Customer Reviews

Company K

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This somber film is an earnest attempt to portray what it really felt like to be a U.S. Marine putting your life on the line in the closing days of the Great War. I would give "Company K" a B- mainly due to the obviously sincere effort by the production staff to create an original work, and not just another slavish Steven Spielberg homage like A&E's "Lost Battalion." This movie stayed true to the spirit of William March's novel, and the script is delightfully full of 1918 slang like "it's the straight dope." (Although a Marine would never say he's in "the army," as several do in the film!)

Unfortunately, it's quite obvious that the "jack" (money) wasn't plentiful: most of the actors look and sound like they were recruited from a community theater production of "South Pacific," and the battle scenes feature a couple dozen extras at the most. As a result, the filmed version of some of March's best scenes--religious imagery on the battlefield and a soldier who continues his narration after he's been killed--are likely to reduce the viewer to embarrassed chuckles. Overall, a fine effort but a missed opportunity: with a larger budget "Company K" could have been a modern classic.

This is a hard film to adjust to as it carries you through the war experence of a person who wrote a book from which this film is taken. Its not the typical story because of the excerps of individual members of Company K. It is slow moving compared to most war films and spends as much time on personel than on battle sequents. It's a moving story that is not for the faint of heart & brings out the worst of men under wars battle conditions. Even though the events took place in World War One, it holds true for our wars now. I would not recommend it to the average war buff because of it's pace and some of the events shown. All in all ,I enjoyed it. Don't expect it to leave you with a good feeling. It was well done and the acting was good with no big names. I was disappointed because there was not more battle footage, but to each his own.

This is one of the great anti-war films, along with All's Quiet On The Western Front and Die Bruecke (The Bridge -- which is still not available on DVD). It has great acting from dozens of actors, without a single star in the cast. This is a powerful and poetic film, with beautiful photography -- many of the screen compositions are worthy of the great masters, Eisenstein, Dreyer, Hitchcock....
Company K consists entirely of vignettes, some of which are very short ... and unforgettable. It is commendably devoid of sentimentality, sensationalism, propagandistic jingoism, and the usual war-movie cliches. Some of the episodes are tragic and shocking: American soldiers are ordered to kill defenceless prisoners of war. A sleep-deprived soldier murders his superior officer. A decent soldier, the narrator, kills a friendly German. A piggish sergeant executes a young soldier -- who was not insubordinate, but simply too frightened to move.
The senseless carnage of World War I. The message of this film, and the novel it is based on, is that these things must never happen again. But they did happen again, and are happening now.

While this movie was obviously made on a budget, it's done remarkably well. The story consists of a series of quick looks at the soldiers in question and thus it's a bit different, but it's very well done. The uniforms and equipment are a lot better than I've seen in most big budget flicks - I suspect they used a lot of WWI reenactors that knew their stuff. HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS ONE!

As the others of this genre of Australian World War I films, I have enoyed it and was extremely impressed by its quality of realism, its message, and the professionalism of all its participants. They seem to have the prowess and knowledge of this subject matter, and have not disappointed its viewers - this one anyway.
My father was a sailor in World War I, and two uncles served in the US Army. So I have a special interest in this genre. I highly recommend it, and the others of its class. Its genre is that of World War I. More specifically, documentaries and/or movies of that conflict. I have purchased and seen most of them: The only ones remaining to see are Passchendaele and Fly Boys. I have concluded that Beneath Hill 60 is the best (or among the best) I have seen in my lifetime.
They all have been purchased from Amazon. Their service and terms have been quite reasonable, fast, professional, and courteous.

That is a quote from the film and might explain the lack of extras in this movie. This film is one I was not sure about as it has attracted such diverse and strong opinions. I am a fan of war films and as such decided to see for myself, and I must say that most of the accusations are sadly, correct. This is a low budget attempt to make a landmark book (same name written by `William March' a pseudonym and published in 1933). I think that is where the film falls down the book is a collection of stories about all the soldiers. And was actually serialised, the film attempts to do this for much of the time. By so doing it has a stop, start feel that acts as a barrier to engaging the audience. As soon as any level of empathy builds up, the story is over and we are asked to engage again with anew character.

His autobiographical self sort of tries to hold the whole thing together, but the constant plot holes and lack of any sort of chemistry is a constant deal breaker. Many have complained about the set, and once again they are right. This is supposed to be 1917 to 18, and by this time the battlefields were a mass of mud and detritus. This seems to have been filmed in semi pristine conditions, with only a nod at realism with a fake looking skeleton, half buried in the soil (not mud). The special effects are neither special nor effective and what `action' there is passes quickly and is done in an unconvincing fashion.

**Bit of a plot spoiler coming up**. There is also a couple of very weird scenes, including a `Jesus' type appearance and a conversation with a ghost of a German he bayoneted to death, I know Mr March had a nervous breakdown and so his ghosts were probably very real. However, and this is a big however, if the film makers wanted to express this side of war, then the film should have done more about it and not been posited as a war film per se.

It is shot in colour with some monochrome scenes and original WW I footage, but if I were to attribute a real colour to this film, it would be grey. There is also some German and French dialogue, but no sub titles, but it is all basic stuff so I was fine with that, but it annoys some people. As others have said there are much better WW I films like `Beneath Hill 60' or `The Lost Battalion', or you could actually read the original book.

For some reason I have developed an interest in WW1 and have started a collection. If you have an interest in WW1 this movie will give you an idea what trench warfare must of been like.

This movie fails on every level.

First, because of the low budget they were unable to hire enough extras, build/rent enough period military equipment and, most importantly, recreate WWI battlefield scenes with even a modicum of realism. The trenches are too clean and too obviously fresh to be authentic. You don't see any of the litter or wear and tear you see in any frontline position after it has been occupied for even a few days.

Second, the acting is terrible, like they hired a bunch of guys from a community theater. The reaction of the young, Ivy League-educated officer to the deaths of his men caused by a stupid order on his part was one of the more egregious bad acting moments. And there weren't any good ones.

Third, much of what happens is unrealistic. The company portrayed in this film is the most incompetent bunch I've ever seen on film. A scene in which two guys are walking through the German-infested woods just chatting away left me dumbfounded (at least they had their rifles at the ready). There are many other such incidents in the film where you see inadvertent examples of incompetence (i.e., the director did not realize he was crafting a scene in which the actors are doing things that either simply would not have happened or, if they did, would have been so far outside the norm that it would require some explanation). You have to wonder if ANYONE connected with making this film had ever served in the military.

Fourth, and most damaging, the movie gets many basic details wrong. The highest ranking sergeant in the company, who would probably be at least a gunnery sergeant, is only a sergeant (i.e., three stripes/chevrons) and is grossly overweight for a WWI-era senior Marine NCO. (Perhaps due to a rapid expansion of the USMC with the onset of war? We don't know and it isn't explained.) The Marines at several points refer to themselves as soldiers, which no Marine would ever do.

And finally, in one of the most important scenes of the movie, a letter to a fallen Marine's family telling the truth about his death is thrown into the fire but we see on the letterhead "United States Army." Now how do you get that wrong? These kinds of basic and easily avoidable mistakes destroyed the movie's credibility.

If you are anti-war and on the left side of the political spectrum at least this movie shares your ideology but it's no Platoon or All Quiet on the Western Front. Compare Company K to Band of Brothers, which has a roughly similar format, and you can see what Company K could have been if it had been in competent hands.

I really enjoyed this book. I have wanted it for some time and was finally able to buy because the seller was selling this item for a great price. Thank you.

First off, if you cannot tell, it's a very low budget film. Now don't get me wrong, there are low-budget gems out there like "Saints and Soldiers", which was made for less then 2 million and was actually a rather enjoyable film. This film however is not only loaded with poor acting, but many other shortfalls. The uniforms are not correct by anymeans, there is NO mud at all, the trenches look like they were literally made that morning and would fall in on themselves with a strong breeze. Lets not forget that the uniforms were always kept spotless during the film as if the director couldn't afford to dryclean them or he rented them and the weather was ALWAYS sunny!

I do NOT recommend this movie on ANY level. If you're interested in the story then buy the book written by the soldier who wrote it... not some half-assed interpretation by this director. If I could return this DVD I would!

PASSCHENDAELE and/or All Quiet on the Western Front are both miles above this film for a WWI flick...