I felt the need to create an account on IMDb specifically to review this movie. From reading other rave reviews, they suggested it might be on par with other well-known war films.

I don't have anything against indie filmmaking, but this movie was ABYSMAL. Was I watching the same film as the other reviewers? Because the only redeeming feature was the fact that they managed to dig up some decent WW2 replica gear. However, let this be a lesson that props do not a war film make! By all means, rough cinematography and simple backgrounds can be easily overlooked so long as the story, dialogue, and acting are strong. However, all these supporting bases for the film are dramatically lacking! The storyline is painfully weak and predictable and steals countless suggestions from Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan. The dialogue is absolutely atrocious, and I'd recommend against using the phrase "hot chow" several times in a 90 minute movie.

The cinematography is clichéd and looks definitively amateur, not helped by the odd scene of red kool-aid being spat out by actor trying to die convincingly (Not to mention that most battles take place with the opposing sides 5 yards apart).

Regrettably I found Paul Wendell to be the WEAKEST actor out of all the leads' poor performances, (although the odd supporting character does carry off a decent line) and the undoubtedly dismal acting was not helped by the clichéd, cheesy and altogether unconvincing dialogue.

In between the scenes that are abruptly and inappropriately transitioned at about a grade 10 student's editing level, you will repeatedly find some charming fiddle music reminiscent of a slow evening at the Celtic pub. It shows up at odd times and leaves the viewer baffled as to whether he is supposed to feel sad or hopeful. An extremely ill-done attempt to force emotion into a dead horse of a film.

I appreciate that someone was passionate about making this work, but no-one aside from the actors' moms could possibly find any aspect of this film plausible or even acceptably executed. I'm not one to exaggerate, but minus the weak special effects and war gear, this could pass for little better than a film student's final project.

I caught this last week at the St. Louis Filmmakers Showcase and was literally blown away that this type of film could be accomplished outside of Hollywood.

To be completely honest, I am not that big of a war film buff (that's more my husband) but I was truly impressed by this endeavor.

Chris Grega's direction was solid in telling the story of a hard lucked mine platoon in WWII Germany. The acting was top notch, especially by the three main characters, Derek Simmons, R. Travis Estes and Paul Wendell. Wendell's character, the brutal Sgt. Bowen, was the one that really stood out for me. His acting was stellar who, like Grega, seems destined for bigger and better things. The whole cast played well and really made me a believe that they were going through hell.

But Grega really deserves recognition here. During the Q&A session after the showing, he disclosed how he was able to put it all together. I won't go into the details but I was shocked at how ambitious this project was. I only hope that "Rhineland" gets out to the general public and gets seen.

Just a great film that did an excellent job at portraying the misery and confusion of war.

(may contain spoilers)

This review is prejudiced, and gladly so. After reading, I hope the reader will understand why.

For one day, January 6, 2007, a visit to a filming location proved that what one could imagine, one could do.

Make a film in Missouri taking place in Europe during the closing months of World War II. It was happening right in front of this writer's eyes. And what a revelation. And filming had been going on since 2005.

There's history to back up why such a head-turning location made sense. One need only look at a map and scrape just the surface of history to find a huge German culture alive along the banks of the Missouri River forty miles upstream from its confluence with the mighty Mississippi just north of downtown St. Louis.

Go West, so to speak, and one can see Europe.

19th century German settlers saw this land so reminiscent of their old one, they adopted it as a home. With the river and her bluffs and her flood plain, the Missouri River was the Rhine of America. And on both the Mo's banks, German culture in places such as Hermann, Missouri flourished, most notably for grape-growing and winemaking.

If the early German settlers recognized the land as like their home in the Old World, it didn't take much more for writer and director Chris Grega to spot a landscape in the New World close by his Missouri home ripe for use as the location for filming his latest movie, "Rhineland". The premiere was the culmination of a two year endeavor portraying a brief period of the life, and the death, in a mine platoon of American GIs in the closing months of battle in the European Theater of Operations, circa March 1945. In a place known as Rhineland.

Think of how quickly a month and a half goes by in life now and remember that it would only be that long before the war in Europe would finally be over for the soldiers in the ETO. All soldiers then were short-timers.

Think of that. Then watch the movie.

Gutsy endeavor. Gutsy all around.

I had great expectations for this film given the "rave" reviews. Looking closer I noticed the "source" of those reviews. My bad.

For starters, I love indie films and can appreciate the efforts made with limited budgets etc, but this film had me wincing with the very first spew of horrible dialogue and atrocious acting right to the very end. At times I couldn't believe I was still sitting there...watching this brutal train-wreck unfold before my very eyes. Did the director gather up his 'no experience pals' from his neighbourhood? It appears so. It was truly a great chore to watch to the end. I guess what kept me watching was only to see just how bad it could get. The acting was absolutely abysmal, I use abysmal because if I typed how I really felt this review would not be posted.

Sgt "Wendell" must have undoubtedly gotten his acting lessons and slid into character from watching the horrible 'Rambo' films. Lowering ones voice and furrowing your brow do not make a convincing character what-so-ever. It was beyond laughable, as were most if not all characters in every last scene. Was the budget so low that every scene only got one take? Clearly one take was "good enough" to move on to the next. Every opportunity to make it count was missed. Every actor offered little to no emotion,(or if there was any it was beyond hollow) in any character interaction. Character development was so lacking there was no possibility for the viewer to "connect" with anyone. How unfortunate. I found myself constantly shaking my head, mouth agape, not because of the brutality of war, but because of the endless laughable scenes. Pure wincing frustrating comedy.

Many battles took place which were pitched only a few yards apart. It was like watching a cheesy blaster battle in a Starwars film. Any possibility of adding military tactics flew right out the window from the very first encounter. If someone did die, spitting up fruit punch as blood was far from convincing.

Many scenes were "borrowed" from other great films and were once again utterly butchered with terrible, emotionless dialogue and acting. Why copy a scene that has already been done so well in other films? An instant set up for failure. And fail they did. As it was with every scene that has been done before, or not, it failed. Again, one 'take' was seemingly good enough.

It was utterly, highly predictable and poorly executed throughout. Scenes that ended abruptly with no segue. Fiddle music? that just didn't fit the scene or the period. I suppose it was a very weak attempt to add some kind of emotion to already lifeless scenes. My wife and I made a game of guessing the outcome of main characters with much success right up to the very end. I can overlook the weak special effects, and throwing few period pieces of equipment was a nice touch, but this is not enough to carry a film all by itself. Someone seemed to forget this along the way. I can think of no other war film that rivals "Rhineland" for absurdity.

Again I can appreciate the efforts made by this indie 'team' but I find it an extreme, grave insult to the countless brave men on both sides, who laid down their lives and for their accomplishments to be portrayed so poorly and with such ineptitude by such awful direction, abysmal actors and p-poor dialogue". If you cant do it justice on ANY level then you shouldn't do it at all. And to all the budding young directors out there take note....this is a prime example of how NOT to shoot a "war" movie. I would be ashamed to put my name on this. Yeeesh.

Let me start by saying this film is worth a watch!

I felt compelled to right a review to counter the unfairly negative ones. This film has obviously been done on a shoe string budget however the battle sequences I found to be very engaging and incredibly realistic. Far better than an awful lot that I've seen that have had huge budgets!

Moreover the sense of confusion and boredom that is portrayed (perhaps accidentally at times) really adds to the realism, as does the 'shaky' cam. War is boring most of the time and it's certainly confusing.

All in all this is a very low budget production and it shows, but at times I found it staggeringly realistic and brilliantly composed, the costume and equipment is spot on and I found the gritty unromantic portrayal of war to be a breath of fresh air.

The battle for the area known as the Rhineland in World War II deserves a film to be made about it, but this isn't it. Now look, I am all for small independent films being made. It seems every week there is another World War II movie that's been made by a little company or a Foreign Film that got a distributor and you know some of these films are really good, and some of them are average and some of them are packaged up too look like a very professional movie but are in fact a big pile of steaming lunch, unfortunately this movie is the latter. Realising it must have been a labour of love for someone I tried really hard to find something, anything about this utter tripe that was redeemable, but I came with a big fat zero.

The other thing I take issue with is this - People seem to think that putting a tank on the front of the cover of their film somehow makes it look like a bigger production, which it would, if you actually had a tank in your film, which it does not. Sorry, but I take an issue with being lied to and this film sticks it to you right up the rear end when it comes to that.

It's basically about a group of soldiers who were assigned to an Anti-Tank unit but ended up in a mine laying squad, and looking at people lay mines, isn't very interesting which is what they spend the first bit of the movie doing. They spend the rest of it talking in tents and shouting when under fire, you won't remember a single line of what they say, because all of it is so unmemorable that all you want to do is forget you watched this movie. Added to this all the characters in the movie are basically one dimensional men in khaki and at first your trying to remember them, then after 15 minutes you really don't care. While attempting to follow what little story there is someone then goes and distracts you with some god awful acting that makes you loose total focus in the story. Consequently we really don't care about any of these men. The script, such as it is, reads like someone just watched Saving Private Ryan and a couple of other war movies and mixed a few lines up. Such classics as 'You'd better get your sh-t together...' and 'He's dead goddammit!' are included for free for your viewing pleasure. There's lots of talk of flanks and suppressing bunkers, which isn't really a proper bunker, as they couldn't afford to build one, it's an MG Nest in a hut with a camouflage net over it. - which just doesn't make for very thrilling viewing. The camera work seems to have been shot by three different DOP's, perhaps as a result of filming over two years as someone else stated, the culmination of which is a really shoddy and inconsistent mix. Someone obviously watched Band of Brothers and thought that moving the camera around a lot was a good idea, which it maybe, if you have the skill and talent of Band of Brothers behind you.

It has all the appearance of a group of guys who do some WW2 re- in-acting and thought it might be fun to get together and make a movie and for them it was probably fun, considerably more so than it was to actually watch this. Most re-in-actors are not actors, that's why they don't act in films and do leading roles. The acting is, well, terrible to be honest. Some of the supporting actors are okay, but the leading guys are really pitiful, but it's as much down to the bad direction, so you can't completely blame them.

One of the biggest problems with Rhineland, is that it doesn't look like the Rhineland, I know, I was there last week visiting the actual battlefields. The tone of the film, which is almost entirely green makes the look of the movie flat and characterless, I'm not sure what format they shot it on, but it might as well have been SVHS. Some shots make the film look like its set in the summer, while others are in winter, is this February 1945, or December 1944? Sometimes there is snow, then there is no snow, then there is snow again.... but the movie might take place over a few days or a few months... but really by then I couldn't be bothered to work it out. While the film makers had some access to nice kit that doesn't make for a good film and its wasted here.

My copy had some real sound issues to, maybe their on the actual film, I'm not sure, even the titles at the beginning fade up then down, then up again at the start (Who edited this?) There could have been a good little film here, if someone had sat down and said, okay how can we make this interesting? But it looks like no one really gave it much thought beyond finding an excuse for a few skirmishes that could have been shot, well in a wood anywhere really. If your idea of a movie is watching someones home video of some re- in-actors fighting World War 2 in the woods with some awful dialogue between scenes that is almost laughable then this film might be for you. The soundtrack seems really out of place too, and more suited to an American Civil War movie. The last 90 or so minutes of my life was pretty painful, this movie can at least take credit for that. My copy will be finding its way to a charity shop near you soon. Not even worthy of staying in my collection.

Rhineland was all about wood.

Even if the script wasn't wooden the Actors were. While you watch this Movie you think, at first, that it is a magnificent attempt at realism; you watch the explosions and hear the pistol crack sounds of gunfire. Lets face it we all thought "Saving Private Ryan" was realistic because Steven Spielberg said it was. You imagine this might be what real war is all about.; the sheer confusion and apparent unfairness/dullness of it all. Even with the fake pale pink blood that looks like an obvious budgetary control, you could have rode with the platoon. You could have fought with them. Sooner or later though the dialogue will get to you. It will hit you like the most real of bullets. You will want to hide behind a tree to avoid it. You will not escape it's effect. Were the actors told how to deliver their lines because it had to be contrived? The film goes it's full circle toward the finale and you can't help but think how come there's so much wood?