But can any compare to those ridiculous shots of Robert Shaw ridding atop his tank ... in front of a massive movie screen! Hilarious!!!
On second thought there was the part where they beat a Panzer division with barrels of petrol ... burn it ... burn it ... burn it!
Isn't this movie an historical artifact. After all, I cannot name any other movie that purports to be based on a real military battle, in any war or at any place that is so grossly inaccurate. It is a perfect travesty. "300" may be more wrong, but it is really based on the comic book, sorry, graphic novel than the actual battle.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
The end of WW2 was 70 years ago ... we are pretty much at the point where the story is told by movies. When it comes to these movies I value accuracy, conversely I despise fictionalization. I understand that Hollywood needs to take poetic license to make their product more appealing but blatant rewriting of history in my mind is despicable.
Before I watched this film the worst example of this "Hollywoodization" was the film "Destination Tokyo." Where they feature a sub in Tokyo harbor that is doing recon work for the Doolittle Raid. When I watched this film I thought "I never knew there was a sub involved in the Doolittle Raid." Then at the film's dramatic ending the sub ... while trying to escape Tokyo Harbor ... torpedoes a Japanese carrier. WTF!!!
At least DT was a 1943 propaganda film ... intended to get WW2 buy in and sell bonds ... but Battle of The Bulge was made in freaking 1965! How can the producers & directors defend such a blatant retelling of history? How can this not be totally offensive to those that were a part of that gruesome 6 weeks? How can this not be totally offensive to those who want to understand what happened there?
I sympathize with you, but I also try to hold on to a sense of humor.
I noticed in IMDB's trivia on BOTB, and I have seen in other sources, that President Eisenhower (retired) saw the movie on its release and was outraged. I think it was slammed pretty hard by critics at the time of its release.
There is a big difference between movies like, "Where Eagles Dare," that are entirely fictitious. Historical dramatic fiction is fiction. Movies that are actually based on historic events -- I mean real historic events, not made up events such as in "Fargo -- ought to hew as near to historical accuracy as possible. Some details are bound to be wrong and some dramatic flair can be tolerated, but I agree with you that they need to make a serious attempt to be accurate.
I still can't help thinking that it is, in its way, funny how awfully inaccurate this film is. They ought to, at least differentiate between 50 hours and 40 days (depending on when you count the end of the actual Battle of the Bulge).
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
I give ya this ... the flaming barrel defeat of a Panzer division ... featuring a Henry Fonda (burn it ... burn it ... burn it) ... that had just survived a plane crash ... was classic!!!
shareDannie:
I feel this event should be done as a cable miniseries like Band of Brothers.
The real irony is that they filmed this in Spain; at the time, Spain still had operational WW2 vintage German Armored vehicles-mainly Pz IVs, Stg self propelled guns & halftracks.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?