Battle of the Bulge

1965 "Warner Bros.' super action show of shows!"
6.8| 2h47m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 16 December 1965 Released
Producted By: Warner Bros. Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

In the winter of 1944, the Allied Armies stand ready to invade Germany at the coming of a New Year. To prevent it, Hitler orders an all-out offensive to re-take French territory and capture the major port city of Antwerp.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Warner Bros. Pictures

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Chatverock Takes itself way too seriously
Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!
Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.
Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.
sddavis63 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.
gilligan1965 This movie shouldn't have been titled "Battle of the Bulge;" but, instead, something else; and, it would have sat better with veterans of that battle.It's a great war movie, but, due to its title and many, many inaccuracies, the movie was panned by many knowledgeable critics; as well as many high-ranking generals; officers; and, soldiers, who actually fought at the real "Battle of the Bulge." They gave credit to certain US Army Units that weren't really there; and, gave no credit to those that were!?!? Dwight D. Eisenhower actually 'walked-out' of the theater shortly after the beginning of this movie! That's a "MONUMENTAL" kick-in-the-balls!Even the equipment was wrong (I guess that the Spanish Army didn't have any Shermans (like the Yugoslavians for "Kelly's Heroes"); nor, King Tigers.The Americans used after-World War 2 Sheridan tanks as Shermans; whereas, the Germans used after-World War 2 Patton tanks as Tiger 2s (King Tigers)...and, Joachim Peiper, the German Panzer Leader of the tank assault at "The Battle of the Bulge," was never even mentioned once; as wasn't the German tank "ACE" of World War 2, Michael Wittmann (although, he wasn't in this battle, this was mainly a 'tank assault,' and, as "THE" overall German tank ACE, should have been mentioned!?!?). That was as careless as not mentioning The Red Baron in a World War I movie about fighter pilots.These, and, many other inaccuracies, upset many military people and historians who knew of this battle; many, first-hand.Like with the movie "Battleground" (1949), they should have had soldiers who could have added technical advice.As a "WAR MOVIE" under a different title, it's GREAT! As "THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE,"...not so much.Although I like the movie, and, gave it an 'eight,' if it was accurate - I'd have given it a 10!Many of my favorite movie stars of this era are in this movie! :)
edmundcharles-55 ALL:Great actors, but a very narrow film that focuses primarily on the SS Commander Joseph Piper as depicted by Robert Shaw. the incident depicted in the movie was but a mere footnote in the battle, thus the movie misses most of the major battle themes such as St. Vith and Bastogne. As with most US movie war films of the 1960s (Patton) this movie was made in Spain and it was difficult for the movie crews to replicate vast winter battle scenes in a temperate climate (NOTE: Dr. Doctor Zhivago was filmed in Spain but the winter scenes were small and the larger outside winter scenes were filmed in Finland). My father also served in the WWII and he was in the Battle of the Bulge and he confirmed the movie limitations to me.
ToughXArmy Warner Bros released this fine World War II Movie which I enjoyed a lot.The Cast is very fine indeed with stalwart film work from a cast of professionals such as Robert Ryan, Dana Andrews and Ty Hardin among many other fine actors. The real fine acting is done by one of the finest actors ever in my estimation ever go grace the great silver screen Mr. Henry Fonda.Congratulations to all for their work on this fine fine film and I recommend this movie to film buffs of the Military and the great men who fought for the ideals of America in The Battle Of The Bulge.Roger Mantee