CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

armtanker One word, horrible.I can understand the use of late 1950s armor, since only 3 King Tigers were left in museums. But this movie is horrible.General Omar Bradley disliked this movie for its inaccurate portrayal of a battle he was personally involved in.The worst part is the ending battle in a desert. This event is meant to portray the battle of Celle, where 2nd Panzers Meause River crossing was stopped cold. But it was cold. Freezing! Fought in the frozen snow covered Ardenne Forest. Band of Brothers or a Midnight Clear show the harshness of the battle.Or reading a book on the battle. As a former tanker I went thru many a winter in Europe, so my dislike of this movies treatment of Veterans hits home.My uncle fought in the Bulge battle in the 4th Armored Div. and I know he would of not liked this movie had he lived to see it.

denis888 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

Armand 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.

edmundcharles-55 ALL:Great actors, but a very narrow film that focuses primarily on the SS Commander Joseph Piper as depicted by Robert Shaw. the incident depicted in the movie was but a mere footnote in the battle, thus the movie misses most of the major battle themes such as St. Vith and Bastogne. As with most US movie war films of the 1960s (Patton) this movie was made in Spain and it was difficult for the movie crews to replicate vast winter battle scenes in a temperate climate (NOTE: Dr. Doctor Zhivago was filmed in Spain but the winter scenes were small and the larger outside winter scenes were filmed in Finland). My father also served in the WWII and he was in the Battle of the Bulge and he confirmed the movie limitations to me.