Battle of the Bulge
This film was denounced by former President (and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WW2) Dwight D. Eisenhower soon after its release in a press conference due to its glaring historical inaccuracies.,When the team of American engineers arrives at the Our River bridge to destroy it, the lead engineer says to Lt. Schumacher (Ty Hardin), "I'm sure loaded with C-4, can you use any?" However, C-4 was not developed until 1956. Composition C, C-2 and C-3 were the types of plastic explosives used by the U.S. army during WW2.,Cpl. Conrad: This new command is an illusion. Give it up.
Col. Martin Hessler: I am Martin Hessler. Four years ago, my panzers overran Poland in one week, that was no illusion. In 39 days, my tanks smashed all the way to Paris, that was no illusion. I conquered the Crimea, that was no illusion. Today, I was given a brigade of Tiger tanks. When I have a brigade of tanks, THAT is reality.,The original 1965 theatrical release in the UK ran 212 minutes 1 second.,Edited into Wizards (1977),Panzerlied
Written by Kurt Wiehle
Performed by chorus featuring Hans Christian Blech and Robert Shaw (uncredited),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.,