Watch Resistance For Free

Too much of everything

hyped garbage

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Atmospheric, yes. Entertaining, no. The first few minutes appear promising, but the film quickly becomes bogged down in a tedious study of,...what? What would have happened if the invasion of France had failed? Well, you'll never really know if you watch this disappointing movie. Any action in the film takes place off camera, save for a horse being assassinated. The characters all slog along as if they have been sedated by who knows what depressant may have been injected into the town's drinking water. Save yourself some viewing frustration, play solitaire.

The fascinating premise of "Resistance" is that Germany repelled the D-Day invasion and eventually won the Second World War. In the waning stages of the war, a small German army contingent arrives in Wales where they discover a small rural area where all the menfolk have fled to fight in the resistance. The German soldiers get settled in the community, and the major dramatic action is how the local Welsh women will react to the soldiers, who apparently treat the women with kindness.This premise had tremendous potential to explore what constitutes "resistance" versus "collaboration." It is clear that the local men left their homes to resist the invading Nazis. But what about the women? Are they in their own capacities also resisting? Or, have they capitulated when they accept favors from their occupiers? The focal point is the character Sarah, who remains committed to her husband Tom, despite the attention paid her by the German captain. The actress Andrea Louise Riseborough is excellent in the main role.Unfortunately, the good potential of this drama is not realized because the film never probes deeply into the main topic of collaboration. Riseborough's character never seems curious about the fate of her husband, and the ending of the film is especially disappointing, due to its vagueness.There was beautiful photography of the Welsh landscape, and the performers were excellent. But much of this film did not make sense. It was never clear why the victorious German soldiers would risk their lives by remaining in a small community where they were obviously not welcome. And why should the kid who is fighting in the resistance movement kill the poor woman who traveled with the colt to try to discover the whereabouts of her husband? Above all, it was unclear why the strong-willed women, fully capable of resistance, did not resist! At the same time, they really didn't "collaborate" either! In a film called "Resistance," there was not enough substance to do justice to the title.

I'm big on war movies and I bought this cause the plot seemed appealing. I just got done watching it and it made me wish I could get my money back. This was more of a sappy love story between a woman whose husband left the village to presumably join the resistance and a German officer who stumbles upon her home cause they want to set up an outpost in the village. Considering what the title of the movie is, I expected to see action between resistance fighters and the Nazis. I saw none of that in this film. Since when is shooting a horse a normal action from a resistance fighter? This was pretty much the only action in the whole film if you don't count the random flashbacks that explain nothing. Complete waste of time.

A Welsh rural community under Nazi occupation with the male population disappeared into the hills to form the resistance (we assume) was well acted and the atmosphere captured perfectly. The content was abysmal. Too much was presented without credible explanation - the significance of the medieval map was glossed over, the killing of Maggie's horse for her alleged collaboration was lame, and many other anomalies. But the real killer was the whole basic scenario. If D-Day had failed and Hitler's western front secured, are we really asked to believe that he would have sent troops into Britain when the Red Army was advancing on Berlin? And where were the Americans? Do we assume they fled back across the pond to resume their stance of neutrality? To suggest so shows little knowledge or understanding of the history of the late war period. Hitler's precondition for invasion had always been for dominant air supremacy which he failed to achieve when Britain stood alone - would he have attempted a repeat performance with an island full of US air-power? I think not.