Brothers War (2009) User Reviews

A major disappointment -- becomes almost unwatchable

[rlange-3 · 2/10 · 27 August 2010]

Let me agree that this movie is, as claimed, "based on real events". As in, there was in fact a Second World War, and there was fighting in Poland. Beyond that, I'm not sure that this movie is based on anything.

Many reviewers have pointed out numerous mistakes in uniform, tactics, arms, and the like. I will add to that the fact that the British officer who becomes part of the main story group raises not a single eyebrow when they enter the German formation in the truck and decide to 'help the wounded'. What could have and should have been a taut cat and mouse game of deception turns into yet another farce, joining the incredible stereotypes overplayed foppishly throughout the movie. Virtually all the Russians are portrayed as cruel, arrogant, incompetent and/or drunk. The Gestapo are like caricatures from Hogan's Heroes, except we are meant to take them seriously.

Anyone looking for a good World War 2 movie about the undercovered battles in Poland during the Nazi retreat will be disappointed by this film. It's only real value is that it addresses a seldom seen aspect of the war; it's too bad that it does it so poorly.

Awesome film well worth a watch..if you wanna waste 2 hours of your life!!

[ztpt · 2/10 · 25 April 2009]

This flick was terrible,wooden acting ,cheesy + it shows so much that it is an zero budget C-film..I love WW2 films..I tought I would enjoy this movie,I knew it wouldn't be in the calibre as say Enemy of the gates or Saving private Ryan etc but nope...they should have hired a decent military adviser and got the details right(even if that is not THAT important if the story is good and it sucks you in from the beginning,which it failed to do here).. But that even more draws attention to the flawed script and cheesy action sequences,it looked like a bad film student film at the worst,and a really good one at the best..some of the action was over the top and seemingly copied from some 30 year old John Wayne movie,NO realism whatsoever(THE ALLIES CANT FIND OUT OUR EVIL PLAN MUHAHAHAHA!)I mean come on! the British guy talked with a horrible phony accent,I could keep on listing things but I digress. To the makers: You shoud have tried harder,much harder,taken your time with the script and not relied on predictable clichés..and tried to actually research the subject matter.. Are you on some personal quest to be the new Uwe Boll?

Don't waste your time. I gave this movie some rope and it hung itself.

[nvgreengo · 2/10 · 25 April 2009]

Unfortunately the film starts well, well at least for the opening sequence. The acting is blah if even that. I'm actually a rather easily entertained movie goer and this was just too tough. I made it through the film for some unknown reason, perhaps I'm a bit of a sadist. The concept is good whereas this film is based on some tidbit of truth that the Russians have a secret that they don't want the Americans to find out about. The props and locations are good but the acting and lack of continuity in the plot makes this film worth passing by. I was especially irritated by the fact that everyone speaks English (the Germans and Russians) and the acknowledgment that "you speak good English," is all that let you know there was a language change. I ramble and that's a minor note but this movie was bad. Maybe they blew the budget on the props and tanks so they couldn't buy a good script or actors. I mean I just watched "I am Bruce" of Evil Dead fame and that was a bad movie but it kept me entertained. I wish I could say otherwise but you've been warned.

it's not as bad as everyone says

[oyvindfrivold · 1 September 2011]

I have seen this movie twice! Just felt i had to start on a positive note since most of the reviews are bad ones;) This movie is a cheap production. Thats a fact. In many of the scenes I get the feeling that I'm watching a bunch of ww2 buff's that play war. but then the movie also has some decent battle scenes considering the budget. I haven't seen any major errors in Equipment (yes there might be some wrong tanks and a American flag from the fifties). however all the medals and uniforms are correct. the Russian cannon and handguns being used by the Germans are not prop-fails, they are very realistic as German soldiers at that time used everything they could to keep the Russians away. I have read some books written by Soldiers on the eastern front and the tactics being used are also relatively realistic.(some of them, indeed there are mistakes) There was a complaint that the Germans yelled panzer when the tanks appeared. That is exactly what they would have said. It IS the German word for tank. Or maybe the Germans built the pak.40(antitank cannon4.40) to take out their own tanks?;) Also, don't complain that the Russian are portrayed as subhuman assholes, most of the Hollywood movies I have seen does the same thing. Russians are off course just like everyone else but it is just natural that the Grunts of the red army looked a little ugly and weird. They had been at war for a long time, fighting a very resilient enemy.

Now i don't like Nazis but I have a deep respect for the common Whermacht soldier. many of them where forced to war and in the end, they just fought for their own lives. even the SS wasn't all bad, many of them simply needed a job in the 30's or joined up to fight communism. The German soldier was just like every soldier in a major war. Afraid. Few of them where politically active and most companies would get a political officer that all the soldiers hated. most of us know that it is worse to have a bad boss than to work in his competition, so lets give the common German soldier of ww2 a break:)

I didn't read all the reviews, so maybe all this have been said before. I don't care. I like this movie.

just get past the fact that it is far below the budget of most war films, and one might find that the movie is good. There are times when the story feels choppy, but again it has a very low budget so I suppose parts could have been cut.

I'll give it a 6 out of 10. could have been much better, but all in all, it's cool.

This movie has moved the low end of my scale downward

[Agoodfilmfan · 1/10 · 28 May 2009]

I began to feel embarrassed for another person (the director/producers) while watching this movie. Probably one of the worst feelings out there. Embarrassed, that is, until I discovered the title similarity to "Brothers at War" (also 2009) which made me realize the director/producers are simply trying to make money off of people grabbing this "movie" by mistake. This really put the low budget situation in a different light.

Utter waste of time.

I paid $1 for a rental and feel overcharged.

How can I say it again? I'll try....The electricity to run your TV/DVD player would be better spent running a washing machine.

To the actors: not really your fault

How not to make War Movies

[wiltvid · 1/10 · 26 June 2009]

If you are an American movie producer, director or scriptwriter, and you want to put a believable war story on film, you should observe a few ground rules: 1.) Find a reputable war story, that interest's and intrigues you.

Do not make a story up, or select events and clump them together,

if they are too remotely related.

2.) Have a few Veterans or Survivors consulted and included in the

extras of the DVD, from all sides. Hurry up, they will not be

around forever.

3.) Read the History part, try to be as authentic as possible.

4.) Read about soldiers from the other side, try to get their characters

and culture right.

The Russians in this film look like morons and goons, the director

should have watched some Russian war flicks like 'ZVESDA', 'SVOY'

or 'KONVOY PQ-17', to get the feeling.

5.) Have military advisers around, to make sense out of the action

scenes. At least this movie had some original vehicles like the

Hetzer. But they seemed to be lost on the Battlefield.

6.) Get actors, that act like soldiers act in wars.

Do not make the mistake of assigning pretty actors to one side,

and the most ugly ones to the other.

Do not dehumanize any side. Criticize them by their deeds, do not

paint them as subhumans.

7.) Do not make a war movie, that subjects to your ideology.

This one felt like a typical propaganda movie.

A very naive and born out of prejudiced klishe'.

8.) A good musical score, this was the only part in the movie, that was

done good.

I delayed watching but eventually succumbed...

[rod-190 · 5/10 · 26 May 2009]

Okay I WAS going to start by saying this movie is simply atrocious BUT now I have had the pleasure of reading Hugh Daly's comments (please read them for yourself) my opinion has changed. I admit that I am guilty of armchair directing and picking holes in movies - I often comment that the movie must have cost a fortune to produce so why did they not realize how bad it was?

Well, Hugh Daly has let us know that not all movies have huge budgets and when you bear this in mind, things come into perspective. The actual premise of the movie is an interesting one and I rather liked the pairing of the British guy and the main German guy. I did not find Hugh's acting that wooden, and the German lead's acting was great throughout.

I am left wondering if German soldiers would refer to oncoming Russian tanks as "Panzers" - maybe this is a generic German term for "tank"? Of course I am only used to referring to German tanks as Panzers, but what do I know anyway? The uniforms, vehicles and similar things are very well done - the producers are to be commended. However trying to rate a movie of this type when it has had to deal with budget restraints is difficult. We all know that SPR and BOB were brilliant efforts and they have set the bar. Does this mean that we cannot forgive other war movies that try to tell a story with less resources?

Hugh Daly, I salute you and want you to know that it is refreshing to read feedback directly from the source!

Go into watching this movie with an open mind, knowing that it is NOT to be compared to the Spielberg efforts. You might like some or all of it.

narcissistic POS

[redbear43 · 1/10 · 26 July 2009]

Plus of this film: Good Music and the ending credits Negative: everything else, God don't waste your time The lead actors were all just terrible ,supporting actors were OK but who watches a movie for supporting actors.

At first I was really mad at everyone who worked on this POS until I saw the credits. Than it all came together. The people responsible for stealing 2 hours of my life were apparently the two leads ,since they were the ones who wrote the story, produced and executive produced this piece of tripe A lesson for every actor out there. If your so bad at acting that no one will cast you and you have to write and fund your own movie maybe you need to find a new line of work.

If I could change one thing about this movie I would put a disclaimer on the front of the box warning audiences that narcissistic crap is to follow So to the actor with the fake British accent and tony the German lead, guys I want my $1 back.

Terrible movie!

[bobbylahiere · 1/10 · 3 July 2009]

I would say this is the absolute WORST movie I have ever seen, except that I couldn't stand to finish it...I quit watching after 53 minutes. The plot is all disjointed, the actors are TERRIBLE (with the slightly possible exception of the main German character, I would be shocked if his career isn't ruined by this dud), the dialog is horrendous, etc...etc...I think the most laughable part of all is when one of the soldiers says "My English isn't so good" (even though he speaks his entire dialog in the movie in English). DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME OR MONEY ON THIS "MOVIE"...it is dreadful. The next night, I rented "Valkyrie" and while I was skeptical going in, I came out with the opinion that THAT movie is awesome.

Oh how me and my 12 year old son laughed.....

[jengiscan2000 · 1/10 · 13 June 2011]

Haahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa...If you watch this film everyone you have ever known and loved will die! Not really but just don't bother, pick your nose for 90 minutes or read a book on the toilet. Truly one of the worst films ever, I'm so glad it cost me nothing but time! A lot of the action takes place in woods, see if you can spot the actor. The whole thing takes place in an area the size of my back yard. Continuity....Er?....plot? yeah well, we were drunk at this party and it seemed like a good idea at the time. You will only slow us down....I'm coming with you!...there are wounded here we must help them.....Ill be back....this information could change the whole war...Hmm lets team up with a load of Nazis and fight the Russians! Every one was so clean,I recognised the evil commie as that really scary bloke from the original 'Hills have eyes' sh....Y'know what I could be terribly witty with more put downs and cynical comments but this is just not even worth that......poof.

Very historically inaccurate and terrible in general

[hobeydog · 1/10 · 6 June 2009]

As a previous poster noted...at the beginning of the film, some of the German troops are using Russian weapons and when destroying a T-54 Russian tank, the Germans call it a panzer, lol. The film is so unrealistic militarily, that it is a joke. I can't believe that I even wasted a dollar renting this. At one point, 2 Germans hide behind a tree about 6 inches around...2 men behind one tiny tree and the Russians were shooting at them full force yet they could not hit them, just laughable. Everyone was speaking English. Usually this would not be a problem, but when a real Englishman comments that he wants an English speaking driver from the Russians, well, you are all speaking English and although I get the gist of what he means, it once again seems very ridiculous to me.

Ignore the negative reviews

[petermunro · 10/10 · 27 December 2012]

I am disgusted by the negative reviews. I enjoy watching WW2 films and there are not that many new ones being produced, so we should congratulate Tino Struckmann, who also plays the main German, for making films about this genre. Obviously, they are on a tight budget, but not everyone has Spielberg's millions and access to major Hollywood capital. Giving ratings like 2 out of 10 means that other small budget films about WW2 are unlikely to be attempted which would be a tremendous loss. They have done their best with the resources available and if you don't like it, please only watch Hollywood blockbusters again with famous stars whose individual salary demands will be more than all the money paid to the whole cast of this.

A decent film and well worth a look

[miklank · 7/10 · 13 June 2012]

I read the reviews after hiring this movie and decided not to even bother watching it. However I was doing some other work on my PC and put the movie on. I was surprised to find the movie to be interesting with a good story and the character of the German Captain especially was interesting and well acted. The story of the dangers of the Russians - Soviet Union - to the world is a story that needs to be told and retold. There were some poor special effects at times including trees not showing bullet damage when being shot at but ignore the minor errors caused by low budget movies relying on CGI effects and missing some of the realism but concentrate on the story and characters which are quite decent. This movie is not a dud at all and is an above average movie. I think that most viewers, both male and female, can enjoy an interesting story about a group of different characters coming together to escape from evil and to tell the truth about what a totalitarian society was doing. The movie showed both the Nazis and the Russians to be evil - a very real truth that was ignored by Western Governments at the time. I have now added this movie to my 7,500 movie collection and given it 4 stars out of 5..

The worst excuse for a WWII movie i have ever seen

[jamessmythe505 · 1/10 · 25 August 2010]

Where do I even begin? The plot jumps from character to character without any explanation of what is happening in the background. The "German" soldiers are 100% American, and do not even attempt a German accent. the main British soldiers also switch in and out of fake British accents. The main German characters are using Russian issued weapons. When people get shot,miraculously, they do not bleed. In fact, when most weapons are shot, you can tell that the sound and flash were added afterward, and the actors are just faking the kick. Some of the super-close up shots are filmed with blanks, but the majority of it is CGI. 2 men will hide behind a tree as big as my leg, and fight off an entire platoon...magically, there are no bullet holes in the tree. As far as acting goes, it goes from bad to worse as soon as the first scene is over. I love corny movies and bad acting, but it gets to a point where it's just too bad for words. I watched 3 chapters of this movie, and couldn't take it...I skipped forward to each chapter and tried to watch a little bit of each one,but it just kept getting worse. PLEASE do not waste your time!!!!

historical correct or incorrect?

[arnsvensson · 18 July 2009]

A few poster seems to have problems that at the beginning of the film some Germans are using Russian weapons, and Russian use German tanks. One even made a comment about the Germans call it a panzer. And for this call it an unrealistic militarily and a joke. Well...

About the history, plot, characters performance, etc, I leave for others to judge. But a simple note regarding uses of weapon.

1. It's a well know fact, that the Germans and Russians used each others weapon during the WWII. Especially at the end of the war it become more and more usual. Both the Finish and Germans repainted the Russian tanks and used them. Just as the Russians repainted captured German tanks, etc... For you non belivers regarding this, I suggest you take a visit to a WWII museum in Finland or even better the fantastic tank museum outside Moscow, Russia... Enough said! 2. What's so funny that the Germans calls a tank a panzer? Panzer happens to be the German word for a tank. Panzer Division, etc.

So claiming this movie is historical wrong, well yes it have it's flaws. But does it claim to be based on true story or actually events? Even the sun have it's dark spots, and movies like Enemy at the Gates and Saving Private Ryan that some praise, are surely more fiction then facts just as well, and they surely have their own flaws. But who cares, they are both damn good movies. For you WWII fanatics I recommend the movie "Talvisota" (possible buy with English subtitle).

A good video camera alone is not enough to make a good movie. A little talent could help too.

[caxle · 2/10 · 12 June 2009]

This movie portraying the last days of WWII plays out like a spoof, worthy of the efforts of venerable "Weird" Al Yankovic. A stream of cartoon like characters, reminiscent of the residents of "Stalag 13", painfully trying to play "serious" roles. Evil, birded Gestapo agents... Evil, birded Russian front line army colonels, (moonlighting as NKVD executioners, wiping out entire governments)... Noble German Wehrmacht soldiers saving innocent maidens... Stupid Russian soldiers (drunk and horny, of course) who just can't wait to get killed...... This movie has it all. Maybe it all made a lot of sense to the producers. For me, unfortunately, none of it did. Not the director's hazy WWII history. Not the poor acting. Not the plot. Least of all not a $1 rental fee I paid to watch this masterpiece. So, is it: "roll over Private Ryan and tell Steven Spielberg to move"? Not for me.

Proceed With Caution

[mcgavinn · 1/10 · 27 May 2009]

An amazing story that is essential to any World War II buff or even history buff. However, from the point of view of a film buff or any avid movie fan, this was a below standard piece of work, or at best a good student film. The actors themselves turned in a decent days work, however the people producing this movie fell short. The constant use of the "fade to black" transition robs the movie of momentum and constantly leaves the viewer wandering if the movie has come to an abrupt end, or whether or not the movie is about to pursue a parallel story line, but typically it continues in the same direction. The movie also contains some unexplained inaccuracies. Early on in the film the Germans are engaged in battle with the Russians, and a few of the German troops are shown using Russian Firearms (specifically the PPSh-41). The viewer can assume that maybe the Germans picked up these weapons off the battle field and proceeded to use it. I assumed this myself until one of the main characters blew up a German Panzer tank piloted by Russian troops. With these caveats in mind, go ahead and learn some little known history!

Bad story plus worse timing equals--propaganda?

[Al-911-363046 · 1/10 · 18 December 2010]

When all sides are villains, then all that's left to play hero is the featured motto: "order from chaos". And that is exactly the motto that nobody in the West wants to hear just now because its 21st Century translation reads alternately Problem-Reaction-Solution on one hand and Full-Spectrum Dominance on the other.

The film opens with the absurd turn-about claim that there were a few good apples in the otherwise rotten Third Reich barrel. The German Army "hero" had just finished four years of murdering 40 million Soviet civilians; but we are expected to believe that he is shocked to witness Russians executing about 20 members of the Polish government in exile. (More astonishing yet, there is no mention of the 20,000 Polish Army officers executed by Stalin.) Our One-Good-Apple-In-The-Rotten-Nazi-Barrel then teams up with an enemy: a stereotypical Broomstick-Up-The-You-Know-What British Army officer who claims to be an unspecified "military attaché". Together, they fight the evil greater than both of them combined: the Soviet Union's plans for post-war domination of eastern Europe, including of Germany.

Their sudden conversion to trans-national "brotherhood" follows discovery that they are both Freemasons. For those not up on current conspiracy theory lore, since 1717 the Freemasons have been one of the most notoriously secret of secret societies. Yes indeed, they were the very folks who brought us the equally notorious all-seeing eye at the peak of the pyramid on the back of the U.S. one dollar bill. Alex Jones and George Nouri fans know the Freemasons as the dreaded "Illuminati".

The Freemason motto, "order from chaos", is also said to be the motto of the Rothschild family, allegedly owners of one-third of all wealth in the world and backers of every central bank in the West since 1776, including the U.S. Federal Reserve as of 1913. Critics claim that the motto does not mean that they will restore order when others create chaos. Rather, it means that they will create chaos (the problem) in order to terrify citizens (the reaction), who will then beg bankers to save us all by taking control (the solution).

This tactic--also called "full-spectrum dominance"--rages across both Europe and America today; and Germany is as key a tool of today's bankers as it was in 1930. That was when the American Chase Bank, the American banker Prescott Bush (yes, THAT Bush family), American car maker Henry Ford, American IT inventor Thomas Watson (IBM) and American Telephone and Telegraph (ATT) created Adolph Hitler and financed him. It was also when American Margaret Sanger, together with American Bill Gates' father, taught Hitler's representatives the genocidal pseudo-science then called Eugenics but now called Planned Parenthood--which today takes credit for murdering 51% of African-Americans over the past 30 years.

And, lo and behold, here we have an American film on a crusade to rehabilitate the German soldier--just when Russia has succeeded in joining economic forces with various European nations and just when Germany alone has the power to collapse the Euro as the major rival to the U.S. dollar as world reserve currency.

Makers of this film are either astonishingly stupid or even more astonishingly well-paid to peddle pure propaganda disguised as history. Why stupid or well-paid? Is there even one way in which this story does not lead back to the Western banking establishment that has destroyed Europe and America so that it can now save them both with "order from chaos"?

Worst war movie ever made

[bindougie-27429 · 1/10 · 14 December 2018]

There should be a law about making a movie this bad. It is massively historically inaccurate. Its only point seems to be to slander the valiant soviet soldiers and Red army that defeated the filthy german nazi scum. One of, if not the worst movies I have ever seen.

One of the worst movies ever!

[Maximus6891 · 1/10 · 26 July 2009]

This had to be one of the worst, if not the worst movies ever. Like the individual several comments before me said, they called the Russian tank a Panzer. Further,they then tried to, and if I recall correctly, succeeded by blowing a "Panzer" tank up with German potato mashers. Other stupid things that were done: The Germans talked with British accents; The officer and another soldier took cover behind a 6" tree ( like the guy above said). (I know this is all completely random stuff thrown together but I have to get 10 lines) I personally believe that the director, producers, and the nitwit who came up with this story and script should forever be banned from taking any part in the making of a movie.

Wrong tanks? How about wrong flag?

[steve0557 · 1/10 · 11 July 2009]

I'm not a WWII historian. I do appreciate authenticity in movies about history. Especially movies about American history. I know what most people know about it. One thing I do know is that there were only 48 stars on the American flag in 1944-45. The scene in the American commander's quarters shows a 50 star flag hanging behind him. No, you can't quite count all the stars. But, the pattern of the array is of the post 1958 flag. Couldn't the prop department afford to go out and find a period-correct flag? I could forgive terrible special effects and a bad plot and stiff acting. But, the wrong flag! Low budget indeed!

not much of anything

[dbborroughs · 4/10 · 5 June 2009]

just okay war film, according to the box, based upon a true story, about a British soldier stumbling upon a secret the soviets don't want out during the Second World War. He ends breaking out of Soviet captivity with a German Caaptain. The pair then is chased across Germany in order to get freedom and to relay the discovery to Allied forces.

Not much of anything, and while I like that Michael Berryman gets a lead (as the evil Soviet on the trail of the heroes) one wishes he, and the rest of the cast, was given more than clichés to work with with.

Not bad but not really worth bothering with.

between 4 and 5 out of 10

A testament to the badness of war

[quinnwolfe · 10/10 · 1 June 2009]

This film brings deserved attention to the plight of one of the most historically under-privileged and persecuted groups: The Freemasons. "Brother's War," as an expose of secret societies, has been described by the New York Times as approaching the social significance of Dan Brown's proud tomes.

Tino Struckmann's revolutionary portrayal of Capt. Klaus Mueller, a German, as a gravel-voiced American stereotype suggests many shocking parallels between Nazi Germany and the society of now.

To further emphasize the parallels of "Brother's War" to the society of now, the filmmakers intentionally included a number of shots with a protruding boom, and an extended scene in which an iPhone is clearly visible.

Not a bad flick

[celticfury63 · 6/10 · 27 August 2010]

Most of the reviewers here really seem to hate this movie, and I'm here to say it's not a bad flick. No, it's not the greatest war movie ever made, but they tried for accuracy and it shows. While the first battle scene was a little bit unrealistic - there's no way veteran infantrymen are going to engage armor with small arms - I liked the' look' of the scratch unit that was involved on the German side( I saw the paratrooper in the trench with the regular army grunts) the uniforms looked good, the German use of Soviet weapons was correct ( hell I'd want pp sh with the 72 round drum rather than the mp40 too), along with late war rifles and assault rifles, jackboots and the short boots with gaiters ... okay enough of that, you get the picture.

The acting ranged from fair to good (I liked the main German character ) and the special effects ranged from poor to very good. The script was okay, and I enjoyed the storyline, and though there were some confusing spots, I thought that the pace of the film was okay. I was never enthralled, but I was never bored.

Overall, I enjoyed the film. And as for the review that commented on the 'bad English accent' of the English major - Dude, the guy is an Englishman, how bad could his accent be?

Low budget acting-music drowned out speaking parts

[rrau22 · 3/10 · 6 June 2009]

Comparable with a History channel documentary using reenactors.

Col. Petrov might have survived a wound from a military rifle fired within 20 feet but his left shoulder blade, left lung and perhaps his heart would have been severely damaged. To have him show up to shoot the 'British' officer within a few days of being critically wounded himself sunk a already bad film.

A reasonably good effort was made to outfit the players with authentic uniforms.

The area in which the German Captain gives his statement to the Allies was hard to believe as was the brief conversation between the American and British officers about final handling of the information.