Product Details

• Actors: Jon Osbeck, Joe Lorenzo, Daniel Alan Kiely, C. Alec Rossel, Brandy Seymour
• Directors: Peter John Ross, John Whitney
• Format: Color, DVD, NTSC
• Language: English, Spanish
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: Unrated
• Studio: Maverick Entertainment
• DVD Release Date: November 6, 2007
• Run Time: 92 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (14 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B000UTOKKM
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #194,197 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• For more information about "Horrors of War" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Editorial Reviews

HORRORS OF WAR - DVD Movie

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

14 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars THE HORRORS OF THIS MOVIE (watching it that is), November 11, 2007

By 

Boris Lugosi (Hickory, NC) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Horrors of War (DVD)

Don't be fooled by the other reviews of this film posted here. This movie is just plain TERRIBLE! Super boring. Stupid script. Lot's of terrible stuff in this one. The very sparcely used CG war effects are decent but you can see better on the History channel for free. The dvd cover art is very misleading as well. This is a VERY small story, not the horror epic the cover art conveys. AVOID!

13 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Absolutely Horrible Movie, Bad Acting, Lame Story, November 15, 2007

By 

Joe Blow (California) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Horrors of War (DVD)

I rented this and feel like a sucker. I can't imagine someone actually buying this. Avoid the good reviews as they were no doubt created by anyone of the people listed in the "credits" of this movie. One can at least find some unintentional comedy in poor "B" movies, but that's not even there. The story is flat and boring all the way through.

About the only thing they did invest in with this movie was artwork for the DVD cover. Don't be fooled.

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Nazi zombies, how I love thee., December 6, 2008

By 

Robert P. Beveridge "xterminal" (Lakewood, OH) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Horrors of War (DVD)

Horrors of War (Peter John Ross and John Whitney, 2006)

As strange as it may seen, the Nazi Zombie subgenre of horror movies has been around since World War II. Aside from a brief surge of popularity in the late seventies, there haven't been a great many Nazi zombie flicks, but even so, there are certain conventions that all of them save the very first few have honored. I'm not sure whether Ross and Whitney were aware of these when they made Horrors of War, because none of them are here. That alone makes this worth checking out; where most other Nazi zombie movies are generally predictable (though I rush to add this makes them no less fun to watch, in the main), there's a lot about Horrors of War that doesn't fit the mold, and that's always a good thing. On the other hand, this is very much a microbudget film, and it shows in many respects.

Plot: Towards the end of World War II, when things are starting to look bad for the Axis, the Third Reich stumble upon a new weapon--undead soldiers, impervious to pain, able to shrug off bullets. By coincidence (or perhaps not, only OSS knows for sure), Lt. John Schmidt (Jon Osbeck of the upcoming Eternal) finds himself facing these beasts on mission after mission. Finally, OSS sends him, along with a small, hand-picked team, behind enemy lines to find the source of the beasts and destroy it--for Schmidt has a secret weapon of his own...

I've seen a number of people complain about the pace of the movie, which is glacial for the first half. I have no problem with that sort of thing as long as it involves getting to know the characters, which it does, and actually giving us characters that aren't cardboard cutouts, which it also does. Score two for the good guys. The drawback is the acting, which ranges from competent to awful, sometimes with the same character. The other big problem is something of a spoiler, so I can't get into it here, but I just trashed a very famous novel for exactly the same thing, if you follow my reviews.

If you put aside those two things, though, there's a lot to like here. The storyline gets disjointed at times--one assumes a great deal of this was left on the cutting-room floor--but what there is is intriguing. (That said, a warning: the ending will drive you up the wall. I assume it was done that way with an eye toward a sequel.) And if you separate the characters from the actors playing them, there's enough development in the main characters for us to at least partially empathize with them. Minor characters tend to get less of that, but then this is a war movie, and thus many of the minor characters are walking around with EXPENDABLE tattooed on their foreheads from the first time we see them. I expect this in a war movie, so it didn't bother me. And, of course, there's the fact that this is a Nazi zombie movie that actually goes its own way. Either the writers and directors (yes, there was more than one of each) had never seen Shock Waves, the 1977 film that seemed to define the genre for all the movies that came after it, or did see it and made a conscious decision to do everything they could to make a movie that didn't resemble it in any way, shape, or form. In either case, I consider it a success from that standpoint.

There are a thousand things that could have been done to improve this movie, had it had a bigger budget, and I can infer from reading some of the crew comments at IMDB.com they are fully aware of this, but are unapologetic. You've got to admire the cojones on a crew that dreams big and refuses to let a little thing like lack of money stop them from doing their best to realize those dreams. No, this ain't Saving Private Ryan or (thankfully) Pearl Harbor, and it shouldn't be compared to movies of that ilk. For what it is, it's not a bad little movie at all. ** ½