Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I saw it over the weekend and I thought it was solid. Really the only word that comes to mind. The actors are capable but not noteworthy (honestly every single one of them feels like they're calling in from another WWII movie I've seen). The story is concise, moves along at a good pace, and has sufficient creepiness to keep a mild chill going, and the action is decent and the resolution not entirely half assed. There's some blatant historical inaccuracies but it's supernatural Nazi stuff so I kind of decided not to care I guess? It's not a bad movie. It's not a great movie. It's probably worth the ticket price and some popcorn unless mild horror-action flicks aren't your thing. If you really like Wolfenstein this is probably the closest you'll ever get to a good movie based on the game.

I was surprised to see this film bombing at the box office. Maybe JJ's reputation for good production values but shoddy story is finally catching up to him, or maybe people thought a WWII horror film on Veteran's day weekend was tacky? IDK.

Seems like a movie that's begging to find an audience on home video.

 LordofHats wrote:
I saw it over the weekend and I thought it was solid. Really the only word that comes to mind. The actors are capable but not noteworthy (honestly every single one of them feels like they're calling in from another WWII movie I've seen). The story is concise, moves along at a good pace, and has sufficient creepiness to keep a mild chill going, and the action is decent and the resolution not entirely half assed. There's some blatant historical inaccuracies but it's supernatural Nazi stuff so I kind of decided not to care I guess? It's not a bad movie. It's not a great movie. It's probably worth the ticket price and some popcorn unless mild horror-action flicks aren't your thing. If you really like Wolfenstein this is probably the closest you'll ever get to a good movie based on the game.

I was surprised to see this film bombing at the box office. Maybe JJ's reputation for good production values but shoddy story is finally catching up to him, or maybe people thought a WWII horror film on Veteran's day weekend was tacky? IDK.

I didn't even think about the fact that it came out on Veteran's Day Weekend. Wow. That's just...did the studio put on their idiot-caps or something?

I was going to go watch it when i had moviepass. But movie pass took a gak so my movie going has scaled down.

I saw this the day before it came out at a midnight show, and I also thought solid was a good descriptor. Nothing amazing or groundbreaking, just a good, workmanlike horror\action movie.

Lance845 wrote:I was going to go watch it when i had moviepass. But movie pass took a gak so my movie going has scaled down.

[Hoping that we're not going to be getting a rundown of all the movies you won't be seeing now!]

Ouze wrote:I saw this the day before it came out at a midnight show, and I also thought solid was a good descriptor. Nothing amazing or groundbreaking, just a good, workmanlike horror\action movie.

Seems like a "Wait for Nextflix" (fingers crossed!) special then...

While I did enjoy the movie, it's definitely not one you need to see in theaters the way that you would really want to see like, Avatar or Dunkirk.

I just like going to the theater often.

I saw it last night.



But as others have said, it's a solid enough film.

The trailer just looked stupid.

I hate to open up the racial debate, but I just don't understand the choice for casting a black lead for this. Does the film explain how a black soldier was inserted into a segregated unit, especially a paratrooper unit? I mean, this isn't the first time this has happened: The Dirty Dozen did it too, and I am just not sure why. The idea you would send in a black person disguised as a Nazi soldier doesn't seem like something the allies would have missed at the time. Is part of an attempt to change our perception of history? Because I see this all the time. Is it simply trying to cash in on more money?

I just gave Outlaw King props for paying attention to capturing the details of the time, and while that is a different kind of movie, I am sure someone can argue that a fine Korean actor could very well play Robert the Bruce, and why not? I am sure there are some fine Korean actors out there. But to me it just wouldn't make any sense.

Segregation was a real thing in those days. Sucks, I don't support that they did it, but it happened. If you are going to tell a story from that time period, at least get the facts of the time period right. Don't gloss over it and don't act like it didn't happen just so you can tell a story set in 1944 with 2018 morals.

I know some of you will say the color of the skin doesn't matter, but I can't wait for the day some white actor attempts to play Martin Luther King or Malcom X, and see how awesome that goes down.

Part of my irritation about how we handle history these days is going back and criticizing everything about it with modern lenses. And if we don't like it, we'll just re-write it so everyone can feel included or happier about the past they had no part of. And I mean that literally. There aren't many WWII veterans left and I doubt they were the ones lining up to see this film.

But I understand the financial side to it as well. WWII combat films in the Pacific for example are pretty much going to have an all white cast. I guess if you are a progressive studio you are going to try to diversify the cast to get more peeps to buy tickets. As a history buff I just wish peeps would keep it as close to the real thing as possible, even if its fiction.

I am sure there would have been a way to incorporate African Americans who fought in Europe into a story that would make more sense, whether it be in an engineer, quartermaster, or transportation unit for example. Rather than the characters starting out together, circumstances make them end up together or something. But I guess if you don't care about the historical facts of the time, you can do whatever you want.

I guess I just wonder what the real attempt for it is.

 KTG17 wrote:
I hate to open up the racial debate, but I just don't understand the choice for casting a black lead for this.

Yeah this is the historical inaccuracy I kind of just decided to overlook.

Does the film explain how a black soldier was inserted into a segregated unit, especially a paratrooper unit?

That said, the film also features a black sergeant, in the 101st Airborne, which is most certainly outside the realm of historically accurate. He's a minor character in the movie, but he's there.

Honestly my assumption is that the development team sat down, decided they didn't really care about this and just moved on? I can get it I guess. I mean it's Wolfenstein (more or less). Once you go Nazi zombie, historical accuracy is already kind of out the window. I think it has little to do with perceptions or cashing in on progressivism, cause the movie doesn't really touch those subjects at all and avoids them instead. I think the film makers just decided not to care about the issue, cast the actors who fit the rolls they wanted, and moved on. Especially that last one. Literally the cast of this movie can be summed up as; Not Garnier from Band of Brothers, Not Brad Pitt's character from Fury, and Not Upham from Saving Private Ryan x2 (Both Boyes and Chase, the combat photographer, act like Upham in different ways).

I'm not joking when I say every character feels like they were phoned in from another movie. Even the lead girl had me remembering the leading lady from Flyboys of all films. It really felt like the cast was basically just picked to fill some archetypal rolls and then the actors picked to fit them.

EDIT: Historically speaking there's also the issue of Ford's character who is stated in the film's opening to be a veteran of Anzio. The Battle of Anzio lasted from 22 January 1944 to 5 June... and somehow in that time range he found the opportunity to become some kind of certified bad ass killing Nazi's left and right, get retrained as a paratrooper, and jump out of an airplane the day after Anzio ended. Not something that'll probably raise any flags for people who don't know the time range of the Battle of Anzio, but for me it raised my eyebrows a bit.

The Dirty Dozen did it too, and I am just not sure why.

I think that movie can get a pass honestly, mostly because the Dirty Dozen weren't part of the military proper in-universe and was a openly stupid popcorn flick with little care for realism.

 LunarSol wrote:
Seems like a movie that's begging to find an audience on home video.

Yep that's my take on it, I'll wager some take-away and some booze will smooth over any shortcomings

plus I'm duty bound to watch it after Bradshaw's rather sniffy 1 star review

I could easily see this film becoming a cult classic on home video. It really isn't that bad, and it does have it's charm. Part me honestly wishes there were a video game like this. Soldier behind enemy lines in some French village surrounded by horrific experiments and monstrosities? I'd give that game a shot. Wolfenstein for all it's premise has always been more of an action series than anything.

plus I'm duty bound to watch it after Bradshaw's rather sniffy 1 star review

Yeah the movie might not be a 5 star affair but it's definitely not a one. I'd give it a 3, maybe 3.5 tops. Really the thing that I find worthwhile about it is that I'd watch it again and still be amused I think. There are some movies that are really good, but that I know I'll never watch again like Dunkirk or Pontypool. Overlord is more like Predator for me. A solid film that I know I might see on TV in a year that I'll turn on because I need something to watch. EDIT: And having tracked down this review, wow... did he even watch the movie, or just a trailer and decide he really doesn't like Call of Duty? I don't go to the Guardian for film reviews, and this one makes me feel like that's the right decision XD

Have an Exult for mentioning Pontypool, a low budget classic

I can normally tolerate Bradshaw but he veers into snobbery if he thinks a film a 'below' him, which makes his reviews unintentionally hilarious

 KTG17 wrote:
I hate to open up the racial debate, but I just don't understand the choice for casting a black lead for this. Does the film explain how a black soldier was inserted into a segregated unit, especially a paratrooper unit? I mean, this isn't the first time this has happened: The Dirty Dozen did it too, and I am just not sure why. The idea you would send in a black person disguised as a Nazi soldier doesn't seem like something the allies would have missed at the time. Is part of an attempt to change our perception of history? Because I see this all the time. Is it simply trying to cash in on more money?

It's just Hollywood virtue signaling in the name of diversity at the expense typically of accuracy. In an obviously fictional Wierd War 2 movie like this, it's just another thing you have to suspend your disbelief for and it doesn't bother me personally. The BBC also for example recently did a quasihistorical retelling of the seige of Troy and cast both Achilles and Zeus with black actors. It's the same reason you'll typically find female resistance fighters (with or without bionic arms spiked cricket bats) in WW2 in video games if they've already did the Russian female snipers and a Star of David amidst the sea of crosses in most every scene of a WW2 battlefield cemetery. That's not to say that women didn't fight ever nor that religions other than Christianity weren't represented in those fighting and dying but rather that their inclusion is purposeful and consistent. It's just one of many boxes that need to be checked in modern Hollywood/BBC in order not to generate faux outrage amongst political extremists. At least one reviewer for example lamented the lack of diversity in last year's historical Dunkirk movie and that was something that was trying to be rooted in historical accuracy unlike this film. And, before someone gets their panties potentially in a bunch, I have zero problem with entertainment trying to expand their audience to be more diverse.

KTG17, getting all upset about the historical inaccuracy of a black soldier in WWII US paratrooper unit, but not about the fact that they're fighting occult zombies, shows where your priorities are.

I see you're proud of your suspensions (in your sig). This is coming awfully close to another.

You don't have to virtue signal or pretend to like it, but bringing it up is right on the line.

 warboss wrote:
At least one reviewer for example lamented the lack of diversity in last year's historical Dunkirk movie and that was something that was trying to be rooted in historical accuracy unlike this film.

I lamented the lack of diversity in Dunkirk XD

Everyone in the soldiers on the beach segments looked exactly the same and I couldn't tell them apart for most of the movie. I'm told this was an artistic choice to make a comment about something, but I think it was silly

 Lorek wrote:
KTG17, getting all upset about the historical inaccuracy of a black soldier in WWII US paratrooper unit, but not about the fact that they're fighting occult zombies, shows where your priorities are.

I see you're proud of your suspensions (in your sig). This is coming awfully close to another.

You don't have to virtue signal or pretend to like it, but bringing it up is right on the line.

He has a point. The US Army was segregated, and that immediately popped out at me. It's glossing over Jim Crow. Plus the rest looked stupid too.

Honestly I do consider it to be a missed opportunity.

I'm fairly certain they just casted the actor who fit the roll and didn't care about the inaccuracy of it because the film avoids what should be obvious racial tension at every turn, but I think one could say that Overlord by doing this completely passed over the opportunity to say something compelling. After all, in 1944 what other countries had "undesirable" minorities sectioned off from the main population, generally regarded as obstacles to national greatness, ran experiments on said minorities that were inhuman and unethical, and worked to exclude them from the body politic? It's a rather short list.

Overlord could have tackled that part of American history at a time when American racism was particularly glaring, especially since they had the cast to pull it off.

Maybe it was for the best to avoid it though. I don't have a hate boner for the guy like some, but JJ has never struck me as the "thinking man" of movie making. I doubt he'd be able to pull such a charged film off in a convincing way. Honestly I'm fairly certain he'd botch it entirely. So missed opportunity yes, but I'm not sure trying to go that route would have made for a better movie.

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly I do consider it to be a missed opportunity.

I'm fairly certain they just casted the actor who fit the roll and didn't care about the inaccuracy of it because the film avoids what should be obvious racial tension at every turn, but I think one could say that Overlord by doing this completely passed over the opportunity to say something compelling. After all, in 1944 what other countries had "undesirable" minorities sectioned off from the main population, generally regarded as obstacles to national greatness, ran experiments on said minorities that were inhuman and unethical, and worked to exclude them from the body politic? It's a rather short list.

Overlord could have tackled that part of American history at a time when American racism was particularly glaring, especially since they had the cast to pull it off.

Maybe it was for the best to avoid it though. I don't have a hate boner for the guy like some, but JJ has never struck me as the "thinking man" of movie making. I doubt he'd be able to pull such a charged film off in a convincing way. Honestly I'm fairly certain he'd botch it entirely. So missed opportunity yes, but I'm not sure trying to go that route would have made for a better movie.

If that is what you are looking for. Try Hearts War. It's already been done.

The real question is with this film is why didn't they just call it Wolfenstine? In fact...why not just make a Live action Wolfenstine movie? It would have made twice the money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 warboss wrote:
At least one reviewer for example lamented the lack of diversity in last year's historical Dunkirk movie and that was something that was trying to be rooted in historical accuracy unlike this film.

I lamented the lack of diversity in Dunkirk XD

Everyone in the soldiers on the beach segments looked exactly the same and I couldn't tell them apart for most of the movie. I'm told this was an artistic choice to make a comment about something, but I think it was silly

Anyone looking for diversity that didn't exist in a historical setting is a flipping idiot. I'm talking about the reviewer - not you. Really the tone on the beach at Dunkirk was really dark. It was always gloomy - the idea was to make everyone look tired, malnourished, and unhappy - not to make people look different but the same. I don't give this movie a lot of props for historical accuracy anyways - that is what the reviewer should have been complaining about.

Dunkirk made it seem like the Brittish didn't have a whole Navy at Dunkirk. Spitfires flying at sea-level so they can interact with ships (would never happen - altitude is life for a fighter). Plus the final scene when tom hardy willingly gets captured instead of landing next to his army is maybe the most idiotic thing I've ever seen in a movie.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Try Hearts War. It's already been done.

We can always do it again, especially since Heart's War wasn't a very good movie and was more focused on a completely different theme.

The real question is with this film is why didn't they just call it Wolfenstine? In fact...why not just make a Live action Wolfenstine movie? It would have made twice the money.

*shrug*

Maybe JJ has never heard of Wolfenstein? The franchise was dead for a long time before the more recent entries. Maybe they just didn't feel like dealing with the licensing. Video game films also have a rather sordid reputation for being quite bad and I wouldn't say having the name attached would have helped it make more money. Most certainly it would have dirtied the production waters. The thing that Overlord really has going for it is polish. There's nothing overtly "wrong" with the movie. It's simplicity is its strength. Getting more hands in the cookie jar I doubt would improve anything.

Overlord reminds me of Event Horizon, a cult horror film sometimes called the unofficial 40k movie.

 Frazzled wrote:
Plus the rest looked stupid too.

All I can say is give it a chance, even as a rental, cause I think you'd probably like it to be honest.

 warboss wrote:
It's just one of many boxes that need to be checked in modern Hollywood/BBC in order not to generate faux outrage amongst political extremists.

What is interesting is that - and you didn't do this, I'm just using what you said as a handy point to segue - the guys who complain there shouldn't be black soldiers as the lead in a WW2 movie that features zombies aren't painted as extremists. I don't think it's right to, by default, assume the baseline person has a suspension of disbelief that can extend to necromancy but not integrated units.

 LordofHats wrote:
[Overlord reminds me of Event Horizon, a cult horror film sometimes called the unofficial 40k movie.

Now that movie was ahead of its time.


I think I'm going to get yelled at for this but I didn't really like Dunkirk very much (no, not for diversity reasons or otherwise). I was really excited about it because, duh, Christopher Nolan. I wound up driving to Chicago to go see it on a 70mm screen, even. And, to be honest, it just... wasn't that great, mostly. I thought Tom Hardy was good but no one else really stood out at all. Mostly it was a hideously loud and generally boring movie.

But I guess we're wandering afield, now.

It sounds like people wanted overlord to be made by Tarantino instead of Abrams.

Just look at who made it. JJ plays it safe and makes action flicks for funsies and more or less for everyone. Not movies with a point or any higher message. Just movies.

Taratino will push the racism of the day as a plot point and make it central to the characters. The interactions between people is the primary drive in all his movies. Tarantino would for sure have put the black translator there and made a point of the racial tension because of it.

Personally I’m content with Overlord being what it is. Trying to reach for a higher thematic purpose would distract from what actually makes it fun. I do however think it’s valid to discuss the film’s obvious avoidance of certain issues. Anyone complaining about “those SJWs” I think is beating a dead horse while having not seen the film, because watching it it’s rather clear that any such thought was not on mind during filming, but it is an inevitable topic given the casting.

As soon as I see "JJ" attached to a movie I know i'll avoid it.