User Reviews (35)

Add a Review

  • As previously mentioned; the few minutes of actual WW2 footage is about the only decent thing in this shambles of a production.

    One could almost forgive the App Store special effects and the...

    Y'know what? This movie isn't even worth me finishing this review.
  • Where to start...

    You know those movies that are so bad they are sort of good? Well this isn't one of them. Good bad movies need to have a campy self awareness of how bad they are and revel in it - the people who made this seem to be under the delusion they were making a good (if low budget) movie with at least some redeeming artistic value.

    Oh Tom, what have you done. Why Tom why?

    Never given a 1 to a movie before, richly deserved here.
  • a29107215 November 2018
    2/10
    Bad
    Yes it is bad. Not funny bad. Just bad. Sizemore as an Army officer wearing eyeliner and looking totally stoned. All the rest is also...just bad.
  • I saw many bad movies through the years, but this one really jumps to the top places of awfulness. maybe it will become a cult movie among people who want to hurt their eyes and brain, who knows.
  • This is not a war film as i define it.this is more like a bunch of adults playing police vs thief,or cowboys vs indians,or romeo and roulette,nazis they shoot,but how were they able to drive to Romania from brittany in june 1944 with a car?honestly!no way, its just so amateuristicly done.wearing gasmasks for fun,at times the lead camera are so close up that you barely can see whats filmed. its seems like the rain always rain on a sunshiny day-film.there are some rather well known actors,but i will rather forget them asap,cause the acting are shamelesly badly excecuted because the director did look another way..overlord? had churchill watched this today,some of the actors would have faced the fire squad. do not watch this film,its worse than jaws 19.a back to back like hedgehog medivel style warefare tactics. a scam this is.shame on you.... (i give 2 stars for the 3 first minutes of actual 2nd world war footage shown,a few that i hadnt seen before)
  • You know the movie is bad when people (family and friends) have to go on and create an account this month just to leave a good review.
  • robnero5 March 2019
    True. Bad writing, bad acting, no budget, bad directing. By a glance, the same elements as Overlord, by a viewing, it is not in the same galaxy. It sounds and looks like a freshman year college exam. So, so very bad. I have no idea how they got Tom Sizemore to say yes to it. He must've been hard pressed for cash.
  • The movie is barely good, the acting is terrible and the script is non existent! It blatently copies Overlord! Don't waste your time!
  • Just terrible and a lot of unnecessary and confusing close-ups.
  • Paid 99p in a charity shop, and i felt ripped off, the only good thing, the money went to charity !!!!! Bad everything!
  • Nazi Overlord demonstrates the heights of greatness that can be achieved despite a minuscule budget and skeleton crew. This film has it all; action, romance, Nazis, drama, action, drama and Tom Sizemore. Nothing more is needed. JJ Abrams really needs to pull his head out of his butt and understand that he is being left behind by a generation of filmmakers not afraid to create hard hitting, issues based action pieces. This is a far superior and enjoyable experience to the bloated and over produced ripoff that is 'Overlord', and it's sad to see such a gem of a flick being overshadowed by such a pale and obvious imitation that just happens to have more access to marketing and the backing of a powerful studio. This is why people don't watch the Oscars anymore.
  • I will usually give even budget films a fair crack, but this was so stiltingly bad, I couldn't even last 10 minutes. The filming and acting were amateur and formulaic, added to a dead horse story line, I couldn't bear to watch the flogging. It gets 1 star for at least having been completed and published. Unfortunately it will only be appreciated by a very few 'special' people.
  • Hate a vast majority of The Asylum's output with a passion, their output is near-universally maligned (though they have their defenders it seems) and that reception is more than well deserved. Despite a vast majority of their films being weak or worse, many are irredeemably terrible, there is something compulsive about their badness and the curiosity as to whether they are capable of churning out a film that rises above okay. To me they have done, but very, very sporadically.

    This film is very close to being down there with their worst. It had a very interesting idea, despite it being derivative it was still one of The Asylum's better ideas, and screws it up horrendously by executing its potential (it even got Tom Sizemore and Dominique Swain on board, and am pretty sure the reason why they agreed to do it was for the money) worse than amateurishly. Hate films that don't look like those all round involved made an effort, that makes me angry, hate films that waste potential and hate films that fail to make what seems to work on paper interesting. This does all three of those things.

    Not unexpectedly from The Asylum, the film looks as though it was made in a rush and on the most miniscule budget possible. Just to say, have seen films that were made with not much money and made in less than a month, but they manage to be well done and interesting films with good writing and performances (my recent re-watch of 2011's 'Margin Call' springs to mind, not trying to compare just something that sprung up in my mind just now). So budget and time constraints to me are not excuses for low quality everywhere else. Anyway, the whole film looks drab and made me feel nauseous in a way, the visual effects afterthought-like.

    Music is little more than an intrusive slog, with poorly balanced sound quality, and there is no competence at all in the direction. The dialogue is stilted, often over-complicated and incomprehensible, gibberish that makes one cringe in the worst moments. The story fails completely to have any unintentional camp value to make it strangely entertaining for the wrong reasons, it is a lifelessly paced story that takes itself too seriously that it becomes painfully monotonous. The action doesn't seem to have any aim to it.

    Again not unexpectedly, the characters are either charisma-void or annoying and not one actor gives a remotely okay performance. Sizemore and Swain look as though they want to be somewhere else and the rest of the cast don't even try to act. To cap things off, the ending was over-the-top ridiculous.

    Only small redeeming merit is the first three minutes, which is the only thing to have any shred of quality, but it is only a small chunk, jars with the rest of the film and one questions why it was even there.

    Concluding, awful. 1/10
  • tcecoleshaw27 June 2019
    It's basically a no-budget pile of bullets. Hasn't the writer let alone director (or the cast for that matter) seen a classic war movie? You know I might as well become a writer for bad TV movies or similar - seems any crud will get made. Genuine LOL to pathetic CGI explosive effects and shaky camera to substitute visual effects. Oh and an annoying musical score running throughout. Totally meritless; "how disappointing" as one phrase was uttered in this sham. 1 star!
  • arfdawg-127 November 2018
    I basically watched this to see if Tom Sizemore is back on the juice. Pretty sure the answer is yes.

    Other than that, the movie suck. It's filmed on video in close up so you don't see the modern landscape and parking lots outside where they have the cameras.

    Lots of action where you ee nothing because of the close ups. Horrible. The director should never work again
  • One reviewer of this movie said that this isn't one of those movies where it is so bad that it's good. i'm not sure that i agree. sure, it's god awful movie, but i watched the whole thing.

    the acting is bad, but not unwatchable. i am pretty sure that everyone in it was camping it up deliberately. same with the dialogue and plot. i'm not a pot guy, but i would imagine that, if you were hungover on the couch on a sunday afternoon, stoned out of your tree, you might actually smile when you watched this.
  • Horrible acting, horrible special effects, horrible plot.

    The only thing I enjoyed was the ending.

    2.1
  • Well, as it usually turns out with movies from The Asylum, then "Nazi Overlord" turned out fully as expected...

    That being a ludicrous rip off on the "Overlord" movie. But actually once in a while do The Asylum actually make an entertaining enough mockbuster that is worth watching. "Nazi Overlord" wasn't one of those occurrences, believe you me.

    The storyline in the movie was quite adequate and straight forward, although it was so simplistic that it felt like the movie was just running on a singular track the entire way without any curves or ups and downs. That made the movie somewhat predictable and monotonous. However, the ending of the movie, well, let's just say that it was hilarious, albeit stupid and ridiculous, but laughable nonetheless.

    As for the acting in the movie, well I was familiar with Tom Sizemore, although he only had a minor part in the movie, for better or worse. I was surprised that Dominique Swain would actually appear in a movie such as this. But she did. And to those fans of her, then I believe that you will definitely take a liking to her appearance in this movie, as it includes some nudity.

    As for the entertainment value to the movie, then I can honestly advice you to seek entertainment elsewhere, unless you enjoy watching movies with horrible special effects and without a storyline that actually offers something to think about.

    All in all, definitely not among the top ranking of movies spewed out by The Asylum. I am rating "Nazi Overlord" a mere three out of ten stars.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I watched this mostly to laugh at what a huge pile of human crap Tom Sizemore has become. The only problem is his screen time doesn't even amount to 10 minutes. It's as if he did half a day of filming to score some crack money then he left to go smoke it but never came back. He didn't give two sh*its about his performance that's for sure. Oh yeah and he plays a colonel but is clearly wearing staff sergeant chevrons on his coat. Who's the person advising on the military details in this movie? 2 minutes of FREE Wikipedia research could have corrected this idiotic mistake. Or even employing a homeless veteran you see flying a sign on a hot corner would have produced a better product.

    Anyways the movie starts with these poor excuses of soldiers landing on the beaches of Normandy. None of this scene makes any sense. There's no landing craft and only a few soldiers even visible along a large section of beach. The Germans are actually charging out to these couple of bad actors on the beach to fight them in hand to hand combat. I guess if these were the actual GI's who did land the Germans would have done the same thing and won in real life. But I'm assuming this was all staged so the lead actor could strangle one of the Germans or maybe he was the one being strangled until one of his guys saved him? It's not worth remembering anyways and completely idiotic.

    Next thing you know enter drug induced Staff Sergeant Colonel Tom Sizemore to give this Captain who's in charge of 6-8 bearded soldiers a mission. A really stupid mission to literally drive in a truck from the Normandy beachhead to Romania. Yes Romania. It even shows their route across German occupied Europe. They even drive through neutral Switzerland. Wouldn't the Italian front have been a shorter trip??? Why am I even trying to entertain this being feasible. Anyways, yep a couple of GI's in uniform and in a US Army marked truck on a road trip through German occupied Europe. The person who wrote this should throw themselves off a cliff.

    The mission is to save or capture some British scientist who went crazy and is now working for the Germans. She's doing meaningless experiments that involve bugs taking over the world or something similar. The scientist is Nicolas Cage's daughter in that other terrible movie Face Off. Or was she John Travolta's daughter? Anyways she shows her pancake tits for no reason which was probably the most painful part of this whole movie. Not to mention about a solid half hour of the movie takes place in this crappy lab.

    Well fast forward because I'm tired of thinking about it and we're back to Tom Sizemore for 5 of his 10 minutes of film time and the movie is over, finally.

    Crap movie -10 stars.
  • The Asylum is known for creating inexpensive mock busters. This one is better than expected considering that it was shot in about 3 weeks with very little budget! Why not just enjoy it!
  • loversofmovies4 December 2018
    2/10
    Bad
    A couple of good actors but the story is extremely bad. The scripts are SHOCKING !
  • Der_Schnibbler13 December 2018
    We are all of course waiting for some kind of crazy genetically engineered "nazi" monsters but it never happens. It's lots of aimless action and empty pseudo-scientific babble. Oh, and of course much talk of the "master race" myth.
  • odonnp6926 November 2018
    1/10
    Omg
    Stop making this rubbish.tom Sizemore seriously why do this to your career. Dont watch that's it!!!!!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Abysmal best describes "Nazi Overlord," another of the Asylum's dreadful knockoff movies that desperately lacks humor. This 91-minute, straight-to-video release amounts to a particularly pale imitation of J.J. Abrams' "Overlord," with Jovan Adepo and Wyatt Russell. Naturally, the two pictures share obvious similarities. Each occurs during the historic D-Day landings at Normandy, France, in 1944. Technically, you can classify this World War II movie a secret mission deep in enemy country. Here, an Army Unit is ordered to Romania to bring back a rogue Allied female scientist who has been collaborating with the Nazis. You can also classify "Nazi Overlord" as bare-bones, low-budget, and it looks as if "Fortune Cookie" director Rob Pallatina lensed this movie with a camcorder. An animated graphic displays the fast progress of our heroes make across Europe to their destination. This was transitional device is acceptable because some American, World War II movies used similar transitions. The next time we see them, they are cruising around in a half-track, personnel carrier. This is a far cry from where things started. For a couple of minutes at the beginning, "Nazi Overlord" shows American G.I.s tangling face-to-face with German soldiers on the beach. Undoubtedly, this ranks as the strongest scene in this woebegone World War II travesty. Soldiers start out wielding rifles and pistols, but wind up killing each other with their bare hands, down and dirty, with savage rage. Sadly, for a moment, this knock-off captured the pugnacity of war.

    Captain Rodgers (Andrew Liberty of "Sex Tax: Based on a True Story") survives the brutality on the beach, and General Forrester (Tom Sizemore of "Saving Private Ryan") assigns him to lead his unit, with some deserters to locate and bring back the scientist, Dr. Eris (Dominique Swain of "Face/Off"). Incidentally, Swain bares her booty in one scene and her breasts in another. Although she shows up only in the last third, her crazy scientist character breathes a modicum of fresh air into this stale saga. Rodgers confides in Forrester that he feels the least qualified to lead the mission. Nevertheless, the Colonel sends him ahead. After all, the best heroes are always the reluctant ones.

    The clueless people that produced "Nazi Overlord" must have never seen an episode of television's "Combat." The American soldiers here stand in the open and make easy targets for Nazi snipers. The M1 rifles look bigger than some of the Americans. There is no sense of camaraderie among these fellows. Few of the characters on both sides make a lasting impression. Fortunately, whoever supplied the firearms knew the range of guns well. Nobody carried anything that wasn't period correct. However, the captain and the lieutenant run around with officer's insignia emblazoned on the front of their helmets. Officers never displayed rank insignia for fear that snipers might exploit this advantage. The dastardly Dr. Eris is working on a Biblical plague and uses locusts to spread it. Unlike "Overlord," none of the German soldiers turn into psychotic zombies. Dr. Eris gets the drop on Captain Rodgers, and they have to witness the atrocities that she performs on her human Guinea pigs. Neither knee-slapping nor disgusting, these scenes simply look idiotic with the victims spurting blood, eventually exploding, with locust swarming around them.

    Monotonous from fade-in to fade out, "Nazi Overlord" earns a star for not making the egregrious error of showing an integrated, black & white Army Unit as in "Overlord." Tom Sizemore takes top billing, but he isn't around long. You see him at the outset when he recruits Captain Rodgers and then at the end when he escorts our hero to meet the President. The idea of creating a plague using locust struck me as trivial. The experiments were mediocre and the blood effects were bland. Beware of "Nazi Overlord."
  • Unwatchable. The movie industry should just stop making movies about Nazis because they clearly can't do that. This one is exceptionally bad on every level tho, it's literally unwatchable and I stopped if after like 15 minute
An error has occured. Please try again.