The short and skinny here is, if you like war films (i.e. Memphis Belle (1990)) and want to kill 90 mins or so, this movie will do the trick. The writing isn't terrible...the story is acceptable...the actors are all unknowns (except Chris Owen, "The Shermanator" of American Pie fame) but manage to hold their own and deliver their lines convincingly enough. There were a few scenes where the the backgrounds were a little weak (poor green screening), but they weren't very long and weren't game-breakers. I have seen many, many B-Rated movies and this one was a surprise in that it succeeded in not being an A rated film, and at the same time, better than most B rated films. It's a diamond in the rough, but entertaining enough to not be a total waste of time.
74 Reviews
Way better than Pearl Harbor
waffe10914 November 2011
Hi everybody:
Here's what I thought. Movies about this subject especially American films tend to go way over the top if you know what I mean. Too much sis boom bah let's go win the war all by our selves sort of thing. This wasn't like that at all and I liked that very much. The music was not good. Too bad. I liked the fact that they were in North Africa, probably Tunisia. That was nice for a change. I thought the CGI looked very good especially the German 109s. The camouflage, markings and dimensions were right on. They looked like BF 109 G10s from JG 52. So many war films don't give two cents about what enemy aircraft look like but in this film they did. I know all of this because I've been researching WWII aeroplanes for about thirty years.
Pearl Harbor was made to make big bucks and is one of the worse WWII movies ever. This little film was better.
Here's what I thought. Movies about this subject especially American films tend to go way over the top if you know what I mean. Too much sis boom bah let's go win the war all by our selves sort of thing. This wasn't like that at all and I liked that very much. The music was not good. Too bad. I liked the fact that they were in North Africa, probably Tunisia. That was nice for a change. I thought the CGI looked very good especially the German 109s. The camouflage, markings and dimensions were right on. They looked like BF 109 G10s from JG 52. So many war films don't give two cents about what enemy aircraft look like but in this film they did. I know all of this because I've been researching WWII aeroplanes for about thirty years.
Pearl Harbor was made to make big bucks and is one of the worse WWII movies ever. This little film was better.
OK....not great.
jlent-6224112 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
First of all,my dad was stationed in Italy in 1944-45 a bombardier in the15th Airforce 483rd bomb group(H) flying in B-17G Flying Forts. He and his crew were shot down and crashed in occupied Yugoslavia. He was MIA on his 44th mission and evaded capture and returned to Italy after 72 days missing. He is alive and well at 95!! Together we watched this movie. Here is my Dad's take. First, the special effects were pretty good, but the movement of the B-17's especially on take off's were completely inaccurate. They seemed to take off like fighter planes. B-17's were comparatively very slow on take off with full bomb loads. Also, the actors portrayal of the young flyers seemed out of touch with the reality of the 1940's. My father said most of the air crews of that era would not over use the "F" word like these actors did. He says the "F" was used on occasion as in SNAFU,but wasn't part everyday conversations the way curse words like God Damn and "son of a bitch" were.As for life on base. Drinking large amounts of moonshine would not happen. As drunk as this crew was,they would have been grounded for sure. We might have a few beers ,but we all wanted to stay sharp. "We did our drinking mostly at the officers club after a mission and only really got drunk when we knew we were't flying the next day" My dad says"one Sgt. once tried to make a still, but got caught and was court martialed. That boy who had his still blow up would have been sent to the brig and busted to private!In a nut shell, this movie did not seem realistic to the combat missions we flew in WW2. Yes, the violent deaths were realistic, but an injured navigator would never disobey his pilot's orders. So,as me,OK...not a great film. My advice is that if you are going to make a film about WW2 bomber crews and missions, do what Spielberg did for Saving Private Ryan....or don't make one at all.
A very good first step.....
BigBobFoonman21 August 2012
With the advent of CGI, the story of the 8th Air Force in Europe during WWII is begging to be told. The visual effects in this film were very good--I just wish they had shown the B-17s over Germany instead. Over a hundred thousand young men were killed in B-17s and B-24s over the skies of the Third Reich. Spielberg needs to make this film.
"Fortress" is a great first step, and I thank the producers for doing what big-time Hollywood could not. They made a much better film than "Memphis Belle", which was so badly Hollywoodized that the story it told about a real airplane and its crew was in no way the real story.
In "Memphis Belle", six actual B-17s were used, along with large radio-controlled models. One B-17 was lost during the production.
With CGI, hundreds of 17s and 24s can fill the skies, and the look is incredibly realistic. "Fortress" is definitely worth seeing.
"Fortress" is a great first step, and I thank the producers for doing what big-time Hollywood could not. They made a much better film than "Memphis Belle", which was so badly Hollywoodized that the story it told about a real airplane and its crew was in no way the real story.
In "Memphis Belle", six actual B-17s were used, along with large radio-controlled models. One B-17 was lost during the production.
With CGI, hundreds of 17s and 24s can fill the skies, and the look is incredibly realistic. "Fortress" is definitely worth seeing.
A video game made into a movie.
bgdavenport8 August 2013
Laughable movie. Good CG, but someone did not do their history lesson. While B-17s did operate out of Africa, there were nowhere near the numbers the movie shows. Heck, there weren't that many in Europe at the time! The aircraft depicted are the wrong model and are sporting European camouflage schemes, not North African schemes. Crews in Africa did not walk around in sheep skin flight clothing during the day and it is near freezing at night in the desert. At the operating altitudes of the B-17s and B-24s, the temperatures are at or near 50 degrees below zero. No one is wearing light flight clothing. They are festooned in electrically heated flight suits and flak gear. No one is eating or drinking anything because it would be frozen.
In the aerial combat scenes, weapons are fired in bursts for a number of reasons. And, there is no such thing as a P-40 Warhawk dogfighting a Bf-109; the former was hopelessly outclassed by the later. In the more recent movie, "Redtails," there is a reason the black fighter units were employed only as ground support and not fighter escort. The P-40 was incapable of doing the job as fighter to high-altitude bombers.
I could go on. Basically, this movie is a video game in which you have no control. But, the crew interaction was well done.
In the aerial combat scenes, weapons are fired in bursts for a number of reasons. And, there is no such thing as a P-40 Warhawk dogfighting a Bf-109; the former was hopelessly outclassed by the later. In the more recent movie, "Redtails," there is a reason the black fighter units were employed only as ground support and not fighter escort. The P-40 was incapable of doing the job as fighter to high-altitude bombers.
I could go on. Basically, this movie is a video game in which you have no control. But, the crew interaction was well done.
Not Mephis Belle or Even Pearl Harbour
maverick-8492419 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This is a B-grade production who's producers have gone to lengths to apologise for any inaccuracies, even if it was a very childish, mealy-mouthed apology full of passive-aggressive barbs and vitriol.
B grade aside, unknown actors aside, historical inaccuracy aside, even fairly woeful CGI aside, this movie is simply amateurish nonsense.
Forget the tiny details of historical accuracy that could have elevated the film, how about just some basic continuity? Towards the end, our plucky ball gunner mentions (and we see) the left hand main undercarriage leg of the Lucky Lady sail towards the earth, completely disconnected from the aircraft. Moments later, another belly shot shows both undercarriage legs firmly ensconced in their respective bays. Not only did the leg fall in oblivion, the cycling of the landing gear apparently didn't occur in the first instance.
As for the CGI, I've seen computer games with more thought put into their production.
The actors deserve some praise for their various (if predictable) character roles, but beyond that, the producers and their petty whining about the critiques suffered, the directors and their apparent lack of desire for continuity (or even period dialogue) and the CGI 'artists' for their high-school attempts deserve little, if anything.
The producers bemoaned the lack of support from organisations with actual B-17s. Perhaps these groups took one look at this motley assortment and thought 'hell, no!'.
To those who attempted to compare this with Memphis Belle... really? Have you actually watched either film? I'm going with 'no'.
This is just a sad little millennial's's attempt at what they think B- 17 operations must have been like. They've made precious little effort to actually find out much of any reality and for this, they should be ashamed, as the period in question is one rarely covered and deserved so much more.
In closing, I'd suggest the producers put their whiny apology as a preface to their next project, because I know full well that, if I had read it prior to watching this, I would have avoided this movie like the plague.
B grade aside, unknown actors aside, historical inaccuracy aside, even fairly woeful CGI aside, this movie is simply amateurish nonsense.
Forget the tiny details of historical accuracy that could have elevated the film, how about just some basic continuity? Towards the end, our plucky ball gunner mentions (and we see) the left hand main undercarriage leg of the Lucky Lady sail towards the earth, completely disconnected from the aircraft. Moments later, another belly shot shows both undercarriage legs firmly ensconced in their respective bays. Not only did the leg fall in oblivion, the cycling of the landing gear apparently didn't occur in the first instance.
As for the CGI, I've seen computer games with more thought put into their production.
The actors deserve some praise for their various (if predictable) character roles, but beyond that, the producers and their petty whining about the critiques suffered, the directors and their apparent lack of desire for continuity (or even period dialogue) and the CGI 'artists' for their high-school attempts deserve little, if anything.
The producers bemoaned the lack of support from organisations with actual B-17s. Perhaps these groups took one look at this motley assortment and thought 'hell, no!'.
To those who attempted to compare this with Memphis Belle... really? Have you actually watched either film? I'm going with 'no'.
This is just a sad little millennial's's attempt at what they think B- 17 operations must have been like. They've made precious little effort to actually find out much of any reality and for this, they should be ashamed, as the period in question is one rarely covered and deserved so much more.
In closing, I'd suggest the producers put their whiny apology as a preface to their next project, because I know full well that, if I had read it prior to watching this, I would have avoided this movie like the plague.
Amateurish
grantss23 October 2017
July, 1943. US bomber squadrons are bombing Sicily in preparation for the Allies' invasion. One such bomber is the Lucky Lass, a B- 17. When her commander is killed, the co-pilot, Lt. Wally McAllister, is given command of the plane. A rookie co-pilot, 2nd Lt. Mike Schmidt, joins the crew. Schmidt immediately alienates himself by not joining in and making some very basic errors on missions. Now he must regain their trust and support...
Amateurish in just about every way. Story is quite basic, clumsy and predictable. Direction is paint-by-numbers stuff, with no attempt at engaging the audience or anything approaching grittiness. Performances are hammy at best, and generally quite cringeworthy. Even the CGI, which in 2012 should be an easy tick, feels like something from a video game, and not a very good one.
However, decent enough battle scenes though, and a reasonably powerful final few scenes, make this not a total write-off. Still not worth watching though.
Amateurish in just about every way. Story is quite basic, clumsy and predictable. Direction is paint-by-numbers stuff, with no attempt at engaging the audience or anything approaching grittiness. Performances are hammy at best, and generally quite cringeworthy. Even the CGI, which in 2012 should be an easy tick, feels like something from a video game, and not a very good one.
However, decent enough battle scenes though, and a reasonably powerful final few scenes, make this not a total write-off. Still not worth watching though.
Damn good!
mike-ryan45520 December 2011
If you like flying movies or World War II movies, I don't think you can go wrong with Fortress.
The movie is about the crew of a B-17 Flying Fortress flying out of North Africa during World War II, during a time of very high casualties. It centered on the crew of one plane, as they fought and as many of them died.
It was generally quite good. On the up side, they had a credible, real story and a pretty good set of actors. The special effects were generally pretty good. They didn't make any historical errors I spotted either.
It wasn't perfect. Some parts were predictable and there were lapses in special effects. But it was good and I definitely enjoyed it. Give it a try and I think you'll enjoy it too.
The movie is about the crew of a B-17 Flying Fortress flying out of North Africa during World War II, during a time of very high casualties. It centered on the crew of one plane, as they fought and as many of them died.
It was generally quite good. On the up side, they had a credible, real story and a pretty good set of actors. The special effects were generally pretty good. They didn't make any historical errors I spotted either.
It wasn't perfect. Some parts were predictable and there were lapses in special effects. But it was good and I definitely enjoyed it. Give it a try and I think you'll enjoy it too.
Poor CGI, Poor screenplay. Poor directing. Poor sets/realism.
alissaweatherford9 April 2013
I will always give a positive to any movie that attempts to show the horror, the bravery and the honor of soldiers on all side in any war. This one is unique in that it tells a story of a geographical area that is seldom seen. I don't care about the actors names as they only read the screenplay and follows the directors direction. That being said........
This movie was released last year but the CGI has the quality of video games of the early 90's. In other words....dated and cartoonish. As another reviewer wrote "How some people can say the CGI is any good I really don't know. If you look at some of the outdoor scenes where the background has been mocked up it's really funny, look at the extras, you can tell they feel uncomfortable being there staring at the "green wall" in front of them, I'm sure you can even see their shadows against it at some points. Some extras in one scene (a mild party scene) even look at the camera! As for everything else: The planes look crap, the explosions are crap, the tracer fire is crap, the flak looks crap. Some damage on the plane doesn't look too bad in all fairness but is totally unreasonable. Way too much gore to try and drive it all home too, if they'd of made a half decent film in the first place they wouldn't of had to worry about litres of fake, pink blood to try and make up for it." Unfortunately I have to agree and add that, while an important story, the screenplay is sub par as is the direction. It was obviously a lower budget film and lack hardly any wide angle shots. All shots seem to be of small groups or individuals talking face to face with no depth of field or scenery. Looks like it was filmed entirely on a sound stage or in the CGI lab. That doesn't make for realism in a movie set in the expanse of the desert and the sky.
While the young actors bring to life just how young these soldiers and airmen were, the "pretty boy" hair styles are completely out of place and time. Also the sparkling clean uniforms, undershirts and faces make the camp look like a frat house instead of a remote, desert air base where temperatures were 120 during the day and 40 degrees at night. And yet, nobody sweats! Or there is some gratuitous arm pit wetness occasionally seen but the pits are wet but the faces are dry.
Again an entirely poor effort to tell what could have been an interesting story. Too bad! To bad as
This movie was released last year but the CGI has the quality of video games of the early 90's. In other words....dated and cartoonish. As another reviewer wrote "How some people can say the CGI is any good I really don't know. If you look at some of the outdoor scenes where the background has been mocked up it's really funny, look at the extras, you can tell they feel uncomfortable being there staring at the "green wall" in front of them, I'm sure you can even see their shadows against it at some points. Some extras in one scene (a mild party scene) even look at the camera! As for everything else: The planes look crap, the explosions are crap, the tracer fire is crap, the flak looks crap. Some damage on the plane doesn't look too bad in all fairness but is totally unreasonable. Way too much gore to try and drive it all home too, if they'd of made a half decent film in the first place they wouldn't of had to worry about litres of fake, pink blood to try and make up for it." Unfortunately I have to agree and add that, while an important story, the screenplay is sub par as is the direction. It was obviously a lower budget film and lack hardly any wide angle shots. All shots seem to be of small groups or individuals talking face to face with no depth of field or scenery. Looks like it was filmed entirely on a sound stage or in the CGI lab. That doesn't make for realism in a movie set in the expanse of the desert and the sky.
While the young actors bring to life just how young these soldiers and airmen were, the "pretty boy" hair styles are completely out of place and time. Also the sparkling clean uniforms, undershirts and faces make the camp look like a frat house instead of a remote, desert air base where temperatures were 120 during the day and 40 degrees at night. And yet, nobody sweats! Or there is some gratuitous arm pit wetness occasionally seen but the pits are wet but the faces are dry.
Again an entirely poor effort to tell what could have been an interesting story. Too bad! To bad as
Well worth a watch
markleachsa-11 February 2012
After a string of stinkers out of Hollywood lately, I wasn't expecting much from this film, with its cast of little known actors. And at first I thought it was living up to my expectations, with a few glitches here and there dragging my attention out of the story. But it kept pulling me back and I found at the end that I was thoroughly absorbed. It hammers a few points perhaps over-strongly, where subtlety might have been more elegant, but it had an honesty that overlaid that.
It isn't gung-ho like a 60's war movie, and it isn't ultra-realistic like a modern battle film, it's somewhere in between and has a charm and compulsion of its own that made me very pleased to have watched it.
Forgive it its few faults and it will reward you with a good watch!
It isn't gung-ho like a 60's war movie, and it isn't ultra-realistic like a modern battle film, it's somewhere in between and has a charm and compulsion of its own that made me very pleased to have watched it.
Forgive it its few faults and it will reward you with a good watch!
who was the technical director on this flick?
textwo8 September 2012
I realize that this was an extremely ambitious project produced on a shoestring budget. Allowing for this, is it too much trouble to find somebody who knows somebody whose cousin knows somebody that had even the slightest knowledge of Army Air Corps uniforms? Find a book with pictures of aircrew from that theater of the war. NO PILOT WEARS HIS WINGS ON THE FLAP OF HIS KHAKI SHIRT POCKET. All other flying crew (and especially the CO) would be wearing the appropriate wings for their specialty. The wings are worn directly above the pocket on the left side of the khaki shirt. Every single leather brimmed officer's hat was screwed up. When you take out the cap spring to get a 50 Mission Crush the sides of the had are pulled down over the band on the side from wearing earphones over the hat. It looked like there was a box of wadded up hats dumped on the set and everybody just grabbed whichever one they could get and slammed it on his head. Overseas (Cunt caps) hats are not tucked into the epaulets when indoors, they are slipped into the belt. And for god's sake have everyone get a haircut that would make them appear they were in the military. These are all cost free items that make the production look cheaper than necessary.
It's also unlikely that there would be a large B17 group based in Africa. Most of the units there were equipped with the B24 and they were painted in a desert tan paint scheme. All in all lack of attention to small no-cost details detracted from this movie.
It's also unlikely that there would be a large B17 group based in Africa. Most of the units there were equipped with the B24 and they were painted in a desert tan paint scheme. All in all lack of attention to small no-cost details detracted from this movie.
pretty good actually
teamleshark27 January 2012
I hate seeing people unfairly underrating films because they are not happy with seeing unknown actors and graphics that don't reach super tech status...give them a chance, these guys have created an enjoyable b movie that easily equals anything that a more known actor can make. Why do you all down talk graphics and special effects? its not always the graphics that make the film,do you think you can do any better? ...i didn't think so or you'd have done it by now....this movie was better than many i have seen so far these last few months and as it was based on true facts i wasn't expecting anything overly exciting to happen but was impressed by the story and will happily watch it again another day with my partner.
Fortress
Bourne188628 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Watched this film on Sky movies premier.
*SPOILERS*
I'm glad I did, I really enjoyed it. It had its flaws and no it wasn't perfect, but what movie is. I admit the first ten minutes were the best, the cgi wasn't great, but some of the cgi scenes I thought, were OK. It looked a bit flight simulator/ gamey to me, but i wasn't bothered as it served its purpose. I particularly liked some of the views and angles they used in the aerial shots. It wasn't all bad. Some of the shots had really depth to them, especially on the bombing run to Rome. If the cgi had been of higher quality this film would have been epic! I recently watched Memphis Belle again and i know it was made quite a few years ago, some of the cgi on that isn't perfect. Great film though.
I could see what the producers vision was. They wanted to tell the everyday story of a US B-17 Bomber crew while in North Africa during WW2. In my opinion they achieved this. The story was solid and made sense, unlike some DTV releases that make a complete mess of the narrative and even the simplest of story lines gets confusing. I liked the pacing of the movie and thought it flowed well. At no point was I bored. Sometimes the dialogue was a bit naff and cringeworthy. The actors did a good job overall, but sometimes the odd one or two were forcing it and going over the top, which was quite noticeable in parts. The back story about the hooch helped give the film another thread and I guess tried to add a bit of togetherness amongst the men and give them something to concentrate on between missions. Drinking amongst the men was riff in this story when they weren't flying, as there wasn't an awful lot to do as depicted in the film.
I liked the look of the film. The lighting and the film stock used for the most part gave it a more natural feel and looked good, really benefitting the look of the film and not cheap like other DTV films. A couple of scenes with the actors looked like the lighting was off, but it didn't detract from the film. The Director/ Cameraman used mainly close ups of actors keeping the shots tight in the plane and the outside scenes with only tents and airbase equipment etc in the background. You never see the crew getting into the plane. I imagine this was done to keep the budget down.
I noticed they added little details here and there like bullet hole damage to the glass on the underneath of the plane on the machine gun turret. It looks like they tried to think of everything.
The orchestral music was good for a low budget release but if I had one criticism of the music it would have been the use of generic fiddle music over and over again, plus the sound in the cockpit sounded very echoey and tinny like they were in a studio (which they were) rather than a cockpit. Liked the end credits song.
Overall they did a great job. It looked like a labour of love. The director,producers and cast and crew did an exceptional job. It is a solid movie and a fantastic example of low budget filmmaking. Their imagination and tenacity made this film happen.
At the very end of the credits, there is a disclaimer by the filmmakers stating they made the film to the best standard they could, taking into account limited resources etc. I liked that little touch.
I would recommend this film to war movie buffs even with its flaws, I've watched it twice now and felt it was even better on the 2nd viewing. With any luck it will be a big hit on BD and DVD and make some money back for the filmmakers. Imagine if they made a lot of money, they maybe tempted to spruce up some of the dodgier looking bits of cgi and re- release it. Imagine that!
Just a note to say don't compare it to a big budget war film as that would be unfair. This film doesn't pretend to be anything other than a low budget war film and should be enjoyed as such. Adjust your expectations and you will be pleasantly surprised. It is an enjoyable film and I liked it very much.
It might be making its way into my collection!
.
*SPOILERS*
I'm glad I did, I really enjoyed it. It had its flaws and no it wasn't perfect, but what movie is. I admit the first ten minutes were the best, the cgi wasn't great, but some of the cgi scenes I thought, were OK. It looked a bit flight simulator/ gamey to me, but i wasn't bothered as it served its purpose. I particularly liked some of the views and angles they used in the aerial shots. It wasn't all bad. Some of the shots had really depth to them, especially on the bombing run to Rome. If the cgi had been of higher quality this film would have been epic! I recently watched Memphis Belle again and i know it was made quite a few years ago, some of the cgi on that isn't perfect. Great film though.
I could see what the producers vision was. They wanted to tell the everyday story of a US B-17 Bomber crew while in North Africa during WW2. In my opinion they achieved this. The story was solid and made sense, unlike some DTV releases that make a complete mess of the narrative and even the simplest of story lines gets confusing. I liked the pacing of the movie and thought it flowed well. At no point was I bored. Sometimes the dialogue was a bit naff and cringeworthy. The actors did a good job overall, but sometimes the odd one or two were forcing it and going over the top, which was quite noticeable in parts. The back story about the hooch helped give the film another thread and I guess tried to add a bit of togetherness amongst the men and give them something to concentrate on between missions. Drinking amongst the men was riff in this story when they weren't flying, as there wasn't an awful lot to do as depicted in the film.
I liked the look of the film. The lighting and the film stock used for the most part gave it a more natural feel and looked good, really benefitting the look of the film and not cheap like other DTV films. A couple of scenes with the actors looked like the lighting was off, but it didn't detract from the film. The Director/ Cameraman used mainly close ups of actors keeping the shots tight in the plane and the outside scenes with only tents and airbase equipment etc in the background. You never see the crew getting into the plane. I imagine this was done to keep the budget down.
I noticed they added little details here and there like bullet hole damage to the glass on the underneath of the plane on the machine gun turret. It looks like they tried to think of everything.
The orchestral music was good for a low budget release but if I had one criticism of the music it would have been the use of generic fiddle music over and over again, plus the sound in the cockpit sounded very echoey and tinny like they were in a studio (which they were) rather than a cockpit. Liked the end credits song.
Overall they did a great job. It looked like a labour of love. The director,producers and cast and crew did an exceptional job. It is a solid movie and a fantastic example of low budget filmmaking. Their imagination and tenacity made this film happen.
At the very end of the credits, there is a disclaimer by the filmmakers stating they made the film to the best standard they could, taking into account limited resources etc. I liked that little touch.
I would recommend this film to war movie buffs even with its flaws, I've watched it twice now and felt it was even better on the 2nd viewing. With any luck it will be a big hit on BD and DVD and make some money back for the filmmakers. Imagine if they made a lot of money, they maybe tempted to spruce up some of the dodgier looking bits of cgi and re- release it. Imagine that!
Just a note to say don't compare it to a big budget war film as that would be unfair. This film doesn't pretend to be anything other than a low budget war film and should be enjoyed as such. Adjust your expectations and you will be pleasantly surprised. It is an enjoyable film and I liked it very much.
It might be making its way into my collection!
.
Bad, bad, bad
fiiiish20 December 2011
Really don't bother with this film as it is a very, very, very poor relation to Memphis Belle. My husband bought it as he loves all things WWII. Within 2 minutes we realised this was a real stinker. The first few minutes showed the American crew of a Bomber on a bombing raid - I couldn't understand a single word as everything was being said through their face masks. We soon realised that this cast of young actors were all total unknowns - probably because not a single one of them could act. The film tried to show a bonded crew with their banter and their brewing of moonshine etc - but the film was so poorly done that we just didn't care about their characters. The planes were all CGI but badly done. The final 15 minutes was the best part of the film but then totally ruined by the last 2 minutes. So do not buy or rent this film. If you are remotely interested wait until it comes on TV but honestly, don't waste your time with it.
A Worthy Tribute to the Flying Fortresses and the Heroes Who Flew Them
cdfe338818 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'll start by saying that I'm a history buff and B-17 aficionado. I started geeking out on those wonderful old warbirds when I was 7 years old, kept it up ever since.
This movie is fictional, but based on compiled experiences of B-17 Flying Fortress crews in WWII. "Lucky Lass" and her crew are part of the "Diamondbacks," 99th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 12th Air Force based in Algeria in the summer of 1943. When their pilot is killed over a target in Italy, they lack confidence in his brand-new replacement, 2LT Mike Schmidt. Schmidt tries to earn their trust through several combat missions, mechanical trouble, desert heat, GI hijinks, and a Saharan sandstorm.
This movie was clearly done on a shoestring budget, but every penny was well spent. The cast of unknowns deliver great performances and the soundtrack is simple, yet stirring. The violence is accurately depicted as sudden, unpredictable, and bloody. The CGI looks like that seen in "Dogfights", not Michael Bay material, but good nonetheless. The set for the bomber's interior lacks some things, but is mostly accurate. Uniforms are authentic, albeit a little incomplete. USAAF flight gear from 1943 is extremely rare today, and reproductions don't come cheap. 99% of the presentation is authentic, from the in-flight procedures to the day-to-day life on the base. The only exception is the operation of the Norden bomb sight, which no movie has yet depicted accurately.
B-17s were renowned for being easy to fly and tough as nails, ideal qualities for a warplane. Crews loved their bombers, as did the ground crews. I know this from my great uncle, a ground crewman in the 97th BG (sister unit to the 99th). This is well represented, as "Lucky Lass" takes on a persona of her own. I broke down to tears as the "Lass" struggled to stay airborne, then broke apart with Archie still onboard. B-17s could take a pounding and still bring their crews back safely, often on 1 or 2 engines with large pieces of wing and tail torn off. Many came back in such bad shape that according to the Boeing engineers who designed them, they should have disintegrated in midair. According to many veterans, the planes seemed to possess a will to bring their crews home.
And to address the naysayers who claim a B-17 can't loop: yes they can, it's just a bad idea. It has in fact been done a few times. Every "Fort" that has looped suffered major structural damage in the process, just like "Lucky Lass" in the movie, but they stayed in the air.
I wish I wasn't limited to just 1000 words to review "Fortress", as I have so much more to say. The filmmakers clearly share my love of B-17s and respect for the heroes who flew them. This is one of many stories about the 8th, 12th, and 15th Air Force bomber crews that need to be told, and I think the crew of "Fortress" are the right people to tell them, just for God's sake, give them a better budget!
This movie is fictional, but based on compiled experiences of B-17 Flying Fortress crews in WWII. "Lucky Lass" and her crew are part of the "Diamondbacks," 99th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 12th Air Force based in Algeria in the summer of 1943. When their pilot is killed over a target in Italy, they lack confidence in his brand-new replacement, 2LT Mike Schmidt. Schmidt tries to earn their trust through several combat missions, mechanical trouble, desert heat, GI hijinks, and a Saharan sandstorm.
This movie was clearly done on a shoestring budget, but every penny was well spent. The cast of unknowns deliver great performances and the soundtrack is simple, yet stirring. The violence is accurately depicted as sudden, unpredictable, and bloody. The CGI looks like that seen in "Dogfights", not Michael Bay material, but good nonetheless. The set for the bomber's interior lacks some things, but is mostly accurate. Uniforms are authentic, albeit a little incomplete. USAAF flight gear from 1943 is extremely rare today, and reproductions don't come cheap. 99% of the presentation is authentic, from the in-flight procedures to the day-to-day life on the base. The only exception is the operation of the Norden bomb sight, which no movie has yet depicted accurately.
B-17s were renowned for being easy to fly and tough as nails, ideal qualities for a warplane. Crews loved their bombers, as did the ground crews. I know this from my great uncle, a ground crewman in the 97th BG (sister unit to the 99th). This is well represented, as "Lucky Lass" takes on a persona of her own. I broke down to tears as the "Lass" struggled to stay airborne, then broke apart with Archie still onboard. B-17s could take a pounding and still bring their crews back safely, often on 1 or 2 engines with large pieces of wing and tail torn off. Many came back in such bad shape that according to the Boeing engineers who designed them, they should have disintegrated in midair. According to many veterans, the planes seemed to possess a will to bring their crews home.
And to address the naysayers who claim a B-17 can't loop: yes they can, it's just a bad idea. It has in fact been done a few times. Every "Fort" that has looped suffered major structural damage in the process, just like "Lucky Lass" in the movie, but they stayed in the air.
I wish I wasn't limited to just 1000 words to review "Fortress", as I have so much more to say. The filmmakers clearly share my love of B-17s and respect for the heroes who flew them. This is one of many stories about the 8th, 12th, and 15th Air Force bomber crews that need to be told, and I think the crew of "Fortress" are the right people to tell them, just for God's sake, give them a better budget!
Worthless
spamobile6 September 2013
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!
More Like a Civil War Re-Enactment Rather Than a Hollywood Film
arthur_tafero12 September 2018
This is an interesting attempt by a group of young people (from the producers, production crew, and actors) to re-enact B17 bombing raids over Europe; and in particular, Rome. The amatuer acting crew gives it the old college try, along with some painfully obvious air force personnel who have zero acting ability. You can count the people over 30 on one hand in the entire film.
One grievous error in the film is the shooting of flak and the introduction of German interceptor planes at the same time. It never happened that way, because you would create excessive damage to your own planes. Poor research there. Also, over 80% of all GIs smoked cigarettes in WW2; this film, except for three or four smoking scenes had the vast majority of soldiers not smoking; highly unlikely. While on the ground entire crews smoked incessantly. More bad research. The special effects were pretty good, but the actors are so raw, that some of the scenes are painful to watch. The music was rather placid as well; it did not build tension very well. A good first try, but no cigar for this turkey.
How do people say this movie is good?
jameswhitted30 August 2017
I stopped it after the first air battle. So many flaws. The bombers were never that close in formation. They would have shot each other down!
They also had flak helmets on when in combat.
I just could not watch any more. Time to find a better war movie.
They also had flak helmets on when in combat.
I just could not watch any more. Time to find a better war movie.
"Roger that, Guys!"
TankerCMD10 October 2012
Just a few thoughts from the first 5 minutes of this film-
1) "Roger That" is modern military slang, not used in 1943, yet we hear it 5-6 times in the first couple minutes of the film.
2) Constantly calling each other "Guys-" same deal...they might refer to each other collectively as "boys," but not "guys."
3) They are all Air Corps, yet one crew member wears an Infantry overseas cap, with light blue Infantry piping! WHY?
4) The interior set for the B-17 is far too bare, too clean- should be cramped and crowded with wiring and pipes, padded soundproofing insulation on the walls, pinups, thermoses, parachutes, flak jackets and helmets, spent brass, etc. Also, the uniforms, hats, parachute harnesses, etc., are far too clean for men who have not showered in months and wore the same uniforms until they fell apart in desert conditions.
At the end the filmmakers have a strongly worded tirade along the lines of "please forgive us that we didn't have the dough to use 12 real B-17s in the filming," etc., which is reasonable- but then they insult people looking for historical accuracy by calling them so many "rivet-counters." Yes kids, we know real B-17s don't grow on trees and you last names aren't Spielberg and Lucas...but a correct overseas cap costs $30, so before you cry to me about the unreasonableness of my expecting million dollar props, get the little details right...you have mechanics in July 1943 running around wearing Model 1944 pilots' flight goggles...which obviously didn't exist until a year later..incredible as it may seem, there is a simple solution to avoid using the wrong prop...just leave it out of the film if it's incorrect or if the right one is not available.., a mechanic wearing pilot's flight goggles just confuses the average audience, anyway.
One of the strangest omissions of the film- all of this bombing is in support of The Allied invasion of Sicily, which began 09 July 1943. The film begins on July 11, 1943- 48 hours later, while the outcome of the invasion was still very much in doubt- yet in 2 hours, no one mentions the invasion of Sicily, to whit, "how is the largest invasion of the war to date going?"
This is all the more puzzling in that not only is it implausible that not a single character would mention the biggest invasion of the war up to that time as it was taking place, but a few lines about the Invasion of Sicily would clue in the audience as to why these Yanks are flying out of North Africa to bomb Italy.
Good reactions- it takes place in North Africa and over Italy- interesting and uncommon, as most Americans think WW Two began and ended in Normandy on June 6, 1944. So give this movie a chance.
As to the rest of the film- the filmmakers' hearts were in the right place. There are some noticeable historical, authentic goofs but overall, it is a noble effort. Including historically accurate details like how superstitious the flight crews were, the still and the importance of hooch, the grouchy but dedicated mechanics, the EM's contempt for officers, etc. All deserve credit and praise. If you can hold your nose and overlook several historical errors, it's a decent effort and well worth watching. An aspect of WW Two (Americans based in North Africa, the Sicilian Campaign) that you just never see. Give it a shot!
1) "Roger That" is modern military slang, not used in 1943, yet we hear it 5-6 times in the first couple minutes of the film.
2) Constantly calling each other "Guys-" same deal...they might refer to each other collectively as "boys," but not "guys."
3) They are all Air Corps, yet one crew member wears an Infantry overseas cap, with light blue Infantry piping! WHY?
4) The interior set for the B-17 is far too bare, too clean- should be cramped and crowded with wiring and pipes, padded soundproofing insulation on the walls, pinups, thermoses, parachutes, flak jackets and helmets, spent brass, etc. Also, the uniforms, hats, parachute harnesses, etc., are far too clean for men who have not showered in months and wore the same uniforms until they fell apart in desert conditions.
At the end the filmmakers have a strongly worded tirade along the lines of "please forgive us that we didn't have the dough to use 12 real B-17s in the filming," etc., which is reasonable- but then they insult people looking for historical accuracy by calling them so many "rivet-counters." Yes kids, we know real B-17s don't grow on trees and you last names aren't Spielberg and Lucas...but a correct overseas cap costs $30, so before you cry to me about the unreasonableness of my expecting million dollar props, get the little details right...you have mechanics in July 1943 running around wearing Model 1944 pilots' flight goggles...which obviously didn't exist until a year later..incredible as it may seem, there is a simple solution to avoid using the wrong prop...just leave it out of the film if it's incorrect or if the right one is not available.., a mechanic wearing pilot's flight goggles just confuses the average audience, anyway.
One of the strangest omissions of the film- all of this bombing is in support of The Allied invasion of Sicily, which began 09 July 1943. The film begins on July 11, 1943- 48 hours later, while the outcome of the invasion was still very much in doubt- yet in 2 hours, no one mentions the invasion of Sicily, to whit, "how is the largest invasion of the war to date going?"
This is all the more puzzling in that not only is it implausible that not a single character would mention the biggest invasion of the war up to that time as it was taking place, but a few lines about the Invasion of Sicily would clue in the audience as to why these Yanks are flying out of North Africa to bomb Italy.
Good reactions- it takes place in North Africa and over Italy- interesting and uncommon, as most Americans think WW Two began and ended in Normandy on June 6, 1944. So give this movie a chance.
As to the rest of the film- the filmmakers' hearts were in the right place. There are some noticeable historical, authentic goofs but overall, it is a noble effort. Including historically accurate details like how superstitious the flight crews were, the still and the importance of hooch, the grouchy but dedicated mechanics, the EM's contempt for officers, etc. All deserve credit and praise. If you can hold your nose and overlook several historical errors, it's a decent effort and well worth watching. An aspect of WW Two (Americans based in North Africa, the Sicilian Campaign) that you just never see. Give it a shot!
Nice CGI. Boring story.
deanocware11 October 2020
I am a very big war movie buff and will watch almost any movie about World War II and the different type of fighting that took place weather in the air in the sea or on land. However while I enjoyed the air combat missions in the B-17 in this movie the rest of the movie just fell totally flat. I never cared about any of the characters or any of the crew and thought most of the efforts to get the viewer to identify with them were over done and exaggerated as if they were trying to play to specific clichés. Watch the opening air mission, then fast forward to the next, repeat and your finished.
Pearl Harbor takes to the air....
chrisrolfny25 January 2012
My advise is... when you see that great 10 minute dog fight before the title credits you've seen the best of what coming.
My feeling is... whatever you thought about Pearl Harbor is exactly what you will think of this. By That I mean if you thought Pearl Harbor had great characters, amazing CG and straight from the gut acting then you are going to think this is just that great too...
And if you thought Pearl Harbor was a dog and a waste of film stock then you'll like this even less and be wishing for the wonders Ben Affleck's acting skills could have brought to this, while you are rifling through the seat back in front of you for an air sickness bag.
You know how there is this odd flatness from the lighting to the dialog delivery in afternoon soaps? And the plots so improbable that a sane brain shudders... I'm sorry to say this suffers from the same... Spiced up with some CG that would have been ground breaking in 2003.
But if you'll watch damn near anything full of Bluescreen and over busy CG this is the film for you.
My feeling is... whatever you thought about Pearl Harbor is exactly what you will think of this. By That I mean if you thought Pearl Harbor had great characters, amazing CG and straight from the gut acting then you are going to think this is just that great too...
And if you thought Pearl Harbor was a dog and a waste of film stock then you'll like this even less and be wishing for the wonders Ben Affleck's acting skills could have brought to this, while you are rifling through the seat back in front of you for an air sickness bag.
You know how there is this odd flatness from the lighting to the dialog delivery in afternoon soaps? And the plots so improbable that a sane brain shudders... I'm sorry to say this suffers from the same... Spiced up with some CG that would have been ground breaking in 2003.
But if you'll watch damn near anything full of Bluescreen and over busy CG this is the film for you.
Quite frankly the worst film i have ever seen!
sarah_kent7913 September 2012
How shall i start?
The fake Irish Americans - Irish through grandparents 20 times removed! The awful music, Terrible directing. School plays seems to have better direction. I particularly like the scene where the new recruits are being shown around the camp - "i know lets all walk in a line" - how clever.
Plot - what plot? And worst of all the acting, terrible.
Someone has compared this to Memphis Belle ? There is no comparison.
whilst i am sure everyone involved are lovely people - sorry this film sucks! So much so that I had to Join IMDb to review it !
The fake Irish Americans - Irish through grandparents 20 times removed! The awful music, Terrible directing. School plays seems to have better direction. I particularly like the scene where the new recruits are being shown around the camp - "i know lets all walk in a line" - how clever.
Plot - what plot? And worst of all the acting, terrible.
Someone has compared this to Memphis Belle ? There is no comparison.
whilst i am sure everyone involved are lovely people - sorry this film sucks! So much so that I had to Join IMDb to review it !
Authentic aerial combat
johnhanley23 November 2011
I picked this up by chance at the supermarket and read the reviews before I watched it. I must say the two I have read are more than a little harsh. This is a very well realised and well produced film which seeks to bring a flavour not only of the mind numbing flying experience through 'flak that you can walk on' but the debilitating intensity of being locked into a maelstrom beyond your control. Flying these sorts of missions must have been far worse than struggling through the sandstorm which symbolises the fragility of man and machine. I found nothing to criticise not even the sometimes banal conversations of the crew which had a ring of truth to them. But the real hero of these missions is the plane. The enthusiasts who made this film have laboured hard to recreate the experience and tried to stay as true as they could to the period in terms of relationships and material. Of course, as they confess in the credits, it was not always possible to be completely accurate. That said, they have done a splendid job and only petty nit pickers will find anything to object to. As the producers comment, 'no B-17 was harmed in the making of this film' I loved this film and will watch it again - perhaps not as many times as 'Saving Private Ryan' but I believe even Spielberg would have been impressed.
Definitely watchable if your into WW2.
djanvk-111 February 2016
This is a watchable WW2 film, not bad at all, like said in other reviews there are some issues where you can tell they are in front of a green screen. The acting is acceptable and the film has less action than I expected but was still entertaining. One minor gripe I have with this film is the look of the colors, they were just to bright and clean. These soldiers were in the middle of the desert and everything was brightly colored, there should be sand everywhere and clothing dingy along with the planes themselves, they looked just to new to be continuously worked on and repaired. Overall I liked it, maybe some of it is because I am currently reading a book on WW2 bombers which is why I did lean towards watching this film.
This film needs shooting down.
john_parker199030 June 2012
When i saw this on Sky (other Service providers available ;) ) and read the information I thought all my Birthdays had come at once... History, WW2, aerial combat, i got so excited my girlfriend had to grab a near by defib.
In a nutshell, oh my God... I'm so glad i watched it for free, what a let-down.
How some people can say the CGI is any good i really don't know. If you look at some of the outdoor scenes where the background has been mocked up it's really funny, look at the extras, you can tell they feel uncomfortable being there staring at the "green wall" in front of them, i'm sure you can even see their shadows against it at some points. Some extras in one scene (a mild party scene) even look at the camera!
As for everything else: The planes look crap, the explosions are crap, the tracer fire is crap, the flak looks crap. Some damage on the plane doesn't look too bad in all fairness but is totally unreasonable lol. Way too much gore to try and drive it all home too, if they'd of made a half decent film in the first place they wouldn't of had to worry about litres of fake, pink blood to try and make up for it.
Actors are terrible (the only face i recognised was the Sherminator from American Pie, the rest are nobody's), script is terrible (flicks from scene to scene all the time) and you go pretty much the whole film without ANY action and i mean it. People say the last 15 minutes is the best, but it really isn't, it's the most cringe worthy i think.
The real people who flew these aircraft went through real, unspeakable horrors. The flying fortresses were big, slow moving targets full of high explosive. Think what type of man it would of taken to get in that aircraft time and time again knowing the odds were stacked against you (if they were lucky enough to return from their first run). I think this film is a bit of an insult to them to be honest.
If you're really bored and have a mild interest in history then give it a watch, but by-god, don't pay for it and don't buy it on blue-ray or anything because it really won't help. Stick to the Memphis Belle, a film made 22 years ago which is 22 times better than this pile of filth.
In a nutshell, oh my God... I'm so glad i watched it for free, what a let-down.
How some people can say the CGI is any good i really don't know. If you look at some of the outdoor scenes where the background has been mocked up it's really funny, look at the extras, you can tell they feel uncomfortable being there staring at the "green wall" in front of them, i'm sure you can even see their shadows against it at some points. Some extras in one scene (a mild party scene) even look at the camera!
As for everything else: The planes look crap, the explosions are crap, the tracer fire is crap, the flak looks crap. Some damage on the plane doesn't look too bad in all fairness but is totally unreasonable lol. Way too much gore to try and drive it all home too, if they'd of made a half decent film in the first place they wouldn't of had to worry about litres of fake, pink blood to try and make up for it.
Actors are terrible (the only face i recognised was the Sherminator from American Pie, the rest are nobody's), script is terrible (flicks from scene to scene all the time) and you go pretty much the whole film without ANY action and i mean it. People say the last 15 minutes is the best, but it really isn't, it's the most cringe worthy i think.
The real people who flew these aircraft went through real, unspeakable horrors. The flying fortresses were big, slow moving targets full of high explosive. Think what type of man it would of taken to get in that aircraft time and time again knowing the odds were stacked against you (if they were lucky enough to return from their first run). I think this film is a bit of an insult to them to be honest.
If you're really bored and have a mild interest in history then give it a watch, but by-god, don't pay for it and don't buy it on blue-ray or anything because it really won't help. Stick to the Memphis Belle, a film made 22 years ago which is 22 times better than this pile of filth.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
