Plastic Soldier Review: Steve Weston Toy Soldiers WWII D-Day British Infantry

Overview:  This set is a set of 12 British-outline infantrymen, with 6 unique poses and two figures in each pose.  The figures depicted are equipped with 37-pattern Battledress and webbing, gaiters, and ammunition boots.  While most figures have the "Brodie" helmet (both with and without netting), the Sten gunner appears to have a "Turtle" helmet with netting and scrim.  

Left to Right: Helmet with netting, plain helmet, turtle helmet with scrim

 

They are equipped with Sten guns, Thompson guns, and Bren guns, Number 4 Enfield rifles, and grenades.  It is described as a set of D-Day British infantry, but is also suitable for much of the Northwest Europe campaign of 1944-45 outside of the colder winter months, including other events like Operation Market Garden and Operation Varsity.  If the figure with the Sten gun and turtle helmet is removed, then the set can be used for the latter stages of the Italian campaign, as well.  In addition to depicting British troops, these can be used to depict other Commonwealth or Allied troops with appropriate insignia or other details, including Poles, Canadians (if their uniforms are painted the appropriate "Canadian Battledress" green), New Zealanders, South Africans (as long as they're "tabbed"!*), Dutch, and Belgians.

This set was made in the past by the UK-based Steve Weston's Toy Soldiers, who have apparently stopped producing their own figures and now just sell figures made by other manufacturers; as such, its current availability is a "while supplies last" situation.  As far as I can tell, this was their only WWII-themed set; all other figures I've seen made by them were old-west themed.

Sculpting:  I find the sculpting quite good, with the the folds of the uniform fabric being particularly well done; I like how they depict the way the trouser legs on British battledress blouse over the gaiters.  The figures appear somewhat heftier than their Airfix and Mars counterparts, but it's less noticeable on-camera than in person.  

 One issue this set has with the molding is that there's a significant amount of "infill", or a solid blob of plastic between the Sten and Thompson gunner's weapon and body, but with those poses this was unavoidable unless the manufacturer did something like mold the figure's arm as a separate piece.

They're depicted with 37-pattern webbing and pick-mattock entrenching tools, representing an intermediate amount of equipment compared to Airfix's "skeleton order" and Mars' "battle order" with full packs. 

Left to right: Weston, Mars, Airfix

Unlike the Mars infantry, but like the Airfix infantry, kneeling figures in this set come with a base. 

Of the 3 sets I have of British infantry in battledress, I think this set does the best when it comes to poses; they look natural and dynamic, without looking overdone and not having any of the balance issues I had with the Mars British infantry.  Like Toy Soldiers of San Diego's figures, these figures have detailed bases depicting dirt or sand, compared to the plain bases on the Airfix and Mars sets. 

 That said, I do think Mars did a better job when it came to depicting helmet netting.  On the other hand, I particularly like how this set depicts the soldiers' helmets with the chinstraps pulled over the brim of their helmets.  One blog review I read thought these figures' helmets looked oversize, but to me they looked proportional.

Molding:  The set I got was molded in a tan plastic; they also made a run in a greener shade as well.

I'm not sure if it was due to the molding or the packaging, but when my set arrived, some of the rifles and Bren guns were severely bent, and required a lot of straightening with alternating hot and cold water; not a deal-breaker, and nothing was broken off, but worth keeping in mind.  There was almost no flashing, and a nearly-invisible parting line.

Packaging:  The packaging is quite basic, in the form of a plastic bag with a folded cardboard hanging tag.  No painting guides or background information is given, but the label is somewhat eye-catching, and I do like the D-Day map design.  The figures were packed in fairly tight, which may have contributed to the bent weapons on some of the figures.

Selection:  The set comes with 2 Bren Guns, 2 Thompson Guns, 2 Sten guns, and 6 Enfield rifles, making it a bit SMG-heavy.  I'm not sure how common it would have been for there to be both Thompson and Sten guns in the same section, but those figures could be swapped out to depict an earlier or later-war infantry section.

Scale: The figures generally scale well with TSSD figures, but seem a bit oversized and heftier compared to Mars or Airfix figures.  Like with the TSSD figures, the raised bases they are on seem to emphasize their size difference, as well.

L-R: TSSD, Weston, Airfix

L-R: Mars, Airfix infantry, Airfix para, Weston

Overall: Overall, I found this set to be well-made with plenty of character, and I wish Weston had been able to make more sets like these.  If you are into collecting or painting toy soldiers, I'd highly recommend this set!

*In WWII, only volunteers could be made to serve outside of South Africa; those who chose to do so wore orange cloth tabs on their uniforms (usually on their shoulderboards) to depict this volunteer status.

Update:  I emailed the manufacturer of this set a link to this review, and got this reply from them (posted with their permission):

Hello Luke,

An interesting review - which I could have done with 10 years ago!

Bendy weapons: Our figures, along with those of TSSD, Paragon, Austin, Blackcat Miniatures, etc whilst all being sculpted by our own separate sculptors were all produced, at the same factory in China, using a hybrid Polyethylene which give a greater detail than the polystyrene used in the model kit type figures of Dragon, Masterbox, etc - polystyrene is obviously what is used in model kit manufacturing. Unlike the latter, ours come out of the injection machine red hot are dropped into bags and then sealed with the header cards, which sometimes causes the bendy weapons that you mentioned, as they are packed and compressed into packing cases all in one smooth production process. 

TSSD, Paragon, Austin, Blackcat Miniatures all carry mention of dipping the weapons into hot water (plastic has a 'memory', so should revert to shape if not a little gentle massaging returns them to straightness and dropping in cold water should retain that shape). For some reason, that info was missed out on my own header cards. 

Not being any kind of Military historian, I employed an ex-Armed Forces person turned sculptor to make my Master figures, hence the correct detail - and yes, to get away from the 'blocking' between the arm and the weapons would have required a separate arm, all at additional cost. Many, many plastic figures suffer from this.

Scale is what Americans refer to as the 'new 1/32', it's actually 56mm and was done to match the size of the superb Conte WWII range that he originally produced in soft vinyl - with very bendy weapons that the paint could flick off!

Kind regards,

Steve Weston.

 

Love Actually: A Post-Mortem

 I watched Love Actually for the first time the other day (a thrift store was selling the DVD for 2 dollars); one of the reasons I bought the DVD was because it seemed to have all the right ingredients: written and directed by Richard Curtis (part-creator of Blackadder and Mr. Bean) and featuring an all-star cast with serious acting and comedy prowess (including, but not limited to, Bill Nighy, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Rowan Atkinson, Keira Knightley, Liam Neeson, Hugh Grant, and Martin Freeman); and yet, I found myself unable to watch the film in one sitting, and later on found out that Love Actually has only a 64% Rotten Tomatoes rating.  My first thought after watching the film was "What went wrong?  How did a film with such a promising cast fall so short of my expectations?"  After a few days' reflection, here is how I think the film went wrong:

• Too many characters and subplots

AKA Syriana syndrome; this is perhaps a bit specific for me, but generally I don't like it when a work tries to follow too many different plot lines, especially when it keeps switching back and forth between them (I stopped reading the first Game of Thrones book about halfway through for this reason).  I have seen works that manage to do one of the two, such as Guy Richie's first two films, which only have only 2 or 3 major plot lines (In Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels it's the card game, robbery of the weed growers, and theft of the antique shotguns while in Snatch it's the diamond theft and boxing match), or some films in which each subplot is almost a self-contained short film within a film, such as Night on Earth, Four Rooms, and Mystery Train, or James Michener and Edward Rutherfurd's generation-spanning books, which treat each generation living in the book's setting as a short story within the overall arc of that city or region's history.  That said, I did enjoy works like The Stand and It which manage to do both things at the same time successfully, but Love Actually wasn't one of those works.  Also, the subplots in Love Actually don't seem to cross over or tie together all that much compared to those other works.

• Slow pacing

The film, especially the first half, seemed too slow-paced, with a pace ranging from "a bit slow" to "interminable".  One of the ways Guy Richie's works were able to balance those simultaneous plot lines was by having the plot advance at a frantic pace, but in this film it felt like I was watching it at 2/3rds or even half speed.  The pace of the second half does pick up, but it still feels to me like this could have been edited to about 3/4 or even 2/3rds of its current length.

• Rowan Atkinson was severely under-used 

Apparently, it was originally planned for Rowan Atkinson's character to show up and cause problems in everybody's storyline, but they cut all but two of his scenes from the film.  Not only would keeping him have (probably) made the film much funnier, having him in all the scenes would have contributed to making it feel like all of the subplots were more interconnected than they were. I also find it hard to believe that they in a film this overly long and slow-paced, they cut out most of the scenes featuring the actor with possibly the best comedy potential (that said, even keeping him in might not have been guaranteed comedy gold; while the parts he is in are quite funny, they're nowhere near the scene-stealing performance he gave in Four Weddings and a Funeral as the gaffe-prone clergyman).

• Tonal inconsistency

Some of the sequences were quite risque, others felt like they were from a family film, some felt like they were from a melodrama while others felt like they were from a zany comedy; all in all, the whole was less than the sum of its parts.  

That said, this wasn't a terrible movie, or even really all that bad, just a disappointment; given the cast and crew, it should have been an A, but instead ended up being around a C+ if I was grading it (and given that I'm writing this analysis, I suppose that in a way I am grading it).  That said, I think a part of why this film fell flat for me was because it was a romantic comedy, a genre I don't really watch all that much in general; the only other romcoms I've seen and liked are either ones that could be considered classics or semi-classics like When Harry Met Sally or Sixteen Candles, or films like My Big Fat Greek Wedding (which was as much a clash-of-cultures/fish-out-of-water comedy as it was a romantic comedy).