What can one say about a movie that even Gen. Omar Bradley refused to endorse. Simply awful.Any student of history will see how awful this movie is. First the tanks. Okay so there were no King Tigers, except for 3, left in the world. So you had to borrow M47 Pattons from Spain. The M24s used as Sherman okay guess they were to lazy to locate some. The Battle at the beginning in the forest, snow? There was none during the start of the attack. The Battle for the town. Using tanks to shell the town. That was dumb. Where is the German Artillery. They amassed large amounts for the attack. Germans would not waste time in attacking a town that tanks should bypass and leave to the follow up infantry. The final battle in the desert, yes desert, was so pathetic. By the time the Germans had reached the Meuse area the weather was horrible. Cold and snow, plus fog had descended on the battle. The tank column led by Col. Hessler was supposed to either represent the column led by Col. Peiper, SS, or the 2nd Panzer that was stopped at Celles by the US 2nd Armored. One part that bugged me was the Corp Commander, Robert Ryan asking for 155mm guns. Every US Infantry Division had a battalion of 155s. A US Corp would have several independent artillery battalions as well. Well for the most part I can watch this movie with the bad over the top acting. And the British Eighth Army was in Italy not north of the 1st US Army in Belgium. That was the 2nd Army UK.

"Battle of the Bulge" opens with a scripted prologue that says that the fictitious account of the last major battle of World War II is intended to honor all the men who took part in the battle. Several reviewers have decried the film for that very reason. Most have noted the historical record available, and said the film is a disservice for not using some real characters and following the historical event. I agree with that sentiment to a point. For instance, Robert Ryan's General Grey might have been one of the real generals in command of the American sector at the time. Yet, fictitious characters could be some of the main action people as they are here in the film.But I suspect that Warner Brothers decided it might be more ludicrous to include the names of a few real people when the story is so fictitious in its action accounts. For instance, Henry Fonda is Lt. Col. Dan Kiley, an intelligence officer who flies reconnaissance planes to take photos behind enemy lines, and then winds up all over the place wherever there's action. Not only was there no such person, but those very actions and incidents are unbelievable, if not impossible.Then there is the fictitious account of the German Panzer leader, Col. Hessler, played superbly by Robert Shaw. The film has him making a run for the Allied fuel depot and being killed in his tank when it explodes. Col. Meinred von Lauchert, was a real decorated Panzer leader who spearheaded the German assault. His unit penetrated the deepest through the Allied lines during the battle, but he was not killed. He was promoted to general and fell back when they ran out of fuel and the Allies counterattack beat the Germans back. He lost most of his tank force and with no place to cross the Rhine River, he swam across and then quit the war and walked back to his home at Bamberg.The film title is the popular name that this operation received from press reports about it. The Germans called their offensive "Operation Watch on the Rhine." The French called it the "Battle of the Ardennes;" and the Allies called it the "Ardennes Counteroffensive." One plus of this film is that it shows the German infiltration of the American forces. As part of Operation Watch on the Rhine, the Germans had some smaller operations. For Operation Grief, they recruited English speaking Germans to go behind Allied lines. Their mission was to capture one or more of the bridges over the Meuse River before the Allies could destroy them. They wore captured British and American uniforms and used captured Allied vehicles. The movie shows them holding a bridge, and later having taken a huge fuel depot. In reality, they never achieved the goal of securing any bridges. They were able to cause some confusion and hamper Allied communication for a while, as the film shows.Another true event that the film includes is the Malmedy massacre. Here it shows about 80 American POWs being murdered. The Malmedy massacre consisted of several such incidents with a total of about 750 American soldiers and 111 Belgian civilians being killed. In July 1946, 73 members of the SS Panzer group were tried for war crimes in the Malmedy massacre. The trial took place at Dachau Concentration Camp. Of those tried, 43 were hanged and 30 were given prison sentences of from five years to life.Perhaps the biggest negative of the film is the tank battle. While it's one of the biggest action scenes, it almost detracts from the film because of the setting. The fact that almost everyone notices this about the film, says that the studio goofed in not staging it more realistically. The tank battle was filmed in the open, barren fields of the central arid region of Spain. But the Battle of the Bulge took place in the heavily forested areas of the Ardennes in Belgium, Luxembourg and France. I suspect that this bit of glaring unreality hurt this film more than anything in the minds of most viewers. This is a clear example of when a studio chooses to go for action in a fictitious setting – thinking that that will appeal most to people, instead of going for reality.All of these matters considered, I give the film eight stars for its cast, its action, the accurate things it does show, and the reality of some of the gritty fighting. The defense of the town as the headquarters pulls out is especially good combat action. Rather than having the Panzer commander killed, I think the film would have had much more appeal showing him quitting at the end and walking away to his home.All of the cast are very good in their roles. Others not mentioned already are Charles Bronson as Major Wolenski, George Montgomery as Sgt. Duquesne, Telly Savalas as Sgt. Guffy, James MacArthur is Lt. Weaver, Ty Hardin as the German MP in disguise – Schumacher, Dana Andrews as Col. Pritchard, and Hans Blech as Conrad.This is a good combat action film that most people should enjoy. But, I think it's important for one to know that it's a fictitious account that looks at some real events within the Battle of the Bulge.

Yep, we all know how inaccurate this movie is, but I can understand why there were not any real Tiger tanks used - rare and scarce if any in running condition in the 1960's. What also bothered me besides the incorrect equipment was the actors styling, as in the Hair ! Robert Shaw's Hessler Blonde dye job was, well passable for the film even though it looked like he pored a bottle of 'Clorox' on top of his head !, I noticed Telly Savalas never showed his head as he had a cap or helmet on in all his scenes, he actually had (some) hair in the mid 60's and did not go 'Kojak' until late 60's, so that was not an issue. It's the mid 60's thick-long on top look (post-Beatles?) that bothered me. A lot of actors back then did not want the 'Doo' messed with to much just in case they needed it for other roles (contracts). Take Charle Bronson, who always had a thick mane in his movies, in this one it's just to thick and long on top (bushy) to be Army regulation, a bit to long in his Great Escape (63) role to. 'Book em Danno's' hair was to Hawaii 5-O as well as a few others a bit to '60's style. The movies German officers had the usual fill of 'Baldies' though (lol). BOTB was not the first to have actor's look a bit out of the time period do to the 'Doo' I remember "Guns of Navarone" was an offender, not really Gregory Peck and his famous 'Doo' but the teen heartthrob James Darren's hair style was totally out of period, looked early 60's coiffure not WW2 era, and not military standard. And one more from the ( from many other from the 60's with inaccurate 'Doos' ) was " Were Eagles Dare " Clint's hair was way to long on top, more 69' than 44' but the most inaccurate in that movie was the blonde 'Maria Shank' her hairstyle and makeup - mascara,lashes,etc. was totally 1960's - like a bad Hogans Hero's 60's episode! Anybody have anymore to add for the inaccurate 'Doo's for the depicted time period of a (war)movie ?

Though often and rightly criticized for historical inaccuracy, the plot of this war epic is nevertheless coherent and engaging without succumbing to simplicity. The landscapes, from snowy forests to desert dunes, are beautifully-filmed. The sets—especially the town of Ambleve, which I was surprised to learn was constructed—are convincing. The characters, whether German or American, officer or enlisted man, all pop without straying too often or too completely into war movie archetypes. Telly Savalas and Robert Shaw are particularly effective at conveying a range of motivations and emotions. At its release this was perhaps the best WWII movie since "The Longest Day" (1962), also directed by Ken Annakin.