KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Theo Robertson This is a sequel to the very under rated Peckinpah classic CROSS OF IRON . You remember it don't you ? James Coburn as Sgt Steiner getting on the wrong side of Maximillian Schell's Captain Stransky on the Soviet Eastern Front in 1943 . BREAKTHROUGH as it's known in Britain is a film trying to market itself as a sequel and I'm afraid if it resembles anything it probably resembles a plot device in DOCTOR WHO called regeneration where a Timelord can turn in to the same character with a completely different physical appearance and personality . In the case of Steiner he was last seen as being a cynical character with a strong resemblance to James Coburn who suddenly looks like a much respected stage actor from Wales who's slumming it in a not very good movie . Strangely enough Captain Stransky is also a Timelord . I suppose that's an advantage if you've got several million soldiers in the Red Army who want payback for having their families strung up with piano wire There are a couple of good battle sequences at the start of BREAKTHROUGH but if you've seen CROSS OF IRON you'll instantly know where these scenes were stolen from . You also can't help noticing a bizarre lack of continuity to these scenes . Steiner you remember was a soldier's soldier , he might be fighting for a murderous regime but his loyalty was to his men not to the regime and for some strange reason he is now wearing a dress uniform on the front line and these's not even a speck of dust on his uniform . Maybe his clothes can regenerate after every battle with the Soviets ? You can't fail to notice how crap he is in a battle either . He's given an order to blow up a tunnel . Arrives at he tunnel , staggers down the tunnel no doubt looking for the nearest drinks cabinet , staggers alongside a Soviet tank , drops a grenade in the tank , and gets back in to his truck looking for the nearest bar . All he had to do was connect a wire to a plunger and blow the tunnel up which seems beyond his capabilities . In fact if this is the standard of the average Wehrmacht soldier the Soviets must be glad they didn't have to fight any Italian conscriptsI'm being very kind here because I awarded BREAKTHROUGH four out of ten on its own merits - not as a sequel to CROSS OF IRON in which case it would have been awarded minus points . It is a totally disjointed film especially where editing is concerned where the story jumps around from location to location with little rhyme or reason with the big name cast realising they're just doing it for the money . It says a lot when its predecessor was directed by someone suffering from intense substance abuse and was a hundred times better than this

robert-temple-1 This film is a sequel to Sam Peckinpah's CROSS OF IRON (1977) which I have not seen. The lead character, Sergeant Steiner of the Wehrmacht, is played by an aging Richard Burton who, despite only being 54 at the time, looks more like 74 because of his dissolute private life. He only had five more years to live. The story of the rebellious German sergeant who does not support the Nazis, has twice refused promotion as an officer and wishes to assist an anti-Hitler general make peace with the Allies in Normandy against the wishes of Berlin is intriguing. The fact that Burton looks so old and 'past it', and is so wooden and stiff in the role, actually makes it more believable. After all, such a man could convincingly be at the limit of what he is prepared to put up with, and might really rebel against his own side in this way. In contrast to the comatose Richard Burton, Robert Mitchum, aged 62, seems twenty years younger than Burton and has all the energy and verve of a twenty-something as he big-shoulders his way through his scenes with all of his usual aplomb and confidence, as an American colonel who meets up with Burton and tries to facilitate a 'deal on the side' to break peace early. Unlike Burton, he had another 18 years to live. Curd (or Curt) Juergens is superb as General Hoffmann, who is part of the plot to kill Hitler and asks Burton to carry a secret message to a senior officer on the other side of the lines. Rod Steiger is also only 54 like Burton, but he looks, let us say 70, not quite as ravaged as Burton but still pretty ropey. He plays an American Brigadier General, but is getting too fat for it, and has lost most of his fire by this stage of his career. There is not much 'young blood' visible in this wartime tale. There are the usual nasty Nazis and gum-chewing Yanks. The result is a mediocre film which has never been issued on DVD, so that I watched an ancient video of it. It's just interesting enough not to switch it off, but not interesting enough to seek out and watch.

vandino1 Another in the never ending supply of "War is Hell" films, this one is a time killer and nothing more. Thankfully Mitchum and Steiger are playing Americans, but no thanks to having Burton play a German Sergeant. Now, in my opinion, James Coburn was also miscast as Steiner in 'Cross of Iron,' but since most everything else was well done in that film, his Americanisms could be tolerated somewhat. Not so with the ageing and mostly immobile Burton, his growling Welsh baritone making no pretense of Germanic origin. Surrounded by an all-German supporting cast, Burton stands out badly. And, worse, he's a bore. He rattles his booze-ravaged physique through the motions while his craggy, scowling face makes occasional movements belying its near-comatose state... meanwhile his Great Actor's voice grumbles or barks its lines. Then there is the ever-lethargic Mitchum, phoning it in as an American Colonel. His character's obsession with discovering the German Army's anti-tank capabilities is ludicrous. Sure, it could've been a point to ponder, but having Mitchum prowling behind enemy lines and grabbing German soldiers just to find out what they might have handy to destroy Allied tanks is ignorant nonsense. Just as absurd is the final battle with Burton's character submerged into a muddle of conflicting emotions and actions, alternately killing Americans and trying to save them. Jurgens, as a German General, need not appear on set at all: his performance could have been spliced from footage in any one of a number of films where he plays the same part. And Steiger, as an American Brigadier General, does his surly over-emotional routine yet again... but at least we're spared his usual dissolve into tears. Technically the film is mostly a bust. Unlike 'Cross of Iron' which benefited from its Yugoslavian location and availability of correct tanks from that period, this one was filmed in Austria and thus uses that country's available hardware which is the usual anachronistic post-war tanks that annoy war buffs. Only the opening footage of the film, which is lifted from 'Cross of Iron' shows the correct tanks of the period. In addition, the main thrust of the plot, concerning Jurgens' and Burton's attempt to obtain a cease fire after Hitler is ostensibly assassinated, is interesting, but badly handled. For instance, it features a forced meeting of our two stars: Mitchum absurdly searching behind the lines for info on those anti-tank guns he's obsessed with, and Burton a lowly sergeant looking for an American to make his cease fire pitch to. Steiger's character is absolutely correct to scoff at the notion that a mere sergeant would be the point man to offer surrender of an entire army AND be privy to a plot to kill Hitler. The only two things that feel right in this film are Parks as the laconic, drily humored sidekick of Mitchum's, and the few scenes of German soldiers razzing each other with the dark humor of soldiers near their doom. And the music score is terrible: a weird mixture of futuristic electronic noodling and medieval-like horn blare.

Volstag This is one of those movies that, for me, is tough to categorize/rate. On the one hand, Breakthrough is nothing more than a poorly made B-grade war movie -- hardly worth watching. On the other hand, it's bad enough to make it worth watching -- provided, of course, you have a soft spot in your heart for terrible movies, you have friends who like terrible movies, and, of course, you have enough alcohol to swill while watching it.What's wrong with it? Well, for starters, the story is fairly ridiculous. Secondly, the score is, for lack of a better term, weird -- it's hardly evocative of Europe in 1944, but more akin to really bad 60s hippie music (or something like that). Burton & Mitchum, both seasoned actors, spend the majority of the film "phoning-in" their lines -- you get the strong impression that this movie was nothing more than "contractual obligation" for the both of them. The other aspect of this film that we thought was really amusing was the number of times a high ranking military officer is out, walking around alone (or with one other person), in the middle of the night, well within the front lines. Who the heck does that!?The other thing we found odd about this movie, is the fact that the production values reek of late 70s / early 80s made-for-TV-movies. Was this movie originally destined for the small screen?So, in the end, I would recommend that you avoid this movie. Unless, of course, you enjoy bad movies, and have friends who enjoy bad movies (it would help if they're also self-styled WWII buffs).Good movie rating: 4/10 Bad movie rating: 6/10