jamieanderson-67808 I have to say I do not feel the rough critique of this film justified. Sure it is an Indie film and not of a million dollar budget. but they put a lot of effort into it, a lot of historic facts and nice war scenes, The tanks and guns were real not a lot of fake CGI and they made a serious effort here. Seriously give them some credit for all the tanks planes and guns they put together. I truly enjoyed it and watched it several times, there are some really good points to it, and the acting was solid on all parts. And as film fans we should acknowledge those of smaller budgets not just run them over because they did not have a studio budget.

ETO_Buff Let's see...Atrocious acting, overweight soldiers, pristine uniforms, non-period costume elements, ultra-low budget effects... It must be a re-enactor film!It would be much too time-consuming to point out all of the gross errors in this film, but my favorite part is when Klaudia, a German nurse, jumps into the machine gun pit and starts shooting at the Americans with an MG-42. Here are just a few of the many, many other things that were wrong with the script:> Many scenes take place in a large, multi-story, walled prison facility near Omaha Beach. No such place existed in 1944, and still doesn't.> Civilian police (Gestapo) have authority over the military.> A private in the 29th Infantry Division on Omaha Beach has the helmet insignia of the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division on his helmet> The private mentioned above addresses his sergeant as "Sir".> The sergeant then says, "We gotta get off this beach, our Airborne is taking a hell of a pounding!" How does he know what the Airborne is doing? Why is he concerned about the Airborne instead of his objective? The Airborne troops are all over Normandy, too far inland for him to assist them with anything! I would love to have enough money to make a ridiculously unrealistic film and run around in my WWII-era uniform. It looks like it was a lot of fun for the re-enactors and vehicle collectors in the cast, and the whole thing was clearly done in only one take, so no one would have been waiting around between takes and getting bored. I also like how they threw in a token Brit to be politically correct, but give no explanation as to why he's there.It's interesting that the female lead (Klaudia Schiller, portrayed by Claudia Crawford) was left out of the credits. I know her acting was terrible, but so was the acting of everyone else in the film, and they credited all of them. At least her character's name was the same as her real first name so she wouldn't get confused when she was being addressed in the film. I wonder if they just licked her lips and stuck her to a wall when she wasn't needed for a scene.

jlthornb51 Tino Struckmann, superb actor and visionary director, has filmed one of greatest dramatic accounts of the French Occupation and Normandy landing in this great motion picture, The Red Rose of Normandy. An epic film of unusual power and scope, the saga is part love story and yet primarily focused on the heroic beach fighting in June, 1944. Careful attention has obviously been paid to the technical aspects and the battle scenes are nothing less than harrowing in their realism. Some of the sequences detailing the enormous American assault are overwhelming in their intensity and firepower. The cinematography of vast panoramas and magnificent tracking shots of the beach are breathtaking and one can not help but be moved to tears by the sacrifice depicted. A sterling cast is truly exceptional and the performances uniformly excellent. With haunting imagery of humanity at war during the horrific fighting for a foothold on Hitler's Europe, this is a film for anyone interested in knowing the true hell of WWII battle.

jimandsusie-614-433864 I have watched many war films over the years some good, some bad and some in between but as a base to build on this film is, overall, the worst I have ever watched.The dialogue and acting were poor at best but the worst aspect was the terrible German uniforms which appeared to be made of horse blanket as a one size fits all and even a low budget movie should stretch to shortening the trousers by 3 or 4 inches of some of the smaller soldiers. One of the tank crew was wearing shoes and a young soldier wore a very smart modern checked shirt with his uniform. Even in 1944 senior officers had doeskin tunics.The uniforms of the US troops appeared to be motley but authentic and, although I know little about small arms, the weapons had an air of realism about them.If the film is to be believed, obesity seems to have been a problem for both armies and whilst the Germans were scraping the barrel for manpower, hence the large numbers of pensionable aged soldiers on set, the allies did not and the average age on D Day was about 22. Some of the troops looked old enough to have taken part in the actual landings although I suspect there were more than 2 landing craft and a dozen men then.I've tried to find something positive to say about the film and I suppose some credit must go to the male lead who managed to keep the side of his head away from camera where his ear was inside the hat to keep it on, it being a couple of sizes too big. The female lead was riveting, as in I couldn't take my eyes off her enormous mouth highlighted by crimson lipstick. Her dress length was not common until the 1960's but they did show off her excellent legs.Somebody thought it a good idea to use a VW Beetle as a war machine but didn't realise that this car wasn't mass produced (and therefore available to the German army) until 1945.I look forward to the sequel...surely they won't have the gall to do one.