Featured titleAction

B-17 la forteresse volante

ActionDrameGuerre

A replacement co-pilot joins a B-17 bomber crew in North Africa. He soon finds himself at odds with the remainder of the crew and has to regain their trust and support.

Année

2012

Durée

1h 45m

IMDb

5.0

Regarder maintenant

Casting

MP

Mike Phillips

Director

Bug Hall

Michael

Donnie Jeffcoat

Wally

Casting

MP

Mike Phillips

Director

Bug Hall

Michael

Donnie Jeffcoat

Wally

Sean McGowan

Archie

Chris Owen

Burt

Edward Finlay

Philly

Manu Intiraymi

Charlie

John Laughlin

Base Commander

Howard Gibson

Caparelli

Joe Williamson

Eddie

Tony Elias

Oliver

Tim Hade

Al

Jeremy Ray Valdez

Tom

Jamie Martz

Pops

Mark Doerr

Briefing Officer

Matt Biedel

Monroe

KA

Kate Arney-Cimino

Good Time Girl #1

JB

Jerry Buteyn

Lt. Vassar

Braxton Davis

Lou

AK

Adam Klein

Writer

Bande-annonce

Suggestions mises en avant

Envie de plus de divertissement ? Découvrez notre plateforme de jeux recommandée et notre destination de mini-dramas.

Jeux instantanés

Gamixo

Jouez à des jeux de navigateur casual avec puzzles, cartes, sport et défis rapides en quelques secondes.

Mini-dramas

VSKIT Drama

Regardez des mini-séries tendance, des romances et de nouveaux short dramas avec des mises à jour rapides.

Commentaires

10 commentaires

RyJUGlOct 1, 2025

gg

ErikaMay 29, 2023

source: Fortress

Sam G JnrNov 22, 2022

I don't get it. The screenplay is everything.If it's badly written, there is no story, end of line. You can have the best actors in the world and a good director, they are powerless if there is no story to tell.It's a tragedy because no special effects can prevent such a movie from being boring. I grew up in Europe with movies having little money invested in special effects but always a good script. If the story and the dialogs are good ,even modest actors will live up to their task. here the actors toil around and do not seem to know what to do. that's a shame because the Italian campaign and North Africa are not well known but were very costly in manpower. One could have done a lot more with this. Maybe someone will pick up the subject and do something good out of it.

<_JULES_>Nov 22, 2022

Almost nothing worked for me in this film. The exception was that I did get the sense the actors were trying their best with what had been written. I can understand there are very few B-17 Flying Fortresses left that are still flying, but enough footage of them flying exists to do a better job with the computer generated flying scenes. The CG had a very fake look to it. (Spoiler) The part at the end when the plane falls apart looked like CG from the 1970s or 1980s! I also could not understand why they used CG in some scenes at the base when it just looked so fake. If you want to see some good movies about the Flying Fortresses in WWII, try Memphis Belle or Twelve O'Clock High. If you want a REAL treat, keep your ears peeled for any touring of the few remaining B-17s or B-25 bombers. I was working for a local paper a few years ago and was fortunate enough to be on a runway when a B-17 and a RAF Lancaster bomber landed at our airport. Very exciting stuff!

SOFIA ANDRESNov 22, 2022

First of all,my dad was stationed in Italy in 1944-45 a bombardier in the15th Airforce 483rd bomb group(H) flying in B-17G Flying Forts. He and his crew were shot down and crashed in occupied Yugoslavia. He was MIA on his 44th mission and evaded capture and returned to Italy after 72 days missing. He is alive and well at 95!! Together we watched this movie. Here is my Dad's take. First, the special effects were pretty good, but the movement of the B-17's especially on take off's were completely inaccurate. They seemed to take off like fighter planes. B-17's were comparatively very slow on take off with full bomb loads. Also, the actors portrayal of the young flyers seemed out of touch with the reality of the 1940's. My father said most of the air crews of that era would not over use the "F" word like these actors did. He says the "F" was used on occasion as in SNAFU,but wasn't part everyday conversations the way curse words like God Damn and "son of a bitch" were.As for life on base. Drinking large amounts of moonshine would not happen. As drunk as this crew was,they would have been grounded for sure. We might have a few beers ,but we all wanted to stay sharp. "We did our drinking mostly at the officers club after a mission and only really got drunk when we knew we were't flying the next day" My dad says"one Sgt. once tried to make a still, but got caught and was court martialed. That boy who had his still blow up would have been sent to the brig and busted to private!In a nut shell, this movie did not seem realistic to the combat missions we flew in WW2. Yes, the violent deaths were realistic, but an injured navigator would never disobey his pilot's orders. So,as me,OK...not a great film. My advice is that if you are going to make a film about WW2 bomber crews and missions, do what Spielberg did for Saving Private Ryan....or don't make one at all.

Yaka mwanaNov 22, 2022

I started worrying about this film - which could have had so much promise - right from the start with it's saccharine soap-opera glossy look. What a shame, what a terrible film, and not to mention massively disrespectful to the real bomber crews of WWII, who are very poorly represented in this trashy, cheap and nasty, obviously made-for-TV excuse for a film. The 'Flying Fortress' (and most of the backdrops) depicted in the film were blatantly, and unashamedly fake; I've seen much better computer animation on my Amstrad 64. Oh, and the most annoying thing - the music! The film-makers couldn't help but ram home the point that most of the bomber crew were of Irish descent, and to underscore this we inexplicably got some pipes, bodhran and fiddle version of 'Auld lang syne' at every opportunity, which sounded like it had been axed from the 'Titanic' soundtrack. Don't even get me started on the dialogue.

warenNov 22, 2022

I had read the IMDb reviews on this prior to watching it and it sounded good. I imagined something like "catch 22" a masterpiece of similar description. That being US bombers working out of North Africa in 1943 during operation 'Husky' and the general Italian campaign that was so costly to those crews. I recommend you see "Catch 22". Just about everything did not quite work. The script and the acting was wooden, hardly anybody came across as real except the mechanic. I was tempted frequently to give up. The film is bubblegum entertainment on a subject that deserves more quality of everything. Having said that the historical side was not wildly inaccurate like many other movies and the bomber footage (CGI/FX) was quite beautiful in places. Although the script could have been written in the 1950's. It's the sort of movie I can watch once, but would rather not see again. mainly because the lack of script. It is so boring because it just deals with the facts of doing such a job like a robot. Personalities are not established there are no compfortable laughs and even if these actors could act there is no chance with such a flimsy script. This is the way warmongers would have war, not the way it is. It's like comedy from the GOP. They may be a great source but they think they are being serious. That's what makes them funny. It's also what makes the world very sad.

Tumelo Mphai👑Nov 22, 2022

With the advent of CGI, the story of the 8th Air Force in Europe during WWII is begging to be told. The visual effects in this film were very good--I just wish they had shown the B-17s over Germany instead. Over a hundred thousand young men were killed in B-17s and B-24s over the skies of the Third Reich. Spielberg needs to make this film. "Fortress" is a great first step, and I thank the producers for doing what big-time Hollywood could not. They made a much better film than "Memphis Belle", which was so badly Hollywoodized that the story it told about a real airplane and its crew was in no way the real story. In "Memphis Belle", six actual B-17s were used, along with large radio-controlled models. One B-17 was lost during the production. With CGI, hundreds of 17s and 24s can fill the skies, and the look is incredibly realistic. "Fortress" is definitely worth seeing.

AnniNov 22, 2022

My advise is... when you see that great 10 minute dog fight before the title credits you've seen the best of what coming. My feeling is... whatever you thought about Pearl Harbor is exactly what you will think of this. By That I mean if you thought Pearl Harbor had great characters, amazing CG and straight from the gut acting then you are going to think this is just that great too... And if you thought Pearl Harbor was a dog and a waste of film stock then you'll like this even less and be wishing for the wonders Ben Affleck's acting skills could have brought to this, while you are rifling through the seat back in front of you for an air sickness bag. You know how there is this odd flatness from the lighting to the dialog delivery in afternoon soaps? And the plots so improbable that a sane brain shudders... I'm sorry to say this suffers from the same... Spiced up with some CG that would have been ground breaking in 2003. But if you'll watch damn near anything full of Bluescreen and over busy CG this is the film for you.

🍬PlayyyyNov 22, 2022

How shall i start? The fake Irish Americans - Irish through grandparents 20 times removed! The awful music, Terrible directing. School plays seems to have better direction. I particularly like the scene where the new recruits are being shown around the camp - "i know lets all walk in a line" - how clever. Plot - what plot? And worst of all the acting, terrible. Someone has compared this to Memphis Belle ? There is no comparison. whilst i am sure everyone involved are lovely people - sorry this film sucks! So much so that I had to Join IMDb to review it !