Watched it -- very mixed bag -- some of the story & Dutch characters good -- the British glider pilot storyline felt tacked on and the actor had all the charisma of a plank of wood.
Also, they flew to Arnhem in an empty Horsa glider with just 3 guys in the back ... no kit, no jeep, no supplies, no gun... nada. Seriously?
Battle scenes ludicrous (no arty prep by Canadians and advance looked more like a bunched up mob of football hooligans rioting than an infantry advance ... obviously budget restrictions prevented them showing how Scheldt campaign was really fought.
Director who LOVEs to crowd his battle scenes with as many extras as possible.
My guess there was a solid story at core of Dutch experience under the German occupation and the fighting for the Walcheren (and a good conflicted character of a young Dutchman who joined up to fight for the Germans, (about 25 000 volunteered for the Waffen SS alone) could've have been developed better) -- and a ton of other stuff tacked on to secure funding.
I support Rico's review. I am a Dutch born Canadian who in the last few years has redirected his historical interest from medieval to the Canadian involvement in WW2 western front; perhaps a sense of duty on my part. Given that the battle of the Scheldt in the movie appears to be just a cinematic afterthought tacked onto the real story of the two Dutch 'kids', I have mixed feelings of its quality. As an 'afterthought' it was so-so okay. But as a recreation of the battle of the Scheldt it was terrible, condensing the events from 31 October through 2 November and the assault by four different Canadian regiments, the last of which finally supported by a fierce artillery barrage, into nearly a single event. Uniforms? Not bad. Battle? Thumbs down.
BTW. How on earth do you manage to take a BRITISH airborne trooper and redeploy him as a Canadian infantryman in a Canadian uniform? Desertion? Or was he a canuck like me to begin with? And .... a Dutchman in the British airborne who can't swim or has hydrophobia? Really now.
The fact that the film was a Nederlandse production shows in the attitudes portrayed to varying degrees in each of the main characters - - an almost touchy feely near apologetic aversion to war. I saw it in the female main character, the Dutch boy in the German army, to a lesser extent in the German commander, the cowardly airborne 'elite', and so on. In my 'opinion' this was a Dutch attitude wistfully transplanted in our WWII characters. I only found two characters to appear to be 'authentic' - the naive Dutch doctor and his irritatingly stubborn daughter.
I thought the premise was good. The script too shallow. The acting mediocre. The historicity of the battle poor. The setting superb.
But that's just my 'feelings'. Mileage may vary.
I found the following two Dutch productions on Netflix much better and both true stories.
Resistance Banker - great movie, left me going away happy
Riphagen - great movie, left me angry - not at the movie but at ... see for yourself
But the rest of the film was good enough to enjoy. As others have said, the main story was really about the dutch resistance but with other stories tacked on to beef it out a bit. Like most war films made, it could/should have been so much better. Why dont they employ active historians in these films for guidance?
