Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers

Because I have given this the lowest possible rating, I wish to offer background for the low rating.I Viewed this "movie" beginning to end at the end of May 2015. This may have been based on somebody's well-intentioned idea, but the entire result is an insult to viewers regardless of their military background. Where to begin ... it is that bad, so many things that could be said to underscore the very poor work this represents. Here are a few ...+ High School Film Project -- This is akin to a high school film project that used commercial equipment. The cameras and lighting may not have been "home movie quality," but the content, acting and everything else about this film is at the "C" grade home movie effort.+ Missed Opportunity on Plot -- The plot is supposedly based on a true story - the factual link is that WWII was a true story, and an advance group of soldiers parachute dropped behind enemy lines to offer ground-to-air signal lighting for a bombing run/invasion. That is where the "true" stuff ends, and where the sophomoric "let's do a play" acting begins.+ Cliche Sub-Plots -- The sub-plots have multiple time-worn clichés including: soldiers betting on the date of the invasion and the would be hero declining to bet (he's a good man, would never bet), sappy girl sitting alone wondering will my boyfriend make it back only to be comforted by mom with an awful line "if anyone makes it back, he will," a failed attempt at making a bombing run suspenseful with failed dramatic attempts such as "give the boys another minute" (to help us find the right course) followed by the aircraft's captain "you ain't got a minute!" ... you get the idea.+ Script is Not Well Done -- The script offers little help. Pretty basic stuff (again think high school project). There are several stunning lines such as "well boys we'll have to take the long way around" when a "pathfinder" team comes across the enemy, "that's how you start a party" when a bomber goes overhead, "I was a pacifist, but I am a realist." What tripe!+ Acting is Stale -- The lines are delivered like a first read-through rather than the final filming. The physical acting/movement is absolute unrealistic and laughable. For example, when a "rifle team" walks along a road and they hear enemy soldiers coming the leader says to get off the road. The team members move rather slowly (anyone can pick this up, but if you have any military background you know the pace is absolutely ridiculous). One soldier actually walks off the road!+ Reality has Left the Building -- Many of the scenes have little to no reality. For example, one man moves out to attack an enemy mortar position which has men pinned down in a foxhole/dugout. As he (our hero) runs toward the enemy mortar position, the other soldiers - all with weapons - simply look on, and one watches the action thru a pair of binoculars. Even a kindergarten child would know that somebody ought to be doing some shooting about then!!! In another example, our "hero" moves through multiple scenes without a helmet in a combat zone. While many of his colleagues are hit, some killed, he does not think to take one of their helmets and put it on his head!+ Lighting Poor, Sound Effects Ridiculous -- The lighting for many of the night scenes (most of the second half of the movie) is poor. Multiple "hot" spots where from improper lighting. The background sound track features 30+ minutes of supposed enemy machine gun fire. If you listen closely you will note that the sound sequence repeats. Worse, the rat-a-tat-tat is the distinctive sound of an American machine gun, not a German rapid-firing machine gun. Anyone who has studied WWII, let alone been in the military, will pick up the sound difference immediately.+ Attention to Detail Slips -- As with any movie, there are some attention to detail slips. This one had some real sophomoric mistakes. For example, in one a Lieutenant is shown in a scene with camo netting on his steel pot (helmet), and in the immediately next scene - intended to continue the action in the same location at the same time - the camo netting is gone. Another real big mistake is a series of scenes in which a Medic wearing a white arm band with red cross is portrayed as carrying and using a weapon, and actually leading other soldiers as the team leader. One soldier does not carry a rifle. This begs the blatantly obvious question, why would the "regular" rifle team soldier not take the weapon from the Medic and use the weapon as trained???+ In Summary, the Characters Sum it up Well -- Near the end of the movie, the voiceover script includes the line "maybe it's true that some things are better left unsaid." Well, this movie would have been better left unmade in my opinion.Again, may be based on a true event, and may have been born or a good intention, but this effort truly falls quite short of acceptable.

I was expecting a documentary, and was pleasantly surprised to find this was actually a movie.Which then moves me from my "this is supposed to be boring and bring you facts" to "what in the world is going on fact-wise with this movie, and why is every other screen cut looking up someone's nose in the dark."The story is fairly interesting (once you can follow along... maybe watch it twice). I recognized the set from Band of Brothers, and wouldn't be surprised if some of the uniforms and actors were recycled from there too.As much as I admire the guys from WWII, this film does start to make you wonder if it was all worth the lives cost... Through the movie, you see guys thrown together for essentially a suicide mission, dropped off in the middle of a German unit skilled in killing paratroopers, and all they need to do is set up a light and a signal, so that hopefully the places will drop the rest of the paratroopers in the right place?!The movie conveys that what they did was important and saved the war, but with just one signal and one light (there were supposed to be three or four)? And we all know from history books and band of brothers that the airborne were dropped all over the place anyway due to flack. So then what these guys did really was kinda... pointless? And they lost 40 guys to do it.Wow.But, history is history. And I knew something after an hour and a half that I didn't know before, so I guess that counts.

I had my hand on the edge of my iPad and my thumb brushed the "buy with one click" button by accident, then after reading several of the very negative reviews I thought about trying to un-click the button but to no avail. So the only thing left was to watch some of it to see where it would go. If you want Hollywood where your favorite actor runs around on a well lit set, with the perfect script including all the f.. Words and the token ethnic or gay persons, with an endless supply of ammo, who never gets killed but manages to blow up everything in sight. This isn't the movie for you. I spent time in the military running around in the dark with a bunch of inexperienced kids fumbling their way along. This movie depicts that very well, you can barely see enough to call it a movie, yet you get the sense of what it is like to have a very limited view of your surroundings with the difficulties of identifying friend or foe. Then there was all the clanking of equipment the lack of discipline, the loud talking,the poor organization, it is just what I would expect from young poorly trained soldiers with poor equipment. Compare them with the Germans. Poor acting? I would question that assessment based on what the writers and director were trying to project, trained professional actors or a bunch of kids trying to stay alive? I enjoyed the movie. Choose to give it a 4 for its uniqueness and simplicity.

Another low-budget actioneer from the people who brought you the controversial 'Passchendaele'. Strong on facial close-ups, this film is weak on almost everything else. A cast of unknowns, wooden acting, stiff dialogue (did anyone really use expressions like 'There are no problems, Neil, just challenges' in 1944?) and even long monologues, all accompanied by synthesized music, make it tough going. A pointless love story thrown in for good measure, does not help either. The Pathfinders of 82nd Airborne deserve much, much better than this. Avoid!

I was very disapointed with this film, after seeing a rateing of 5 stars in some newspapers, i thought it would be the next big war movie to hit the screens but no. Poor acting let this movie down alot, it does feel like a re-enactment by some enthusiast's who had some spare time on there hands. Though i will say that the level of detail that went into the uniforms was very good, and thats about it. This could have been a realy good story to tell, maybe if they had a better director and a couple more well known actors this could have been something special!!!!! I would only buy this movie if you are a 2nd World War historian or something like that, or you would just like to roughly know what happend befor the main airborne invasion on D-Day.

Decent film

The film was slow at first but isn't other films at least I didn't fall a sleep as have done will well rated blockbusters. AS I say again it was as good as those that hit the box office with hype

good product and service ww2 rocks