I confess, its been a very very long time since I've seen this movie, but 6/10?
I remember it as a great WWII movie. Tons better then most.
"Inglourious Basterds" gets 8/10?
I guess I'll just have to see it again.
It IS better than most. Worth a rewatch.
Watching the old buildings being blown up for real was painful though..
Inglourious was endless and self-indulgent- why cant QT make a 90 minute film?
A 7 means the movie is liked, generally.
A 9 means the movie has its ratings stuffed by professional click-bots.
Some small things irritated me. George Segal armed with an M2 Carbine (full auto and with a 30 round "banana" magazine. Not issued until the Korean War. Ben Gazara wearing a German officer's leather overcoat and carrying a German submachine gun. In reality he would likely have been misidentified and shot by his own side being out of uniform.
shareOf all the 1960's/early 1970's war movies, it probably has the most intense battle scenes. And the first hour is a totally absorbing war adventure leading up towards the confrontation with an authentic-feeling sense of realism and fairly well developed characters. Excellent flick, deserves to be seen more. 8/10.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Franz why do you like all the same movies I do, you smart bastard.
shareOne of my favorite WWII movies. This should be at least 7.8.
Raylan Givens: I'm going to need an ambulance, and a coroner.
I like this movie.
shareMaybe the I'd-rather-be-somewhere-else-than-go-on-another-mission attitude rubbed off on the audience.
I don't think it was a bad WWII movie. Didn't have much star power, mostly TV actors.
A bad script really hurt this film. I never identified with any of the Americans (I actually liked the Germans better). More so the film was drawn way out and did not tell it's tale in a concise and distinct manner. Finally the star power was very low for such a big budget film.
share