Actually, as a fictional war movie, BATTLE OF THE BULGE is not bad for its time in terms of plot, character development and action. It's just not the definitive movie about the Battle of the Bulge.
Ever notice how so many movies named after big historical events usually become so full of themselves in the flash and spectacle and hype, and end up bearing no resemblance to the real events they are purported to depict? And how the definitive movies that do accurately capture those very same events have a more subtle title, usually with meaning only to those serious students of the events? Evidence TITANIC (1997) versus A NIGHT TO REMEMBER (1958); PEARL HARBOR (2001) versus TORA! TORA! TORA! (1970); D-DAY, THE SIXTH OF JUNE (1956) versus THE LONGEST DAY (1962). [GETTYSBURG (1993) appears to be the exception to this rule, but then again it was filmed under the working title THE KILLER ANGELS, the same as the Pulitzer-winning book from which it was adapted.]
BATTLE OF THE BULGE falls into the same trap, although the definitive Battle of the Bulge movie, BATTLEGROUND (1949) was also a fictional work rather than a docudrama like A NIGHT TO REMEMBER, TORA! TORA! TORA! or THE LONGEST DAY. Ironically, the closing credits of BATTLE OF THE BULGE claimed, as the intent of the moviemakers, to capture the essence of the battle, but they failed to do so while BATTLEGROUND had already succeeded 16 years earlier. (Actually, if you want a good, historically accurate docudrama of the Battle of the Bulge, the last 45 minutes or so of PATTON will suffice. Then there are also the Battle of the Bulge episodes of the miniseries BAND OF BROTHERS.)
Much has been said about the desert-like setting of BATTLE OF THE BULGE which bears no resemblance to the Ardennes forest of Belgium. I've often wondered about that and the fact that so many of the cast and crew of BATTLE OF THE BULGE were also involved in CUSTER OF THE WEST (actors Robert Shaw, Ty Hardin and Robert Ryan; writers Bernard Gordon and Philip Yordan to name a few). CUSTER OF THE WEST has the 7th Cavalry getting slaughtered in a football field-sized meadow enclosed by trees, while the sprawling barren plains of the final tank battle in BATTLE OF THE BULGE bear an awfully strange resemblance to the Little Bighorn battlefield. Is it possible that the location managers and the rest of the production crew got the last few pages of the two screenplays mixed up? ;-)
Ever notice how so many movies named after big historical events usually become so full of themselves in the flash and spectacle and hype, and end up bearing no resemblance to the real events they are purported to depict? And how the definitive movies that do accurately capture those very same events have a more subtle title, usually with meaning only to those serious students of the events? Evidence TITANIC (1997) versus A NIGHT TO REMEMBER (1958); PEARL HARBOR (2001) versus TORA! TORA! TORA! (1970); D-DAY, THE SIXTH OF JUNE (1956) versus THE LONGEST DAY (1962). [GETTYSBURG (1993) appears to be the exception to this rule, but then again it was filmed under the working title THE KILLER ANGELS, the same as the Pulitzer-winning book from which it was adapted.]
BATTLE OF THE BULGE falls into the same trap, although the definitive Battle of the Bulge movie, BATTLEGROUND (1949) was also a fictional work rather than a docudrama like A NIGHT TO REMEMBER, TORA! TORA! TORA! or THE LONGEST DAY. Ironically, the closing credits of BATTLE OF THE BULGE claimed, as the intent of the moviemakers, to capture the essence of the battle, but they failed to do so while BATTLEGROUND had already succeeded 16 years earlier. (Actually, if you want a good, historically accurate docudrama of the Battle of the Bulge, the last 45 minutes or so of PATTON will suffice. Then there are also the Battle of the Bulge episodes of the miniseries BAND OF BROTHERS.)
Much has been said about the desert-like setting of BATTLE OF THE BULGE which bears no resemblance to the Ardennes forest of Belgium. I've often wondered about that and the fact that so many of the cast and crew of BATTLE OF THE BULGE were also involved in CUSTER OF THE WEST (actors Robert Shaw, Ty Hardin and Robert Ryan; writers Bernard Gordon and Philip Yordan to name a few). CUSTER OF THE WEST has the 7th Cavalry getting slaughtered in a football field-sized meadow enclosed by trees, while the sprawling barren plains of the final tank battle in BATTLE OF THE BULGE bear an awfully strange resemblance to the Little Bighorn battlefield. Is it possible that the location managers and the rest of the production crew got the last few pages of the two screenplays mixed up? ;-)