't. The author was not there, so for him to take his father's words and decide that means these men are not heroes is an insult. Fight in a war before you make a statement like this. Maybe Mr. Bradley did not think he was a hero, but he was and so are all men in the armed forces. They are all willing to make sacrifices that most of us are not. I don't care that the government took this story and blew it up to help the war effort, and neither should you because wars are won through public opinion. We could be speaking Japanese now. This seems to be more of a back door critique on the current administration, and it's "supposed fabrications" to get us into Iraq instead of a movie that should have honored the men and women that fought in WWII. He is trying to show what the government does to sway opinions. By doing so, Clint is trying to sway public opinion on his own to go further against the current war. Do not be fooled by this movie. It does not honor WWII vets. It is way to make subtle remarks about the present. In closing, if you want to see a real war movie with a positive pro-American message, see "Saving Private Ryan" or "Patton". If you want to dishonor your forefathers, then by all mean go see this steaming piece of junk!

Wait for the DVD and then start at the last 25 minutes. The last 25 minutes is relentless and violent, and had some great gore scenes. The first part of the movie is a waste of time. They just try to hard with the build up and really get no where. You will not care about the characters, so it does not matter if you skip the first part. The last 25 minutes are some of the most impressive horror I have seen. Other than that, this was a waste of $7.00. I almost walked out, but I am so glad I saw the end of this. If you want to see a well made one from beginning to end, watch the original. If you want good remakes, watch The Hills Have Eyes or Dawn of the Dead. Do not waste your time with this one in the theater.

I am a huge Gore Hound, and read the reviews on IMDb and got this from netflix. I thought I was gonna see a movie that was so bad that it's good. I did not get that at all. The gore is so fake. The intestines are obviously pieces of rope because most of time you see them they are bright white. When they rip the girls' faces off (which is done rather easily I might add) there is a squishing noise that is obviously done with someone's mouth making the noise. I know this is low budget, but it's ridiculous that this even got released. You or I could make this film. I watched the interview with Nathan Schiff on the DVD. He said that this was meant to be a satire with a good script and decent acting behind it. However, he wanted John Smihula in it and he was going into the peace corps in two weeks. So, he had to shoot it in 2 weeks and cut most of the ideas he had and just make it a gore film. He wrote the film quickly and had to use people who had never acted before. Here's an idea Nathan, instead of building the entire movie around John Smihula, why didn't you get another actor who could do it,which would have given you more time to make the movie you claim you wanted to? So, contrary to what people say this is not a gore hounds delight, unless you like obviously fake effects with dolls in plain view. HG Lewis had better effects in Wizard of Gore in 1967.