Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Wuchak RELEASED IN 1968 and directed by Edward Dmytryk & Duilio Coletti, "Anzio" (aka "The Battle of Anzio") chronicles the uneventful Allied amphibious landing at Anzio, Italy, in late January, 1944. While a reconnaissance detail offers evidence that there's no serious enemy opposition in the 30 miles between Anzio and Rome, the commander (Arthur Kennedy) inexplicably decides to dig-in, which provides Field Marshal Kesselring (Wolfgang Preiss) the opportunity to marshal his troops against the invasion. This prolongs their capturing Rome until early June.Winston Churchill was dissatisfied with this, commenting "I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale." The movie focuses on a war correspondent (Robert Mitchum) who accompanies a small group of Rangers who patrol the Italian countryside and are ambushed at the Battle of Cisterna and try to make it back. The soldiers are played by Earl Holliman, Peter Falk, Reni Santoni, et. al.The movie's based on real events, but you can tell that the writers pandered to the audience in light of some of the contrived dialogues, e.g. General Lesley quoting Churchill at the end (Lesley, of course, representing the real-life General Lucas). Another negative is the incongruent soundtrack and score, most notably the opening song by Jack Jones, "The World is Yours." Yet it could be argued that this lends the movie a unique charm.Some armchair critics complain that the movie should have focused more on The Battle of Anzio, as far as the invading Allies fighting Kesselring's counterattack, but that's here to a point (since all the events fall under the umbrella of that battle) and I think they came up with an innovative way to condense 4.5 months into a fairly compelling two hour flick.THE MOVIE RUNS 117 minutes and was shot entirely in Italy (Naples, Caserta & Rome). WRITERS: H.A.L. Craig (et. al) from Wynford Vaughan-Thomas's book. ADDITIONAL CAST: Robert Ryan has a small role.GRADE: B-

SimonJack I agree with the bulk of reviewers about the plot for this film and quality of the production. My above average rating is based on the action in the film, and its historical reference to the failed assault plan with the Anzio landing in WW II. Others have commented as well on the level of acting by the main figures. The movie is based on a book, but I can't understand why Hollywood changed the names of the generals to fictitious ones. Sure, that whole fiasco was an embarrassment to the U.S. and our military leadership. But let's see and hear the truth, look at our mistakes, and learn from them – not cover them up or play them down. I wonder why there has not been another movie made about the Allied landing, Operation Shingle, and the Battle of Anzio, to lay out the whole story. In hindsight, it's easy to pick the right choices for actions and plans to succeed in any matter. But, in the case of Anzio, the generals, high command and even the public learned of the error early on. The Allies stopped to build a beachhead. Most know the story. Major General John Lucas was wary of getting pinned down as had happened at Salerno. He didn't want to lose as many lives. But the plan for this landing was to advance and take the Alban Hills above the beaches – and then to proceed to Rome if possible. Instead, he moved a few miles inland – and dug in short of the hills. What is befuddling is that common military sense seems to have gone out the window. First, Lucas didn't pursue the orders to take the hills. Second, when the Allies encountered no resistance at all in the landing, why didn't he push forward until they encountered resistance? That's a basic rule about finding where your enemy is and what is his strength. Third – the importance of the hills was obvious because they commanded overview of the entire beach area. That would be the place to dig in to protect the beach. As the movie shows, a jeep actually reached the outskirts of Rome with no resistance – and reported back. But Lucas still chose to dig in and wait. So, this paranoid, fearful general gave up the element of surprise that the landing had been, and instead entrenched and allowed the Germans to move in and surround the area with heavy artillery and armored power. The result was a five month battle that was among the bloodiest of WWII, with 30,000 casualties. Equally bad, it gave German Field Marshal Albert Kesselring time to later pull his troops from the southern barrier and regroup all his forces north of Rome to continue to hold the Allies at bay with costly encounters. One wonders if this operation under General George Patton wouldn't have turned out much different. Wouldn't Patton have seized the moment, cut off Kesselring's defensive line in the south, freed Rome, and prevented a German regrouping north of Rome? He could have done that in a few days. So could Lucas have done, if only he hadn't been so timid and paranoid. And, that would likely have had the Allies pushing toward Paris by the time of the D-Day landings at Normandy five months later on June 6, 1944. Instead, the worry about too many casualties led to many more and further ensured the dragging on of the war. Apparently the U.S. military leadership has not learned an important lesson from the Anzio fiasco. We have had other instances since WW II of weak generals who fail to take initiatives with much more costly results. This isn't to pick on generals. But when we consider that just a few guys at the top make decisions that affect the lives of thousands of men under their commands, perhaps we need to find a better way to pick our battle leaders and weed out or bypass those who can't make bold and clear command decisions.This film, "Anzio," is about the unopposed landing at Anzio, and the Allies decision to dig in. It's not about the bloody battle that results. It gives us a little taste of action with some Ranger forces. But it's enough to raise questions in the viewer's mind about the poor leadership and failed opportunities, and the consequences they had at Anzio and in the war. For that, this film has some value as well.

sddavis63 If you view this movie expecting to find a look at the World War II Battle of Anzio (which, given the title, wouldn't be out of the question) this is going to turn out to be a major disappointment. The actual Battle is barely dealt with (only the landing of the troops gets any real attention.) Instead, there's a very long lead-in to the battle, and then we basically follow the exploits of seven American soldiers who get stuck behind enemy lines and try desperately to get back to their comrades, led by a war correspondent named Ennis (played well enough by Robert Mitchum.) That story was suspenseful at times, but a movie with this title should have given far more information about one of the bloodiest battles in Italy during the war. Instead, all we really get told is that the Allied generals were far too timid in their approach, and that they missed a golden opportunity to occupy a largely undefended Rome. Instead, the American commander chose to concentrate on solidifying his beach-head, and the troops ended up unable to advance at all once the Germans realized what was happening. The end result - as the U.S. Commander himself notes in the movie - was summed up by no less than Winston Churchill: "I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale."There is some philosophical reflection about warfare scattered throughout this, largely through Ennis, who wonders why men fight and kill each other. In the end he himself picks up a rifle and kills, and he comes to a sobering conclusion (which certainly has some historical credence) - "we kill because we like to." This conclusion is somewhat tempered by the closing scenes which depict a triumphant American entry into Rome, with the citizens of Rome cheering them wildly - thus suggesting that there was some noble purpose to this particular war.Overall, though, this is a very disappointing movie about a battle of some significance (at least in cost) and the Battle of Anzio probably deserves a better treatment than this.

Theo Robertson It's always a bad sign when a film's theme tune sounds nothing like the genre it's claiming to be . THE BAT for example features a funky jazz tune and boy was that film a pile of rodent droppings and alarm bells started ringing when the opening credits of ANZIO started where a war weary corespondent played a very possibly drunk Robert Mitchum marched through a military HQ to the sounds of a Frank Sinatra style swing song ! Yeah there's nothing quite like a war film to get you on your feet grooving away , bah bah bah bah bah bah bah ANZIO isn't an awful film but it's far from being a great one either with the script being the major problem . It opens one of those light hearted scenes of with over paid , over sexed and over confident US soldiers that we've seen far too many times before . I guess it's supposed to be amusing but it's not . Eventually the film lives up to its title and shows us what went wrong at the Anzio landings with the American generals Clark and Lucas not driving inland quick enough . This is a fairly good history lesson since it paints a fairly poor picture of American leadership in Italy . Remember in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN , BAND OF BROTHERS and A BRIDGE TOO FAR Monty is painted as possibly the most incompetent allied General of the war ? This was nothing compared to the ridiculous mistakes made by Clark and Lucas during the Italian campaign , though somewhat cowardly this film renames Clark as " Carson " and Lucas as " Lewis " which is a great pity because a history student could do worse than watch this film , though if they did they'd notice like a great number of war films made during this period ( BATTLE OF THE BULGE is a good example ) that both German and American tanks are from a different generation but the Anzio landings here are more accurate than the ones seen in PINK FLOYD THE WALL After this the narrative then sadly settles down into a straightforward war film where the action could basically have taken place anywhere like France or the Phillipines where a bunch of GIs are surrounded by the enemy and have to make it back to enemy lines . As many people have pointed out on these pages the script is rather unfocused and slightly disjointed and I had a gut feeling that some of it ended up on the cutting room floor , for example we see the platoon escape from a house at night and almost immediately after the platoon are trapped by some German snipers in the middle of the day , though to be honest this isn't a movie that is afraid to kill off characters so deserves some credit alongside the historical accuracy