The greatest movie ever made..!

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

What drew me into seeing 'War Pigs' in the first place? The reasonably likeable cast on paper, a premise that had potential to work, that it was part of a genre that has had a fair share of great films and that it was another film that popped up in my recommended for you section. Was also a bit apprehensive, with a less than favourable rating and generally reviews that were lukewarm at best and most being very negative.Really do try to not heavily reliant on critical opinion and always make an effort to be open-minded and think for myself. Have been known to go against general consensus, finding praised films not that good (while not considering them necessarily bad films) or panned films that bad, though generally we're on the same page. Which is the case for 'War Pigs'. Wanted to like it but when watching it it was very difficult to find anything about it. Basically it was a mess all round.Only one thing is not done amateurishly, and that is the photography that has numerous moments where it ranges from okay to quite good. It is a shame that it was hard to appreciate it properly with such drab lighting, sloppy editing, afterthought-like effects and inaccurate costumes and attention to detail that shows a complete lack of research.The acting is also poor, with Luke Goss faring the least badly. Dolph Lundgren can be watchable but he looks tired and goes through the motion. On the other side of the acting spectrum, the film manages to get the worst out of a very hammy Mickey Rourke. Their clichéd characters that are either bland, annoying or both with behaviours that are irritating or illogical do them no favours.Likewise, they can't do anything with such a flabby, stilted and far too talk-heavy script. The story doesn't compel at all and has no tension, suspense or excitement whatsoever, emotion and urgency is non-existent also. The action scenes are too few, are poorly choreographed and filmed and have nothing to them. The direction shows no competence and the sound is often far too loud.Summing up, terrible. 1/10 Bethany Cox

WAR PIGS is a typical low rent WW2-themed B-movie; this genre is never very interesting and this film is no exception. A bunch of green American troops head into occupied France to battle the Nazis during the D-Day invasion, but the only action here is set in one or two countryside locations. Mickey Rourke is prominently billed but only has a small cameo, while Dolph Lundgren struggles with his French accent throughout. Luke Goss is underutilised as the dashing hero and it's left to a bunch of uninteresting youngsters to take the lead. There are a few shoot-outs and some scenes of torture but this is generally a dud, lacking in suspense, thrills, or excitement.

Spoiler Alert. This was a poor movie. The plot device of a mission being necessary to take out a super long range, German artillery piece (The "V3") sitting out in the open, in broad daylight, apparently totally immobile, and with the allies having 95% air supremacy in France at that time of the war, is absurd. Btw, Germany fielded such a cannon called "The Paris Gun" 25 years before in WWI. So, the concept was not new, secret or that dramatically effective - especially when compared to German rockets (V1) and missiles (V2) and jet fighter planes available at the time.Besides the WWI Paris gun idea (range about 75 mi.), this is also a take-off on the WWII-era rail guns the Germans used with some effect near Leningrad (more of a giant 600mm and 800mm siege mortars) and Sevastopol ('42), and at certain Belgian fortresses in 1940. They also had a giant gun named "Anzio Annie" that bombarded allied forces in Anzio, Italy region. All these guns had one thing in common: they were used while mounted on giant rail cars to allow them to withdraw into mountain-embedded rail tunnels when not firing, so as to be somewhat protected from allied air supremacy. (Though this wasn't a factor early in Russia since Germans had air control.) Such guns are marginally effective due to the need to be able to see where the shots were landing, unless, in case of Paris gun or Leningrad siege, the target area was general and broad. Even then, the amount of steel used in making these guns (250 ((or five Tiger tanks)), tons for Paris gun to deliver a relatively small shell, or 1,300 tons ((three U-boats)) for the massive rail siege mortars Karl, Dora), made a good argument for them being extravagant, grandiose and wasteful.It was never clear why this rag tag squad was chosen. I always really like Lundgren but he is about 57 in this movie (though his fitness level is amazing). He is even passable as an actor, though not as the co-star. Officers in French Foreign Legion, btw, wear dark Kepi (or on combat mission, a helmet), not white as do lower grade legionnaires.Rourke's depiction of a sloppy, long-haired, cowboy hat-wearing, toothpick chewing colonel in 1944 (or at any time in our history) is preposterous and it makes you wonder if he didn't just take charge of his character and, knowing movie desperate for any kind of name actor, said he was going to do this his way (just a guess). The Oddball comparison is not so good since Oddball was a low-grade Sgt, while Rourke plays a "colonel." Are we to believe that this at least battalion commander (or even regimental commander, if he's a full bird colonel) is traveling to division for briefings and what not, in full view of one and two-star generals looking like that? The squad itself is utterly forgettable. I have already forgotten them from 45 minutes ago.The best part of the movie, besides seeing that good old Dolph is looking good and challenging us older guys to stay in great shape, are the excellent depictions of a couple of pieces of German WWII gear: the Sdkfz 251 half track and the long-barrel variant 50mm Pz.IIIM. Both vehicles looked so good that they could have been real - and may have been.And, oh,... taking out the massive "V3" with one 50mm shot from wounded, amateur tank gunner Dolph is ridiculous. Nuff said. Oops... I forgot the idiotic decision to arm Dolph's character with... a 12 gauge riot gun (!!!) is, like Rourke, another feeble device to make this movie stand out somehow. Without two good vehicles and Dolph looking good, I'd have given this one star instead of two.

This movie was not that great at all. It seemed like it was going to be a great one because of the cast and the preview, but it instead turned out to be a slow paced boring war movie.It was pointless to have big movie star names in this movie such as Dolph Lundgren and Mickey Rourke. With both of their talents, it should have set a higher bar for this movies story line and outcome. Their presence was weighed down by some of the smaller named actors in the movie.For those who are expecting an action packed war movie, then this is not one that will fulfill those entertainment needs.