Random Entry: Son of Rambow
< R-Point (2004) | Real to Real: World War II in Film, Documentaries & Newsreels >
< R-Point (2004) | Real to Real: World War II in Film, Documentaries & Newsreels >
Battle of the Bulge (1965)
I went into Battle of the Bulge thinking, "Alright! A nearly three-hour long epic docu-drama on the battle!"And, unfortunately, I couldn't have been more wrong. I'm not really sure what this movie was supposed to be. When I think of the real Battle of the Bulge, I don't think of the things that were portrayed in this movie. I think of the poor slobs stuck out in the forest freezing their you-know-whats off, practically starving, and being pounded by German artillery.
I don't think of huge, and largely unbelievable tank battles that look like something out of the Revolutionary war. Funny, not until I started writing this did I find that my opinion matched some of the others out there....
...that this was a Western in war-movie clothing. To top it off, the thing is largely dull and uninteresting. We're treated to long and wholly sanitized scenes of gunfights and tank battles, which remind you (painfully) so much of the old western movie cowboy and indian battles. Right down to the over-dramatic and bloodless deaths. If I had a nickel for every schmuck who overacted his death in this movie...well, I'd have enough change for the beer I should have drank beforehand.
To top it off, from what I can tell, few of the events portrayed in the film atually happened. Sorry, guys. Sure there is a visit to the heinous Malmadey massacre, the infiltration by Nazis in GI disguises, McAuliffe's "NUTS" reply... and I suppose they got the strategic aspect of the push more-or-less correct. But the entire reliance on the tank corps. in the film, deciding the entire offensive in one battle at one location, and the introduction of so many fictional characters and situations was just a bit odd.
Not to mention that the entire operation in this movie lasts but a couple of days. Stranger still is Lt. Col. Kiley (Henry Fonda) and his sole observations. Surely not. And I can't not mention the bumbling and out-of-place comic relief (but not that comical anyhow) of Sgt. Guffy (Telly Savales.) His tank's annhiliation, but still drivable, and hey he survives without a scratch!! Um, no.
Sigh. It's just unfortunate I suppose. Battle of the Bulge seems to have been created to appease some sort of studio's need for an "action epic" rather than any kind of factual or believable integrity. I mean, at the very least you could have found someplace that looked like it was covered in a foot of snow. Some places in the film did, but most were just merely muddy, and a lot of spots there were still leaves on the bushes. And only at the outset of the picture do we get a feel for the cold and nasty conditions.
I will say that about the only interesting part of the film relates to (the fictional) Col. Hessler's (Robert Shaw) assistant, Cpl. Conrad (Hans Christian Blech.) His falling out with Hessler over the context of the war and how men like Hessler's character are the problem, could have given this picture a lot more depth. Unfortunately it was only briefly touched on, and his throwing down of his rifle at the end should have meant so much more.
Battle of the Bulge could have been a timeless classic, but instead winds up on my B-movie list, having more in common with Cavalry-vs.-Comanche pictures than any war movie. At least they got typecast Nazi Karl-Otto Alberty to play a role as the poor German infantry commander wrapped around Hessler's pinkie.
(P.S.) And what is the deal with the OVERTURE and EXIT MUSIC plates? Yet another aspect of the film that screams it took itself way too seriously!)
To top it off, from what I can tell, few of the events portrayed in the film atually happened. Sorry, guys. Sure there is a visit to the heinous Malmadey massacre, the infiltration by Nazis in GI disguises, McAuliffe's "NUTS" reply... and I suppose they got the strategic aspect of the push more-or-less correct. But the entire reliance on the tank corps. in the film, deciding the entire offensive in one battle at one location, and the introduction of so many fictional characters and situations was just a bit odd.
Not to mention that the entire operation in this movie lasts but a couple of days. Stranger still is Lt. Col. Kiley (Henry Fonda) and his sole observations. Surely not. And I can't not mention the bumbling and out-of-place comic relief (but not that comical anyhow) of Sgt. Guffy (Telly Savales.) His tank's annhiliation, but still drivable, and hey he survives without a scratch!! Um, no.
Sigh. It's just unfortunate I suppose. Battle of the Bulge seems to have been created to appease some sort of studio's need for an "action epic" rather than any kind of factual or believable integrity. I mean, at the very least you could have found someplace that looked like it was covered in a foot of snow. Some places in the film did, but most were just merely muddy, and a lot of spots there were still leaves on the bushes. And only at the outset of the picture do we get a feel for the cold and nasty conditions.
I will say that about the only interesting part of the film relates to (the fictional) Col. Hessler's (Robert Shaw) assistant, Cpl. Conrad (Hans Christian Blech.) His falling out with Hessler over the context of the war and how men like Hessler's character are the problem, could have given this picture a lot more depth. Unfortunately it was only briefly touched on, and his throwing down of his rifle at the end should have meant so much more.
Battle of the Bulge could have been a timeless classic, but instead winds up on my B-movie list, having more in common with Cavalry-vs.-Comanche pictures than any war movie. At least they got typecast Nazi Karl-Otto Alberty to play a role as the poor German infantry commander wrapped around Hessler's pinkie.
(P.S.) And what is the deal with the OVERTURE and EXIT MUSIC plates? Yet another aspect of the film that screams it took itself way too seriously!)
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Add Comment
