Battle of the Bulge (1965) User Reviews (195)

"They got Blondie!"

[dr_foreman · 6/10 · 13 November 2006]

When I was a little kid, I watched "Battle of the Bulge" approximately 58 million times. I thought it was the cat's pajamas.

But even back then, my young and usually trusting mind could detect a strong whiff of baloney from this movie. I had difficultly believing, for example, that every Allied soldier in World War II was an incompetent nitwit except for the all-knowing, all-seeing Henry Fonda. Throughout the course of this movie, Fonda's character predicts the battle (rather like a psychic, or someone with access to the script), uncovers every weakness in the German plan, and then finally plays a key role in stopping the entire German offensive. What a versatile guy, huh?

And yes, even my inexperienced child-self found it rather weird that, in this movie, the Americans are depicted as being utterly incapable of fighting the Germans. The film suggests, in a somewhat insulting fashion, that in point of fact the Americans did not win this battle in the traditional way - we only won it because the Germans ran out of gasoline and decided to walk home! What complete rubbish. Anybody with even a vague understanding of the real battle knows that the Americans won simply by counterattacking - what a novel idea!

Some commentators on this site have argued that the film's historical inaccuracies don't matter, and that only World War II nerds will be offended by the script's tinkering with history. However, I would argue that "Battle of the Bulge" is SO inaccurate that such a defense doesn't hold water. And it's not as though the inaccuracies make the film better; in fact, I'm confident that a more realistic portrayal of the battle would have made the film far more exciting, even-handed, and worthwhile.

And yet... and yet... I still like this stupid movie! The tank battles are fun, the music is great, and the cast is really top-notch. Here's a general rule of thumb that I apply to the film as a whole - the scenes with the Americans are stupid, and the scenes with the Germans are good. For example - Robert Shaw is simply awesome as the (fictional) German commander. He has a fascinating series of moral debates on the nature of the war with his aide, a long-suffering corporal played by Hans Christian Blech; these scenes are a real highlight of the film, and their intelligence makes for a stark contrast with the general idiocy of other scenes.

There's also a very good scene when Charles Bronson tells Fonda that his men are so angry because of the war that they want to completely annihilate Germany and its people. This somewhat sinister note always gets my attention, but it pretty much amounts to nothing.

Perhaps the best thing that I can say about this movie is that it got me curious about the real battle, and the war in general. Because it's reasonably cool and exciting, the film is a pretty good vehicle for generating interest in the events it depicts so carelessly. Also, the script is perhaps not quite so inaccurate as some people claim - the early forest battles are somewhat like the real thing, and the general nature and goals of the German offensive are accurately portrayed.

It's just that too many dumb Hollywood moments spoil the movie for any serious aficionado of history and/or cinema. That's a shame, really. I wouldn't mind seeing a more accurate remake, which presumably would not involve an omnipotent Henry Fonda singlehandedly foiling the last great German offensive of World War II.

Ah yes! The scorched plains of the Belgian desert...

[KEVMC · 6/10 · 12 October 2002]

December 1944. The Germans launch their last major offensive in the west. The plan is to break through the Allied lines at several points in the hilly, densely wooded Ardennes region of Belgium and make an all out drive to recapture the port of Antwerp, thereby cutting the Allied forces in two. The Allies cannot use their air superiority due to dense fog covering the region. The task of stopping the vast armoured advance falls to small groups of US soldiers making a stand wherever possible.

I really have mixed feelings towards this film. In terms of historical, geographical and meteorological accuracy, it's an utter shambles from start to finish. All the characters are ficticious (some are obviously composites of real participants in the battle). A fact already well documented is the use of '50s/'60s US tanks to represent the German Tigers and US Shermans. There is no mention whatsoever of the fact that General Patton managed to basically turn the advance of his 3rd Army through 90 degrees, then head north to break through to the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. Finally, to suggest that the Germans ran out of fuel and simply 'walked back to Germany' is plain insulting. The geographical errors are also quite glaring. During the first half of the film these errors can be largely overlooked. However, from the artillery train sequence onwards to the climactic tank battle, the terrain looks more like Arizona than the Ardennes! (vast desert like plains). Then, as if all that isn't bad enough, there's the weather. The winter of '44/'45 was one of the worst in recent history. In the Ardennes that meant deep snow, freezing temperatures and thick fog. Apart from some snowy scenes early on, there isn't much evidence of any of this!

Considering all the inaccuracies catalogued above, I should despise this film, but I don't. Taken on its' level, it's quite enjoyable. It has a strong cast; Robert Shaw and Hans Christian Blech are both very good, Charles Bronson was an old hand at these all star extravaganzas, and Henry Fonda exudes his usual quiet dignity. The script, if a bit hokey, is no worse than others from the period and the cinematography and score are fine. The battle scenes are professionally staged and comparison with modern war films would be unfair.

A point worth noting is the fact that this film has been cut in recent years. The missing scenes are briefly:- 1. The introduction of the Germans dressed as US MPs. 2. Shaw inspecting his tanks. 3. A conversation between Fonda and Bronson. 4. A lengthy sequence in Ambleve with a conversation between Shaw and Bronson, followed by an attempt on Shaw's life by a young boy. The boy's life is spared but his father is executed. The missing footage accounts for roughly 10 minutes of running time. The quoted running time on most reference works is 167 mins., which I assume includes the overture, intermission music and exit music. This would seem to be correct, for if my old widescreen VHS copy contained the missing scenes (the music is all present) it would run approx. 160 mins.(running time is speeded up on PAL). But I digress.

Overall then, a film with some very major flaws. If you're expecting a film in the same vein as 'The Longest Day' or 'A Bridge Too Far' you'll be terribly disappointed. If you can accept it as a fictional account of the battle however, and can view the complete version, then it's well worth a look.

My Favorite WWII Epic is Admittedly a Mixed Bag

[SgtSlaughter · 6/10 · 28 June 2003]

VIEWED ON REGION 1 DVD FROM WARNER BROTHERS

This big, bloated epic re-creation of the battle which turned the tide of World War II manages to be on the most historically inaccurate and over-blown adventure pieces ever produced. It's also one of the most entertaining war movies to grace the big screen. The combination of heroics and history shouldn't work as well as it does.

Writers John Melson, Philip Yordan and Milton Sperling remain faithful to the broad outlines of the real battle, and then fill their story with several important fictional characters, and director Ken Annakin uses a combination of Hollywood heroics and historical accuracy to deliver an entertaining tale. The film relies solely on the excellently-shot action sequences and superb acting by the leads to hold it together.

Veteran director Ken Annakin knows how to make this film work. In the lead, Henry Fonda ("Midway") seems to be having plenty of fun as Colonel Kiley. He gets to argue with people, shoot at Germans, fly in a plane, and even help fend off a Panzer attack – not bad for a civilian-turned-soldier, eh? On the flip-side, Robert Shaw ("Force 10 from Navarone") is fantastic as the fanatical Colonel Hessler, a devoted Panzer officer who will stop at nothing to accomplish his mission. Hessler brings new meaning the Hollywood-Nazi-type: he's brutal, nasty and dedicated despite the fact that he knows Germany cannot win the war.

The supporting cast is filled with the familiar faces of Charles Bronson, Ty Hardin, James MacArthur and Telly Savalas – but the real star is Hans Christian Blech ("The Longest Day"). As Conrad, the war-weary, aging German Corporal, it's his best work in a war film. Conrad wants to go home and is devoted to Hessler, until he realizes that his commander's dedication sits precariously on the edge of madness. His facial expressions – bug-eyed outbursts, sad frowns, frightened glances at strafing airplanes – have never been more convincing.

This epic was shot for the big screen using Cinerama, and the only way to appreciate the action sequences is to see this movie in widescreen. Pan-and-scan prints cut it down from a 2.7:1 ratio to 1.33:1 - that's losing more than half of the image! It was shot on the vast plains of Spain, and although it looks nothing like the brutal winter in the Ardennes forest, this scenery makes from some very impressive landscapes for which to shoot colossal battle scenes. Annakin shows tanks facing off with each other on the plains and in the snow-encrusted woods and shows hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of a French city. These scenes are set to an excellent, rousing Ben Frankel score, which only adds to the excitement. There are hundreds of extras running about, as well as several dozen loud, clanking tanks. Annakin often places his camera on the front end of a tank, train or moving car to give the viewer a "you-are-there" perspective, a technique which is ruined with the pan-and-scan process.

The dramatic effect of the serious scenes is severely hampered by preposterous Hollywood heroics and some incredibly poor special effects. Quite often, the combat and destruction look incredibly real, but there are some truly laughable shots of exploding model tanks and roaring model trains, too. The battle scenes, notably a huge tank vs. tank battle and a conclusion involving an attempted German capture of an Allied fuel dump are incredibly corny and false-looking - first for their false-looking special effects, which looked bad even in 1965, and secondly for their placement in a desert rather than a snowy forest - which really destroyed the credibility Annakin had been working up to. A strong subplot involving an American tanker, Guffy (Telly Savalas, "The Dirty Dozen") and another, centering on the Malmedy Massacre, help to offset this cheesiness.

"Battle of the Bulge" is a true Hollywood epic in every sense of the word. It may not be historically accurate, but it's probably the most entertaining and engaging war film I've had the pleasure to watch. The characters are main fleshed out enough to keep the viewers interested, the scope is amazing and the direction often borders on brilliance as often as it fails miserably.

Head 'Em Off at the Pass

[bensonj · 18 February 2003]

A disclaimer on the end credits states, in effect, that the events and people in this picture bear no relationship to a battle by the same name that took place in WW II. Filmmakers have dealt with the problem of filming the big event in various ways; some show many fragments, following individuals here and there; some concentrate on the view of the generals, with long-shots of big battles; some opt for telling just a little part of the big picture, a microcosm. The solution here is to pretend that only a few dozen people were actually involved in the whole campaign.

One has to assume that someone had a cavalry western script but realized westerns weren't selling any more, so they sold it by doing a quick rewrite to make it a war movie. Henry Fonda is the grizzled scout who insists the Indians are about to attack, based on his reading of the signs in the dirt, and who pulls his boss, the general, out of the fire time and again. Yes, it's Hank who, in the first skirmish, moves up to see if the Indians have a cache of rifles, who recognizes their leader as an escaped renegade fighter-Indian, who discovers that the friendly Crows at the pass are actually deadly Apaches in disguise, who, at a number of critical points, goes out with his young partner to scout around and comes back to the campfire with vital information, who realizes that the big battle is actually a ruse for the Indians to send a party to the water hole to fill their canteens with badly needed water, and who, with an arrow sticking through his shoulder, singlehandedly leads a few raw recruits in a clever maneuver to keep the Indians from the water hole and saves the day. In the last shot, the Indians march back to the reservation across the desert. The Fonda character, in particular, seems to still be in that western. He isn't just A scout, he's THE scout, the only scout, and all intelligence info that's important to the battle is his. The other characters fit the western mold pretty well also, including Shaw's Nazi. Only the Savalas character is indelibly out of WW II (or, more accurately, out of the Bilko show).

I wonder if people back America would ever know what it cost the soldiers to win this war

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 6 April 2007]

How could anyone ever know of the price paid by soldiers in terror, agony, and bloodshed if they'd never been to places like Normandy, Bastogne, or Haguenau? Battle of the Bulge or Battle of the Ardennes was the last German offensive on the Western Front during World War II, an unsuccessful attempt to push the Allies back from German home territory...

The name "Battle of the Bulge" was appropriated from Winston Churchill's optimistic description, in May 1940, of the resistance that he mistakenly supposed was being offered to the German's breakthrough in that area just before the Anglo-French collapse; the Germans were in fact overwhelmingly successful… The "bulge" refers to the wedge that they drove into the Allies lines...

Ken Annakin's film forgets those who fought and died in the real 'Bulge'. The Ardennes offensive never occurred like it was related in the film...

The movie takes us to December 1944, where British and American armies are in the threshold of victory… Stretched across half of Europe, the Allies gathered themselves for the final assault on Germany… To the north stood Montgomery's Eight Army, to the south, Patton's Third, in the center, a few battle-weary American divisions rested in a quiet sector… To them, the war seemed already won… But for Col. Kiley (Henry Fonda) the German army, facing the Allies, is still an undefeated enemy… Kiley still believes that the Germans are planning one last major offensive… His superiors, Gen. Gray (Robert Ryan) and Col. Pritchard (Dana Andrews), are doubtful of a German move…

Col. Hessler (Robert Shaw) leads the full-scale attack in a huge wave of tanks, eliminating everything in its way… His new 70-ton King Tiger tank has two-and-a-half times the firepower and double the armor of the American tanks…

Filmed in Cinerama, the motion picture is a bloody war spectacle, quite literate and handsome but too noisy and with emphasis on strategy rather than character

a lot of reorganizing history but still compelling war movie

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 26 May 2015]

It's December 1944. The Allies troops are confident to finish the war quickly. The Germans plan a major offensive to retake Antwerp. Former cop Lt. Col. Kiley (Henry Fonda) tries to warn his superiors about an imminent attack against the thin worn American lines but Gen. Grey and Col. Pritchard dismiss his concerns. Sgt. Guffy (Telly Savalas) is a tank commander who is more concerned with wheeling and dealing. Maj. Wolenski (Charles Bronson) commands a frontline position.

The start is mostly Henry Fonda investigating the planned attack with a good side story of German Col. Hessler being put in command of the Tiger tanks. The tanks are obviously wrong but I understand the difficulties. There are a lot of rewriting of history in this movie. Henry Fonda being at every important place gets way too coincidental. Essentially, a massive battle in the war is boiled down to an one-man crusade. The fuel depot fight looks silly compared to the other parts of the movie. Nevertheless this is a compelling old-fashion big-action war movie. The tank battles looks pretty good.

Good movie, if you ignore the title

[Baron-von-Brunk · 8/10 · 16 October 2005]

Let's pretend this movie has nothing to do with the battle in Belgium, winter 1944. The movie is only bad if you associate it too much with the real life events, but if you focus on the amazing line-up of actors, special effects, soundtrack, and battle sequences, it becomes a very interesting and entertaining World War II movie. Although compared to more realistic war movies like Patton, this film serves no real educational value. To me it seems like a WWII fan-fiction of some sort, like a "what-if" scenario. The movie would have probably been ridiculed a lot less if it was titled something different (anything but The Battle of the Bulge), therefore people would just assume it's some sort of war sci-fi movie.

Don't let the title fool you; There's only a few things in the whole movie which actually relate to the Ardennes 1944 (i.e., the snow battles, unexpected German spearheads, General McAuliffe & the "nuts" letter, locations in Malmedy, etc.), meanwhile there's no mention of Patton's relief of Bastogne, which was the the event most people associate with the real battle of the bulge in the first place.

Check this movie out if you'd like to see something different from factual movies. It's a small break from reality, and portrayed in a seemingly fictional (but real, technically) campaign in WWII. It's also a great movie if you like all-star casts and A list actors.

Spectacular and overlong warlike movie based on famous Ardennes battle

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 11 December 2007]

This Blockbuster is one of the biggest war films ever made. It's a magnificent film, recreating the known offensive by Nazi Panzer tanks on the Belgian front during 1944-45 .What happened during those desperate days that could have changed the course of war is now history . It's well recreated by Ken Annakin for Warner Bros, in Cinerama production with Technicolor cinematography by Jack Hildyard. The producer, Milton Sperling was well-qualified for his job but he was a marine officer and he had 10 combat cameramen, covering three battles during the war and made three documentaries out of those events. Sperling tells that making this film recalled his owns experiences in the war and made it quite possible for the sound effects you heard today to be as realistic as those he heard when was listening to them whining overhead.The making was a logistical problem as almost that of setting up a campaign and putting a film together under any circumstances was very difficult because working under very bad weather conditions. So this whole film was put together, photographed and edited, scored and prepared for release in a matter of about eight months. We scoured Europe,there are places where such tanks do exist,sometimes in junkyards, sometimes in existing armies and just by chance, one finds a cache of tanks, guns,old planes and various other relics .The equipment managed to assemble these great numbers of tanks after looking about for months and months. So what we see on the screen are truly the Tiger tanks that were fought in the battle and the Western Front, no wonder the battle scenes looked so authentic .Robert Shaw ,with his blue eyes blazing, is the fanatical tank commander, he was chosen because he can play virtually anything that's given to him.It was rather an obvious choice , there are so few good actors and he's capable of doing anything. Henry Fonda is terrific, as obstinate officer who finds vital German attacking position. In the remaining supporting cast appear Telly Savallas as a roguish sergeant, James McArthur as an unexperienced young lieutenant, George Montgomery as a valiant veteran sergeant, among others.

The Battle of Bulge film is based on true events about the Ardennes offensive, the real deeds are the following : It was a Hitler's plan code-named ¨Watch on the Rhine¨for a breakthrough by Field Marshal Von Rundstedt aimed at the US line in the Ardennes 16 Dec 1944 . Hitler aimed to isolate the Allied forces north of the corridor which would be created by a drive through the Ardennes, creating a German salient or bulge. There were 77.000 Allied casualties and 130.000 German, including Hitler's last powerful reserve of elite Panzer units. Although US troops were encircled for some weeks at Bastogne, the German counteroffensive failed. Three armies were deployed in the operation- Dietrich's 6th Panzer,the 5th Panzer, and the 7th Panzer-together with a 'Trojan Horse' force of English-speaking in US uniforms under Otto Skorzeny. The offensive opened 16 Dec along 113 Km of the front , aiming at the US 1st Army and General Omar Bradley's 12th Army Group. Initial progress was good as the Allies were unprepared for action along a section of the front hitherto so quiet it had been nicknamed ¨the Ghost Front¨and bad weather grounded Allied air support. However, the Germans failed to capture vital fuel dumps and the dogged Allied defense of St Vith and Bastogne seriously set the operation back. Bastogne was an important road junction, lay in the path of the German advance and was held by the US 101 Airbone Division. It was besieged by German forces 18 Dec and strongly attacked , the defenses were breached in two places . However the attacks were repulsed and was relieved by the US 4th Armored Division, though fierce fighting continued in the area for some days. The Allies quickly recovered from the initial shock and, while north of the Bulge General Bernard Montgomery blocked the German advance at the Meuse, to the south Bradley's forces also struck back, with General Patton breaking through to relieve Bastogne 26 Dec. By the end of Dec the weather improved, allowing the Allied air forces to play a part in the battle and by 3 Jan 1945 the Allies took the offensive , by 16 Jan the Bulge has been eliminated.

Watch the movie, you will like it!

[glentom1 · 8/10 · 23 March 2007]

I love this movie. Great actors, great scenes. The song the panzer commanders sing is a great moment in movie history.

I read other reviews and many of them I don't understand. Some of them give one star because they say the movie is so historically inaccurate. Was the TV show Combat accurate? Was the popular movie Dirty Dozen accurate? If you want accuracy, stick to the History channel, and even then there will be debates. If you want an entertaining war flick, watch this one! There are none much better.

Another gripe I have with reviews on this movie is with those that question its title. There actually was a Battle of the Bulge in military history. But there never was a "Longest Day" battle. Titles of movies are meant to bring people to the theater, not teach history.

Lest you think I am not an educated reviewer, you should know I was an enlisted Marine, then an Officer of Marines 30 years ago. My family goes back to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, and afterwards.

Even if I was a fly on the wall watching one of my ancestors participate in the Battle of the Bulge, that would not qualify me to comment on the entire battle. Watch the movie, you will like it for entertainment. Then read a book afterwards if you worry you have not been sufficiently educated.

The last great German offencive

[face-782-656201 · 7/10 · 7 August 2010]

Before i begin my summary of the film i wish to say that if anyone you know has told you the film is poor because it's inaccurate DON'T LISTEN TO THEM this film is well shot , well acted and exciting. If you watch this film to get information for some history coursework then it won't do any good but despite it's anachronisms it is still very good. The tanks used in the film are m-47 Patton tanks and m-24 Chaffee tanks and for people who pan the film for this every war film uses British , Russian or American tanks to represent German tanks because there are none that still work. I liked the fact that the German tiger II's were portrayed as unstoppable forces of destruction it made the Germans a much more frightening enemy on screen. The producers of this film made a good job of getting the scale of the battle scenes large enough and the performances from Shaw and Fonda and pretty much all the cast are excellent. Check it out !

An Unsightly Bulge

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 31 October 2006]

After 20th Century Fox had put out The Longest Day to such critical and popular success, you might have thought that Warner Brothers would have learned and copied that formula. They even hired Ken Annakin who was one of the directors for The Longest Day.

But if you are looking for the names of Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, Hodges, and Montgomery on the Allied side and Von Rundstedt and Model among the Germans you will be disappointed. All the names of the principals are changed. Folks like Henry Fonda, Robert Ryan, and Dana Andrews are playing fictionalized characters.

A couple of things are brought in mainly because they are part of the legend of the Bulge, the Malmedy Massacre and the famous reply of General McAuliffe to the German inquiry about surrendering the besieged town of Bastogne. In fact the latter is just dropped into the story without any of the principal players involved. I guess the producers had a thought that no film about the Bulge would be accepted without it, no matter how forced.

It would have been nice if a straight dramatic narrative approach had been used like The Longest Day. With of course the names of the real people. Part of the Bulge story was told in MGM's Battleground and in Patton.

In this film the best performances are that of Robert Shaw as the fanatical Nazi Panzer commander and his war weary aide Hans Christian Blech. Honorable mention should also go to George Montgomery as a tough American sergeant and his lieutenant James MacArthur who grows in stature thanks to Montgomery's example.

For a film that is more than two and a half hours in length, I'd have liked to have seen the real deal though.

Colonel Hessler Lives!!!!!

[centaurbn · 9/10 · 13 April 2006]

The only reasons not to give this film a "10" are the aforementioned inaccuracies concerning armored vehicles and subbing the Central Texas terrain for the Ardennes.

When Shaw eschews the "Lady of the Evening" provided for his comfort before battle, you know that this is one serious war movie!!!!!!

Robert Shaw, Chuck Bronson, Telly Savalas, Henry Fonda....all fantastic.

Much more believable than Bronson and Savalas later work in the "Dirty Dozen".

A true paean to the end of the Reich!!!

Solid, but not immersive

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 14 September 2019]

BATTLE OF THE BULGE is one of the epic WW2 films of the 1960s, but given that all of the others are so good - from THE GUNS OF NAVARONE to THE LONGEST DAY - this one pales in comparison somewhat. It's not that this film is particularly poor, it's just that it could be better. It's overlong, for a start, and surprisingly simplistic given the nature of the actual battle itself. Robert Shaw plays a nasty Nazi in charge of a tank division attacking an assembled group of heroes, inevitably played by famous American old-timers: Henry Fonda, Robert Ryan, Dana Andrews et al. The scale is impressive throughout, although some of the back projection hasn't aged very well, but somehow this simply isn't as immersive as the true classics from the era.

No excuses, this film is the "Plan 9 from Outer Space" of all war films

[ebonius · 1/10 · 23 December 2006]

As the son of a man who fought and almost died in the Battle of the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge is a stupid name that brings to mind something to do with weight control), I not only think this is the worst action picture I've ever seen, I'm ashamed that Hollywood insulted our veterans with this stinker two decades after the battle in which so many Americans died to turn the tide in Europe. You know it must be pretty insulting to war veterans if Ike himself bothered to become a movie critic and denounce it as demeaning to our soldiers and their memory.

I try never to say I hate something, but I hate this movie on every possible level. In the war movie genre, it's a zero. In the historical recreation genre, it is a sub-zero. As an action picture, it is unbelievable. Quite simply the only reason anyone should watch this thing is to catalog a list of things you should avoid doing if you ever decide to make a war movie.

By now, you've already read about the gaffs: The anachronisms like a German reading Playboy magazine in the background. The cheap and silly plastic-models-on-a-tabletop war scenes ala Godzilla, The breathtaking inappropriate location of the filming on the Spanish plains instead of using, if not Belgium, then at least some northern European forest country with snow! I mean, my God, would you film a movie about Eskimos in Venezuela? And some reviewers here struggle to make apologies for all this, saying in essence "So what? It was a fun war movie." Who cares if it was filmed in a desert instead of the Ardennes forest? Who cares if they made the Germans into cartoonish Nazis and the Allies into G.I. Joe and Sgt. Rock comic book heroes? Who cares if almost nothing is as it was during the battle?

Well then, why bother to make a movie with the specific title "Battle of the Bulge" at all? Why not just call it, "Clash of the Panzers"? I know, it was the 1960s and it was just meant to entertain and jerk a few bucks out of people's pockets with gimmicks like Cinerama and marquee brand names like Henry Fonda. I know all that.

But it was an insult to the vets who fought and died there. They said it at the time it was made. I can't get beyond that. I have walked the forests and fields around Bastogne where my father endured such an ordeal he would not ever speak of when he was alive. I've walked among the white gravestones of men who died there. I can't bring myself to get to, "So what? It's just a movie." Neither, apparently could the many vets who decided to take their families to this picture when it was released, and then had to sit there, embarrassed and speechless as this movie made a mockery of their struggle.

I fully expect that I'll get a negative rating as to how many people found my comments "useful," but that's OK. From what I've seen, people tend not to like criticism of a film based on subjective, rather than objective remarks. In this case however, I don't care if I get a single "useful" vote. This movie was a travesty in its day, and worse now with the passage of time. It is truly the "Plan 9 From Outer Space" of war movies.

But ending on a positive note: I'd like to see somebody do a spoof film about the making of this movie and how everybody from the screenwriters, to the director and actors and location scouts to the extras in the background didn't give a flying flip about what they were working on except getting a paycheck. That, I'd watch.

Bulging with inaccuracies, but moderately entertaining nonetheless.

[Poseidon-3 · 26 December 2007]

Presented in Cinerama, this epic war film has the proper scope with which to detail the pivotal battle of its title, but, unfortunately, it muddles quite a bit with history and also manages to come across as dull for certain stretches of time, despite a heavy-duty cast. In this fictionalized account, Fonda flies on reconnaissance and spots German Colonel Shaw, causing him to believe that Shaw is about to stage a major tank offensive. This is something his superiors Ryan and, especially, Andrews, disbelieve. Eventually, Fonda is proved correct when Shaw, utilizing an assemblage of unseasoned and very young soldiers, unleashes the might of a secret tank force on a largely unprepared American contingent. In the meantime, various U.S. soldiers experience their own trials and tribulations with Savalas operating a black market supply business with his lover Angeli, Montgomery and MacArthur risking capture on a ground mission and Bronson tangling with various folks over the handling of his men. In a preposterous move, western star Hardin is cast as a Nazi agent posing as a United States Military Policeman! Fonda has a few decent moments, Ryan even fewer and Andrews is saddled with a silly, cheap-looking moustache as he essays his rather prissy part. The bulk of the acting honors go to Shaw who manages to create a multi-dimensional and captivating character. He also looks very good, re-displaying his "From Russia With Love" blonde hair. Angeli has one scene and attempts to inject some heart into it while Werle has only one as well as a knowing prostitute hired for Shaw. Montgomery and Bronson aren't given enough to do in order to shine. This film strives to be momentous and important, with bombastic music and panoramic vistas, but only succeeds in part because of a banality in the scripting and some questionable plotting in contrast to the actual events (not to mention the use of equipment and tanks which are anachronistic and which have rankled more than a few viewers over the years – many uninitiated viewers will not be able to distinguish a lot of this, however.) It's not a bad movie, but it's a pretty forgettable one except for the committed work of Shaw and a few vignettes that linger in the memory.

pretty good film, BUT.....

[grahamsj3 · 7/10 · 20 December 2002]

This is a pretty good war film if you don't care about historical accuracy. The basic story is true but there are a lot of details that are completely wrong. Many World War II historians will find parts of the film to be completely incorrect. I am one of those and, while I enjoy the film as entertainment, I have to keep telling myself that it's just that. However, it's a well-acted, well-filmed and overall well-executed story. Henry Fonda and Robert Shaw are both great in this film. The combat scenes are, for the most part, pretty well done also, and some of those are fairly accurate. I have the film on tape and plan to keep it. It's a pretty good film, BUT.....

Okay but not great

[efd-10467 · 7/10 · 9 November 2019]

A good cast holds it together and the battle scenes are BIG but there is no character development and the script is very flat in spots.

But it comes together to be one of those big long war movies, somewhat comforting but not exciting.

The Germans last "Big Gamble"

[jgil-1 · 10/10 · 8 February 2004]

I don't understand why so many critics bashed this movie. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, especially the characters that Robert Shaw and Henry Fonda portrayed. I thought Telly Savalis was excellent playing the merchandise peddlin' tanker. This movie didn't concentrate on any one actor (like so many new releases do now in the style of the latest "Titanic" and "Pearl Harbor" --take an event and focus on 2-3 actors and throw in a love story.) It seems like any movie that doesn't do this is not popular. I for one, think that this new wave of moviemaking is poor and "Battle of the Bulge" did not fall into that same trap (although it was made back in the 60's) This movie does not have a lot of fancy special effects but does have several tank battle scenes that were good considering that the special effects of that time period was limited. The storyline is followed better than most war films of today and I consider this film well done for its day. This is a war classic film in my view! 9.5/10

Inaccurate historically, enjoyable dramatically.

[barnabyrudge · 6/10 · 26 May 2006]

While some war films are pure escapist entertainment (e.g The Guns Of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare, The Dirty Dozen), others take themselves rather more seriously. The difficulty with "serious" war movies, especially ones that are based on real events, is that they owe a certain degree of accuracy to their audience. After all, we must remember that people actually DIED in these battles and their relatives may well be watching.... it must be rather a kick in the teeth if you lose your beloved during a war, then a few years later the cause and circumstance by which they died gets glamorised, or "Hollywoodised", for the sake of mass entertainment. In the case of Battle Of The Bulge, the production values and acting and narrative are all very expertly assembled, but the film is not worthy of a rating higher than 6. This is because it distorts the factual evidence about the battle and plays out in typically glamorised, exaggerated Hollywood fashion. It may be easy for us to sit back and enjoy the spectacular scenes of chaos and destruction, but I imagine that for those who lost husbands and fathers in the Battle Of The Bulge it must leave a sour taste in the mouth.

It is winter 1944 and the Allied troops in Europe believe they have all but secured victory against Germany. Many American soldiers are more concerned about how to spend Christmas than how to finish off their "beaten" opponents. One man who is still cautious of the enemy is Lt-Col. Daniel Kiley (Henry Fonda), an aerial photographer and strategist who insists that the Germans are preparing one final push against the Allied forces. His theories are repeatedly questioned and discredited by the Top Brass, especially Col. Pritchard (Dana Andrews) who thinks that Kiley is drastically over-estimating the German resolve. It eventually becomes clear that Kiley's predictions are correct, as a number of German tank divisions led by the dedicated Col. Hessler (Robert Shaw) smash into the Allied lines in the Ardennes with lightning speed and merciless determination. Caught off guard, the Allies find themselves in full retreat as the German assault makes incredible headway into their positions. After much chaos and confusion, Kiley realises that the one flaw in the German plan is that their fuel reserves are desperately low, and in a race against time he and a handful of Americans attempt to burn down the fuel depot crucial to the German supplies.

Battle Of The Bulge offers some enjoyable features, in spite of its lack of attention to historical fact. Shaw is a pleasure to watch as he goes into fanatical mode as the perfectionist Hessler; Fonda is solid and dependable as usual as the discredited tactician; James MacArthur has a good part as an inexperienced young officer who escapes an extermination camp and gathers a band of resistance fighters; and Telly Savalas plays the oafish hero with his usual panache (his loud-mouthed role here can be viewed as a practice run for the character he played later in Kelly's Heroes). The battle sequences are well staged with realistic destruction of buildings and vehicles, and rousing musical accompaniment by Benjamin Frankel. Tanks plough through forests, thousands of extras retreat through wintry terrain, and towns are reduced to rubble in a series of spectacular set pieces. It is just such a damn shame that the whole affair is more fictional than factual; like I said earlier, the best way to pay tribute to those who fought in this battle would have been to tell their story honestly and accurately. Although very watchable and entertaining, Battle Of The Bulge is also indecently romanticised.

Battle of the Bulge (entertainment, not a documentary!)

[CrimeTime50 · 10/10 · 5 July 2017]

I am finally ready to write a review of a movie I have owned for many many years. After reading many of the IMDb reviews of this awesome movie it really baffles me of what these negative people who watched this film were expecting??? Were you expecting a documentary where every depiction of this movie was 100% factual? It appears many critics expected snow throughout this movie? Welcome to the world people that Hollywood movies are not totally accurate and never have been on true life events. Until you accept this, you will never like any Hollywood movie based on true life events.

For example, one of my favorite classic movies is the "Ten Commandments" with Charlton Heston 1956. This movie won multiple awards and based on the Bible. Was this movie 100% factual? No way! There were many scenes in this movie that has nothing to do with the bible but for the most part was fairly accurate. See my point?

The movie "Battle of the Bulge" is a very well produced movie along with an all star cast. There are a lot of facts in this movie but also many events during this movie that are not accurate. Hey, we all know this so why whine about it? There are enough accurate events that happened to make this a very entertaining movie and qualify it as a great World War II movie. I became a huge fan of Robert Shaw in this movie and his role in "Jaws" confirmed to me he is one of the great actors in history.

For all Historians, which I consider myself with my specialty being World War II, this movie is not an accurate documentary but a Hollywood very entertaining movie with great producing along with acting. I give this movie a 10/10 stars. See this movie for what it is, creating a history event and giving us all some awesome entertainment!

Great Film

[Jesus1875007 · 7/10 · 5 July 2020]

Proper stupid movie but it's fun to watch. The tank battle is awesome I must see. Story not a real event of the title story either.

Tepid WWII Drama.

[rmax304823 · 4/10 · 7 December 2008]

The years between "The Guns of Navaronne" and "Patton" saw the release of a number of World War II epics and would-be epics, some good and some, like "Anzio", pathetic. "The Battle of the Bulge" is about in the middle, with nothing much to recommend it and no outrageous flaws.

I hated to click on the "Contains spoiler" box above because this is, after all, a pseudo-history of one of the major battles that took place towards the end of the war in Europe and he or she who does not know the outcome has been living on the distant planet of Ymir. But so be it. A poll taken some years ago indicated that a substantial number of America's youth didn't know which side of the war Japan had fought on. So here it is, kids. Spoiler alert.

The Allies were at war with Japan and Germany, and by the end of 1944 (A.D.) the Germans were running out of everything, especially fuel. Hitler organized and implemented a last-ditch counterattack against the British and American lines in the mountainous Ardennes forest near the German border.

Those thick and snowy woods were considered unsuitable for tanks and deemed a quiet sector where infantry already exhausted by combat elsewhere could be sent for rest, and an area where newly formed and unseasoned units could be safely stationed and get used to conditions in the field.

Nobody expected the Germans to roll through these mountains with massive tanks and hordes of infantry but that's what happened. Everyone was caught unprepared (except Patton). But the Germans were so short of fuel that the success of the attack depended on the capture of American stores. That didn't happen. The "bulge" created by the attack was squeezed by Montgomery from the north and Patton from the south and eventually disintegrated.

This movie doesn't give a viewer a clear sense of what happened. The Germans' fuel shortage isn't even mentioned until the climax, when it is discovered by Henry Fonda, who plays an intelligence officer. Fonda's figure is a familiar one in war movies. He's the only guy who can figure out what's going on -- and nobody upstairs listens to him or believes him. Most of the other characters are familiar too. The dumb young lieutenant (James McArthur) who learns to develop character and leadership from his tough top sergeant (George Montgomery). There's one of those tough, avaricious Brooklyn characters (Telly Savalas) who manages to have a romantic encounter with Pierangeli in the middle of this hailstorm of battle. Robert Ryan is wasted as a general. Dana Andrews is Ryan's chief of staff who delights in ridiculing Henry Fonda's warnings with cutting sarcasm. None of the characters are real historic figures. General McCauliffe, who was surrounded in Bastogne, isn't named either, though he's identified as the figure who responded to the German demand for surrender with "nuts." (Some have argued that his real response was a single word that, in Samoan would be rendered "turu," in Selozi "masipa", and in French, "merde.") The most complex character and the most challenging role is that of the German colonel who led the Panzers in the attack, played by Robert Shaw. He's so ambiguous he's almost real, but unfortunately Shaw plays him as some kind of a frozen tree stump who eschews the company of easy women and whose only passion is victory. The most endearing performance is that of Hans Christian Blech who plays the German corporal who is both Shaw's servant and sidekick. His lines, like all the other lines, may be stilted but he makes the sentiments believable. A good actor, here and elsewhere.

I've watched this twice now and my opinion of it hasn't changed much. The overall dynamics of the battle are lost amid the tumult of charging tanks, dueling infantrymen, arguments among officers, and faceless figures diving into muddy ditches. There are three or four different plot threads, mostly unrelated to one another. And only one simplified map to tell us where we're headed.

There are better cinematic descriptions of the Battle of the Bulge available ("Battleground," "Band of Brothers") but the incidents are seen from the grunt's point of view and none gives us the more general textbook picture. This one has a grandiose title and aims high, but it loses the battle.

Mostly fictitious, but action-filled war movie

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 13 May 2016]

"Battle of the Bulge" opens with a scripted prologue that says that the fictitious account of the last major battle of World War II is intended to honor all the men who took part in the battle. Several reviewers have decried the film for that very reason. Most have noted the historical record available, and said the film is a disservice for not using some real characters and following the historical event. I agree with that sentiment to a point. For instance, Robert Ryan's General Grey might have been one of the real generals in command of the American sector at the time. Yet, fictitious characters could be some of the main action people as they are here in the film.

But I suspect that Warner Brothers decided it might be more ludicrous to include the names of a few real people when the story is so fictitious in its action accounts. For instance, Henry Fonda is Lt. Col. Dan Kiley, an intelligence officer who flies reconnaissance planes to take photos behind enemy lines, and then winds up all over the place wherever there's action. Not only was there no such person, but those very actions and incidents are unbelievable, if not impossible.

Then there is the fictitious account of the German Panzer leader, Col. Hessler, played superbly by Robert Shaw. The film has him making a run for the Allied fuel depot and being killed in his tank when it explodes. Col. Meinred von Lauchert, was a real decorated Panzer leader who spearheaded the German assault. His unit penetrated the deepest through the Allied lines during the battle, but he was not killed. He was promoted to general and fell back when they ran out of fuel and the Allies counterattack beat the Germans back. He lost most of his tank force and with no place to cross the Rhine River, he swam across and then quit the war and walked back to his home at Bamberg.

The film title is the popular name that this operation received from press reports about it. The Germans called their offensive "Operation Watch on the Rhine." The French called it the "Battle of the Ardennes;" and the Allies called it the "Ardennes Counteroffensive." One plus of this film is that it shows the German infiltration of the American forces. As part of Operation Watch on the Rhine, the Germans had some smaller operations. For Operation Grief, they recruited English speaking Germans to go behind Allied lines. Their mission was to capture one or more of the bridges over the Meuse River before the Allies could destroy them. They wore captured British and American uniforms and used captured Allied vehicles. The movie shows them holding a bridge, and later having taken a huge fuel depot. In reality, they never achieved the goal of securing any bridges. They were able to cause some confusion and hamper Allied communication for a while, as the film shows.

Another true event that the film includes is the Malmedy massacre. Here it shows about 80 American POWs being murdered. The Malmedy massacre consisted of several such incidents with a total of about 750 American soldiers and 111 Belgian civilians being killed. In July 1946, 73 members of the SS Panzer group were tried for war crimes in the Malmedy massacre. The trial took place at Dachau Concentration Camp. Of those tried, 43 were hanged and 30 were given prison sentences of from five years to life.

Perhaps the biggest negative of the film is the tank battle. While it's one of the biggest action scenes, it almost detracts from the film because of the setting. The fact that almost everyone notices this about the film, says that the studio goofed in not staging it more realistically. The tank battle was filmed in the open, barren fields of the central arid region of Spain. But the Battle of the Bulge took place in the heavily forested areas of the Ardennes in Belgium, Luxembourg and France. I suspect that this bit of glaring unreality hurt this film more than anything in the minds of most viewers. This is a clear example of when a studio chooses to go for action in a fictitious setting – thinking that that will appeal most to people, instead of going for reality.

All of these matters considered, I give the film eight stars for its cast, its action, the accurate things it does show, and the reality of some of the gritty fighting. The defense of the town as the headquarters pulls out is especially good combat action. Rather than having the Panzer commander killed, I think the film would have had much more appeal showing him quitting at the end and walking away to his home.

All of the cast are very good in their roles. Others not mentioned already are Charles Bronson as Major Wolenski, George Montgomery as Sgt. Duquesne, Telly Savalas as Sgt. Guffy, James MacArthur is Lt. Weaver, Ty Hardin as the German MP in disguise – Schumacher, Dana Andrews as Col. Pritchard, and Hans Blech as Conrad.

This is a good combat action film that most people should enjoy. But, I think it's important for one to know that it's a fictitious account that looks at some real events within the Battle of the Bulge.

Not accurate, but a good movie

[mban64 · 7/10 · 29 April 2005]

Yes, agree with other reviewers in this is not a truly accurate film, historically or technically. But, it is a very enjoyable movie, not a great film. It tries only to give the viewer a "feel" for what was happening before and during one of Hitler's last offensives. In that, I feel it succeeds. It is full of engaging characters and action. And, a fine music score as well!! Sure, anyone and pick holes in any film, and there are much better WWII films out there, but as for a good movie and a good time, this one's pretty darn good!! By the way, in reference to another reviewers remarks, Panthers did not have "rounded" armor. The plating was sloped at an angle to help deflect enemy fire as were the armor plates on the Tiger II's which were a big part of the German (not Nazi) arsenal. The Tiger I, already out of production by the time the Ardennes Offensive took place (December 16, 1944), had vertical armor plates and a boxlike hull and chassis, if anyone is interested on getting the facts straight...

A Lot Of Historical Inaccuracies, But Not A Complete Waste Of Time

[sddavis63 · 5/10 · 23 September 2016]

A few years before this was released, there was "The Longest Day" - a movie version of the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. That was a very good movie with a star-studded cast. I'm guessing that "Battle of the Bulge" was an attempt to unofficially follow up on that movie. It's not as star-studded (although there's a bit of cross over in the cast, most notably Henry Fonda.) Truthfully, though, this movie is nowhere near as good as "The Longest Day."

It's supposed to be an account of The Battle of The Bulge, which took place in December of 1944. It was the last significant German offensive of the war, intended to break through the Allied lines and re- capture the port city of Antwerp, Belgium - thus throwing Allied supply lines into chaos. The movie gets some things right. The Germans did, indeed, get troops disguised as American MPs behind the American lines, and they were able to cause confusion and chaos. The Germans were also woefully short of fuel, and had targeted an American supply depot which would have given them access to a huge amount of gasoline for their tanks. The famous demand for the surrender of Bastogne, and the reply of the commanding American general to that demand - "NUTS!" - is accurate. But there are also a lot of problems with the historical accuracy of the film. First is that all of the characters are just that - characters. Composites, perhaps, but there's no portrayal of anyone who actually fought in the battle. There's also no mention at all of General George Patton's 3rd Army dramatically saving the besieged Americans at Bastogne. That's one of the better known incidents of the Battle of the Bulge, and why you wouldn't even mention it is beyond me. Many, of course, note the problem that the tanks used in the movie were of a much later vintage, and were't an accurate representation of the tanks that would have been used.

At best, I'd say that this movie was OK. Terrible if you're thinking that you're learning much history from it, but OK as a movie that's somewhat dramatic, and I thought it was a reasonable portrayal of the ugliness of war - the Malmedy massacre (the cold blooded murders of Americans who had been taken prisoner by German SS troops) was portrayed, for example.

I'd definitely say that if I were going to watch either again, I'd take in "The Longest Day." It's the better movie. This one gets a 5/10 from me.