Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

tomsview I always remembered this intense war film with its blazing performances ever since I saw it in the late 50's.During the fighting in Europe in 1944, tensions run high in a company of U.S. infantryman when the cowardice of the company commander, Captain Cooney (Eddie Albert), cause losses among his men. One of his platoon leaders, Lieutenant Costa (Jack Palance), threatens to kill him if he costs the life of one more man. But Cooney has the protection of his commanding officer, Colonel Bartlett (Lee Marvin), who hails from the same hometown. Everything comes to a head during a German counterattack.It would be carping to find too much technical fault with this film, despite a small budget it looks good and the military action seems convincing, although the Russell Ranch used for the outdoor scenes seems about as open as the Russian Steppes.Much is made of the fact that the unit involved is from the National Guard, which carries issues from the region back home in which it was raised, especially the relationship between Cooney and Bartlett. Of all the WW2 films from that time, "Between Heaven and Hell" starring Robert Wagner is the only other one I can think of where this was also a subject (Buddy Ebsen was in both films).The internal conflict drives "Attack" as Cooney and Costa go over the edge with stunning performances from Palance and Albert.Costa, although not without fear, overcomes it with a sense of responsibility to his men and the mission. Cooney on the other hand has never won the battle against fear; the way he makes excuses for his failures is wince-inducing.The most balanced soldier is Lieutenant Woodruff who does his duty, but also has the moral courage to stand up for what he believes in – maybe he best represents those ordinary men who stuck to the job and won the war.Eddie Albert actually served with distinction in WW2. "Attack" was made just 10-years after the war, and a number of the cast had served in the conflict: Jack Palance and Lee Marvin of course, but also Buddy Ebsen (Coast Guard), Richard Jaeckel (Merchant Marine) and Peter van Eyck (U.S. Army) – many of the staff behind the camera would also have served.I think when we watch movies from that era; it adds another dimension knowing this. Those people invested a great deal of equity into films such as "Attack". In a way, WW2 movies from that period can never be remade with that same level of involvement.

Hunter Lanier Robert Aldrich's "Attack" is a WWII film from 1956 that feels decidedly post-Vietnam in its cynicism, anarchism and flippancy. It feels somewhat akin, yet opposite, to the following year's "Paths of Glory," a film with its feet more firmly in the ground of defiance.The heart--and guts, one might say--of the film is Lt. Joe Costa (Jack Palance), a man with a personal set of rules that may or may not match up with God's or man's. He butts heads with Captain Cooney (Eddie Albert), a cowardly--and not the smart kind, the whimpering kind-- drunk who only holds his high rank through personal connections. Their animosity towards one another begins at a card table, but soon escalates beyond nasty words between drinks.One might be quick to label "Attack!" as an anti-war film, considering its disillusionment with top-down decision making; the problem with which is that it's like Christmas lights, in that if one goes out, it creates a chain-reaction of dysfunction. But, the film acknowledges chaos cannot reign as well, and the deals with that through Lt. Harry Woodruff (William Smithers). Nevertheless, the film could hardly be called reverent. Palance, as he always does, milks every last second in front of the camera, turning the simplest motion or grunt into an attempted Shakespearean monologue--I'm surprised the man doesn't have bruises under his eyes from blinking. Albert, as Palance's foil, is effective, but almost goes too far into sniveling baby territory and becomes too much of a "movie villain," but that's more the writer's fault. The film's middle-ground, Smithers shines in a dim role, anchoring the outrageous events around him.More than just philosophizing on the bureaucracy of war, "Attack!" brings the goods, and by "goods," I mean tense action sequences, thrilling "the horror, the horror" moments and shocking deaths. Chiefly, there's a moment where Jack Palance goes toe-to-toe with a tank, and, well, it's closer than you think.Despite its sensationalist title, "Attack!" is far more than flying bullets and pumping fists--though in short supply, it's not. While its phasers are set to stun, the film points a finger at the things law and order can't fix--sometimes you just have to kick the television to make it work. It's not a political film, but it's a film about politics.

Adam Peters (68%) A tough action war drama focusing on unfit leaders in the army handing out orders to braver, stronger men lower down the ranks. Jack Palance is on fine form in the role of a good man used as basically cannon fodder to Eddie Albert's borderline insane command, with Lee Marvin caught somewhere in between the two of them. There is a fair amount of good action, but also some scenes that do come off as a little too dry and under paced, but overall it never really bogs down too much. For good old Jack's great performance, interesting plot, good action, and fine production value, this is well worth tracking down, particularly war movie fans.

msato404040 After having just watched "Tigerland" (2000), starring Colin Farrell, I was reminded of the very first anti-war film I'd ever seen (when I was about 10), namely "Attack!" (1956), starring Jack Palance, who owned the craggiest, ugliest face ever to not need make-up to be scary; his debut in "Shane" (1953), as the scary sinister hired gun Jack Wilson, was the opposite of comic relief, call it spinal-chill. In his role as 2:41:19 AM. Joe Costa, Palance was perfect, the scary guy you wanted to be on your side.As a 10-year-old, I didn't think about the deeper meanings that directors and writers were trying get across; yet, the mood, kinda like film noir meets WWII, at the masterful hand of Robert Aldrich, conveyed a stark vision of the vise-grip with which battlefield stress crushed polite society's facade of decency and civility. That came through even to my immature sensibilities. In doing so, "Attack!" did what great anti-war movies are supposed to do - it altered my view, that of a young boy who, like so many young boys, had been propagandized (by our polite society) to have a glorified view of war. You're never too young to learn wisdom.The horrors of war, especially the horrors of the politics of war, were delivered into the collective psyches of Americans during the Vietnam War with graphics we were rarely allowed to see before. Aldrich's version of "fragging", the term, newly minted from the Vietnam conflict, for lobbing a grenade at your own officers, is given an earlier cinematic debut in "Attack!" That scene pierced my childish glamorization of combat. Too bad it wasn't required viewing for more of us.