rowest-75649 For the budget, they did a great job of storytelling, the crews that flew these (like my uncle and cousin, out of a base in England) are the story, not the celebrities who play the roll, or some romance sub plot, not the tech quality of special effects, or specific historical accuracy. My wife and i were party to the making of Pearl Harbor via National Park Svc work, and we had the honor to get to know actual survivors, we were sometimes surprised by there stories an by their reactions to certain details of that movie. We enjoyed that movie more by hearing the survivors comments.I thank the makers of Fortress for making this little movie that tells a fraction of the story of some great young men who deserve to be honored. I think the old flight crews would have appreciated the story as told. (and you guys likely made this for a fraction of the cost of Disney's world premier party for PH, and got to tell the tale to a few more people who may never view another B17 plot).

Matthew Toledo Historically accurate, this well-intentioned, well written, and adequately acted film suffers only from an insufficient budget. Inversely, the blockbuster Pearl Harbor (2001), which had a huge budget and seamless special effects, suffered from poor acting, historical inaccuracies, and poor storytelling. In all honesty, I liked Fortress better.The extreme accuracy and attention to detail during the battle sequences showcases director Mike Phillips' knowledge of aviation battle tactics that he gained while making dozens of television documentaries for the History Channel, including the series Dogfights. The various plane's flight characteristics are meticulously re-created. It's as close as you're ever going to get to a real battle in a WWII bomber. Likewise, the banter between the airmen on the ground is also period appropriate and well written, if not always well executed. Also, tighter editing would help the pace of the second act.The budget for Fortress was only around 3.5 million and they did an amazing amount with the money. The computer-generated graphics, while several steps above the graphics seen on shows like Dogfights, are still at times obviously computer generated and almost game-like, especially the wide shots of the base. That makes sense, because it's the same special effects company that did the fight sequences for the show, Dogfights. There are also a lot shots of actors standing in front of obvious green screens and excessive tight close ups to avoid the cost of computer- generating aircraft and equipment in the background.If only this film had a budget of around 20 million and wider distribution. Then, perhaps they could have afforded to stand in front of an actual real plane or have a few fly-overs by authentic aircraft on a real replica base instead of a digital base. A larger budget would have helped attract a potential star actor. Again, while the acting is solid and by no means horrible, there is no stand-out performance. It's like watching a really well- acted television show.Combine all the obvious love and attention for this project with an ending that's exciting and unexpected and, overall, Fortress is a decent film if you can suspend your disbelief during the occasional low-budget digital shots. Watch it on a lazy Sunday afternoon once the chores are finished.

Robert J. Maxwell All right, fellas, listen up. Sit down. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Today's mission maybe looks like a milk run to you. All that we need to do is have a CGI pageant. But I'm afraid most of you won't make it back.The computer-generated images are just plain splendid. Dozens of colorful and detailed B-17Fs fill the blazing blue sky. The crew are flying out of Algiers and their targets are in Italy. The film opens with a hazardous run in which the bombers are attacked by zipping Me-109s and casualties are incurred. It ends with another mission over Rome itself and the results are catastrophic.I don't know why it doesn't hang together but frankly the CGIs are about the only thing the production has going for it, and even those could be improved on. Not the images themselves; they're crisp. But the way they're used by the director. Whoever decided that the airplane on the screen must fly at high speed, nose first into the camera? How did this become a tradition? With "Pearl Harbor"? It's so jarring and distracting that it's passed far beyond its sell-by date.Another problem, and a serious one, is the acting. The performers seem drawn from some obscure afternoon TV series. It's difficult to tell one from another. Bug Hall is noticeable because he has a peachy role -- the newcomer who must be integrated into the crew. (Cf., Hawks' "Air Force".) Chris Owen, the chief engineer and master brewer, stands out because he looks like a slightly malformed Benedict Cumberbatch. The musical score of Gaelic-sounding melodies is lifted from "Memphis Belle" and "We Were Soldiers."Almost all the actors sound as if they were raised in Los Angeles or its indistinguishable suburbs. I realize they weren't but, as much as we don't need another re-run of the crew of "The Memphis Belle," NOBODY HAS AN ACCENT. Of course fewer people have regional accents now. We're all beginning to speak Network English. But in 1943, regional dialects could pin you down to a single city, and in some cases a few blocks in that city. But neither the writer nor anyone else appears to have spent much effort on the speech or the dialog. Anachronistic expressions include, "Roger that," and "I need you to (do something)." The usual clichés are used, elements drawn from every combat film.. New co-pilot to pilot: "Do you ever feel you're living on borrowed time?" Pilot: "Every second of every day." Eg., "Flying Leathernecks." Young pilot to John Wayne: "Don't tell me YOU'RE scared too!" Wayne: "Every time I go up." "The flak is so heavy you can walk on it." (Twice.) "I'm not in a popularity contest." The writers missed a few rituals -- "mail call" and the romantic triangle. But they did manage to squeeze in the part about the crew building a still and making jungle juice. In fact, when these guys aren't flying, they drink enough booze to stun an elephant and the next day they fly as if nothing had happened.See it if you want, but I have a feeling that once you're into it you'll realize you've seen most of it before in one isomorphism or another.

spamobile I seldom rate so low as this. Why? I actually did not even watch the full movie as I got so fed up with the totally unbelievably bad CGI used in this movie. The first 5 minutes was already enough to decide that this was going to be bad. The airplanes look so clean, so crisp, the motion so unrealistic, the attacks unrealistic, the acting poor (it's not the actors but what they are made to depict). I would compare this movie to that thing with the name, I think, Red Tails as recently also launched. It seems that these type of movies that would be great if CGI was used in a realistic way need to be ruined by unrealistic close combat and movements of airplanes and such. Hollywood, grow up, use CGI the way it's supposed to work, to enhance realism, not to try to make it more spectacular by introducing unrealism. Honor to the man and women that made the raids possible, that suffered in this war. Shame on those that ruined what could have been a good story, good movie. My advise, avoid like the plague!