anyone notice the main actors kept swapping guns with one another...bad continuity !
also a belgian b.a.r !
Oddball, the difrent shapes of the sherman where becuase off the diffrent types ex. M4, M4A1 and so on. *** I really want one of those tanker jackets!
Oddball, the difrent shapes of the sherman where becuase off the diffrent types ex. M4, M4A1 and so on. *** I really want one of those tanker jackets!
Agreed but maybe these models were made in different factories as well, some factories may not have been able to sand cast the body shell.
Free speech is expensive these days!
anyone notice the main actors kept swapping guns with one another...bad continuity !
also a belgian b.a.r !
maybe but the Shermans were Shermans and most of the jeeps were jeeps of some form even if a few post war sreens can be seen, and the Tiger was trying to be a Tiger not a Patton.
You must have good eyes to tell one Thompson from an other. 
Free speech is expensive these days!
Theres references in the film to Kelly being a former Lieutenant, which may be why he has the officer's shirt.
This mix-match of uniforms I would imagine is what they could have got hold of with the budget available.
The timing of the battle would seem to suggest post August 44, because of the M43s and the reference to the Captain going "back to Paris" to do some shopping for the Colonel.
Theres references in the film to Kelly being a former Lieutenant, which may be why he has the officer's shirt.
This mix-match of uniforms I would imagine is what they could have got hold of with the budget available.
The timing of the battle would seem to suggest post August 44, because of the M43s and the reference to the Captain going "back to Paris" to do some shopping for the Colonel.
Sounds about right late 44 but before the Bulge Moriarty also mentions fighting the Tigers in the Bocage even if he pronounces it Bocaz 
.
Free speech is expensive these days!
Yeah well Bocage country was the area from normandy down to Paris.
Yeah well Bocage country was the area from normandy down to Paris.
Yep it's the only war film I can remember it being mentioned that's all.
They must have had a decent budget as they opted to leave the US to make the film and find a good town/ set to destroy.
Sutherland was just sent over there last minute and was given a free hand told to do what he wanted with his character he was also ill and nearly died during the filming. He was making many films in Europe at the time also appearing in many TV series at the time like the Avengers etc.
http://www.amachron.com/kellys_heroes.htm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The U.S. troops wear the insignia of the US 35th Infantry Division. The division actually was in action around Nancy in France in September 1944. The film also uses authentic M4 Sherman tanks, while most other contemporary war films, for example Patton, employed too-modern M48 tanks. Such technical details as machine guns and entrenching tools are also remarkably accurate. The three Tiger I Tanks used in the film were actually adapted ex-Soviet Army T-34 tanks, converted in great detail by specialists of the Yugoslav army for the movie The Battle of Neretva.
Free speech is expensive these days!
They must have had a decent budget as they opted to leave the US to make the film and find a good town/ set to destroy.
Filming in Europe, and especially the UK at the moment, is a good deal cheaper than filming in the US, and always has been.
Which is why most films have been made in the USA because they wanted to spend more money!
The movie was filmed in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in regions which are now the independent countries of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. This was done mostly because earnings from showings of previous movies in Yugoslavia could not be taken out of the country, but could be used to fund the production.
Employing all the extras would also be cheap in Yugoslavia compared to the rest of Europe.
Free speech is expensive these days!
Depends on the project and the local incentives to attract filming. Often the talent is the reason a film locates into a specific region or country. If a film can be made on a backlot or in studio then staying in the US can be cheaper. However the cost of using US skilled workers as well as their difficult working regulations often means US producers find it easier to film abroad.
The UK is one of the cheapest places to film in the world, especially with the tax relief, current exchange rate, the fantastic studios and quality of the skilled workers. Even compared to place like Hungary and Czech Rep, it's cheaper as a lot of stuff has to be shipped over to those places because of lack of infrastructure and skilled workers.
If anyone wants an interesting read on this topic have a look at this: http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/compcosts
As you say it depends on the project.
Most US films are targeted at a US audience so they don’t want to see a film about a bricklayer in Birmingham unless it’s the one in Alabama.
British actors are also cheaper to use than American counterparts eg Damian Lewis in Life and Band of Brothers also Hugh Laurie in House and Eddie Izzard in The Riches etc etc.
The US weather is also more dependable and the US as a whole gives better choicses for back drop scenery. However if you want Victorian England or the Highlands then Britain is the place to go.
To go back to Kelly’s I seem to remember being told they had been given a real town to use in place of Clermont.
Just spotted this as well “The screenplay was written by British film and television writer Troy Kennedy Martin†he also wrote the screen play for the original Italian Job. 
Free speech is expensive these days!
Government incentives are a big thing in feature films - hence Private Ryan being shot in Ireland and Flags of our Fathers in Iceland (who offer a whopping 30% rebate on production costs - or used to until their economy went tits-up)
Yep, not wrong there. I was at a locations trade show in LA in April and the up-front news on every territory's stand was the fiscal incentive, some up to 40%, plus no fees for locations. It just isn't sustainable; as Iceland goes to show. Of course, a lot of these cash incentives will disappear with the downturn. Luckily the UK Gov has signed up for the long term with the incentive as a tax relief of 20% on 80% of qualifying UK spend. It doesn't always mean that films are shot here as some UK qualifying films are still shot abroad, using UK talent, crew and production teams.
Right. Having worked all over the US and a lot of European countries I reckon that the UK is head and shoulders above the rest in terms of production talent and value for money. So why our home-grown feature productions are mostly cack baffles me.
It's a question of percentages. When you look at the proportion of stuff that's produced in the US compared to here we only see the wheat and the top level of chaff, and even some of that is appalling.
There are some absolutely brilliant British-made films, particularly since the 90s, we'll give the 80s a wide berth methinks. There are a few coming out in the new year that look very good.
S
Kellys heroes was and still is a CLASSIC film.Dont think it was ever meant to be a 100% historicaly accurate film just a cracking war/adventure film but you have to commend them for being the 1st to attempt to create a Tiger from a T54(??)unlike most if not all previous war films of the period who simply put German crosses on Pattons,M60s and even Shermans 
Im sure anyone like me who was born early 70s considers this film as a CULT film and for me personaly it has 2 great attributes-Clint(Dirty Harry)Eastwood who is the best actor ever and loads of shooting,explosions etc.Even now being 37 its still to me as good a film as it was when i first saw it although im the 1st to admit i piss my mates off by nitpicking minor details in kit etc 
Here Here! Can't argue with that!
Show me a man who will jump out of an airplane, and I'll show you a man who will fight!
General James M. Gavin
CRY HAVOC AND LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR
I can't say I liked this film very much - you just have to accept the film for what it is, a fantasy, and I enjoyed that much. But Savalas just annoys the hell out of me as does Alberty (they both did in BotB too 
), come to that Sutherland is irritating too! Clint Eastwood on the other hand is a master of his craft.
In fact anyone with a Brooklyn/NY (or whatever it is) accent or persona gives me the ab-dabs so that's a lot of films that irritate me!
I can't say I liked this film very much - you just have to accept the film for what it is, a fantasy, and I enjoyed that much. But Savalas just annoys the hell out of me as does Alberty (they both did in BotB too
In fact anyone with a Brooklyn/NY (or whatever it is) accent or persona gives me the ab-dabs so that's a lot of films that irritate me!
Each to his own but I think you fall into a minority on this one 
Sutherland is Canadian!
I would say they acted like typical soldiers, during the initial occupation of Berlin tones of stuff was looted by US and Russian troops.
I used to work with a guy who was carrying a bar of gold around in his kit bag for several months during his time in France, he ended up burying it due to the weight but he never went back for it.
Free speech is expensive these days!
