Extremely talented Robert Aldrich manages yet another masterpiece with this "Attack," a very original war movie, as a story, as a way of approaching, directing, the way it is filmed and, in particular, the acting quality. Three of the actors are very dear to me, I mean Jack Palance, Lee Marvin and, in a smaller role, Peter van Eyck. An actor who is not exactly a favorite of mine, makes here a great role: Eddie Albert.

Having liked a lot of Jack Palance and Lee Marvin's work, and after hearing Attack described as one of the best films for both actors, I watched Attack with high expectations...and fortunately was not let down at all.Attack may not fit the definition of visually stunning, but it's very professionally photographed, is shot in crisp black and white that still looks good now and the claustrophobic production values are entirely appropriate for the atmosphere and setting of the film and come off very effectively. The score drives the action well and doesn't feel out of place or cheesy.The script is poignant, hard-hitting and remarkably honest, without trying too hard, it gets a touch melodramatic towards the end but not dreadfully so, just in comparison to the rest of the film. Attack also has a very compelling story, with action/war scenes that pulsate with intensity and suspense, emotional moments that are genuinely heart-wrenching rather than overwrought and Palance's climatic scene has got to be one of the most harrowing in a war film. While Attack may have unpleasant characters, it doesn't neglect to make them interesting and in the end these unattractive characters are also ones that are easy to care for and relate to, ones where it is also easy to understand their actions. It's very skilfully directed by Robert Aldrich, who never lets the tension slip and makes the story constantly engrossing while avoiding the dangerous traps it could easily have fallen into.Lastly, to say that the cast are very strong is an understatement, the acting is top-notch and there are a few career-bests here. Coming off particularly well is Jack Palance who has never been better in an unforgettably gut-wrenching portrayal, and while Lee Marvin has had meatier characters in his career he still gives his role here his usual steely intensity. Eddie Albert is skin-crawlingly good too, while his character is a weasel and malevolent at times in the second half of the film it was surprising at the amount of sympathy I felt for him. Buddy Ebsen is impressive and William Smithers plays one of the film's most sympathetic characters very believably, to the extent that one wonders why he didn't do more films.To conclude, an unforgettably powerful film that has the acting and its emotional impact as its main strengths. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I found "attack" online and vaguely remembered seeing it back in the 90s on AMC (yes, they used to show commercial-free older films). I remembered it was a good psychological war movie that I needed to see it again and I'm glad I did. This movie is riveting from the first shot, it has an action sequence before the opening credits even roll that sets up the story. Every scene matters in this crackerjack of a film that has a master at the helm in Robert Aldrich and features knockout performances by Jack Palance as heroic Lt. Joe Costa and Eddie Albert as cowardly captain Cooney. The rest of the cast is great too,Lee Marvin, Buddy Ebsen as the reliable platoon sergeant, Robert Strauss and Richard Jeackel add some comic relief.The setting is the battle of the bulge (where's the snow?), but unlike other war films that play like a reenaction of events, the setting is not really relevant as this film explores themes of cowardice and treachery in battle. It could just as easy be set in WW1, or Vietnam. Reminiscent in these themes of Kubricks anti-war 'Paths of Glory', though that film explored cowardice at the lower ranks and treachery at the higher ranks, and 'attack' is somewhat the opposite in that the cowardice is clearly at the top of the company with Cooney, and the treachery seems to be all up and down the ranks. So maybe this too is an anti-war film, and maybe that is why the US military refused to give support in the filming...probably the reason that some of the sets and props lack authenticity, which is the only fault in this film.Captain Cooney is one of those officers that comes from a powerful family, and he is kept in place by a Colonel (Lee Marvin, solid as usual) who wants to use the connection for post-war political gain. So Cooney is entrenched but Costa has seen enough of Cooney's debacles in battle and is threatening to come back and "stick a grenade down your throat and pull the pin" if he is left twisting in the wind after Cooney's latest order of sending Costas platoon to occupy a farmhouse in a town that may or may not be a Nazi hotbed. Cooneys plan backfires and more men are dead, and when the platoon pulls back Costa ends up missing, but he won't be missing for long, for his searing anger toward Cooney and need for retribution are giving him all his reason for living.When you consider war movies like Aldrich's later 'The dirty dozen' or 'Saving private Ryan', though they contain many cynical lines and 3/4 of the cast end up killed, the thing that probably makes them acceptable to the US military is that you at least get the impression that the men at the top are noble, caring soldiers. Not so with 'attack', it seems the closer to the top you get the more cynical, cowardly or uncaring they get. Could this have been the problem the military had with this film? -probably. People are people, and this story goes beyond war when it shows the monumental effect of weak leadership on morale and sanity. Costa reaches a point where he has become almost as unglued as Cooney, and Palance's performance here is so powerful and intense that YES, it should have received Oscar attention, but again, it just isn't the message or the type of film on which the system likes to shine a light.That's a shame, but today it doesn't matter, it's a great film to enjoy and to watch this collection of fabulous actors who all became much better known in the 60s and 70s than they were at the time. I would guess they were all unknown (except maybe Palance, 'Shane','The big knife')to most people in 1956, as was Aldrich, though he had made 'Kiss me deadly' the year before. I think this may be his most engrossing film, it's tight, action-packed, extremely well acted...and it stuck with me afterward, made me think...high praise indeed.

Considered by most to be one of Director Aldrich's best Films. It is certainly one of the best WWII Movies, joining Sam Fuller, Stanley Kubrick, and Oliver Stone in non-patronizing the glory of War. There are plenty of those that do such Patriot pushing so the other side is a welcome and needed relief.In this one it is Politics and incompetent Leaders who represent the Bad Guys here and at this late date is there any argument against that? Not that it is True across the board, but that it does exist and many People pay with their lives because of this ineptitude.With a cast of real War Vets and other good performers, the cold hard script is played out in a claustrophobic, relentlessly cynical atmosphere where it can be a tough watch as are most uncomfortable Truths. It is an uncompromising Story of bravery, cowardice, and incompetence. A yin to John Wayne's yang that cannot be ignored and is one of the great ones from the ultra-conservative Fifties.