Just perfect...

Charming and brutal

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

I am finally ready to write a review of a movie I have owned for many many years. After reading many of the IMDb reviews of this awesome movie it really baffles me of what these negative people who watched this film were expecting??? Were you expecting a documentary where every depiction of this movie was 100% factual? It appears many critics expected snow throughout this movie? Welcome to the world people that Hollywood movies are not totally accurate and never have been on true life events. Until you accept this, you will never like any Hollywood movie based on true life events. For example, one of my favorite classic movies is the "Ten Commandments" with Charlton Heston 1956. This movie won multiple awards and based on the Bible. Was this movie 100% factual? No way! There were many scenes in this movie that has nothing to do with the bible but for the most part was fairly accurate. See my point?The movie "Battle of the Bulge" is a very well produced movie along with an all star cast. There are a lot of facts in this movie but also many events during this movie that are not accurate. Hey, we all know this so why whine about it? There are enough accurate events that happened to make this a very entertaining movie and qualify it as a great World War II movie. I became a huge fan of Robert Shaw in this movie and his role in "Jaws" confirmed to me he is one of the great actors in history. For all Historians, which I consider myself with my specialty being World War II, this movie is not an accurate documentary but a Hollywood very entertaining movie with great producing along with acting. I give this movie a 10/10 stars. See this movie for what it is, creating a history event and giving us all some awesome entertainment!

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 ?

This movie shouldn't have been titled "Battle of the Bulge;" but, instead, something else; and, it would have sat better with veterans of that battle.It's a great war movie, but, due to its title and many, many inaccuracies, the movie was panned by many knowledgeable critics; as well as many high-ranking generals; officers; and, soldiers, who actually fought at the real "Battle of the Bulge." They gave credit to certain US Army Units that weren't really there; and, gave no credit to those that were!?!? Dwight D. Eisenhower actually 'walked-out' of the theater shortly after the beginning of this movie! That's a "MONUMENTAL" kick-in-the-balls!Even the equipment was wrong (I guess that the Spanish Army didn't have any Shermans (like the Yugoslavians for "Kelly's Heroes"); nor, King Tigers.The Americans used after-World War 2 Sheridan tanks as Shermans; whereas, the Germans used after-World War 2 Patton tanks as Tiger 2s (King Tigers)...and, Joachim Peiper, the German Panzer Leader of the tank assault at "The Battle of the Bulge," was never even mentioned once; as wasn't the German tank "ACE" of World War 2, Michael Wittmann (although, he wasn't in this battle, this was mainly a 'tank assault,' and, as "THE" overall German tank ACE, should have been mentioned!?!?). That was as careless as not mentioning The Red Baron in a World War I movie about fighter pilots.These, and, many other inaccuracies, upset many military people and historians who knew of this battle; many, first-hand.Like with the movie "Battleground" (1949), they should have had soldiers who could have added technical advice.As a "WAR MOVIE" under a different title, it's GREAT! As "THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE,"...not so much.Although I like the movie, and, gave it an 'eight,' if it was accurate - I'd have given it a 10!Many of my favorite movie stars of this era are in this movie! :)

If the title means this is the story of the actual Battle of the Bulge, the horrendous offensive Hitler attempted in the west in 1944, then it is entirely in error. Just wrong and wrong in a manner that is an insult to the veterans of that bloody battle and to history itself. President Eisenhower described this ridiculously filmed garbage as obscene upon seeing it upon first release. It is certainly blasphemy. Not only is it totally and completely inaccurate in just about every way possible, it is poorly made. The special effects are simply terrible, below the standards of a Japanese Godzilla movie. The cinematography is awful, the locations ludicrous, and the acting wooden, if how the stars play their parts can even be described as anything close to acting. The worst aspect of this production is the script which seems to have been written by hacks who knew nothing of the Second World War in Europe except the Germans and Americans were somehow involved in a big battle before the final surrender. They must have read part of the newspaper headline back in December of 1944, not bothering with any details. This is trash. And not trash that is in some perverted way entertaining, humorous, or fun. This film stands as a towering monument of shame, a tribute to the stunning arrogance and incredible ignorance, the ugly insensitivity and utter indifference of Hollywood. The shocking moral bankruptcy of the producers, director, and screen writers is forever recorded here, in a horrendous film that reflects their collective contempt for the American heroes who turned back the fascist hordes that made one huge blunder in attempting to reassert Nazi evil in Western Europe. Thank goodness for motion pictures such as Battleground and television productions like Band of Brothers, made by people who cared about the dignity of the surviving participants who sacrificed so much for our freedom and honor them and history. There is little to be said regarding "Battle of the Bulge" other than this unholy film is a total abomination with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.