source: The War I Knew

The British paratroopers are shown firing M-1s and Thompson machine guns. They would have been carrying the Enfield rifle and Sten machine gun.

I know a little about The Normandy Invasion (Summer 1944) and was saddened to see how very badly this story was portrayed. The landscape looked nothing like Normandy; was it The Brecon Beacons? The behaviour of the four allied soldiers was very unlike any military unit I have worked with and there were few signs or sounds of airborne activity. Lastly the film claims that Jonny Barrows was awarded The VC. I cannot find any record of such an award being made. I would welcome any comments from the producer so I could explain why he did not make a better job of an interesting story.

This is based on a true story about Pvt. John Barrows (John Harrison) a British paratrooper separated from Normandy on D-Day. He is portrayed as someone who is not cut out for war. He manages to meet some allies, but they are portrayed in such a manner to make Barrows, the "voice of reason" giving a deeper meaning to the film, one that I didn't quite grasp. Murphy (James Boyland) is the overbearing leader of the group and at one time is called worse than the Nazis. Private Filey took a shot to the head and is not all there repeating the last word of other people's statements like Dim from "Clockwork Orange." American George Summers, nicknamed "Rock" (Adam Woodward) is a mute, suffering from shock and stress. The action at times is surreal with the classical music and whimsical soundtracks. This was clearly supposed to something besides a war film, considering how it failed on that point. Was it an anti-war film? Was it supposed to show 4 natures of man? Was it a plug for Cream of Mushroom soup? Unless you want something other than a war film, you might look somewhere else.

Poor movie, none of the surrounds look like France, only of England. Also very poor acting. What is appalling is at the end it mentions Johnny Barrows received a Victoria Cross for his bravery. This is an insult for the real hero's that earn't the VC during wartime. The producers should face legal action for this insult!!

This is based on a true story about Pvt. John Barrows (John Harrison) a British paratrooper separated from Normandy on D-Day. He is portrayed as someone who is not cut out for war. He manages to meet some allies, but they are portrayed in such a manner to make Barrows, the "voice of reason" giving a deeper meaning to the film, one that I didn't quite grasp. Murphy (James Boyland) is the overbearing leader of the group and at one time is called worse than the Nazis. Private Filey took a shot to the head and is not all there repeating the last word of other people's statements like Dim from "Clockwork Orange." American George Summers, nicknamed "Rock" (Adam Woodward) is a mute, suffering from shock and stress. The action at times is surreal with the classical music and whimsical soundtracks. This was clearly supposed to something besides a war film, considering how it failed on that point. Was it an anti-war film? Was it supposed to show 4 natures of man? Was it a plug for Cream of Mushroom soup? Unless you want something other than a war film, you might look somewhere else.

I bought this DVD in Asda for £5 under the renamed title D day survivors with a different cover photo so don't be fooled into thinking it is a different film. It is a low budget film and that shows as everything about the film is wrong. The landscape is nothing like Normandy or any part of Northern France. The uniforms are wrong the guns are wrong and a scene near the end where they attack a pill box which looks 70 years old is just unbelievable. In fact there isn't any scene in this film that is believable walking through fields in broad daylight and why would a German soldier have been out in the fields on his own. the sounds of gun shots travel far in open space yet no one heard any shots in an area far from the invasion areas and investigated. It is supposed to be based on true events which i find highly unlikely. How film makers get away with making such rubbish is a travesty to all the millions who died during WW2. The soundtrack is also awful and in parts has an opera style female vocal in the background which is totally put of place. I regret squandering my money on this rubbish.

After a few days of watching back to back WW1 and WW2 films both blockbuster and independent, I eventually got down my list to The War I Knew. I wish I never knew this film existed! From the very start the script and acting are cheesy, wooden and what you'd expect from a high school drama group, and a bad one at that. I'm not even being picky about the uniforms, weapons or the landscape chosen for the filming. I'll give them some slack on that front as these things cost money. But to get the colour or consistency of blood is one of the easiest and cheapest things to do, I'll give you a head start! it's not one shade of pink or looks like coloured water. The acting and the script come across as a mixture of a really bad episode of Dad's Army meets a Carry On film and then all of a sudden they try acting with some seriousness and grit...to be honest, I've felt more real emotion from a episode of the teletubbies when there's no tubby toast. If they intended to show respect to those who fought in the war then they did the complete opposite. No group of soldiers, behind enemy lines would jump up in the air shouting and whooping, high fiving each other after shooting a German soldier. This should really be in a spoof comedy genre just so viewers know to avoid it.

I bought this film because it was cheap (£3 on DVD) and I am glad I didn't spend more. The story line has potential but was not used to its fullest potential at all. The British weapons were wrong. It looked like they used M1 Garrands (standard US issue) rather than the Short Magazine Lee Enfield Mk4 (SMLE) and I also very doubt that a private (craftsman) in the REME would have been issued with a Tommy Gun. He would have been issued with either a Sten or SMLE. The acting was wooden and the obvious tension between Barrows and Murphy could have been made more of. The scene where the captured SS officer translates the French to the English for the squad is laughable. The actor playing Rock who is suffering from shell shock played that really well. I have seen shell shock and it does manifest itself in this way. This film claims to be based on truth. If so then they need to apologise. They claim the Johnny Barrows won the VC. There is no record of anyone of that name winning a VC ever let alone in the Normandy Campaign (I have a book that lists every VC winner. In fact the only VC won by a member of the REME was in WW1 by a Lt Graham Lyall VC on 28th September 1918). I think it is sad and insulting for that claim to be made by the producers of the film that claims to be based on real events.

This is one of those films that is hard to describe without employing inventive expletives of the most Anglo Saxon nature. However, I shall try – the synopsis is a British paratroop squad are dropped miles from their drop off point and all but one are wiped out and then the sole survivor, Jonny, has to get back to his lines and grow a pair etc. Now the mistakes pile up faster than an Enron executive planning excuses. He stops to bury the dead, carries a Luger (that always goes down well if one is captured) and wanders about in the 'French' countryside in the total open. Then he meets some other lost solders and they have some unconvincing and lack lustre japes in the Lancashire countryside. Yes that is where this guffathon was filmed North England which surprisingly does not make a good double for Normandy. The special effects are excruciatingly bad. Some of the acting raises a smile but to be extremely fair there are some reasonable performances here ostensibly from Paul Harrison as Jonny, James Boyland as Murphy (don't even get me started on the gay sub plot though) and the American Adam Woodward. Others are less convincing but I think that is mostly because the script is soo contemptibly awful. Language often used is of a modern vocabulary and seems totally incongruous for some Brit Tommies in WW2. It was originally called 'The War I Knew' and is based on actual 'accounts' what are they then? I think it must be that some men dressed up and did some fighting ? Am I even close – well we will never know as these priceless sources are yet to be revealed. I tried to find some positives and apart from the acting – in places – the only other one I can think of is that this is easy to watch on fast forward as you will miss nothing. Not the worst war film ever but one that should be given very serious consideration – avoid like a drunken dance off in a mine field.