The Lost Battalion (2001 TV Movie) User Reviews

This hasn't got anything to do with propaganda !!!!

[philip_vanderveken · 8/10 · 9 March 2005]

Just before I wanted to write a review on this movie, I saw the comment from another viewer that it has nothing to do with the reality of WW I and that this is pure propaganda for the US Army. Being European myself, I know that it is very popular in Europe to throw mud at everything that has something to do with the US army, especially since they started the second Gulf war. And to be honest, I agree with most of those protests, but that still doesn't mean that history should be rewritten, does it? I'm very sorry, but if it is your opinion that this movie is nothing more but some cheap propaganda, than I really doubt if you have understood anything about it.

It's a fact that it is thanks to the American involvement at the end of the war (they only entered the war in 1917), the allies won. If they hadn't come to help the French, the British and the Belgian (yes there were a lot less Belgian soldiers fighting in the war than French or British, but we are only a very small country - to give you an idea on how small Belgium is: there are about 10 million inhabitants today), we would probably have lost the war. It's true that the Germans were war-weary, but so where the other parties. The Russians had already signed a truce, allowing the Germans to withdraw a lot of their troops from the Eastern front and sending them to the Western front and the French and the British had lost too many good troops at Ypres (Belgium), Verdun (France) and the Somme region (France). In fact, if the Americans hadn't entered the war, it might not have ended at the 11th of November 1918, but might have continued for many months or perhaps even years.

So far for my history class, back to the movie now. In my opinion this is far from a propaganda movie: It clearly shows the futility and horror of the attacks that the ordinary infantry soldier had to go through. It doesn't leave out the fact that the generals only had few respect for people's lives and it also shows that many mistakes were made like bombing the own troops. It all happened in reality and it is all shown very well in this movie. And if that's propaganda for an army than I'm glad I don't have to fight for them!!!

Perhaps you are afraid that it all is a bit too soft or that the acting will not be good, because it is a TV movie. Well, than this might be the surprise of your life. The acting is very good, it's far from corny and it shows all the horrors and the brutality of the war in a very graphic way. In fact I believe it might be good to warn people with a soft stomach not to watch it, because seeing a man being blown to a million pieces by a direct shell hit, someone being stabbed to death with a bayonet, someone's leg who was torn off because of a blast,... isn't exactly for the faint of heart. Personally I can deal with it, but I'm sure many can't.

I'm a great amateur of realistic (anti-)war movies and I'm very glad that this one belongs to my collection. Of course you don't have to believe me if I say this is a good movie, but do know that it was produced by the History Channel. I guess you might see them as a good reference when it comes to accuracy and realism, don't you think? I give it an 8,5/10. Definitely a must see for everybody who's interested in WW I.

A good one!

[grahamsj3 · 8/10 · 24 March 2003]

Rick Schroeder stars in this made for A&E true story of an American battalion during WW1. In particular, it tells the true about a battle that resulted in the awarding of 3 Medals of Honor. This film contains a lot of battle scenes and they are quite bloody. It's the story, told from pretty much only the American and German sides, of a battle in the ending weeks of the war. The killing continues unabated, and there is plenty of blood and action to suit even the most action craving viewer. The Americans have penetrated deeply into German held territory and threaten the entire German front from behind. Naturally, the Germans want the Americans out of their area and put forth a maximum effort to dislodge them. But the Americans plan to stay and the resulting battle over the next 3 days or so is graphically depicted. There's not a woman in the film at all; the entire film takes place on the battlefield. Yet, even without romantic interludes, there are very few minutes in the film without some sort of action. The entire cast did a great job. All in all, a very enjoyable and well-made film!

Charles Whittlesey 1884-1921

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 14 April 2011]

At last the story of Major Charles Whittlesey finally was told on screen in a fine production from the History Channel. Fresh from his stint on NYPD Blue, Rick Schroder gives a fine performance as the caring major who leads his battalion into a horrendous situation behind enemy lines. Along with what Sergeant Alvin York did, Whittlesey's Lost Batallion was one of the great stories to come out of World War I.

On October 2, 1918 who could have known the war that had stalemated for four years in the trenches on the Western Front was a little more than a month away from the finish. At least that was the view for the dough-boy in those trenches. The leaders of the various countries were negotiating for an armistice. But rumors of armistice had been circulating in the trenches for years.

Whittlesey's Lost Batallion was part of the general offensive in the Argonne Forest and his command advanced way ahead of the rest of the army. Like the soldiers at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge in the next World War, his battalion became surrounded by the German Army and held out for four days. They even had to endure a rash of friendly fire from our side. You're just as dead if you're hit by that. When it was all over the battalion had about 200 men left from the 500 that started.

Rick Schroder does a fine job in essaying the role of Whittlesey who in civilian life was a lawyer. It's touched on slightly, but Whittlesey's politics were fairly left wing, but unlike a lot of the people on the left who opposed the war, he enlisted and received a commission.

The experience in the war and those four days when he had the responsibility of holding his men together, scarred his very psyche. He went back to practicing law and with a really prestigious Wall Street firm, but was constantly in demand for various patriotic type events which didn't sit well with him. In 1921 he went missing from a ferry boat and his body never recovered. That part of the Whittlesey story was not told in this film and is open to a lot of speculation.

Still the story of The Lost Batallion is as ingrained in the American Experience as The Alamo or Pearl Harbor. And we should thank the History Channel for finally being the ones to do the film that tells the story.

I'm Surprised that this wasn't shown on the Big Screen

[TexasRedge · 7/10 · 24 May 2002]

I must give the staff at the A&E Network thier proper praise, because everytime I watch one of thier origianl movies I'm always left feeling satisfied and entertained. Thier Original films like The Crossing, or Sharpe's Rifles are always on the mark, and never Disapointing. I must say that the A&E Studios is the best made for TV studio -bar none. Movies like the Horatio Hornblower series and this one "The Lost Battalion" are proof that A&E Studios are the best made for TV movie studio on earth. I'm surprised this film wasn't shown on the big screen.This film is easily A&E's most expensive and most elaborate production to date.

This film is a very Brutal look at World War I and It is based on a true story. and by the looks and feel of this film A&E Network spared no expense to get this film right. Rick Schroder gives a very Moving performance(even better than his role in Lonesome Dove)and all the other actors do a magnificent job in this film. The Special Effects are perfect and are comparable to any major big screen war movie I've ever seen(although the jerking/shaking camera shots and the overall dirty gritty feel did remind me of Saving Private Ryan). This film has a very touching human story that make you proud to be an american. I loved this film and I plan to purchase a copy on DVD. Even the Music score is very well done. I would recommend this movie to anyone(except it may not be suitible for young children). this film depicts dealing with losses, trusting in blind faith, and finding the courage to carry on. I cant say enough good about this film. I would have gladly paid to see this in a theater! I gave this film 9 out of 10 stars - a near perfect film.

to correct a previous poster's comments...

[not_quite_rain · 27 August 2004]

To reply to D.Smyth's post, yes, the film might make some use of war clichés, but given that the original 1919 film did as well, it seems to be keeping honest to the source material. The battalion was historically a diverse one, and while we've seen the type before in war films, I didn't find the film's portrayal to be so terribly clichéd as to detract from its authenticity or enjoyment.

Also, regarding the goofs D.Smyth points out, the zippo indeed is post-WWI (early '30s); however, it was based on an earlier, Austrian design, which may have been the basis for what shows up in the film.

Also, I'm not sure what his basis is for "o'clock" not existing until twenty years later; to give just one example that contradicts it, Ford Madox Ford references the system twice in his poem "On October, 1914 (Antwerp)" ("This is Charing Cross; / It is one o'clock. ... / This is Charing Cross; it is past one of the clock;"), which was published in 1918.

-nqr

Surprisingly Honest World War I Story.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 29 June 2014]

It operates within the strictures imposed on a television movie -- not many expensive special effects, no bankable stars, and an overall pallid washed-out quality in the photography. And it doesn't entirely avoid the familiar. One man must read aloud from a bloody bible while the listener dies a Hollywood death. And there is one of those conversations about "why we are here." Occasionally, too, it succumbs to the wobbling camera disease that infected so many productions of the time. There is a weak scene in which a German officer interrogates an American captive. The captive smirks throughout and answers sarcastically. It's not believable. But only ONE slow motion death, and thank heavens for small favors.

As Major Charles Whittlesey, commanding a battalion that penetrates the Argonne Forest only to find itself cut off from it own lines, taking massive casualties, running out of essential supplies, Ricky Schroeder has lost his boyish appeal and now, with a pair of spectacles, resembles a real man, something on the order of Jon Voight, only with a less resonant voice. I worked on two TV movies with Schroeder and he's a genuinely nice guy, willing to sit down and chat with humble extras. He should have gone on to decent character roles.

But the most striking feature of the film is its outright candor. True, the American troops are portrayed as brave heroes -- but that's what they WERE. Their triumphs were probably helped by the fact that the war would end shortly and many of the German troops had lost their enthusiasm for battle. But when friendly artillery fire rains down on Whittlesey's men -- as it did -- the error is made explicit on screen.

And due attention is paid to period detail. No reason to get into it but the rifles are Springfield '03s and some property man actually managed to dig up a disastrous French machine gun called the Chauchat. The pistols used by the Yanks are mostly correct but I doubt anybody ever hit much with them. The Luxembourg locations are properly convincing.

Whittlesbey's 77th Division is also historically correct, and so is its character, since most of its men were recruited from the streets of New York. (In the next war the 77th fought in the Pacific and wound up on Okinawa.) Some fun is made of ethnicity and region but it's incorporated into the usual Army banter without which no movie would be complete. A Manhattan Jew trades barbs with an Italian from Brooklyn over which borough has the best food. The names of the principals are real too. It would have been easy to fictionalize much of this and turn it into a talky and mindless feature with flashbacks to the family and girls back home, but the producers decided to handle the story differently. Good for them.

Not Quite as Good as 1917, but Close - The Lost Battalion

[arthur_tafero · 7/10 · 24 May 2021]

For wall to wall violence, one would be hard-pressed to surpass this fairly accurate film about the Argonne Forest campaign in WW 1 (My grandfather was in this battle). I had no idea of the horror he must have gone through. This film clearly shows the brutality and insanity of WW 1 warfare. Schroeder does his best work as an actor making the transition from TV to a major film. The production values are outstanding and the equal to those of 1917 a few decades later. The film shows the grit of the New York/New Jersey soldiers involved in the battle. There were soldiers from other areas of the US as well, but the city boys were highlighted. The constant hour of fighting helps the audience understand the weariness the WW 1 soldiers must have endured, as we become weary ourselves watching the unending violence of this one attack. No wonder gramps had steak every day for the rest of his life which he worked as a train engineer in Bayonne. An excellent WW 1 film.

Superb Great War re-creation, well worth watching.

[analog6 · 10/10 · 12 August 2004]

We watched this last night - I only hired it because it was about WWI's Western Front, one of my abiding interests.

This faithful re-creation of the brutal slaughter of two thirds of Whittlesey's battalion in the Argonne Forest in WWI is one of the finest war movies I've seen (and I include Saving Private Ryan in that list).

The director uses the same sort of hand-held camera footage to re-create how the on-going massacres must have looked through the eyes of the men on the ground. The scene where a man takes a direct hit from a bomb and is vaporised, with just his rolling helmet remaining, is mesmerizing. My partner and I were open mouthed in awe.

As happened so often in WWI, the stupidity and stubbornness of the commanders, often 20-30 miles behind the front line, seems incredible. And the bravery and dedication of the Battalion, made up of a motley crew supposed misfits, mostly from the 'seamy' suburbs of New York, is amazing and beautifully portrayed.

Even the Germans are well rounded characters, not just stupid Huns. they become human too, even if you don't much like them.

And over it all is the poignant underlying knowledge that this is October 1918, just 5 weeks before Armistice Day. It all seems so futile.

But the Battalion held and was credited with being the spearhead for the Allied breaking of the German lines in the area.

I wholeheartedly recommend this movie to all aficionados of war movies.

can feel a little cheap, but its quite joy full

[hr-boege-546-170392 · 7/10 · 3 May 2013]

being very interested in history, i tried to check this movie out. there aren't that many ww1 movies out there (all the focus is for some reason on ww2), so i was a little excited. the movie is based on a true story about a group of American soldiers, that got isolated in a wood on the western front. i don't know how well it keeps up with actual events, but i guess that they made room for some action scenes (it is a war movie after all). one of the things i normally criticize on a war movie, that show us the perspective from the allies, is the "stupid and easy killed" German soldiers (the German army were actually in both world wars a dangerous fighting force). but as far as i know, the Germans lost many men in the woods, so i will go with their high losses. a hilarious thing is the German yelling in the fight scenes. its the same guy yelling the same insults (in bad spoken German) all the time, its really funny to hear if you speak German. all in all its really clear to see that it is a TV movie, so don't expect to get more then that. it has the special atmosphere that a TV movie has. it feels a little cheap, a little cheesy, but you enjoy it anyway. and so is it for this movie. sometime it feels to cheap and cheesy, but you will enjoy it. go check it out, if you have some hours to kill.

A Tale of Bravery and Courage

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 3 July 2007]

In 1918 in World War I, in the Meuse-Argonne Sector in France, the former New York lawyer and Major Charles White Whittlesey (Rick Schroder) is assigned by Gen. Robert Alexander (Michael Brandon) to a massive suicidal attack against the German forces in the Argonne Forest with his five hundred men battalion. However, the forces supposed to be giving support through the flanks retreat and the communications with the headquarter of the 77th American Division are cut. Major Wittlesey holds his position with his men, mostly Irish, Polish, Italian and Jew gangsters from New York, surrounded by the German army. Without food, water, ammunition and medical supplies, only two hundred men survive after five days of siege.

Based on a true event, "The Lost Battalion" is a great tale of bravery and courage. I do not know how accurate the facts are displayed, but I liked this movie very much. The battle scenes are very gore and realistic, in a war of trenches and bayonets, and the actors have great performances, being impossible to highlight an individual acting. Just as a curiosity, this film does not have any actress, only men in the cast. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Último Batalhão" ("The Last Battalion")

Not Unimpressive For A TVM

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 3 December 2012]

There's a real trepidation watching an American war film not set in Vietnam . It's not just the victors who write history but Hollywood as well , and Hollywood history goes along the lines of " Germans are cruel and stupid, the French are stupid and easily beaten and the British talk like royalty and wait for the Americans to turn up to save them " . Who can forget the offensive scene in FRIENDS where Elliot Gould's character tells the British wedding party that " If it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German " ? In truth Britain wouldn't have won the second world war if it wasn't for American intervention . But likewise if Britain had fallen to the Nazi jackboot before Pearl Hsrbor and Hitler had still declared war on Germany how would America be able to defeat Germany . Let's not forget either that the destruction of Nazi Germany was mainly down to the Soviet Union which isn't something you see in a Hollywood movie . So when an American TVM company makes a film featuring American soldiers fighting in World War One I feared history was going to be rewritten in a manner befitting The Ministry Of Truth from 1984

Thankfully this isn't how things panned out . TLB isn't a great war film but one thing it's not blatantly guilty of is stating that the American Expiditionary Force won the Great War single handed . Of course the film focuses on a very small microcosm of the 100 Days Offensive , more specifically the battle of the Argonne Forest where a battalion of AEF soldiers are cut off and surrounded by a larger German force in the dying weeks of the war

And this is the problem with the film . It's trying to show the bravery of the Americans while at the same time taking an anti-war stance . It's trying to have its cake and eat it at the same time which means we the audience aren't treated to anything new . There's also something poignant about getting killed in a war in a period where the outcome is certain . BAND OF BROTHERS made this point quite blatantly but here it's not very clear though it would have been to the real life combatants

The battle scenes themselves are shockingly graphic for a TVM production and are very bloody . One can't help thinking that despite the violent nature something is missing and that is wide shots . By this I mean director Russell Mulcahy frames the action too tightly , there's rarely ever more than three or four characters in frame and one can't help suspecting a lack of budget meant a very small cast of extras . The fight scenes never appear truly cinematic to say the ones in THE BLUE MAX . So in summary this is a war film that in the context of a TVM is relatively impressive but will never win anyone's vote for greatest war movie

well made TV movie

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 24 May 2015]

In 1918 and six weeks before the end of the war, Gen. Alexander orders an attack on the Argonne forest in France. New York lawyer Major Whittlesey (Rick Schroder) disagrees with the order but leads his men into the attack anyways. Alexander pushes Whittlesey forward despite the French having already withdrawn. Poor communications and general confusion leave Whittlesey and his more than 500 men stranded with everybody else retreating back to their trenches. They are surrounded by German forces while the Allies search for their exact location.

This is a well made war movie considering it's only a TV movie. The action is superbly shoot. The sets are good and muddy. Schroder gives an effective performance as the sincere warrior with a conscience. Most of the cast does well. The true story is compelling patriotism and filled with good tension. It is a simple but impressive story.

War is Hell or whatever you make of it. Superb war drama!

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 10 February 2002]

This made for TV war drama brings to the screen inspired bravery, courage, self fortitude and valor. Major Charles Whittlesey(Rick Schroder)leads 500 men in a desperate fight to hold their ground behind enemy lines in the Argonne Forest in France. Surrounded by Germans, the American soldiers with little food and even less water and no lines of communication, sustain a five day siege in the cold winter of 1918. Retreat and surrender were out of the question. This band of men comprised mostly of street wise jaw jackers 'suck it up' and help bring an end to the First World War. This project is superb and a just tribute to those that suffered, sustained and gave their all. Schroder is excellent in a hard working cast that features: Jamie Harris, Jay Rodan, Phil McKee and Rhys Miles Thomas.

Corny and a lack of story

[legendarynumber3 · 4/10 · 20 April 2008]

I usually read reviews before I watch a movie. Guess what, I didn't do that before watching TLB, and I have to say I was very surprised to see the above average rating at IMDb. I found it to have a total lack of story. You just get dropped into it (and, sadly, not in the way Saving Private Ryan dropped us into the movie), and it also has a sudden end, which was very unsatisfying for me.

I have to admit, the wounded soldiers looked pretty realistic to me, especially with the low budget in mind. But prepare yourself to have a laugh... Some guys are being tossed through the air after an explosion as if they are Olympic gymnasts. A mid-air corkscrew or somersault during WW I is a bit too much for me, especially when it's performed countless times during the movie...

But the parts that really got me laughing until I almost cried were the scenes containing close combat. The screaming and shouting German voices...unbelievably funny. It seems as if they are spoken by one single actor / voice performer, because they all sound exactly the same, and it just sounds like a 'typical' German voice.

I would absolutely NOT recommend this movie to anyone, except to people who just want to have some laughs because of the sad and corny quality of it.

A tribute to those who served.

[rickrk-rk · 8/10 · 20 January 2020]

I'm surprised this movie didn't garner more attention. By and large it is factually accurate in the actual events as well as the uniforms, weapons, and grittiness of close quarter combat. The acting is way above average in its portrayal of the diversity of the soldiers that made up the 77th Infantry. I've watched it twice looking for flaws, which were few and far in between. If you're into WWI history, this is a must-see.

Breathtaking, break neck pace

[JerryCantrell · 9/10 · 16 October 2004]

I've had the chance to see this movie a few times on A&E. While it was a made for TV movie, don't let it fool you. The budget constraints never leak through in this movie.

Beyond a job well done with the limited budget, the action sequences are amazing. Very intense and graphic (for a made for TV movie, but rather depictive overall).

All in all the movie was excellent. I enjoyed it immensely and really found myself sucked in. If I were to post up one complaint, I guess it would have to be the length. On a final positive note, the acting was believable, a major plus.

A&E surprises me again with another good war movie

[socceralex16 · 8/10 · 25 February 2004]

When you look at the box, or consider the no name actors aside from Rick Schroder, and see that A&E made this movie for t.v. with a small budget, you may wonder why your even watching it at all. Yet when you do watch it, and get deep into the plot, you notice this is one good movie. The scenery was on par, the acting was very good, even Schroder did very well. The action sequences, though not comparable to Saving Private Ryan for obvious reasons, were very well done. Plenty of blood and explosions, and though a few of the flying wildly deaths were a bit corny, everything else was on key. I own every single war movie made in the last 20 years that exist on DVD, and this is definately one on the upper end of that spectrum. In 2 years, 2 great war movies were made that most have never heard of (A&Es The Crossing as the other one), others cannot find, and if you wish to own, must check online. Give this movie a shot, because it belongs in any war movie collection. I took off only for a few factors, a little short, a little corny in the death scenes, and as a history buff, I am not sure the uniforms were on par from the German side, looked WWII'ish, haha, but lack of budget can account for that. 8/10

Superior war film

[dryan4 · 17 September 2002]

Without the extreme violence and profanity of "Saving Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down", Mulcahy's film achieves a higher level of cinematic and emotional success than either of its modern counterparts. The balance of true-life horror and tear-evoking courage and honor is perhaps more beliveable and acceptible than in the fictional "Ryan" or the questionable context of "Black Hawk". That is for history to evaluate. In the case of "Ryan", the ridiculous premise, based upon the true-life scenario of the deaths of the fighting Sullivan brothers, pales in comparison to the true story of Whittlesey and his battalion's mission to serve the entire American Army and its allies, not just one family. In addition, "The Lost Battalion" is a comparable technical tour-de-force, although perhaps Mulcahy derives some directorial inspiration from Spielberg. He compensates for this be eliciting a superior performance from Rick Shroeder than Spielberg did from Hanks, and by adding some nifty special effects shots here and there. This is a film that mixes the respect for the fighting soldier with a disdain for inept command, and war in general. There is no other agenda here, because the truth tells its own story. Rent this, or buy it. You will not be disappointed.

Passionless and unfocused directing

[robo8 · 4/10 · 31 January 2008]

I want to say the acting is bad, but I think it was the directing that made it so. I never thought much of Highlander (same director) but that one could be blamed on the 80s.

This one however, has no excuses. People get shot while exiting trenches with a man in front of him!? Those kind of mistakes, along with an unclear time line, weird battle tactics, sub-par cutting and poor visual effects, makes this one a sub-par film over all.

Then like so many other have commented, all this American bullshit. The German general being practically scared of his captured American private. Be prepared to swallow a lot of it, although in small doses.

To sum it up, a not horrible but still definitely sub-par war movie in all aspects.

Not worth the hype.

[laplander · 5 January 2002]

This movie, for all the hype, is really a let down to those who know what really happened in the Charlevaux Ravine between October 2nd and October 8th, as well as the offensive fought in the Argonne Forest between September 26th and November 11th. Factually the movie repeatedly persists in making very basic mistakes concerning uniforms, dialog, military matters, and a whole host of other points too numerous to mention in this post. The quality of the acting is marginal at best, the continuity falls well short of the mark, and the story line fails to follow what really happened. The researchers obviously didn't do their jobs - otherwise the majority of the mistakes made would never have occured (ie: it wasn't the '308th Battalion', it was basically the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 308th Infantry Regiment, 154th Infantry Brigade, 77th Division, and elements of the 306th Machine Gun Battalion, and Company 'K' of the 307th Infantry - it is also inconceivable that combat soldiers would STAND UP in the middle of an attack and expose themselves to infilading fire) The location chosen for the film does not resemble the Charlevaux Ravine in the least, nor does Rick Schroeder resemble Charles Whittlesey (or act like him for that matter). All in all, except for certain battle scenes, this movie was a pure waste of film. Robert J. Laplander Author of the forthcoming book "Epic in the Argonne: A Comprehensive History of Charles W. Whittlesey and the Lost Battalion"

This was a great one!

[ciddan · 9/10 · 4 November 2005]

I have to say this is one of the beast movies I've seen in a while. My expectations were low going in to it, but after a while I realised that it was going to be a good one. This is clear proof that you don't need an unlimited budget to make a great war-movie. It had great action and tangible emotion with some great strong characters. I also really enjoyed that the viewer got to see what was going on over at the German camp.

That this was a straight to TV film is quite surprising. I am confident that this movie could have held it's own in theaters as well. If you feel hesitant about this film, don't be. It's a great one!

I'd love it if it weren't for that accursed shaky cam!

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 21 November 2021]

One of the worst innovations in TV and films in recent years has been the employment of the so-called 'shaky cam'. In other words, instead of trying to reduce camera shake, someone thought it was a great idea NOT to. Now there is existing technology to reduce shake and make the footage look better...but apparently some folks thought it was great to make footage look worse, perhaps to make it look more real. Well, it might...but it also might induce nausea!! One reviewer wondered why this film wasn't released first to the big screen...but with the shaky cam, they'd need to hand out Dramamine to patrons first!! This sort of shake is VERY apparently in battle scenes...and I really dislike it...which is a shame, as otherwise this is a quality film. I love how they tried to get details right...such as the Americans using French machine guns...which was common in WWI.

The story is apparently based on real situations. It's set in October, 1918...just a month before the end of the war. The Americans and French have planned a doomed offensive and the story is about a unit that was caught behind enemy lines and had to either fight its way out or wait for help.

Rick Schroder plays the lead, Major Whittlesey. He is actually very good but sadly wasn't a great choice for a reason he couldn't control. While he was about 30 when he made the film, he looked about 20...too young looking to be a major. One day he'll love looking so young!

Overall, this is an exceptionally made film...one that would earn a 9 if it weren't for that accursed shaky cam. It was so bad in spots that I found myself looking away because it was noticeable and annoying.

I can't believe this was a "Made for TV" movie

[gliderguy · 9/10 · 23 October 2021]

The production values are excellent and the attention to detail amazing. They came up with all of the standard rifles and pistols, but also heavy weapons like artillery. The amazing part is when they showed a rare French Chauchat Light Machine Gun ("a piece of garbage") and a German Flammenwerfer M.16 flamethrower.

The story is about a battalion that was a part of an Allied offensive in the waning days of WWI (the war ended a few weeks later). Filming was done in the Argonne, which made it that much more authentic. Real Germans played all of the speaking German roles.

The US battalion was led by Major Charles Whittlesey (Rick Schroder), a New York lawyer. The battalion was a part of a larger offensive, with the French on one side and two American units on the other. The Argonne is a heavily forested area, so visibility is limited to a couple of hundred yards. Fighting was very heavy from the get-go, but the battalion broke thru the German front lines and began pushing rearward. Communication was extremely limited, constrained to runners and, yes, carrier pigeons! The battalion became surrounded by German forces without any reinforcement or supplies beyond what they carried with them during the first day push. Whittlesey rejected a German demand that they surrender delivered by a captured soldier. This one area where they took a minor artistic license: the 18 year old enlisted soldier actually captured was changed to an officer so he could have an invented dialog with a German commander. US soldiers had little ammunition left and no food. Their only water source was a nearby stream that exposed them to German fire to get to. They had to reuse bandages used on dead soldiers.

The situation, already dire, got worse: the battalion was shelled by their own allies by mistake. In a desperate effort to stop the bombarding Whittlesey dispatched a carrier pigeon to get the shelling stopped. The Germans spotted the bird and began shooting at it, wounding the bird. But, incredibly, the pigeon made it back anyway, and the shelling was stopped. Now, you've got to think that this was all made up for dramatic purposes, but you would be wrong: this astonishing event did occur. The bird ended up becoming a national hero. The pigeon, Cher Ami, was awarded the Croix de Guerre Medal and was later inducted into the Racing Pigeon Hall of Fame in 1931.

Major efforts were made by the battalion's parent division, the 77th Division. The 308th infantry alone lost 766 men in this effort, more men than were in the Lost Division. This part of the battle was ignored in the movie, which made it seem like there was little effort expended to rescue the Lost Division. Finally, these efforts were successful and the Lost Division was rescued. Only 194 men walked out of the 500 that began the battle, the rest were dead, wounded or missing.

Seven Congressional Medal of Honor Awards were awarded to men of the Lost Battalion, one of which went to Charles Whittlesey. He returned to the US after the war a hero. He resumed his career as a lawyer, but was constantly besieged with public appearance requests. This attention was too much for the man and he committed suicide by jumping overboard on a trip to Cuba. The movie made no mention of this.

This is one compelling story that most of us (including me) are unaware of since it happened over a hundred years ago. The movie does a commendable job of accurately portraying the events of this battle with minor historical inaccuracies. I highly recommend this movie.

It should have been good. Spoilers

[capcase · 4/10 · 18 July 2004]

When this movie was first shown on television I had high hopes that we would finally have a decent movie about World War I as experienced by American soldiers. Unfortunately this is not it.

It should have been a good movie about WWI. Even though it was made for television it is obvious that a real effort was made to use appropriate equipment and props. But the writing and directing are badly lacking, even though the makers of this movie obviously borrowed freely from quite a few well made war movies. War movie clichés abound such as the arrogant general who apparently does not care a flip about the lives of his men. When will Hollywood realize that, even though there have been plenty of bad generals, most combat unit generals have seen plenty of combat themselves and are not naive about what the average grunt experiences? The first part of this movie appeared to be "Paths of Glory" with American uniforms. Except that "Paths of Glory" was emotionally gripping. Later on there was Chamberlain's charge (except uphill) from "Gettysburg" and even the capture of the American soldier by a ring of enemy soldiers from "The Thin Red Line". But in "The Thin Red Line" the soldier was alone when captured. In this movie a ring forms around the new prisoner in the middle of a battle.

If this movie used a military adviser they ignored him. Even though the actors (and I never could forget they were actors while watching) mouthed military tactics I didn't see very much of it. The American soldiers would stand up to be shot while the Germans attacked. And the infamous Storm Troopers, who were apparently blind, appeared to use no tactics whatsoever in their attack. In the real war, the tactics were what made storm troopers so effective. But the silliest scene was the attack of the German Flamethrowers. In this scene the German flamethrower operators walked in a broad line towards the defending Americans. If that had been real they would never have gotten close enough to use their flamethrowers before they had all been dropped by the defender's bullets.

Okay, so most war movies are unrealistic when it comes to the tactics shown. But it is still disappointing. But what really turned me off to this flick was the typical anti-war anti-military angle that movie makers seem to think is important. True, war is hell. But most American soldiers, even though they grumble and gripe, tend to believe in what they are doing and can be rather gung-ho about it. My Grandfather served in World War I. And even though he died four years before I was born I have been told how proud he was of his service.

To Cydone

[bonobio · 8 May 2004]

If you read the actual accounts of those who were there, you would realize that (while perhaps some) not all were shot on sight when captured.

This is by Private Lowell R. Hollingshead, captured by the Germans and forced to deliver to Lieut. Col. C. W. Whittlesey the German "Demand for Surrender."

"This Officer turned out to be Lieutenant Heinrich Prinz and addressing me in perfect English, his first question was., "How long since you have eaten?" and I replied, "five days." He said, "Poor devil, you must be starved." And I answered, "I certainly am." He then called an orderly to whom he spoke and who hurriedly disappeared. Prinz told me to lie down, but before doing so he gave me a gold tipped cigarette from a box which sat on his table and we were for all the world like host and guest rather than an officer and captured enemy soldier."

So this part of the movie seems to be true to form.