Sadly Over-hyped

Pretty Good

Let's be realistic.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

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

Partial credit for at least using real tanks to make this. They are American M-26 Pershing tanks, but still. At least they didn't use small plastic models and flame blown out from a hair spray can. You could be forgiven if you were expecting just that effect sometime during the whole movie. Henry Fonda is the cliché character and its easy to see where all the budget went. If not on Henry's salary, it sure wasn't on the effects. Of course Fonda plays the stock "gee- whiz, you gotta believe me - they are gonna attack us!" guy who is never believed. Just as Robert Shaw plays the stock evil Nazi tank officer who's dialogue could have come straight from a comic book. The part about American bazookas bouncing off German tanks is sadly historically correct, 6 years after this they were still bouncing off North Korean T-34's too. But the way this movie unfolds is mawkish and cliché from the get-go...the script could have been written with a xerox machine and a year's supply of Mad magazines. Nowadays, thankfully we have some genuinely good war movies, like "Fury" that make up for this botched up Hollywood dreck. But this is worthwhile watching just to laugh at the stupid parts, and there is stupid aplenty here. i gave it a 3 just for effort as organizing all those tanks in the days before CGI must have consumed a massive effort. Maybe they had no energy after the fake Panzer wrangling to make a decent movie?

Yep, we all know how inaccurate this movie is, but I can understand why there were not any real Tiger tanks used - rare and scarce if any in running condition in the 1960's. What also bothered me besides the incorrect equipment was the actors styling, as in the Hair ! Robert Shaw's Hessler Blonde dye job was, well passable for the film even though it looked like he pored a bottle of 'Clorox' on top of his head !, I noticed Telly Savalas never showed his head as he had a cap or helmet on in all his scenes, he actually had (some) hair in the mid 60's and did not go 'Kojak' until late 60's, so that was not an issue. It's the mid 60's thick-long on top look (post-Beatles?) that bothered me. A lot of actors back then did not want the 'Doo' messed with to much just in case they needed it for other roles (contracts). Take Charle Bronson, who always had a thick mane in his movies, in this one it's just to thick and long on top (bushy) to be Army regulation, a bit to long in his Great Escape (63) role to. 'Book em Danno's' hair was to Hawaii 5-O as well as a few others a bit to '60's style. The movies German officers had the usual fill of 'Baldies' though (lol). BOTB was not the first to have actor's look a bit out of the time period do to the 'Doo' I remember "Guns of Navarone" was an offender, not really Gregory Peck and his famous 'Doo' but the teen heartthrob James Darren's hair style was totally out of period, looked early 60's coiffure not WW2 era, and not military standard. And one more from the ( from many other from the 60's with inaccurate 'Doos' ) was " Were Eagles Dare " Clint's hair was way to long on top, more 69' than 44' but the most inaccurate in that movie was the blonde 'Maria Shank' her hairstyle and makeup - mascara,lashes,etc. was totally 1960's - like a bad Hogans Hero's 60's episode! Anybody have anymore to add for the inaccurate 'Doo's for the depicted time period of a (war)movie ?

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'...