Fortress (2012)

Can't understand why this attempt at a serious subject received any attention at all. It was just silly! If you really want to get some idea what it was like in WWII in B-17's don't waste your time on this clichéd CGI cartoon. Watch "Twelve O'clock High", then watch "Fortress" if you must, then write your review. The CGI was good for a video game, distracting for a movie. The acting was typical for today, OK but over acted mostly. B-17's don't do loops. Other reviews have covered all of the goofs but I can't let this one go by, the enemy did not put up flack while their fighters were attacking! This crew had more unbelievable situations then 100 crews had on all their missions, and still survived. I had to watch two episodes of Charley's Angles just to come back to reality.

I bought the 3d Blu Ray of this movie here in Brazil at a big retailer. What a pleasant surprise! This very low budget war flick is indeed a labor of love: - cool history, - decent dialog, -very classic battle scenes and - surprisingly well made all around. I am very happy with this one. It could be made into a series or something. The cast of unknowns is solid, some good performances here and there and above average at least. Music is also well made and enjoyable, which is important in a war movie. The plane itself is decent and well built enough to keep us in the movie. Very decent effort, and it cost like 7 dollars here in Brazil (the blur-ray, that is), so it was a nice bargain!

All right, fellas, listen up. Sit down. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Today's mission maybe looks like a milk run to you. All that we need to do is have a CGI pageant. But I'm afraid most of you won't make it back.The computer-generated images are just plain splendid. Dozens of colorful and detailed B-17Fs fill the blazing blue sky. The crew are flying out of Algiers and their targets are in Italy. The film opens with a hazardous run in which the bombers are attacked by zipping Me-109s and casualties are incurred. It ends with another mission over Rome itself and the results are catastrophic.I don't know why it doesn't hang together but frankly the CGIs are about the only thing the production has going for it, and even those could be improved on. Not the images themselves; they're crisp. But the way they're used by the director. Whoever decided that the airplane on the screen must fly at high speed, nose first into the camera? How did this become a tradition? With "Pearl Harbor"? It's so jarring and distracting that it's passed far beyond its sell-by date.Another problem, and a serious one, is the acting. The performers seem drawn from some obscure afternoon TV series. It's difficult to tell one from another. Bug Hall is noticeable because he has a peachy role -- the newcomer who must be integrated into the crew. (Cf., Hawks' "Air Force".) Chris Owen, the chief engineer and master brewer, stands out because he looks like a slightly malformed Benedict Cumberbatch. The musical score of Gaelic-sounding melodies is lifted from "Memphis Belle" and "We Were Soldiers."Almost all the actors sound as if they were raised in Los Angeles or its indistinguishable suburbs. I realize they weren't but, as much as we don't need another re-run of the crew of "The Memphis Belle," NOBODY HAS AN ACCENT. Of course fewer people have regional accents now. We're all beginning to speak Network English. But in 1943, regional dialects could pin you down to a single city, and in some cases a few blocks in that city. But neither the writer nor anyone else appears to have spent much effort on the speech or the dialog. Anachronistic expressions include, "Roger that," and "I need you to (do something)." The usual clichés are used, elements drawn from every combat film.. New co-pilot to pilot: "Do you ever feel you're living on borrowed time?" Pilot: "Every second of every day." Eg., "Flying Leathernecks." Young pilot to John Wayne: "Don't tell me YOU'RE scared too!" Wayne: "Every time I go up." "The flak is so heavy you can walk on it." (Twice.) "I'm not in a popularity contest." The writers missed a few rituals -- "mail call" and the romantic triangle. But they did manage to squeeze in the part about the crew building a still and making jungle juice. In fact, when these guys aren't flying, they drink enough booze to stun an elephant and the next day they fly as if nothing had happened.See it if you want, but I have a feeling that once you're into it you'll realize you've seen most of it before in one isomorphism or another.

I will always give a positive to any movie that attempts to show the horror, the bravery and the honor of soldiers on all side in any war. This one is unique in that it tells a story of a geographical area that is seldom seen. I don't care about the actors names as they only read the screenplay and follows the directors direction. That being said........This movie was released last year but the CGI has the quality of video games of the early 90's. In other words....dated and cartoonish. As another reviewer wrote "How some people can say the CGI is any good I really don't know. If you look at some of the outdoor scenes where the background has been mocked up it's really funny, look at the extras, you can tell they feel uncomfortable being there staring at the "green wall" in front of them, I'm sure you can even see their shadows against it at some points. Some extras in one scene (a mild party scene) even look at the camera! As for everything else: The planes look crap, the explosions are crap, the tracer fire is crap, the flak looks crap. Some damage on the plane doesn't look too bad in all fairness but is totally unreasonable. Way too much gore to try and drive it all home too, if they'd of made a half decent film in the first place they wouldn't of had to worry about litres of fake, pink blood to try and make up for it." Unfortunately I have to agree and add that, while an important story, the screenplay is sub par as is the direction. It was obviously a lower budget film and lack hardly any wide angle shots. All shots seem to be of small groups or individuals talking face to face with no depth of field or scenery. Looks like it was filmed entirely on a sound stage or in the CGI lab. That doesn't make for realism in a movie set in the expanse of the desert and the sky.While the young actors bring to life just how young these soldiers and airmen were, the "pretty boy" hair styles are completely out of place and time. Also the sparkling clean uniforms, undershirts and faces make the camp look like a frat house instead of a remote, desert air base where temperatures were 120 during the day and 40 degrees at night. And yet, nobody sweats! Or there is some gratuitous arm pit wetness occasionally seen but the pits are wet but the faces are dry.Again an entirely poor effort to tell what could have been an interesting story. Too bad! To bad as