Steel Tempest (Video 2000) Poster

(2000 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Great this isn't
minty136411 June 2015
Sorry, but I am a film and history buff (particularly WWII) and I can tell you this film is up and down. On the up side, there is a story and all the equipment is authentic, but there are many missing things. I was surprised at the end as it said the Ardennes offensive. Really? It looked like Spring (even summer) not the middle of winter. Then everything was dragged out and spiralled downwards. Attempts at action was low-budget and if you don't mind that, then you will enjoy the film, but if you want a great war film, this is not one of them.

Don't believe me? Check out the ratings. Better yet, watch the film and judge for yourself.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Remake of Battle of the Bulge?
malcolmgsw28 May 2021
Only without the stars.the big budget,the 70mmSuper Panavision camera and stereo sound. The makers of this film use the same plot point about finding fuel and ammunition. This film is painfully low budget,badly acted and scripted.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
this could be a classic in 20 years time.....
super_trowel19 January 2017
just as 'plan 9 from outer space' is!

the plot is based on the battle of the bulge. the script is dire...'we need more ammo' blah blah is repeated endlessly. the 'actors' all seem to have retired after making this crap. bob carruthers has obviously got all the gear and props right, pity someone didn't splash out for some blanks for the guns as men pointing rifles without a puff of smoke or recoil is pathetic. its easy for me to say this is the worst ww2 film I've ever seen.

this is just a 'ooh look at all this ww2 equipment we have...lets make a feature film with it'

the film ends pretty abruptly with one of the most laughable banzai heil Hitler suicide charges...well i say charge, more like nearly a footstep!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It Works, Amazingly!
jkw-ns7 July 2017
Well, I've never laughed so much for a long time. This side splitting romp had me laughing fit to burst! What? It's not supposed to be a comedy? Bad computer generated explosions, dodgy approximated rank insignia and a Knight's Cross that's awarded to our hero complete with Velcro backing (yes, just watch when Braun's CO 'sticks' it to his neck) make for a sub standard effort, even by amateur standards. The extras are obviously just jerking their MP40's and Sturmgewehr 44's when they 'fire' and the whole story takes part on an M.O.D. training site in Hampshire and at Neidpath Castle near Peebles in Scotland, which is supposed to be a Belgian château but betrays it's unmistakable 'Reiver' architecture.

Despite all the faults this film is remarkably entertaining. One can't wait for the next gaffe, the next instance of bad acting. I like it, but not because it's a good film. It's a bad film only surpassed by Cromwell Films 'The Bruce', a failure on a greater scale with a bigger budget.

I hope Braun reached the toilet in time before he received his Knight's Cross. Just watch the minute or so before that scene!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This Dull Steel Needs to be Tempered
eliasmakaraig6 April 2023
In a film that boasts its realism, almost everything looks unauthentic. Literally the cover of the VCD copy of this film has a quote: "The most realistic war movie ever made". My question is... in what aspect?

Is it in the weapons, vehicles, uniforms and equipment that although legit doesn't suit the time period of the film? Is it in the effects: badly-made explosions, unrealistic smoke and amateurish CGI. Or is it in the mid acting that looks like the cast comes from your local drama club?

Is the realism coming from the mechanism of the rifles that did not recoil in every shot? Or is it from the editing team that abusively overlays a bunch of soldiers to make a crowd?

The only thing that looks real to me is the film's atmosphere, specifically its music. The actual film's music breathes despair which encapsulates the grim fate of the German soldiers. It is further juxtaposed by the jolly music during the black-and-white news reports that desperately clings to propaganda in order to boost the morale of the populace. Well, that is the only realism that the film imbued, at least in my opinion.

So all in all, I still wonder why Steel Tempest shouts "realism" in its front cover. It just sets them up for failure when the audience finally realized that this film is less than authentic compared to majority of low-budget war films out there.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
just a couple more Jabs
wdarrylc19 June 2022
Most of the other reviews hit all the bad stuff so I'll just hit the two that irritated me the most. The Battle of the Bulge was fought in the coldest winter in around 100 years so where is all the snow and ice? The helmets that did not have camo covers are of the painted the pre-war apple or pea green, are poor replicas and most of all the party shield (the one that is red with Swastika) decals were ordered removed in 1940, so they would have long ago been painted over or scratch off. The little details can make or break a mediocre movie and, in this movie, they miss a lot of the little details.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Didn't realise the UN were fighting with the Germans in WWII
bikemat16 May 2018
Worst WWII movie of all time. Crappy CGI, no recoil when rifles or machine guns were firing, absolutely no markings on the tanks or half tracks. OMG, and I didn't know that the UN fought on the side of the Germans in WWII. A lot of the Germans were wearing BLUE SMURF helmets in this abomination. They must have bought them at the German army surplus store on the way to the shoot. Earlier today I watched 1939 The Battle of Westerplatte. That movie was just a C hair above this stinker. Awful, awful movie, so why am I still watching this? I'm a glutton for punishment I guess.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Truly awful. 0/100
packard100026 March 2021
I could write pages how bad this is, I love any war film but this is just dire. No story, awful camera work (good old clips though), dubbing awful, incorrect markings, and uniform save you time watch anything but this.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
At least they tried......
fwpahlke21 February 2019
Everyone involved in this stinker tried to make it a good film. You can see that even with low production values the movie was not to be a comedy but a serious project. I liked the look of the German uniforms yet they were not true to the history of the war. My review on letterboxed, the only one for this film says: The actual look of the Germans in this honest effort is ok for a film that is not so good. The film is not a joke and you can tell the producers and all involved were serious in making this not for prime time film. I did not like it much. It is in whole a piece of crap just like my review is. Do not have the flick and saw it on Amazon Prime.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent Independent Film about WW2
lamorak1312 April 2014
I knew nothing about this before viewing and purchased the DVD from an out of print DVD merchant in the USA. The movie takes place on the Western Front in December 1944. An SS unit called the Second Abteilung must take a bridge, move into a city (apparently French)capture supplies, and wait for the panzers to arrive. Although "Ardennes offensive" or "Battle of the Bulge" is never referred to, it is obvious from internal evidence that the film takes place two days before the famous bad weather cleared and the day after it did when Allied aircraft were unleashed full force (that caused the Germans to retreat) Having lived in Britain for six years and participated in a couple of historical recreation groups, I concluded early on that the actors were themselves from a British historical recreation group which I believe from the end titles is called the Second Battle Group. The acting is competent and the group has done amazing things with the resources they had. The flavor of the times is there and the movie focuses on small unit actions at platoon strength down to squad level. There is no encumbering love interest here. Just men and war. The crew has done a great job on details that will please war enthusiasts and it does convey a certain degree of realism in small unit actions. This is not "Where Eagles Dare," but a competent independent film that clocked in, I believe, at about 70 minutes. Filmed in Scotland and on military training grounds in Hampshire.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not bad for a low budget film.
Brucey_D19 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It is late on in WWII in the Ardennes and a small group of German soldiers must take and then defend a vital bridge, against overwhelming odds, and without adequate supplies.

I was idly half-watching this (on 'Movies4Men' channel, UK) and I suddenly realised that I recognised the locations somehow. It seems that the HQ sequences were filmed at Neldpath Castle, Scotland and the battle sequences were filmed at Longmoor Camp, Hampshire.

Longmoor camp has what is known as a 'FIBUA' (Fighting In Built-Up Areas) training village. This location (which includes a short length of railway line, presumably a remnant of the long-defunct Longmoor military railway, as seen in 'The Great St Trinians Train Robbery') was used for several purposes, being both where the soldiers prepare for action, and then a little later (confusingly for the viewer) find themselves fighting in.

The bridge itself is an authentic military bridge such as might be used as a replacement for one that has been blown up. It might not be period correct, but the thing that made me chuckle was that this 'vital artery' clearly hadn't had much traffic over it and furthermore it was bridging not a major river, but something that looked more like a small muddy puddle.

The battle sequences were apparently shot in the course of a single weekend, with the help of a re-enactment society called the 'second battle group'. They all had an enjoyable weekend, thought that various aspects of the film-making process were ridiculous, and put up with wearing plastic German helmets as best they could. The helmets don't really show up as plastic, but once you know....

The film was heavily dubbed and edited; there are many CGI'd special effects, including explosions, flames, aircraft, extra people etc. As you might expect, at this budget, the CGI'd bits do show.... The soundtrack is mostly OK but several of the main characters were dubbed by voice actors, in such a way as it was slightly distracting; the voices didn't match the actors very well and even though they are saying the same words, the sync isn't very good. I at first wondered if the actors were English-speaking or not, and was surprised to find they were.

The plot is somewhat thin, and doesn't really grab your attention. However the film is interspersed with 'fake propaganda newsreels' as shot by a small film crew who are attached (with some animosity) to the fighting unit. These newsreels turn every defeat into a victory, and cowards into heroes for propaganda purposes, being as the first casualty in war is the truth.

These newsreels mix real archive footage with regraded footage of the actors in the film. I thought these were well done, apart from the fact that the headers were all in English; I think that it would have been far more authentic-looking to have done them all in German and then to have subtitled them.

Mind you, that would have left twice the scope for spelling mistakes; as it is, they managed to spell Longmoor as 'Longmore' in the credits, so goodness knows what could have happened there...

Most films require 'suspension of disbelief'; this one a lot more than most. It didn't stop me from deriving some interest from watching it, though perhaps not for the intended reasons.

Considering this film was made with incredibly limited resources, I think it is OK. I give it six out of ten, but that is allowing for the budget and the fact that I have an interest in some of the locations. I can quite understand how others might give it a lower score.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed