MovieChat Forums > Battle of the Bulge (1966) Discussion > Historical Inaccuracies Make It Hard to ...

Historical Inaccuracies Make It Hard to Watch

posted 10 years ago by sambuca62
5 replies | jump to latest

When I was kid, I would enjoy watching this film when it came of television. Later as I learned more about The Battle of the Bulge, the movie became more of a very loosely based dramatization of real events with a focus on star power. Yes, Robert Shaw and Han Christian Blech were excellent, but that's no excuse for the story. I think the headline American actors Henry Fonda, Telly Savalas, Charles Bronson and Robert Ryan perform their perfunctory duties in this war film. Nothing more, nothing less.

I can overlook inaccurate use of tanks and all the other technical stuff. Shooting on the plains of Spain seems to take away from the overall German strategy of launching an offensive through the Ardennes Forest. It's hard to understand why the German tank columns couldn't just overrun Western Belgium in short order when watching this film shot in Spain. Why in actuality were the roads around Bastogne and Elsenborn Ridge so critical? The movie kind of glosses over this in the script and with the choice of shooting location.

If the movie presented a more realistic picture of the broader battle, I might have forgiven the final heroic scene where the Germans are repelled trying to gain access to American fuel supplies. Although the battle did not end in this climactic manner, it's a dramatization of how limited resources and time were working against the Germans.

Your first clue of how loose the script would be with details is the names of German and American leadership are totally fictional. No Colonel Peiper, No General McAuliffe, etc.

Basically if you like war films and are not interested in actual details, this film is passable entertainment. However, a battle this important in American history deserves an epic that portrays real events more accurately and diligently.

[–] curlew-2 10 years ago

I tend to agree. With the exception of William Wellman's excellent "Battleground" (more of a personal story than an overall telling of the battle), I feel we have yet to see the Ardennes offensive depicted in the epic manner it deserves. The subject calls for a treatment similar to "Tora Tora Tora" or "The Longest Day".

"I'm not reckless . . . I'm skillful!"

[–] chrissso 9 years ago

Battleground barely acknowledges that it was a part of Battle Of The Bulge ... although it is a GREAT film.

But yes ... this film is so nonfactual that it is offensive. Imagine how the veterans of BOTB felt when they ponied up a couple bucks to see this disaster.

[–] curlew-2 9 years ago

Well put. Much more attention to historical detail would've resulted in a far better film.

This is where a director such as John Milius could and should step in and make an attempt. Not that Milius hasn't played fast and loose with history, but I feel he'd produce a much more honest result.

"I'm not reckless . . . I'm skillful!"

[–] laza-6 9 years ago

Agreed and when you consider other movies of this time
Longest Day, Tora Tora Tora, Battle of Britain and Midway and the 1970s Bridge too Far this flick stand out like a sore thumb.

No attempt at historical accuracy of characters or the fighting. The jarring blue skies and plains of Spain representing the Ardennes forest in Winter. Really reinforce the point they weren't interested in making any attempt at accuracy.

I would have considered it a ok 1960 war action movie if they hadn't tried to attach themselves to an iconic battle of WW2

[–] schlob77 9 years ago

Well, I agree and disagree. Yes the film is wildly inaccurate and if you're just watching it for the history you will hate it. But as a kid I loved this movie, it was extremely entertaining. Of course at the time I did not know the full history of the Battle of the Bulge which is why now, 35 years later, I take this movie with a grain of salt.