Near Enemies (2020) Poster

(2020)

User Reviews

Review this title
7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Many inaccuracies
rndhyd26 September 2021
Bad choice for me to download. If I just read a little on IMDB, I would have avoided this. I watched 5 minutes & decided this movie is not for me or most viewers.

If I read the summary 1st, I would have realized that this movie is off. What I read, is that this is about a potential spy whom escaped from an internment camp. WRONG!

Well, this a fictional movie, so that is not necessarily accurate statement, but has things false which are supposedly history. The thing is, there were no Japanese whom went to internment camps convicted of espionage or anything of the sort. I used the "convicted," but I don't even think there were any indicted, and maybe not even being "highly suspicioned of."

Many other problems with this movie & I'm 31 minutes in now. (Time for next movie & delete this)

I typed this as a savior to others. You probably want to avoid this waste & biased & boring POS (Piece of $H1T)
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A crazy movie in which everyone just makes crazy decisions.
Aylmer10 February 2023
Being something of a history nut, I generally avoid really low budget World War 2 adventures after getting burned so many times as of late. However director Fredianelli is something of a notorious Bay Area filmmaker who has done a quite a few surprisingly good indie dramas, so I decided to give it a watch when browsing around streaming. Although it's not as bad as a lot of the reviewers here say, the overall idea for the story doesn't make a lot of sense at face value. I'll try to be as charitable as possible and steel-man the plot holes as they come along.

So a group of (rather well-nourished) Japanese soldiers escape from an internment camp in Northern California and then build a camp of their own where they torture American soldiers. I'm not entirely sure why they would think it would be a great idea to shoot guns off when they are trying to hide in the American wilderness but I guess it makes perfect sense if they're collectively desperate to the point of utter insanity and maybe WANT to get caught at some level. Perhaps they are showing off who can act the most recklessly as some sort of right of passage?

The United States Government decides that, rather than send large groups of local, state, and federal law enforcement to find the escapees on American soil, that a small squad of low-morale green recruits would be a better idea, most of whom have seemingly no clear idea of what the mission is about. One of the soldiers is a victim of an M. K. Ultra-style brainwashing experiment who just murdered a ship full of soldiers but it's all Even Stevens once the mission is over. To do the exact opposite of lightening the load, they're given a Japanese man to guide them who doesn't speak English. Now this all may seem odd as well at face value but it makes perfect sense if you remember that this may be a fantasy war movie set in some kind of alternate universe, sort of like "Game of Thrones" or something. It's a world where the U. S., after the lunacy that was The Battle of Los Angeles (in which it fired hundreds of shells at a UFO), decided to get even crazier in matters pertaining to domestic security during the war perhaps in an effort to lose.

During their misadventures, our belligerent group of unlikable dimwits discovers a Soviet T34/85 tank (which would have been state-of-the-art in 1944) parked in the wilderness with only a single soldier tending to it. Why and how did the Soviets send one of their brand new tanks, so desperately needed at the Korsun Pocket over to the States while the U. S. was desperately supplying them with thousands of tanks of their own? Well, there's some line about the Soviet tank needing new parts (in America??) but I tend to think that someone high up in the Soviet Army here was a victim of some of the same insanity that also gripped the movie's American Officers, and also wanted to lose the war.

This tank shortly thereafter goes on a rampage with the soldiers shooting at its well-armored turret and running around rather than running toward it and shooting into its wide open driving hatch. There's only one guy in it so he can't drive and shoot at the same time, but he still manages to wipe out nearly half the squad. For supposedly trained soldiers, they didn't seem too interested in anything resembling tactics.

A few other things didn't make much sense to me at first; such as why the squad gets dropped off so many miles away from the enemy camp (which they seem to know where it is) when there are several roads and a military installation in between. Maybe they all needed the exercise? Why does the Japanese sniper shoot the wounded American soldier who is getting carried rather than one of the able-bodied soldiers who is more of a threat to him? Bad aim? Why do the soldiers keep referring to the Japanese as "Victor" and "Charlie" when they're not anywhere near the 1960's Vietcong? Well, I guess the only explanation there is that those must be the actual names of two of the escapees and they're all on a first name basis.

I get that a lot of these inconsistencies came from budgetary or logistical limitations, but they all add up to make this a pretty baffling experience. Obviously the production had a tank, a bunch of actors, some vintage weapons, and a beautiful patch of the California countryside to film in. It all would have gone much more smoothly to have set the movie in East Russia or China with the soldiers all cooperating with Russians or KMT to capture some Japanese prisoners who had escaped over there. The locations would still have worked and it would have made more sense to see a Russian tank. Either that or they could have just removed the soldiers completely and replaced them with a bunch of local vigilante's out hunting Japanese in California. It could have gone deeper into the horrors of the whole internment system and war hysteria that gripped the nation for years, but as it is gets far too bogged down in infighting to make any points at all.

Still I have to say that the action scenes definitely acquit themselves very well and there comes an odd scene or two with some pretty good acting.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pathetic
OzMovieWatcher26 August 2021
Was this a high school movie project? If so, they got an F. This movie is absolutely horrible.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boring, phony garbage +++
johncs-smith7 August 2022
Difficult to understand why such junk is being produced.

None of the uniforms had insignias or rank badges. Can't tell the bad guys from the good ones. Far as I could tell, they were all bad guys. The tank was a tank with-no-name!!!

I've never seen such terrible acting. This must have been produced on a $500 budget. Or less!!!

I managed to waste nearly 30 minutes of my time hoping things might improve. No way . Kept getting worse.

Don't even think about this one!!!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Racist Film without a Point...
kkoller-488948 September 2021
Prime should be ashamed of itself. I understand they were trying to relate it to the times that it was supposedly portraying, but horrible plot, bad acting, abominable writing and poor scenic design and cinematography make this film the one to avoid, unless you're a white supremist.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
War of friends
jhonjatenjor21 February 2021
Near Enemies is the kind of film that depicts an alternative reality of America's war, without sounding too warlike, mostly, there was another internal war, which was not about defeating the enemy, but about defeating their own demons.

Jason Zlatkus is phenomenal in his acting, may he continue to get more leading roles.
1 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Well Made, But Silly
Pycal29 December 2020
It doesn't take much more than a look at the plot summary for NEAR ENEMIES and you can tell this film is on the far fetched side. Sure, not every WWII movie needs to be docudrama level, but some of the artistic licenses for story taken here are too implausible and silly that they take you out of the movie. While you can give writer/director Fredianelli credit for writing a WWII movie of the scale actually filmable on a microbudget entirely in Northern California (and during a pandemic no less), it doesn't erase the fact that the script plays out like some sort of bad WWII historical fan-fiction. Central to the plot is a group of renegade Japanese-Americans who escaped from a California internment camp and set up a prison camp of their own for American hostages. Actual probability of such a successful escape happening aside, this is a bit of a blow when you consider the actual (and non-nefarious) history of Japanese-Americans during the war (some of which were allowed to leave the camps on the west coast to do so) serving in the US military stateside and in Europe with one such unit becoming the most decorated American unit of the war. But the internment camp escape isn't the weirdest thing about this movie as it also has some odd fixation on being a Vietnam War movie, but set during WWII. As such, these aforementioned escaped internee Japanese-Americans sport the uncanny ability to be experts in Vietcong style DIY weapons and tactics. Hell, the film is so on-the-nose that to further drive home the random Vietnam parallels, two of these Japanese-American characters are even named Victor and Charlie! It's truly laughable and the US Army commanding officer tasked with the mission to quell the escapees' plot has a habit of shouting out things like "Let's get Charlie!" or "We've got Charlie on the run now!" that almost make you think you're watching a Vietnam movie, but with the wrong costumes and weaponry. Furthermore, the movie isn't very well researched with other bits of shoddy dialogue like when an Army officer references missile strikes (as if to imply they were as common as artillery strikes or bombings raids in WWII when missiles as we know them today were still in their infancy and would have most likely been referred to at the time as "flying bombs" or "rockets"). Meanwhile, this same officer wrongly refers to the main enlisted men on a mission in this movie as "mercenaries" like he doesn't even know the meaning of the word. The last bit of plot points you'll find in the online summary relates to a mysterious experimental brainwashing program employed by the US Army. While this element of the story is plenty pulpy, the whole premise of the program doesn't make a whole bunch of sense even as we learn more about it as the movie progresses. It's somewhat contradictory and unnecessary given the way it works even if it does generate some intriguing dramatic tension.

Despite the weak story elements, there's still plenty to praise about NEAR ENEMIES as it is very well made especially when you consider that it's a budget indie film. The filmmakers clearly go through the effort of making the movie look period and even secure a WWII era tugboat and battle tank to fit into the plot. In addition, the film is very consistently well acted and the two leads (a stoic, purposefully robotic fighting machine named Hansen and a hard assed (and asshole) commanding officer Davies are particularly well realized by the actors). Furthermore, the action scenes are all thrilling and effective and despite feeling out of place as mentioned, the movie's most Vietnam-esque scene is probably the most well realized of its set pieces. Overall, you could do a lot worse than NEAR ENEMIES for entertainment and production value, but the poor script choices keep it from being a truly good movie.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed