In 1943, in the Russian front, the decorated leader Rolf Steiner is promoted to Sergeant after another successful mission. Meanwhile the upper-class and arrogant Prussian Captain Hauptmann ... See full summary »
In the winter of 1944, the Allied Armies stand ready to invade Germany at the coming of a New Year. To prevent this occurrence, Hitler orders an all out offensive to re-take French territory and capture the major port city of Antwerp. "The Battle of the Bulge" shows this conflict from the perspective of an American intelligence officer as well as from a German Panzer Commander. Written by
Anthony Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The bazookas used by the Americans are actually Spanish M-65 rocket launchers, introduced after World War II. In addition, the M-65 uses an 89mm rocket, while the American M1, M1A1, M9 bazookas used a 60mm rocket, although the German Panzerschreck, introduced in 1943, used an 88mm rocket. See more »
Don't believe a bit of what is said and shown in this movie. It's all fake.
What can I say about this movie? A lot, but it wouldn't be appropriate to put it in here and I don't want to loose my right to put my comments on this website. So let me tell you this: This movie is absolutely horrific! Never have I ever seen a war movie as bad as this one.
You have to know about me that I'm really a great amateur of war movies. I've got several movies of this kind in my private collection and I'm planning to buy even more war movies, but 'The Battle of the Bulge' will not be one of them. This is just too bad for words.
For a start: Since when do olive trees grow in the Ardennes??? I'm a Belgian, I used to work in the region and I think I can say with 100% certainty that there are a lot of trees, but 99% of them are pines. And there's certainly nothing that looks like an olive tree to me.
Second: When you are watching the movie, one moment you see tanks rolling through a landscape with a lot of snow. Then all the snow magically disappears (the tanks seem to drive through what I might describe as some kind of desert), just to see the snow come back a few moments later.
Third: The acting! I'm not talking about the main actors, Henry Fonda, Charles Bronson, Robert Shaw, ... They didn't even do it too bad. It's the rest. How obvious can overacting be? Normally when a soldier gets hit he doesn't make a few pirouettes, before falling to the ground. They do not fall in a heroic but oh so theatrical way. No, they just fall down, the way the impact of the bullet or whatever hits them makes them fall.
I could go on like this, but it would take us too far. All I want to say is this: Don't believe a bit of what is said and shown in this movie. It's all fake. And the makers of this movie knew that too. At the end of the movie they give you the message that it is 'generalized' , as well as 'synthesized' to convey 'the spirit and essence of the battle' in which a million soldiers fought. Nice way to say that you know that you made a bad and historically completely inaccurate movie.
If you really want to see what the Battle of the Bulge was like, watch the episodes 6 (Bastogne) and 7 (The Breaking Point) of Band of Brothers! You'll see that war isn't about heroism and all that stuff, which they are trying to make you believe with this movie. It's hell, it always has been and always will be!!! They should have known and told that in 1965, it was only 20 years after the war, and not 60 like today! Today a lot of kids have forgotten what World War II was like, and they'll get a wrong view on it when watching a movie like this one. I give it a 1/10.
12 of 19 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?