drufuksener
This movie has a nice script,even with its (obviosly) low budget it would have been an above average movie. Nevertheless producers missed a few crucial points and all their work is wasted. Couldn't you consulted a military expert, a retired soldier or someone like this? There is no way a team of 8 soldiers (only 3 professional, 5 resistance) attack an armored unit (which consists of a tank and a half-track), even if they are on high ground. Besides why are those armored units are in desert camouflage? A little more attention please... Anyways this movie is only for hardcore WWII fans. If you are not one of them, don't bother...
Niels-Peter Gade
That this film only holds a score of 5.5 on this site is beyond me... I thought the movie was excellent, especially considering its low budget and short running time.Be warned that I am a huge admirer of American Airborne troops in WWII, so maybe I am biased when reviewing this film. I guess you will have to be a little nerdy about Paratroopers to really appreciate Sains and Soldiers: Airborne Creed.With that in mind, I thought the story was compelling, the characters interesting and believable, the score was nice and fitting, and the acting was overall great. The ending was a little unusual (not what I had expected at all), but also original and thought-provoking.All in all, I thought this was a great movie, and I highly recommend it, especially if you have a little passion for WWII Paratroopers. I almost didn't watch it because of the low score it holds on this website, but I ended up watching it anyway, and it was totally worth it. So don't get fooled by the low score! 9/10
hydrogensaver
I want to thank the makers of this film for reminding us that enemies can show great love in times of great strife.While there is a lot of action in this film resulting in a PG-13 rating, care was taken to make this viewable by the whole family and its rating would certainly have to be considered a mild PG-13.This film goes far beyond the many mindless war films that simply glorify violence. Anyone watching this film would have a renewed sense of hope that we can live more peaceably together.Kudos to the filmmakers and keep on doing what you do. Even if you don't have the Hollywood budgets, you make entertaining, truthful and inspiring films I can take my kids to. Thank you.
mrmackayokay
Usually I'm a sucker for dramas, thrillers and if all these are combined with WW2, then it has to be something I really like. If it wasn't a movie produced by the American film industry, it could have been a massive hit. Although the concept involves nothing ground breaking, there was a huge potential in the movie that simply wasn't exploited. A different approach of French or German movie makers could have taken it into a higher level. I'm not sure if I can blame it on the movie, as it's obviously a low-budget one, but it was very disappointing to see crystal clear vehicles and uniforms as they were just taken out of the garage after a little paint-job, and uniforms out of the wardrobe freshly washed and ironed. Related to this, although it was beautifully shot for a national geographic documentary, that didn't really suit to a war-worn France, dark thoughts of a dark age (I'm not saying applying some filters would have solved everything, but would have been useful).I never was a soldier, never undertook military sciences, but it should be clear even for an infant (that wasn't raised on modern warfare 3) that 4 men cannot line up next to each other in the middle of a field without any cover against a machine gun and a platoon of well trained soldiers, and that's just a single example of how you won't ever behave with a weapon in your hand, how you won't walk in wide open ranges, how you won't approach calm looking abandoned buildings, how you won't rest in the middle of a road with your jeep and 10 men meanwhile the enemy can be near anywhere, and so on. So if that's how Hollywood understands moving quickly and covertly in enemy territory, I don't think they would conquer Europe with this comedy. But this all would not matter, if the strengths of the 2003 predecessor, the characters and the conversations would be alright, and would be emphasized.Well, we have 3 main characters and 2 support roles, and the movie tries to explain their background a bit, with not much success. We will know a couple of things about each of them, but that's not what I call background, all of them remains absolutely empty, and their (lack of) acting won't help either. Corbin Allred was quite alright however, but Virginie was more like an eye-candy dressed sloppy, instead of a frustrated, bitter, tired resistance member eager for revenge and ready to die. Formally, there were conversations, but again, they were only "talking" without "saying" anything.So, historical inaccuracy, amateur costumes and items, comedy style military considerations, weak acting and conversations, what else do we have? Well, we're supposed to follow some kind of story.!SPOLIER ALERT! The story itself is simple, the 3 main characters should take only a few hours of walk back to their lines, but instead of making it quick, they somehow consistently think to risk their life outnumbered or against unknown number of enemies. Hey, guys, you are not heroes, you can't avoid or dodge bullets and you know it! If you want to survive a goddamn war, you don't unnecessarily expose yourself. !SPOLIER ALERT!I don't say it was a waste of 100 minutes, but it offers absolutely nothing that you will remember 10 minutes after you're done with it, which is really sad, as it had a potential, but unfortunately it remained unexploited.
