The Second Front (2005) User Reviews

B-Movie at Very Best

[theblindsniper · 5/10 · 7 July 2006]

The year is 1942, and Nicky Raus, a German Jew of extraordinary intelligence, is subject to a complex plot to steal the plans for a weapon of immense power. An American agent teams up with British agents to protect Raus and his secret weapon from German and Russian forces. Meanwhile, the American falls in love with Raus' girlfriend, a Russian agent and movie star. What fate lies in store for the unfortunate scientist? What fate indeed? From the start, the movie is a tad bit silly, to say the least. What would Nazis want with a Jew, other than to kill him? What is his secret weapon? When will the movie end? Bad acting frequents many movies, with no exception here. However, more distracting are other features of this film: planes that seem too advanced, weapons that seem to change in appearance from frame to frame, cheesy getups, runways in the middle of no-where, people's voices that do not sound properly synched (or voiced over, depending on the case). But if you can ignore such distractions and some acting of no high quality, you may come from the movie entertained. However, don't be mislead by the cover of the DVD--"You can't judge a book by its cover..." Instead of tanks with weapons blasting, bombs exploding, and airplanes strafing, you get spies, small skirmishes, and fisticuffs. I must say I was disappointed when half of the cover art wasn't even in the movie in any way, but after reading the summary on the back, what could I have expected? Also on the negative side, there are no features besides the movie itself, a few trailers, and Spanish subtitles. Maybe some outtakes or interviews would have been appropriate, or maybe the creators and/or actors were ashamed to have partaken in such a film.

I would give it an "A" for effort, but the fallacies or errors in the movie distracted me too much to extract any great entertainment. I might suggest renting the movie for one night if you are bored, but you should NOT buy it, unless you enjoy buying pitiful films. I give it a 5 for effort and because I would feel bad if I were to give it a lower score.

Ridiculous and Unconvincing

[ETO_Buff · 3/10 · 14 February 2006]

The first thing you must do if you want to enjoy this movie is convince yourself that the notion that Nazi Germany would go to any lengths to capture and utilize a Jew for his intelligence is not utterly preposterous. If you are able to convince yourself of that, and you haven't seen movies like Enigma which would allow you to see through the thin plot, then you might enjoy this film. What the film makers failed to understand is basic Nazi ideology and doctrine, which shaped Germany's policies from 1933 to early 1945. Nazi ideology would not permit the belief that a Jew could be more intelligent than Aryan scientists, nor that a Jew could be an asset to the purposes of the Reich. I have to say that I had high hopes for this one when I ran across it at Hollywood Video, but I was thoroughly disappointed.

I wish I had my two hours back

[kale-woods · 4/10 · 15 June 2008]

What a disappointment of a movie. I love a good war movie because of the valor, the bravery, the action, the love of country and dedication to a cause greater than one's self. Unfortunately, this movie was more like a watching military version of "The Great Race" where people are scurrying all over the world for uncertain reasons and competing in disjointed activities. The general story line has potential, but frankly, a group of ten-year old boys playing Army in the backyard could have come up with a more realistic plot and better consistency across scenes.

Another contributor to this board mentioned the lack of special effects, like outtakes or deleted scenes. The absence of those is a blessing to the viewer, in my mind. The scenes that made it to the movie were so tepid and predictable that I can't imagine what those on the cutting room floor must be like.

Save your time and your money. Watch "Band of Brothers", "Saving Private Ryan", or any number of other war movies that employ props and dialog consistent the era, credible story lines, and plots that don't require the viewer to keep telling themselves that the movie will surely be getting better any minute now.

Don't waste your time.

[MBT · 2/10 · 19 January 2006]

I'm struggling to see if there is any justification to having spent the money to rent and watch this. I can't find any unless it's to stop others from falling victim as I did. Be forewarned. I can't believe Ron Perlman has sunk this low. I wish IMDb didn't have the ten line minimum, because now I'm spending even more time trying to warn you, dear reader, not to do what I have done. As I look back on my life, I'll remember with regret the evening I wasted on this film. If, by these words, I can help one person -- just one person -- avoid this experience, I'll earn some atonement and find peace. Perhaps I can convince Blockbuster to return my money or even pay me compensation, but I can't get back my time.

An utterly pointless movie

[pmartin-14 · 2/10 · 7 February 2006]

I am a woman who appreciates war movies. Good war movies, that is. What I consider to be well-made war movie traits are an adherence to fact, correct use of language (e.g., Italian characters speaking in Italian and, bonus points, acted by Italians), a compelling story, and lack of jingoism. Oh yes, and NO "LOVE TRIANGLES" (note to movie makers: not all women need romantic subplots to watch a war movie. I mean, really, a "love triangle?" Millions of people were being slaughtered. Doesn't that fact make any stupid "love triangles" utterly irrelevant? If you really want to attract women, perhaps have war movies that focus on women who made a difference.)

A few war movies that I've appreciated that utilize some or all of these traits are "The Longest Day" (my entrance into war movies), "Band of Brothers," "The Tuskegee Airmen," "Kelly's Heroes" (Donald Sutherland. Priceless.), "Life is Beautiful," and "Breaker Morant." This movie, unfortunately, did not have any of these traits, save for the use of native language. Utterly pointless story and annoying characters. I can even make an argument for blatant false advertising - if you watched the movie, did you see the tanks or spitfires that are depicted on the DVD cover? Yeah, me neither. Although the sea plane was cool....

Save your time. Save your money. There are countless other movies that are much more deserving. "Kagemusha," for example....

This film is absolutely HORRIBLE

[System_Error15 · 1/10 · 4 February 2006]

Rented this one (thank God!). Right from the start I could tell I was in for an extremely dull picture. The opening narration must have used the word It about 10 times. They were so close to IT. IT was almost solved. He had the formula needed to solve IT. etc... Then you see a bunch of fat guys dressed up in trench-coats. Nobody cares that the whole set is consisting of spies obviously up to no good. Consistency is lacking in the film as the main character is wounded and later on in the film there isn't a mark on him where he was shot before. The mouth/sounds do not match up 80% of the time. The aircraft used in the film (a Beriev Be-12 Chaika 'Mail') wasn't even developed during the movies time set (1942) it was created in the 1960's (yet they used it during this film set in 1942? Who did research on this pic?) The plot is confusing and extremely poor in construction. Extremely low budget film. One has to wonder why people even bother wasting money for such disgusting wastes of film, money, time and effort (even though this film had about 0 effort expended on it). The acting is poor and the plane shots are positively dreadful. DO NOT BUY! DO NOT RENT!

Dreadful! Absolutely Dreadful!!!

[gokeefe1 · 1/10 · 11 April 2005]

Nobody involved in this rubbish should ever be allowed to work in the industry again! The plot is ridiculous from the start and so many holes appear in the telling of the story that you have to remind yourself that these people are serious and are not trying to make you laugh. The idea that some of the "actors" were paid for this is the one laughable thing about the movie. The director should be Allan Smithee, as Dmitri Fiks (if that is his real name) should be ashamed for the waste of money he is responsible for. Retire Dmitri, retire! Why oh why are talentless clowns like these people given access to finance to make unredeemable crap like this!

Awful...just awful

[turmoil32 · 1/10 · 20 May 2006]

This movie must be the culmination of every bad WWII movie ever made. It is incredibly inaccurate, unrealistic, and stupid. I practically like the stereotypical German with the monocle, the Russian spy with short, tightly pulled back hair and the American with the tiny mustache and bad haircut. Towards the end of the movie, the American character is holding a Kar 98, in the next scene it changes to a shotgun which he cocks, and then reverts back to a Kar 98. Hilarious. I think any attempt to justify the existence of this movie should be met with rancid tomatoes and other rotten produce. After viewing this movie I feel my IQ has substantially dropped. Please, please, please do not rent, buy, or borrow from a friend (although I question what sort of friend what allow you to view such garbage) this movie. It will be the greatest waste of your time since The Replacement Killers.

Not so terrible!

[lseodessa · 7/10 · 30 January 2006]

I actually quite enjoyed this. It's certainly better than many other films of it's genre.Certainly, it wasn't as bad as many films I have seen recently. While the plot was a little sketchy at times the performances were above average. It was a pleasure to see Todd Field in a non directorial role. I would actually recommend it. It was also good to see Ukraine being used as a film location. Ukraine once had a fine studio in Kiev and in the Crimea and it would be nice to see it resurrected.Dimitry Fiks, the film's director, has since gone on to great success in Russia directing their version of Sex in the City. I wouldn't say race out and buy it but I also wouldn't mind watching it again.

One of the worst movies ever - I agree!

[indigshai-1 · 1/10 · 28 April 2006]

I agree - this has to be one of the worst movies ever. I must admit that the designers of DVD cover work harder than the director to cox us in renting such movies. This was the case for me too. I wish I had read the review before I rented this movie. I agree; even if I'm given the option for free rental - it is still not worth it. The other thing I don't understand the 10 line minimum on the review on of a movie I really don't have much to say about. So I'm just going to keep writing and wasting some lines here. But I'm writing to be heard and to save others to refrain from renting this movie. There are other great independent titles to get!

Do Not Pay Money To See This.

[Lazlow23 · 1/10 · 7 March 2006]

Ron Perlman, your best bet would be to "Alan Smithee" your name in the credits and deny any involvement with this for the rest of your life. This movie was SO INCREDIBLY BAD, it just defies explanation. And it's not "funny bad", like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. No. It is "seriously bad", as in "I just found out my grandmother died in a car wreck" bad. The horrendous acting by the "leading" man (and all the actors - sorry, Ron, you weren't convincing at all), the terrible "plot", the imbecilic love story aspect, the unbelievable gaffs in continuity - I could go on. DO NOT PAY MONEY TO SEE THIS. And if some else has rented this and invited you to watch, believe me: You can find a million better things to do with your time. Like, maybe, watching the grass grow, or finding some paint to watch while it dries.

One of the worst movies ever made

[john_bailey-1 · 1/10 · 31 October 2006]

I didn't know about IMDb until I watched this movie and wanted to know more about it. I will try not to be repetitive and focus on some details others may have also been astounded at. When the American and the girl showed up at the plane, somehow he was just hanging around the plane in broad daylight, when the place was crawling with German guards who must have been trained at the same place the guards in the Holy Grail were trained (remember those idiots- "Unless he has to leave". Then she showed up in a car full of Germans dressed as a nurse (she was a B- movie actress in the film). How did we get from the previous scene to this one, did she sleep with one of the idiot guards "so we just stay here until we have to leave". Then Ron Perlman (evil German) tells the nurse he will kill her when the plane lands. Then he says "damn" later when she exits through an open window in the unguarded first floor room in the château. Somehow the American gets the plane's engine to stop and force land on an airfield that just happens to have the three Russian paratroopers arriving at the same time to ambush the Germans with perfectly coordinated timing, impossible mate. Then the American tells the Russian to shoot him in the forehead "you've never killed a man have you?" The Russian was handpicked for this most important mission, he must have killed hundreds to be in an elite to be considered as one of three for the mission. The American had earlier called them "trained killers" It goes on and on, just wanted to add my five cents.

Pretty bad

[artzau · 4/10 · 6 February 2006]

OK. Who's in this? Craig Sheffer? I'm sorry, but looking though his filmography, I didn't see anything memorable in which I'd seen him perform. The rest of the cast are Internationals and that's certainly forgivable but, the question I raise is why was Ron Perlman in this less than outstanding film? And, as a sadistic Nazi at that? No, sport's fans, it certainly didn't work for me and although I didn't have quite the same reaction as the first reviewer, I was glad I'd rented this one at Blockbuster's (on the night of the Superbowl because I was likely one of the few in Sacramento watching the poor old Seahawks get their lunch) instead of investing the price of a Senior's admission to see it on the wide screen. Very disappointing, Ron. Better stick to Hellboy.

Weak production, stagy acting and far-out plot doom this film about WW II

[SimonJack · 4/10 · 7 November 2021]

"The Second Front" is a Russian-made film about a 1942 attempt by the Nazis to kidnap a German scientist who had fled to England. That part of the plot is just slightly far-fetched, and could have been the fodder for a decent wartime thriller. But in this case, the scientist happens to be Jewish. Germany had many top scientists at work in the war effort, inventing new weapons, etc. And, knowing the vile hatred within the Nazi party of the Jewish people, the idea that they would want to kidnap a Jewish scientist to help them is unbelievable. To the mind of a Nazi, that would be admitting inferiority to a Jew. A more plausible plot might have been one to try to assassinate the Jewish scientist.

So, the preposterous theme of the plot aside, this still might have been a decent thriller of sorts. An interesting thing that I noticed was the unusual aircraft used as the German Red Cross plane. And, the plot of American and Soviet efforts to either kidnap or kill the scientist was a little interesting. This seems to be a post-Soviet era project by Russians to give one example of some coordination and cooperation among the Allied forces in WW II. The Soviet Union was among the Allies fighting Nazi Germany, but the war was barely over when it enclosed most of eastern Europe behind its iron curtain.

As for the acting, at best it is so-so, but there are many instances when it's either wooden or stagy. The production is also quite rudimentary with total breaks between scenes. This is an example on film when research was lacking or ignored about some simple things. For instance, the Russian commando's weapons. They never seem to run out of ammo, and we don't see them carrying any extra. Scenes show Veklich alone (Aleksey Serebryakov) firing what must be about 100 rounds from something like a Tommy gun. Then there is the huge number of German soldiers who supposedly flew on the Red Cross plane. Nowhere before the final battle scene is there any inkling of so many German soldiers. And, even though the inside of the plane looked much larger than it did from the outside, it didn't look like it could hold that many soldiers with their equipment.

This is a weak action thriller of WW II.