Rating: 
Summary: What the?!
Review: People seem to say this movie is so realistic. The storyline was so weak. The main character kept cussing to make it sound realistic. It sounds stupid. They were trying too hard.
It had some decent pyrotechnics, but thats about it. The story was terrible. It was so offbeat and didn't flow smoothly.
What really bugged my about this made-for-TV movie was they spent a lot of money on making it realistic, they should have spent money on a better script.
Is the main character wearing lipstick???
Rating: 
Summary: The Dark Side Of War
Review: This movie takes place during the battle of the Hurtgen Forest in World War Two. As the other reveiwers pointed out, it had extreme calsualties to the point where infantry units were being withdrawn from the front about every two weeks for regrouping and refitting.
The star Characters of this drama/action are Private Mannings, a scared soldier promoted against his wishes, his medic friend, and a green Lt. who has yet to lead a platoon into battle.
When he's promoted, he's forced to break in new arrivals, who have not been through the terrors of war yet.
While the other reviewers pointed out that he was dishonerable for trying to keep himself safe, they failed to recognize that he was not trying to keep himself safe, but trying to prove to the Top Brass that he was a danger to the infantry and needed to be shipped home on the basis of mental problems, a Chapter 8 he'd been begging for. But as the infantry gets sent into push after push, Mannings finally lets his true self come out. He sums up his courage, and prepares to take a bullet for the infantry.
Don't look for some final ending that makes all the sacrifices in the movie worth it like in "Saving Private Ryan". This film, while it doesn't give a history lesson, depicts the true horror of war and zones in on a few unlikely heros in a battle many historians today believe was completely ill advised, with the real, true objective to keep up the Top Brass's ego.
Rating: 
Summary: Strong start, weak finish. Could've been much better.
Review: This movie probably deserves 3.5 stars.As many others have pointed out, this is an unapologetically anti-war message film. Some may object to its rather unpatriotic overtones (especially in the context of WWII), but I suppose in the meatgrinder that was the Hurtgen Forest anyone's patriotism would be severely put to the test. But it's not the film's political message that I object to, but its execution. Although most of the cast turned in solid, believable performances, the script and the direction were generally uneven. The film started off well enough. A rather reluctant and unheroic private, the lone survivor of his platoon, was assigned to lead a squad of raw "replacements" into their position. An unexceptional quiet day on the front perhaps, but the nervous tension was palpable as we follow our group of raw troops through the drifting fog and the errie quiet of the forest as they crawl their way to their foxholes. Nothing dramatic, nothing spectacular, just the dripping terror of being alone in the woods faced with an unseen enemy. But if the film was masterful in depicting the psychological tension before the battle, the battle itself was anti-climatic. In no way can this film be compared to the gritty realism of Saving Private Ryan. There was a great deal of gore to be sure, but the battle sequences seem plucked straight out of a Clint Eastwood First Person Shooter, as troops from the 1st German Deaf, Blind & Dumb Division flail about in utter incompetency as our squad of half a dozen raw recruits take out one position after another. I won't even mention the scenerios that seem highly improbable to anyone even vaguely knowledgeable about military history. If you want to see a film that successfully combines the gritty realism of WWII combat with an anti-war message, I recommend the Thin Red Line.
Rating: 
Summary: The Bucket of Blood
Review: This movie isn't going to appeal to everybody because it is a dark and sad movie. I like this movie because it doesn't go into the rah-rah [stuff] that many war movies gets into. You know the scene with the inspirational speech about patriotism, glory and mom's apple pie with the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing as background music. There are some cheesy moments, but every movie has them and these moments don't affect the rest of the movie which is good. As for realism, well I never experienced shellfire or taken a round in the gut so I won't say it is or isn't. Historically, it should be pointed out that the 28th Infantry Division had one of the worst and unluckiest combat records in WWII and for that earned the nickname "Bucket of Blood". The 28th didn't get better until the Army removed the ineffective division commander and got some combat veterans who knew their stuff. If you read your history books, cowardly officers and men were common place at that point in the war because the US Army was running out of trained infantry--they allocated too many men to anti-tank, AA and HQ units so they ended up scraping the bottom of the barrel--hence the fat guy with glasses and the dumb stuff like bunching up in an artillery attack. It seems to me that a lot of people who hate this movie are upset because it doesn't portray the US Army as a perfect, noble organization made up of brave, competenent people instead of what it really is, an organization made of humans: some good, some bad, some incompetent and unlucky.
Rating:
Summary: powerful anti-war movie
Review: There are two ways to review this movie: One is to judge it according to how truly it represents the actual action that took place, one is whether or not it's simply a good movie. As other reviewers have thankfully pointed out, the Huertgen campaing was a pointless backfall into trench warfare costing 55.000 american (as opposed to 12.000 germans) lives in 3 months and giving the germans the opportunity to gather for the offensive in the ardennes (the battle for the bulge), costing even more lives. Honestly this campaign was a complete desaster and is therefore understandably overlooked in the US. Reconstructing the story of two attacks undertaken by US Forces therefore is remarkable and to be appreciated. But although all the true facts are reproduced, the movie fails to deliver a feeling of "being there". Instead, the story told could have taken place in any war, in any army. And here, in telling how humanity fails when confronted with senseless mass slaughter, the movie really succeeds.
I honestly doubt that an american adolescent drafted into a war is more brave, curagous, ingenious or whatever than a german, russian, french, british or iraqi and although this might be hard to swallow for some viewers, this is exactly what the film shows us. It's simply the question on how to survive, how to get home, and whether or not to fulfill suicidal orders. This makes the movie more of a psychological study than a war movie. I found performances to be adequate, production values were good (the Kall Trail looked impressive) and the story went along close to the real facts. The movie fails to deliver any information about the Huertgen Campaign and sadly, on the DVD there isn't any information either, which is a big missed opportunity. But presenting the scope of action is not what this is about. It's about the fragility of the human psyche, about how heroes become murderers and vice versa, about how war destroys the foundation of civilisation in man. And here the movie truly is impressive. I admire the guts it must have taken to make such a movie, as it's harder to look at mistakes made and learn from them, than it is to wallow in how "great our boys over there were". They weren't: in the year 1944, more deserters were recorded by US. troops in Europe than in all other warfaring armys combined (although the russians officially never recorded any). And looking at that movie you understand why.
Rating:
Summary: History it's not.......
Review: While the Hurtgen Forest is a setting that could depict all the horrors of any war, this picture is not one that can be used to understand that place or that time. Apart from dramatic and telling scenes showing the unpredictable instantaneous effects of mines, there is little historical accuracy in setting. What was probably an attempt at depicting the Kall River crossing is off the mark.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling and gripping
Review: There are usually two types of war movies. One gives you a big picture, like strategy games. An excellent example is "The longest day". The other type is more upclose and personal, about each individual human being in the war, their struggles and choices, like this one. Enough good words have been said on this movie. On a negative note, the Battalion Commander played by Dwight Yoakam seemed to be dramatized a little out of proportion. Nevertheless, this is a great movie, and a reminder that movie is not just about special effects. It's about human being. A lot of people compare this movie to Saving Private Ryan. I seriously doubt if anyone who like this movie would like SPR. Although a fan of Steven Speilburg and Tom Hanks, I think SPR is a failure. It may be a successful action movie, but not a successful war movie. It tries to achieve a balance between the big picture and personal experience, and succeeded at neither. "Thin Red Line" is more about personal experience, but it's too sentimental. It's almost like you are being forced into feeling what the character is feeling. In one word, if you are looking for bang-bang kind of excitement, pass this up. But if you are like me, every time in Blockbuster standing in front of a whole wall of special-effect loaded movies and doesn't feel like watching any of them, give this one a try.
Rating:
Summary: Deja Vu
Review: Deja Vu, not as in, "We've seen this cliched film before", but as in "The film starts the same way it ends." That is as the film starts, we see a lonely Private piggy-backing his heavily wounded CO back from the front of which he dies in the woods. Then he gets rapidly promoted up to Sgt. and then to Lt. due to his combat command ability. However he's really a coward to some extent as he's vying for a Section 8 to get out of the situation. As our "hero" is training some replacements a "nerdy" type guy becomes the next hero and ends up carrying out our former hero. But anyway, "Trumpets" takes place in early Dec. 44 during the Hurtgen Forest Campaign where the US troops are gathered at the Siegfried Line. Their mission is to break through the German lines around a bridge guarded by two 88mm FlaK guns and 2 PzIV H/J tanks. To prevent the main assualt force from getting decimated, our unlikely hero takes a small squad on a flanking manuever to take out the 88's and tanks. In the last effort we see our hero getting injured and our nerdy hero carrying out our old hero. Hence the deja vu.
Rating:
Summary: Don't Make a Vietnam type movie about the Hurtgen Forest...
Review: In researching for a book about my own relatives who fought in that campaign(2 of whom didn't come home), I've spoken and received dozens of oral and hand-written histories of that campaign, especially for the 28th Infantry Division, which attacked between November 2 - 16, 1944, and lost more casualties as a Division (over 6,000 out of 14,253)than any other battle except Iwo Jima. These men weren't out to just stay alive at the expense of their fellows. They were sent in to do a job, believing that it would help end the war. The forest was intentionally planted so that it would be a defensive barrier for Germany. The High Command didn't understand the difference between WW I and WW II, and thought it had to be taken to avoid "being flanked" by the Germans if the Allies simply went around it. Only after 50,000 casualties to about 7 Divisions did they finally realize that the real value to the Forest was the three Roer River dams there, which, if held by the Nazis, could be used to flood the field of battle down-river. The Forest quickly disoriented the men, and was the site for two (2) belts of the Siegfried Line(the Germans called it the West Wall), i.e., prepared defensive lines with minefields, pillboxes, and interlocking fields of fire, with pre-registered sites for artillery barrages when the "Amis" advanced. There could be no air support, since the weather was rainy, and the forest hid the enemy as well as our guys. The roads were muddy, and tank support could not advance. Artillery rounds hit the trees, causing shards of wood as well as shrapnel to hit our men. There was panic, heroism, and patriotism as well as the fear of death. Right after this debacle, some of the Divisions which were rent by the fighting were sent to a "quiet" sector: the Ardennes-the site of the Bulge. Thus, like the Thin Red Line, this movie is seen through the eyes of a Vietnam-era soldier, and is anachronistic. Wait until they make a movie that really depicts what the average soldier felt, rather than imposing anti-war sentiments upon these guys.
Rating:
Summary: The Anti-Ryan
Review: If you watch films about WWII, and maybe even if you haven't, you've seen "Saving Private Ryan" which has apparently become the definitive movie about The Big One....well, if that film as a polar opposite, this is it. "Trumpets" follows a few days in the miserable life of a miserable man, Private Manning, a dogface who is part of the ... disasterous 1944 - 1945 campaign by the American army to seize the Huertgen Forest from the Wehrmacht. Everybody knows about D-Day and the Bulge, while the Huertgen is forgotten, probably because there is no glory in recounting the story of how 30,000 GI's got fed into a human meatgrinder they called "The Death Factory" for no purpose. The Germans never could understand why the American army chose to attack them at their strongest, most easily defensible point, but were more than content to let it happen. WWII histories, most notably Eisenhower's and Bradley's, who oversaw this idiocy, gloss it over, but "Trumpets" rips open the scab and gives a glimpse of what really went down. Unlike "Ryan" which stressed the nobility of the individual soldier even as it attacked the logic of war, "Trumpets" has no heroes. Private Manning is a no-account malingerer who doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself and as a result, keeps surviving while better men get killed off. His officers foolishly assume he is therefore a good soldier, and keep promoting him against his will. Thus he ends up having to break in the replacements soldiers being fed into the grinder, a task which requires empathy, leadership, courage, and patience, so naturally Manning is the worst possible choice. The battle scenes are not especially terrific, but the film does a good job of showing how the stress of combat can make good man bad and bad men worse. Officers lose their nerve, privates run away, everybody is cold, tired, and afraid, and there is always one more mindless "push" into the impregnable defence just over the horizon. The performances, especially by Robert Eldard as Manning and Frank Whaley as his only (sort of) friend, a combat medic, are very good. The film never sentimentalizes the characters, and the scene where Manning brutally tells the basket-case lieutenant "If there's any way I can help you without endangering my own life, I won't hesitate, but I'm not taking a bullet for anybody" is about as far from Tom Hanks' speech at the end of "Ryan" as you are gonna get. The lieutenant, near tears, tells him that's not good enough, whereupon Manning says, "That's as good as it gets." The medic overhears this and tells him, "When you're out there with your guts shot out crying for a medic -- if there's any way I can help you without endangering my own life, I won't hesitate." You wouldn't hear that in a Steven Spielberg movie. "Trumpets" could have been better, but it goes on about a half-hour too long after the story is really resolved, and it does have a bit of a cable-movie feel to it. Other than that, I would recommend it to anyone who wants a taste of some of the fun that followed "The Longest Day."
|
