ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

SimonJack I agree with the bulk of reviewers about the plot for this film and quality of the production. My above average rating is based on the action in the film, and its historical reference to the failed assault plan with the Anzio landing in WW II. Others have commented as well on the level of acting by the main figures. The movie is based on a book, but I can't understand why Hollywood changed the names of the generals to fictitious ones. Sure, that whole fiasco was an embarrassment to the U.S. and our military leadership. But let's see and hear the truth, look at our mistakes, and learn from them – not cover them up or play them down. I wonder why there has not been another movie made about the Allied landing, Operation Shingle, and the Battle of Anzio, to lay out the whole story. In hindsight, it's easy to pick the right choices for actions and plans to succeed in any matter. But, in the case of Anzio, the generals, high command and even the public learned of the error early on. The Allies stopped to build a beachhead. Most know the story. Major General John Lucas was wary of getting pinned down as had happened at Salerno. He didn't want to lose as many lives. But the plan for this landing was to advance and take the Alban Hills above the beaches – and then to proceed to Rome if possible. Instead, he moved a few miles inland – and dug in short of the hills. What is befuddling is that common military sense seems to have gone out the window. First, Lucas didn't pursue the orders to take the hills. Second, when the Allies encountered no resistance at all in the landing, why didn't he push forward until they encountered resistance? That's a basic rule about finding where your enemy is and what is his strength. Third – the importance of the hills was obvious because they commanded overview of the entire beach area. That would be the place to dig in to protect the beach. As the movie shows, a jeep actually reached the outskirts of Rome with no resistance – and reported back. But Lucas still chose to dig in and wait. So, this paranoid, fearful general gave up the element of surprise that the landing had been, and instead entrenched and allowed the Germans to move in and surround the area with heavy artillery and armored power. The result was a five month battle that was among the bloodiest of WWII, with 30,000 casualties. Equally bad, it gave German Field Marshal Albert Kesselring time to later pull his troops from the southern barrier and regroup all his forces north of Rome to continue to hold the Allies at bay with costly encounters. One wonders if this operation under General George Patton wouldn't have turned out much different. Wouldn't Patton have seized the moment, cut off Kesselring's defensive line in the south, freed Rome, and prevented a German regrouping north of Rome? He could have done that in a few days. So could Lucas have done, if only he hadn't been so timid and paranoid. And, that would likely have had the Allies pushing toward Paris by the time of the D-Day landings at Normandy five months later on June 6, 1944. Instead, the worry about too many casualties led to many more and further ensured the dragging on of the war. Apparently the U.S. military leadership has not learned an important lesson from the Anzio fiasco. We have had other instances since WW II of weak generals who fail to take initiatives with much more costly results. This isn't to pick on generals. But when we consider that just a few guys at the top make decisions that affect the lives of thousands of men under their commands, perhaps we need to find a better way to pick our battle leaders and weed out or bypass those who can't make bold and clear command decisions.This film, "Anzio," is about the unopposed landing at Anzio, and the Allies decision to dig in. It's not about the bloody battle that results. It gives us a little taste of action with some Ranger forces. But it's enough to raise questions in the viewer's mind about the poor leadership and failed opportunities, and the consequences they had at Anzio and in the war. For that, this film has some value as well.

kjump14 This movie STEPS ALL OVER the REAL Rangers that fought in Anzio, and everywhere else in the world. I don't know who the damn 'technical adviser' was on this film, but they either didn't pay attention to what he told them, or the dude has ZERO idea how combat is, and Ranger tactics more specifically. The writers and the director portrayed them as having no combat skills whatsoever, showing 5 or 6 guys running up in front of an MG nest, other guys simply standing up out of a fighting position and getting whacked, and our 'heroes' bee-bopping through the bush like they were a bunch of kids in the 3rd week of Basic, NEEDING their 'scout' to school 'em on what to do. NOT EVEN CLOSE to how REAL Rangers attack a fighting position, patrol, or cover each other under fire. Nevermind the fact that the whole scenario portrayed wasn't even remotely close to what actually happened in Anzio. Rangers fought, and most of 'em were killed, captured, or wounded. There the similarities end. A TRUE slap in the face to EVERYONE who fought in WW2. Especially the Rangers. Let us NOT forget The RANGERS (2nd Bn)took a complete disaster on Omaha Beach, and turned it into a successful landing. And if it weren't for their comrades on Point Du Hoc taking care of business the Ranger Way, no Rangers would've been diverted to Omaha, and the outcome would surely have been different there.I've never registered on a website to leave feedback like this before, but this movie infuriated me to the point that I felt compelled to do so.

kikiloveslegwarmers Anzio is a weird film. Made at the height of the Viet-Nam War, it's clear this Italian film is trying to be anti-war. Robert Mitchuim, who looks like he hadn't slept for a month, and was on a week-long drinking binge, rambles on about the waste of war. He sounds like a drunk at a upscale cocktail party. Yet, the movie also uses the basic Hollywood heroics to attract the viewing public. The sniper shoot-out is done realistically and is somewhat exciting. Aside from that, the film is way to talkative, way too long, and the action in general is dull.The best thing about this movie are the performances of Mark Damon and Reni Santoni as two U.S. Army Rangers. Peter Falk was stereotyped with this type of anti-establishment role in the late 1960s and played the exact same role in Castle Keep. Falk also looks beat, drunk, and bored. Arthur Kennedy and Robert Ryan are totally wasted and it's clear they were hired for their names. Earl Holliman gives a modest performance.

zenmark60 a very accurate film . Rome was an open city . if it were not for the stupidity of the American high command , a lot of lives would have been saved .don't pay attention to the previous idiots' comments about this movie . it is very good .robert Mitchum and peter Falk are above average as is the script . by the way...Americans committed plenty of atrocities in world war two ;i have three words for that -- Dresden ; Hiroshima ; and Nagasaki.one of the points this movie makes is that there are no real winners in a war . as Plato said , " only the dead have seen the end of war . give this movie a shot ;it is better than the mindless jingo-ism of a john Wayne or [ god , help us ! ] a Ronald Regan film . ciao !