Battle Ground (2013) User Reviews

4.8?! Balderdash!!

[natashabowiepinky · 6/10 · 27 March 2014]

Well, colour me shocked. A low budget film, set mostly on the battlefield of WW1 in France after and during a major conflict turns out to be not half bad. The opening sequence, which features the infamous battle charge so favoured by overstuffed generals who did nothing more brave than sip tea behind the lines, leads to all the soldiers mown down by German machine guns... save for three. Lions, led by donkeys indeed.

One is a born leader, another young and impetuous, the final survivor has lost a leg. If they ditched him, it would be much easier to escape the trenches under surveillance by an enemy desperate to wipe them all out... but of course, the idea of abandoning one of their 'band of brothers' is out the question. If only we could all be so noble...

Running parallel to this, is the head of the trio's wife back in England finding out she's pregnant by another man. Plagued by bad dreams about what he may do to her when he finds out, she opts for a back street abortion... With predictable consequences. The way these events factor into the finale is ironic to say the least, but it does provide for a powerful ending.

It efficiently captures the claustrophobia that the men must have felt in those terrible conditions, and the distinct characterisations of our three leads held my attention, even when there was not much else going on. The effects, from mortar explosions to mustard gas, pass scrutiny too. For the money it must have cost to make, with a no-name cast, Jolly Good Show All Round I'd say, chappies. 6/10

Nice try, but falls into the trenches, when it fails to engage

[OJT · 4/10 · 12 January 2014]

This Australien film is about the horrors if the First World War's trench wars. Three British soldiers are lost out in the so called no mans land, between the two forces of war on the West Front. The film starts off with the order of sending the men out on a suicide mission against the enemy front. After the shooting is over, the three find each other, and that one of them is severely injured. What's even worse is that they have to get out, because they know there will be an air raid against the enemy front in a few hours time. Then have to get back.

Director Johan Earl had casted himself in the main role here, in his second feature film. after working more ad an actor and special effects man for years. It's been 14 years since his last film.

Making a good depiction of the horrific trench war is not each, and I think it's well done here, though it's made on a very small budget. I like a good true war story told on film, but it's difficult for actors to bear a drama, especially when if comes to dialog and dramatic feelings on screen. The actors do their very best here, what I'm not too fond of, is the side story back home. Not back acted, but if makes the temperature in the film fail. The film would have been better concentrating on which story is the most important, and what should be the main theme of the film.

The best and most exciting scene comes towards the end of the film, so don't give up too early!

The music is OK, but used badly between the two different scenes of the film, and feels forced and too loud on the "back home-scenes". I solos wonder why the Germans have to be so ugly and scarred. Not necessary if you ask me. The movie is also a bit slow, and is over without getting the satisfaction you really want out of it.

Except if your specially keen on war movies, this isn't the one you should be going out of bonds to get hold of.

A Beautifully Told Tragedy

[fallen-arc-1 · 6/10 · 15 December 2013]

A poignant film. Beautifully told, and I thought Denai (actress) was superb. I absolutely loved the womens storyline. As a girl, War films are not something I generally race out to see. But this film was recommended to me, and I was not disappointed. This is a war story with a difference, instead of focusing on the scale of war which has been done to death, Forbidden Ground tells the story from ground level. They create an awesome claustrophobic feeling, which is always how I envisaged soldiers on the front line would have felt. Having to keep your head down all the time!! The film captured the very essence of not only the tragedies on the battlefield, but the tragedies at home too. Utterly memorable.

Regretfully unconvincing.

[mwburrows · 2/10 · 25 August 2013]

Forbidden Ground is an Australian-made rendition of the plight of British soldiers trapped in no-man's land, and should have been the war epic it was (once) anticipated to be. The unfortunate truth is that it falls short of all expectations, and as a patriotic Australian I take no pleasure in saying it.

From the first moments the small budget is apparent. Close-ups try and disguise the limited scale of the production. The battles in the film are all no more than small skirmishes and never really produced with any flair, impact, or suspense. The constant reliance on CGI for special effects cripples the action, unlike it's predecessor Beneath Hill 60 - which it will surely be compared to - which used mostly practical visual effects and captures gritty violence effectively. As such, when the horror of trench warfare comes along in this film, it is woefully un- engaging, and downright boring in parts. I felt no connection with the men going to their deaths. The obvious computer-generated explosions and squibs left a lot to be desired and had no "punch." It's an anti-war film, as most WWI films are, so you would expect a focus on correctly portraying the shocking waste of war, but Forbidden Ground lacks the budget or know-how to do it properly.

There are some tired clichés including snobby, arrogant officers and the hard-nosed NCO, and while historically accurate in some ways, Forbidden Ground doesn't cast the roles with conviction, simply recycling scenes and minor characters from a dozen better war films. The other problem with authenticity is that most of the cast is Australian, and while our accents may be more or less similar and we often are mistaken for Poms, the actors on show here can't quite make it sound natural and every line feels laborious and forced. If they'd just spoken with their normal accents they would probably have sounded more comfortable with their characters, but alas every Pommy soldier on screen sounds like a caricature of British stereotypes.

Another problem with authenticity is that the unit that is focused on seems to be an amalgamation of British accents. Whether intentional or by accident, units were formed from specific locales (universities, rugby clubs, towns, cities, etc) and would only occasionally be mixed with troops from broadly different locations (casualty replacements).

So the end result is a disappointing straight-to-DVD war drama without any magnetism or flair. I praise the cast and crew for doing what they could to commemorate the war, but I can't recommend Forbidden Ground as good viewing. Better luck next time.

Astonishingly bad

[lawrence_purdy · 2/10 · 18 January 2014]

Every war movie cliché lives on in this waste of money and time. They're all here -- the strong but self-questioning hero, the cowardly kid soldier who finds courage only to (surprise!) get killed, the weedy English officer, the cruel German one...Hammy acting, leaden dialogue and uninspired effects.

As if that weren't enough, the script is full of anachronisms, as the characters talk and behave in ways that are utterly foreign to the world of 1916, but will be perfectly familiar to modern viewers.

And the icing on the cake: plagiarism. Major scenes in this stinker shamelessly rip off Timothy Findley's 1977 novel The Wars, and the film made of it. (That movie wasn't great, but it's a damn sight better than this one.)

So how bad is it, really? Bad enough that you'll wish you spent the time doing practically anything else than subjecting yourself to this loser.

A Shame

[cptdoodles · 3/10 · 9 September 2018]

The film starts well enough, a fairly accurate depiction of the British front in France, however, the first glimpse of the German troops leaves a lot to be desired, depicting them as ruthless savages. This is a problem in many war films, understandably so as it provides a very convenient background narrative (it IS a war movie after all), but when the demonisation is this overt I can't help but roll my eyes. At this point in time it's just plain lazy, if All Quiet can do it well, Forbidden Ground should be able to also. The main story is told well enough, albeit with some awkward pacing (the film builds for ten minutes, burns rubber for five, rinse and repeat), but really could have done without the whole abortion thing on the side. I understand that the writers may have wanted to include the women at home, but surely they could have done a more sincere job. I mean seriously, it feels terribly out of place, and at times seems to be attempting to draw a parallel between trench warfare and a woman's promiscuity. Safe to say I was taken out of the experience by those scenes. All in all an average indie war film held back by a lack of authenticity and a baffling subplot. You may be entertained, but likely not for the intended reasons.

Quite good overall

[tedeebar · 7/10 · 1 October 2013]

Not perfect, but it's more accurate to what WW1 would have been compared to all of these Americanized "real" war movies, except for one part when the Private is running and is never hit...until he is blown up in the trench. I felt explosions and bullets were real, and I didn't see anyone getting their leg blown off and saying "It's a flesh wound!" Real war is being hit with one bullet, not like these other movies that have multiple bullet wounds and they walk away. The story of the wife, I felt could have been left out, even though it added irony and drama to the typical war theme, but I wanted it to be a war movie only. Also, there could have been more battle scenes perhaps. Dialogue was okay, although it seemed a tack calm for war, truth be told. There were a few cheesy lines.

I died of boredom

[peterp-450-298716 · 2/10 · 3 February 2014]

An Australian attempt to create an image of the terrible battles that were held in WWI. They managed to show that on a small scale. Military units in dirty miserable conditions, sitting in mud and other dirt waiting until they were driven into a certain death. The whistling of bullets and explosions of bombs. The fear in the eyes of young soldiers who probably didn't even know what this war was about.

The image I'll remind of this movie was that of the arrogant superior who, without hesitation, gives an order to attack, although this would lead to needless bloodsheding. Because this was totally unnecessary and pointless in this stage of the battle, since they were planning for a heavy bombardment on the German positions. It was a showcase of egocentric display of power. I don't understand how come those hundred men in the trenches don't jump on that fagot coward collectively and chased him on the battlefield with a gun.

Anyway, the introduction of this film is the rush towards the German position, realising that no one will reach the other side alive. Don't expect grand heroic scenes like in "Saving Private Ryan", but rather limited images and close-ups. A clear sign that this is a low-budget film. The three soldiers Sergeant Major Wilkins , private O'Leary and Corporal Jennings , survive the massacre and end up in no man's land between the two lines. The rest of the battalion is spread over the mud-filled grounds. From here on starts the biggest part of the movie, because going back to their own trenches takes time. Corporal Jennings is very badly injured (A full leg torn away) which makes that the withdrawal is not so evident. This section is therefore extremely boring. It's not because of the acting. The acting is still acceptable despite the circumstances . But to be honest, a slowly receding threesome is not much to work with and to get an exciting story.

Eventually they made up a parallel story in which the wife of Sergeant Major Wilkins plays a leading role. She's pregnant and wants an abortion. Something that wasn't obvious to do at that time. Eventually she asks the help of a nurse who doesn't have experience with this operation. Obviously this ends up in a complete tragedy. And what a coincidence ! This nurse is the fiancée of Corporal Jennings, who at the same time ceased to live on the battlefield.

"Forbidden Ground" mostly succeeded in visualizing the atmosphere and the horror in WWI, now 100 years ago. In terms of content, it's a disaster and the story itself is a bit far fetched.

A refreshing take on WW1

[ausdcp · 6/10 · 25 February 2016]

Really enjoyed this film and I'm not much of a war person. It was a really refreshing take on a moment in our history, focusing on the very personal intimacy of mate-ship among soldiers, as opposed to the fanfare of explosions, gunfire and whiz bang visual effects.

It was nice to see a war film that peeked into the lives of the women left at home as well. When I think of the world wars and tragic loss of men involved in the conflict, I must admit I've never contemplated the hardships that women endured back on the home front.

This film offers a glimpse into what I've learnt to be an extremely common issue women were faced with whilst their men fought on the front lines. The limited options and primitive medical practices available to women back then are a frightening realisation of how helpless females must have felt living in that era. To have little to no control over their lives, let alone the ability to remedy bad choices is profoundly confronting.

A great take on a very sad era.

Quartz watch???

[s_andretta · 3/10 · 16 April 2017]

I just love it, when at the end of the movie Arthur is kneeled down on his wife's tomb, weeps and almost cries, promises his wife to "always love her", and places red roses on her grave... sporting a $ 20 gold-and-steel quartz watch!!! All of this in 1916???

Other than that, sorry to see again a heartless, stone-faced, stereotyped Grrman officer, whose only task is to kill and to see how the mama-loved Irish soldier is used as a sacrificial lamb to make a boring movie. Yawn!

A touching glimpse at tragically interwoven fates

[mecheart · 8/10 · 20 August 2013]

Few films in comparison to the number of those examining other armed human conflicts have provided a look at the hopeless blood soaked, mud clogged trenches of the First World War and fewer still have lent voice to the courage, will and love for their fellow soldiers of the men who followed without question orders which amounted to voluntary mass suicide in a hell scorched land far from the blessed sight of their most beloved.

Johan Earl and Adrian Powers have in 'Forbidden Ground' crafted the viewer such a window into one of the darkest periods of the 20th century. Their film movingly throws us into the trenches of the British Army and its portrayal of the raging machine of war as it grounds young terrified men into its only product - something much different than they were before, alive or dead. The film seizes the senses and raises tension from scene to scene.

The plot forwards the stories of two British married couples; the men at war while the women walk trancelike, waiting through the motions of a special hell of their own for word that their spouses still live. The two story lines unfold against the backdrop of their individual struggles for survival and preservation of sanity which tragically become more difficult when their lives intersect. Surrounding them all is the War and distance, time and pain of absence.

Sergeant Major Arthur Wilkins played by Johan Earl and Corporal Richard Jennings played by Martin Copping are men hardened and desensitized as they are ruined and broken by their years in the maw of combat. Both are fair, natural leaders who care for the men they command, but they've lost their identities, they've forgotten what their lives were like before the War began. Indeed, the surreal daily ballet of carnage their lives have become leaves them with weakening connection to the women they married and eventually sees them becoming brothers in arms trapped in a situation neither will ever completely escape.

Grace Wilkins, wife of Arthur played by Denai Gracie and Eve Rose, fiancé or wife of Corporal Jennings are the ones their men left behind. Nightmares of Arthur's rejection of her upon his return plague Grace, and for aid with the condition she faces which could hurt her husband more even than the terrors of war, she feverishly seeks aid and finds its only source in Eve. Eve has suffered her man's absence as much as Grace, and in so genuinely needing to aid her causes irrevocable harm.

The film is a war movie, and it is also a tragic drama which explores the consequences of meetings between average people who find themselves already connected in ways they never could have imagined. The historical accuracy of the period is spot on as are the booming, ground churning scenes of battle of which there are several. For the budget available, the film makers did a great job although the continuity and viewer perception of the size of outdoor spaces sometimes feel askew and not to scale.

'Forbidden Ground' is a gritty, visceral war film wrapped around a touching story driven by characters with many shades of depth. Their reactions and solutions to the horrible situations they find themselves in is compelling and this viewer found himself only wishing they could get through it all and have the opportunity to heal, together - reunited at last.

I highly recommend 'Forbidden Ground' to the fan of war films as World War I remains a blemish on history mostly glossed over by popular fiction. The period equipment, weapons and dress on the battlefield and off are well reproduced, and the actors who portray the interesting characters inhabiting this study of the chilling effects of war on its victims - war makes all of us its victims - are worthy of the viewers time and praise. For most every other mature moviegoer the film is also a worthwhile watch: the tragically intersecting fates of these characters will reach you on some level.

8/10

What was Eve accused of?

[AliElshafey · 7/10 · 6 October 2013]

1.Grace asked Eve to help her to have an abortion .. Eve was hesitated as she was just a nurse & she didn't have any experience in this.

2.However she tried and didn't success and _as was expected_ Grace had severe bleeding leading to her death.

3.Before Grace died she asked Eve not to tell her fiancé _Arthur_ about the truth.

4.Well, as routine Eve would be arrested and had a trial and she would try to defend herself and then the whole truth will be obvious to all people including Arthur ;)

what I'm trying to ask about "wouldn't this affect Arthur after knowing that his only love cheated him?"

sorry for my bad English :p

I am on the fence with this one

[rbruceorrell · 5/10 · 23 August 2016]

Okay it was not that bad. However, I am disappointed with the standard old interpretations of the characters. The German trench commander had the obligatory scar down the left cheek, he spoke in quick mono-syllable orders.

The young private being torn a new one because he was scared and not a man by a man who had just become so mentally scarred that he could not think any different.

And then the story "at home"... really, that added 0% to the film.

90 minutes of my life wasted.

I think that what was shown in the battle field was a very good representation of what it was like.

Pretentious snooze fest, at it's worst.

[oskar-jungell-611-182266 · 1/10 · 6 October 2013]

I went into this movie with low expectations. They were not met. Finding the right words to describe this movie is rather difficult, since I really don't like these "worst movie ever" kind of reviews. But I don't know what else to say. This movie is horrible, quite frankly.

It tries it's best at being deep but ends up being nothing but boring and absurd. The actors do a poor job at bringing the one dimensional characters to life, in a terribly boring story.

It is obvious that the makers wanted to create an emotional ride for the viewers to enjoy. This is painfully obvious. Every piece of dialog is written with this in mind. "Tell her... That I...". We have seen and heard all this before. It has already been done. But never have it been done this badly.

I find this movie to be in extremely bad taste. It tries to combine all kind of heavy topics, war, unfaithfulness, abortion, needless deaths on the battlefield. But it's all done in such a poor way that it is almost offending.

Don't watch this movie. You will dread every minute of it and it wont pay off because the ending sucks.

Propaganda as Cinema

[avvaata · 1/10 · 22 August 2013]

Ugly Germans, cute Brits, and a female abortion is equal to trench warfare. Self-righteous, moralizing garbage. There is no place for subtleness, complexity when all is black and white in a fanatic's mind. The worst thing here about abortion: it cuts down the number of eligible conscripts.I write this revue in a wane hope that it just might slow down "the march of Christian Soldiers" towards the next world war.Here's a suggestion: on par with an "Oscar" let's have a "Golden Goebbels" award for justifying war, making it acceptable, palatable and selling it all to minors as an exciting way to do "the wright thing". Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" and "War Horse" come to mind. We all know that "war is a racket" and this film it's newest addition.

Tragically bad

[thisoneguyonetime · 1/10 · 30 April 2019]

Having endured the pain and suffering of sitting through this calamitously bad movie, I was helplessly compelled to create an imdb account, due to the overwhelming responsibility I felt to warn others not to waste their time watching this garbage.

Some of the actors tried their best, although none were particularly convincing, but the bizarre quasi-Aussie accents coming out of the mouths of "British" officers and soldiers was extremely offputting. The lighting was just bizarre, with the stranded soldiers appearing to be floodlit throughout the night scenes. The supposed "countdown to disaster" was so drawn out it was ridiculous. And the make-up on the actress in the closing scene, despite the year and predicament she was in? Hopeless.

Oh, and calling a film "Forbidden Ground", just so (spoiler alert - in case you're still really going to watch it) you can make a play on words between an overly dramatic scene playing out in No Man's Land and an unnecessarily graphic botched abortion? Nice.

Will be more cautious with the next Netflix "recommendation".

A downer

[rps-2 · 6/10 · 7 April 2016]

This is a very well done World War I picture. But it also is a complete downer. The first war was a bloody and stupid affair with thousands upon thousands of senseless and needless deaths. But that doesn't mean the movie has to be as grim as the war. There are no moments of dramatic relief, no lighter moments. Even the flashbacks to home are dark and morose. In essence this is a straightforward story of three British soldiers, commanded by a snobbish officer-twit, who become stranded in no man's land. Nothing very original there. However the staging and the photography are grimly effective and capture the utter horror of the trenches. But I question why one of the three stranded British soldiers speaks like an American. And why did the Aussies put so much effort into a film about the "pommies" when it would have been just as effective if the soldiers had been Australian.

Woeful attempt at a war movie. Complete ignorance of British characteristics.

[Retrocognition · 1/10 · 21 February 2020]

Wasted opportunity. I suppose this is what you get when an Armourer attempt to be a filmmaker. Being on set does not qualify one to write and make a movie.

Good effects terrible accents

[andydonaldson51 · 6/10 · 1 December 2018]

Some good effects and filmed scenes for the budget. But for god sake either have australian actors play australian soldiers or use British actors for british soldiers. The terible accents destroyed any ability to take the actors seriously. Also the germans did not usually spend all night plastering trenches with machine gun fire and artillery just to pick off the odd British wounded straggler! There was some honor amongst soldiers

Watchable but,...

[galearis-24819 · 5/10 · 2 June 2023]

Dramatically the movie held my interest and it takes a realism aspect to do this. But then I saw a major goof when a soldier's watch was revealed to have a quartz works. I moves second by second with jerks, not gently. How hard would it be to find a vintage watch? So it lost a star from this anachronism and I found the rest of the movie more difficult to watch as a reality trip.

The acting, however, was very good, although the marriage sub plot seemed a space saver, not an asset. As a genre type, this was an anti war movie that really takes no sides and that is a plus. The best war movies show the reasons not to have them and that really brings out the dramatic effects.

If you can get past the watch thing, then go ahead with my recommendations.

Deconstructing War

[ChelseaJGiles · 8/10 · 9 September 2013]

Forbidden Ground – Battle Ground in other parts of the world – is a must see. The film pushes you - clue: a giant fishhook, you'll know it when you see it – finding a balance between reality and heroism that is exceptionally well carried by the cast. Unlike most films of it's genre, war and violence are not glorified as they are deconstructed. The characters build a convincing and consuming narrative that makes this more than just your average war film. Forbidden Ground proves that war in film is should not be simply well framed explosions – although those that are fans of a good detonation will not be disappointed – but a collection of heartbreaking and precious stories of survival, difficult choices, and perseverance. It is at heart a piece about people, and does not shy away from holding a mirror to battlefield politics and loss of innocence. Visually Forbidden Ground is sleek and where there are some visual effects that are noticeable, they do not intrude on the flow. All in all, Forbidden Ground is a fantastic effort and a quality production, and deserves all the international attention it is getting, and more!

Disappointing

[stevenremmington · 3/10 · 10 January 2021]

Lacking drama, suspense or much of a plot. This is slow and laborious, and it just doesn't carry any momentum or emotion. Unfortunately this movie just drags and I found it uninteresting, which is a shame, since some of the action scenes are very well done and there was definitely potential. I was hoping for more, but I wouldn't recommend this.

Dramatically not there

[johnerrol56 · 1/10 · 23 September 2013]

Alright attempt for a low budget film never the less it flows more like a TV movie.

The character development is very poor, as well as some of the acting in key scenes. The side story of the wife is very corny with an under developed path.

The sound track was was an over kill I really felt that they could have backed off a lot I think it was over used.

Set aside the horrible British accent. And bad special effect (though I understand on such a tight budget that that the special effects is as good as they could hope for) the film for me lacked any real substance.

But good try.

Shockingly Bad!

[conorp · 1/10 · 11 January 2015]

I don't remember the last time I watched a movie as bad as this. The action sequences are poor. There was no bond between the audience and the actors. I didn't much care which ones lived and which ones died. From the beginning to the end, the accents were terrible (especially the Irish accent - although I knew there was something off with the others too). I should have read the IMDb info before watching this movie and then I would have figured out that it was an Aussie movie with no Irish or English actors in this production. Anyway, Im not going to waste any more time on this movie. Its 1hr 40mins of my life that I wont ever get back again. A total waste of time. I was Bored to death.

Failing miserably

[ooktay · 1/10 · 16 February 2019]

A very impressive example of how unbelievably cheesy and sub-mediocre results can be achieved should the all clichés exist in war movies be pulled together, sautéed in a sauce of bad acting, worse directing and the complete loss of realism. Director should be forced to quit the business and work as a packer in a supermarket.