Battle of the Bulge (1965)

I never watched this epic drama before, though I am a big fan for WWII movies, and this one seemed to be a promising thing with so many great actors in and with a grand plot in mind. Yes, to depict a famous Battle Of The BUlge of 1944, to show so many fine men and portray heroism, decency as well as cowardice and treason. Did it work? No, never. What makes this movie even a bigger flop is a mere fact that there are many excellent German and US actors who played admirably awesome parts in such masterpieces as The LOngest Day or Bridge Too Far. Here, it seemed they are all joking. Add a sad fact of extremely poorly executed blue screen imposing frames and very childishly orchestrated battle scenes and you are up for a bunch of shrugged shoulders and uncontrollable laughs. It also felt like all actors were not for real, the sheer amateurism of certain dialogues added to a greater misery. So, what went wrong? Everything - pace, setting, camera work, performances, light, battles, music, tonality. Ah, and why on Earth Germans speak both German and English to each other? Rating - 1, that is very very awful

A few years before this was released, there was "The Longest Day" - a movie version of the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. That was a very good movie with a star-studded cast. I'm guessing that "Battle of the Bulge" was an attempt to unofficially follow up on that movie. It's not as star-studded (although there's a bit of cross over in the cast, most notably Henry Fonda.) Truthfully, though, this movie is nowhere near as good as "The Longest Day."It's supposed to be an account of The Battle of The Bulge, which took place in December of 1944. It was the last significant German offensive of the war, intended to break through the Allied lines and re- capture the port city of Antwerp, Belgium - thus throwing Allied supply lines into chaos. The movie gets some things right. The Germans did, indeed, get troops disguised as American MPs behind the American lines, and they were able to cause confusion and chaos. The Germans were also woefully short of fuel, and had targeted an American supply depot which would have given them access to a huge amount of gasoline for their tanks. The famous demand for the surrender of Bastogne, and the reply of the commanding American general to that demand - "NUTS!" - is accurate. But there are also a lot of problems with the historical accuracy of the film. First is that all of the characters are just that - characters. Composites, perhaps, but there's no portrayal of anyone who actually fought in the battle. There's also no mention at all of General George Patton's 3rd Army dramatically saving the besieged Americans at Bastogne. That's one of the better known incidents of the Battle of the Bulge, and why you wouldn't even mention it is beyond me. Many, of course, note the problem that the tanks used in the movie were of a much later vintage, and were't an accurate representation of the tanks that would have been used.At best, I'd say that this movie was OK. Terrible if you're thinking that you're learning much history from it, but OK as a movie that's somewhat dramatic, and I thought it was a reasonable portrayal of the ugliness of war - the Malmedy massacre (the cold blooded murders of Americans who had been taken prisoner by German SS troops) was portrayed, for example. I'd definitely say that if I were going to watch either again, I'd take in "The Longest Day." It's the better movie. This one gets a 5/10 from me.

'Battle of the Bulge' tells the story of the American army's final months of World War II. Just when they think that they've got the Germans beat and are trying to rest before the final attack on Germany and Berlin, a warmongering Panza tank commander is given an entire battalion of the formidable machines with which to wage a counter attack on the Americans.The first thing you'll notice about 'The Battle of the Bulge' is that a substantial amount of screen time is dedicated to the Germans, namely the tank commander Colonel Hessler. We see a lot of the film from his point of view, not that many people will be able to relate to the way that he only wants to keep the war going forever, simply so he can continue to fight forever. However, it's nice to have a 'face of the enemy' in a World War II film, rather than just having the Allies fighting endless waves of faceless Germans.However, even with Colonel Hessler occupying one of the main roles, the bulk of the film is – obviously – about the Americans and an (equally idealistic) Colonel Kiley, who is the only person who predicts the impending German counterattack. Unfortunately for his colleagues, he's labelled 'paranoid' and no one heeds his warnings until they're too late. These are the two main performances and they're played as well as you'd expect. Hessler is the more memorable character, but then that's because we always remember the 'baddie!' But, besides them, Telly Savalis and Charles Bronson are also worth a mention.What follows are some pretty epic – and memorable – tank battles between the Americans and German battalions. And the battles are particularly memorable, not to mention the general carnage to the local population caused by the constant battles.It's worth noting that the film shouldn't be taken as a 'historical document' – the closing statement on screen states that to condense as much information as possible, places and characters have been 'generalised.' But, the bottom line is that if you're into your war movies, you should enjoy this. If you're not, it probably won't change your mind on the subject matter.

As reviews go, , I feel reluctant to offer anything to what has already been said..after all you can only say the same thing only a few thousand different ways..With that said, this movie is poorly conceived..Is it to depict the actual battle? No, it is not..Then what? The battle itself was a mish-mash of countless skirmishes of positions over-run and ground held..pockets of resistance..my family settled in Jamestown,Virginia in 1747 and has fought in every war or police action (take your pick) that this country has been engaged in and my father was in Gen. Patton's Third Army at that time..and I have been in Belgium in the same area as the battle ..this is a movie with a lot of actors that are excellent in other movies, however this movie is an excuse to put them all together to make money for the studio..Dwight D. Eisenhower criticized this film for its inaccuracies..Robert Ryan did it for the money..Fonda thought this movie was beneath him..acting-wise..go for Hans Christian Blech for his portrayal of Robert Shaw's enlisted aide tired of war..or George Montgomery as a Staff Sergeant who takes a naive young officer under his wing..Charles Bronson and Telly Savalas doing some fine work..Robert Shaw..not bad..but not that good, either..Bronson and Savalas would be together 2 years later in The Dirty Dozen and a Warner Brothers actor Clint Walker in that but another Warner's actor..Ty Hardin in this one..Dana Andrews sleep-walks through his role..so maybe he also just did it for the paycheck..one reviewer called this one of the best..Sadly..it is not..good cast..overall poor acting..highly inaccurate in the telling and geography..cinematography?Poor..at best..I have always considered this poorly done ..to follow the actions of so few to get a comprehensive view of what took place on an eighty-five mile "breach" in the Allied front lines in on of the worst winters in fifty years..is impossible to correctly convey..and I must agree how silly it looks when the model tanks get their turrets blown off..and how both sides are fighting with the same equipment(tanks) just painted differently..and yes..I served in the military also..for my 20..which includes Vietnam..sunny skies when they are supposed to be over-cast and heavy fog..but still bright and clear and flat (no forests) for the climactic tank battle..it's just very poorly staged and executed..will never suggest watching this unless you are strapped down and forced..but for the record for the person who said The Battle of the Bulge is accurate..Military unit citations were for the Ardennes Counteroffensive..not for participation in the Battle of the Bulge..just say in'...