It's No "Band of Brothers"
584791
I bought this movie hoping that it'd be a close sequel to "The Band of Brothers" movie from HBO - boy was I disappointed.  Sure it's a good war movie, but comparing it to B-O-B is like comparing a pee-wee football team to the NFL.
3584006
this is not a war movie
its a political satire
and a shameful disgrace of our armed forces
353180
I loved Band of Brothers and thought this would be a great series based on that.  I was disappointed.  There were several episodes that were basically soft porn and added nothing to the story.  They could have left that crap out so my kids could have watched it.  But besides that, there were long episodes that had nothing to do with the war.  Band of Brothers was a 5, this is lucky to get a 2.  I would not buy it or recommend it to friends.
3888929
While not 'A Band of Brothers', it is a respectable relative with its own pluses. It's always hard to replicate such a well-received production such as 'Brothers', but the effort is readily apparent. It does seem to lack the ability to engage the viewer with the individual characters and their personalities that 'Brothers' was able to do so well, but as an overall epic it does the job.
3351680
Ambrose is a competent but not an exceptional writer. Nonetheless, I would still recommend Band of Brothers. There are many instances when Ambrose breezes over what should have been important discussions of battles, and he moves along at a rapid clip as if he's given the reader all he needs or wants to know. I also defy most readers to keep all but a handful of soldiers straight. A number drop into and out of the account of the 506th Airborne  Division so infrequently that it's often tough to remember who's who. Nonetheless, Ambrose does manage to pull together a lot of interesting stories about the men who served in the 506th at this point in history and also gives a good sense of many of the hardships and fears the combat soldier faced for those of us who will never share this type of experience. Though definitely a flawed work, at no point while reading it was I ever bored with it or looking to put the book aside to move on to something else.
635540
One hates to speak ill of the deceased, but for many reasons I didn't get around to reading "Band of Brothers" until late in the game.  Over the years I saw his commentaries on various television presentations, and because of what I saw I was not tempted to read any of his books.  Well, it finally happened; I encountered a volume of "Band of Brothers" and went for it.
  I have a great appetite for popular history, and any non-fiction with a historical setting that is adequately researched  -- in fact, what I'm reading is essentially true in fact, and its rhetorical stance is mature and in touch with the topic.
  "Band of Brothers" by Ambrose is neither.  There are many errors of fact (see R.A. Forcyyk's review, where he did much fact checking that should have been done by Ambrose, then failing that, his editors and publisher.) .  I don't like errors in fact in my historical readings, whether they are little or major.
  The writing is not good, rather lackluster and Ambrose always selects the most obvious shopworn phrase or word.  But worse than anything is his almost childlike tone and enthusiasm for war, war craft and all that involves.  His text  reads in tone like,  as small children,  I remember playing -- acting out mock war games after WW II and the Korean War.  Many an afternoon we wiled away with our mock battles in dirt-forts and in empty lots in my native California.  This happens over and over during the book and it was just absolutely shocking--knowing that the text was by an adult man.  There is nothing of glory, nobility, or gallantry in the god-awful destruction and death of war, no matter who or what your enemy was or is.
  My parents, and myself--like Ambrose's--sacrificed much for WW II, as did millions of those in the military.  "Band of Brothers" is ironically an immature work by one who sees glory and nobility in war, and there are hundreds of WW II histories that are far superior to this book.
2617552
The challenge for me was having viewed Band of Brothers my expectation for this series was pretty high. I have not watched the whole series yet. It seems to me the writers spent an unusual amount of time developing characters that didn't in my opinion enhance the story. Obviously I am no critic, but I do know what I like. I will of course watch the whole series with the hope it will pull me in. So far It's no Band of Brothers.

12/23/14
Well after viewing the series I must not only change my rating but my review as well. It is not Band of Brothers it is not intended to be. This is an extremely powerful series that tells the History and mission of the USMC in the Pacific like never before. It is graphic and horrible in so many ways. It should take the viewer to a place of awe and true gratitude for the terrible price our most precious treasure paid for all of us. A must see for all.
3341457
When I watch a TV show, I want it to draw me into the story.  I want production value (which shows how much the producers value their viewers).  I want a story I care about.  For me, this one had none of these qualities.

  The show's sound track should underscore the show.  This show's dated music is an unwelcome intrusion.

  Perhaps too long a time has passed and too many people gave homecoming soldiers crap for fighting in Viet Nam, but I found the show too uninteresting to go on watching past the pilot episode.

  Synopsis of the pilot:  The non-conformist combat veteran travels from the front line to headquarters to pick up a handful of soldiers to replenish those that have been previously lost.  They experience the highly unlikely event of a straying soldier discovering a weapons cache and enemy headquarters.  A firefight ensues.  Guess who wins the battle.

  This is a highly rated show; it was not canceled after the first season.  I question its realism as I have witnessed explosions (and soldiers) first hand and have actually set foot in asia.
2246614
If you are looking for Saving Private Ryan 2, don't buy this movie. However, if you are looking for a down-in-the-dirt (more so than Pvt. Ryan), grim and gritty war film, than this is your movie.
The plot  centers on a Private, in the much-forgotten battle of Hurtgen Forest, who  is the only soldier of his platoon to make it back alive  from a raid on  German foritfications. The company commanders see him as a perfect  candidate for a leader, due to his obvious survival skills. He is promoted  directly to Sergeant, and is put in charge of a squad of misfits. This  Sergeant only cares about himself, and doesn't mind sacrificing others to  get himself back to the base alive.
At first, a minor gripe I had is that  I never really cared for any of the characters (except the medic played by  Frank Whaley, and the young private Sanderson). And I especially hated the  main character, who, like I mentioned before, only cares for his own hide  and takes advantage of his subordinates (playing with their lives) for  personal gain. But, in the end, you will not gripe about this. It will show  you a true protrait of the frontline -- there are no glowing Hollywood  heroes....just normal boys from all over the country -- some of them good  men, others flawed. That is what makes this film so good.
Though not as  good as Saving Private Ryan (simply because it is just too dark and bleak  at times), it is a good addition to the collection of epic war films.
1263094
I don't know why I had the impression that this was going to be a movie about a bunch of former comrades gathered together to watch the film that they shot and to describe to the public their experiences. Well this is just another war documentary, narrated by the now old soldiers (one by one  and it was filmed at different times it isn't the reunion party that I  expected). The most interesting part of the video were the few color  scenes.
1213471
1.  I had high hopes for this HBO series like many folks based on the Band of Brothers etc...  But unfortunately, this mini-series was a complete dud.  It makes me wonder... a lot of things, but the chief among them is the buring question:  who in the world wrote this tangential mini-series.  As with many things in life, it all comes down to the fundamentals and in films that means solid writing and solid acting.  The acting was ok, but with the completely terrible writing, it just made the mini-series barely watchable.
2.  It's something that could have been great, but unfortunately was marred back the lack of a coherent story and solid writing.
4068534
I saw this series when it first came out, and it's worth watching again.  I think what sets Band of Brothers apart is that you get to know the guys a little bit (even the real guys via interviews), but it isn't "dramatized" much at all.
3926977
The numbers are only in military time. This is not Quillivant to the fit bit because there are so many non-American things on it. I'm not saying that's a good thing I'm just saying that's what I want
2039960
Written and directed by Randall Wallace (w/d of The Man in the Iron Mask) We Were Soldiers is yet another film based on true events and real people, yet the people are as two-dimensional as paper.  If you're going to see this film only for the big blasts, bombs, gunfire, and showbiz effects, then you'll be satisfied because there's plenty of that.  However, when I see a film advertized as being based on a true story, I want to go further than the explosions, and learn about the people.  This film offered little of that.
Mel Gibson is our central character, Lt. Colonel Moore, and his wife is portrayed by Madeline Stowe.  Both these actors do wonders with the little they are given, yet even then, it is not enough to make us emotionally involved.  As the Lt. Col.'s wife, Stowe would host the wives' meetings at her house.  "Issue one--where do we go shop when the commissary is out of something?  Does anyone know of a place to go?  Issue two--laundry.  The places on base are not reliable.  Does anyone know of someplace better?"
I can't imagine women sitting around talking about such absolutely idiotic piffle when their husbands are out there in Vietnam getting shot at in a bloody massacre.  One could argue they were trying to focus on something else.  One could argue they were trying to deal with things within their own realm.  Okay, fine.  HOWEVER, when I DON'T see them crying, flipping out, talking about their husbands, talking about how much they love them, and are instead discussing laundry and shopping, I have to say a grand part of the equation is missing. The only time the wives were allowed to show emotion was when they were delivered the ever-so dreaded telegram informing them their husband is dead.  Are they not allowed to care for their men UNTIL then?
Think of the opposite as well:  how would their husbands feel knowing while they is at war their wives' biggest concern was getting the whites clean, or finding tatter tots in the frozen foods section?  "Yeah, I'm out here getting shot at so I can go back home and live with a woman who's biggest worry is having enough quarters for the laudromat.  Now THAT'S love." Can you see how I say this film lacks credibility, IN SPITE of it being a true story?
Wallace's script lacks emotion and believability, and makes us less able to mourn those who perish on the battle field.  Do I really care about these men?  Their wives don't seem to, so why should I?
Also given the impossible task of making a character real are the very formidible Sam Elliot and Greg Kinnear.  Poor Sam.  He is a splendid actor, yet his dialogue was reduced to nothing but one-liner quips, usually with some sort of appropriate expletive in it--I wish I could list some of them in this review as they came off absolutely hilarious.  However,this man is a very capable actor--why would Wallace want to waste him like this?  Same with Kinnear, whose role is limited to being in a helicopter.  This Oscar-nominated talent is given only two major scenes in the entire film.  Waste!
Like I said, if you like explosions, then see it.  If you want to be moved by the characters and learn something about Vietnam, perhaps renting Platoon will be a better option.
2868063
The troops were shipped to the shore by the british navy but in the film they are americans, spielberg again trying to somehow rewrite history, the war was won by america, nothing to do with the russians or english, right?  In the only mention of the british involvement we get a wig wearing Sam  from Cheers telling us how overrated Monty is. The scene where the captain  is spouting abraham lincoln comes across as crass and artificial, thousands  of soldiers have just died and the entire chief of staff takes a break to  discuss the death of one soldier. Then we get a dewy eyed glimpse of  farmland america complete with white picket fences and billowing corn  fields. A pity as lot of this film is truly inspiring: the start and end  battles, the death of the medic, the german soldiers pleas for mercy. Best  war film? I still rate Platoon for that.
1459911
I enjoyed the series as there is not a whole lot on the south pacific front of the war.  I did enjoy Band of Brothers more than this series but it is good for a different front of the war.
4023876
First of all, this was not only produced by the same "team" that did "Das Boot," it actually plays similarly to "Das Boot," only this time focusing on the Eastern Front. Both films begin  with the principal actors in leisure time so we get to know them  immediately. It worked in "Das Boot," so I guess they figured,  "Why not again?" Frankly, I thought it was lazy filmmaking. (As a  comparison, establishing scenes for "Saving Private Ryan"  characters don't occur until after the first half-hour.) I was surprisingly  detached from the characters of the film. The fighting scenes were all  fine, but the camera selections during the scene in the ruins were jumbled  and incoherant. This diminished any shock value that might have occurred if  the intensity had been cranked up. There was little of the urgency I've  seen in movies like "Saving Private Ryan," or  "Platoon." It definitely shows the bleak nature of the Germans'  losing effort in Russia, and that alone makes it a must-see for war-film  buffs. However, it is not one of the greats. I'd place it above  "Casualties of War," but way under "Platoon" in terms  of emotional impact.