Battle of the Bulge (1965)

Very well executed

The first must-see film of the year.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

far to be easy to write something reasonable about it. for the fans of war films, it is a must see. for the admirers of actors - a good stone for define the filmography. for the admirers of the films from the 6-7 decades, it is a film under each expectation. because it represents only a meet of cast, sketches of characters, the story as pretext for dialogues and humor not real inspired. a film who gives the portrait of brave American soldier only as an unfinished drawing. sure, this is an option. but, maybe, not the most inspired.

"Battle of the Bulge" opens with a scripted prologue that says that the fictitious account of the last major battle of World War II is intended to honor all the men who took part in the battle. Several reviewers have decried the film for that very reason. Most have noted the historical record available, and said the film is a disservice for not using some real characters and following the historical event. I agree with that sentiment to a point. For instance, Robert Ryan's General Grey might have been one of the real generals in command of the American sector at the time. Yet, fictitious characters could be some of the main action people as they are here in the film.But I suspect that Warner Brothers decided it might be more ludicrous to include the names of a few real people when the story is so fictitious in its action accounts. For instance, Henry Fonda is Lt. Col. Dan Kiley, an intelligence officer who flies reconnaissance planes to take photos behind enemy lines, and then winds up all over the place wherever there's action. Not only was there no such person, but those very actions and incidents are unbelievable, if not impossible.Then there is the fictitious account of the German Panzer leader, Col. Hessler, played superbly by Robert Shaw. The film has him making a run for the Allied fuel depot and being killed in his tank when it explodes. Col. Meinred von Lauchert, was a real decorated Panzer leader who spearheaded the German assault. His unit penetrated the deepest through the Allied lines during the battle, but he was not killed. He was promoted to general and fell back when they ran out of fuel and the Allies counterattack beat the Germans back. He lost most of his tank force and with no place to cross the Rhine River, he swam across and then quit the war and walked back to his home at Bamberg.The film title is the popular name that this operation received from press reports about it. The Germans called their offensive "Operation Watch on the Rhine." The French called it the "Battle of the Ardennes;" and the Allies called it the "Ardennes Counteroffensive." One plus of this film is that it shows the German infiltration of the American forces. As part of Operation Watch on the Rhine, the Germans had some smaller operations. For Operation Grief, they recruited English speaking Germans to go behind Allied lines. Their mission was to capture one or more of the bridges over the Meuse River before the Allies could destroy them. They wore captured British and American uniforms and used captured Allied vehicles. The movie shows them holding a bridge, and later having taken a huge fuel depot. In reality, they never achieved the goal of securing any bridges. They were able to cause some confusion and hamper Allied communication for a while, as the film shows.Another true event that the film includes is the Malmedy massacre. Here it shows about 80 American POWs being murdered. The Malmedy massacre consisted of several such incidents with a total of about 750 American soldiers and 111 Belgian civilians being killed. In July 1946, 73 members of the SS Panzer group were tried for war crimes in the Malmedy massacre. The trial took place at Dachau Concentration Camp. Of those tried, 43 were hanged and 30 were given prison sentences of from five years to life.Perhaps the biggest negative of the film is the tank battle. While it's one of the biggest action scenes, it almost detracts from the film because of the setting. The fact that almost everyone notices this about the film, says that the studio goofed in not staging it more realistically. The tank battle was filmed in the open, barren fields of the central arid region of Spain. But the Battle of the Bulge took place in the heavily forested areas of the Ardennes in Belgium, Luxembourg and France. I suspect that this bit of glaring unreality hurt this film more than anything in the minds of most viewers. This is a clear example of when a studio chooses to go for action in a fictitious setting – thinking that that will appeal most to people, instead of going for reality.All of these matters considered, I give the film eight stars for its cast, its action, the accurate things it does show, and the reality of some of the gritty fighting. The defense of the town as the headquarters pulls out is especially good combat action. Rather than having the Panzer commander killed, I think the film would have had much more appeal showing him quitting at the end and walking away to his home.All of the cast are very good in their roles. Others not mentioned already are Charles Bronson as Major Wolenski, George Montgomery as Sgt. Duquesne, Telly Savalas as Sgt. Guffy, James MacArthur is Lt. Weaver, Ty Hardin as the German MP in disguise – Schumacher, Dana Andrews as Col. Pritchard, and Hans Blech as Conrad.This is a good combat action film that most people should enjoy. But, I think it's important for one to know that it's a fictitious account that looks at some real events within the Battle of the Bulge.

I cannot add much to the other reviews here. However, if, for example, you were to compare this movie with Kelly's Heroes you would have to ask yourself how a movie made in 1970 could come up with at least a believable version of a Tiger tank and requisite number of Shermans to fill a scene while a WW2 movie made in 1966 failed so miserably in that respect. You will always find inaccuracies in equipment, uniforms etc.,but if a movie can grab your attention then it can absorb you in a manner that might allow some suspension of belief. The equipment in this movie was a real distraction. The plot was so generalized as to have little relationship with the facts. The Germans did run out of gas but that was due to the heroic actions of Allied troops at critical points along the way. Perhaps the scope of this battle is such that a realistic movie cannot be done. Sure the movie has a disclaimer but it would have been better if it not been made because there are many documentaries that show the true story of the Battle of the Bulge is better than fiction.

the sins and virtues of genre, the mixture of drama and humor, large line of patriotic feeling are present in this movie. tools - a great cast. story - sketch of heroic episode. so, it is not easy to define this powerful drama who reminds a period sensitivity. basic element to discover it more than an old movie - meeting with extraordinary cast , Henry Fonda,Terry Savalas, Charles Bronson, Robert Shaw are few names - and the war as spectacular show of images and emotions. a nice film . bitter, inspired reference for discover a manner to resurrect war spirit, interesting performances and extraordinary atmosphere. to criticize it - far to be difficult. details, errors, naiveté drops are not isolated isles. but each is only insignificant detail. maybe because for seductive flavor of adventure.