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.

Partial credit for at least using real tanks to make this. They are American M-26 Pershing tanks, but still. At least they didn't use small plastic models and flame blown out from a hair spray can. You could be forgiven if you were expecting just that effect sometime during the whole movie. Henry Fonda is the cliché character and its easy to see where all the budget went. If not on Henry's salary, it sure wasn't on the effects. Of course Fonda plays the stock "gee- whiz, you gotta believe me - they are gonna attack us!" guy who is never believed. Just as Robert Shaw plays the stock evil Nazi tank officer who's dialogue could have come straight from a comic book. The part about American bazookas bouncing off German tanks is sadly historically correct, 6 years after this they were still bouncing off North Korean T-34's too. But the way this movie unfolds is mawkish and cliché from the get-go...the script could have been written with a xerox machine and a year's supply of Mad magazines. Nowadays, thankfully we have some genuinely good war movies, like "Fury" that make up for this botched up Hollywood dreck. But this is worthwhile watching just to laugh at the stupid parts, and there is stupid aplenty here. i gave it a 3 just for effort as organizing all those tanks in the days before CGI must have consumed a massive effort. Maybe they had no energy after the fake Panzer wrangling to make a decent movie?

I cannot add much to the other reviews here. However, if, for example, you were to compare this movie with Kelly's Heroes you would have to ask yourself how a movie made in 1970 could come up with at least a believable version of a Tiger tank and requisite number of Shermans to fill a scene while a WW2 movie made in 1966 failed so miserably in that respect. You will always find inaccuracies in equipment, uniforms etc.,but if a movie can grab your attention then it can absorb you in a manner that might allow some suspension of belief. The equipment in this movie was a real distraction. The plot was so generalized as to have little relationship with the facts. The Germans did run out of gas but that was due to the heroic actions of Allied troops at critical points along the way. Perhaps the scope of this battle is such that a realistic movie cannot be done. Sure the movie has a disclaimer but it would have been better if it not been made because there are many documentaries that show the true story of the Battle of the Bulge is better than fiction.

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.