It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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!

Why in the world would the Germans want to capture and American fuel dump and/or why in the world would the Americans ever want to capture a German Fuel Dump? Our Tanks used Av-Gas or Aviation "Gasoline" while the Germans Tanks used only Diesel! German Tanks that run on Diesel cannot use Gasoline and American Tanks that use Gasoline cannot run on Diesel so either opponents Fuel Dumps would not be "Captured" but would be blown up and destroyed instead! Another very important point is that Diesel when ignited does not explode so bullets hitting Germans tanks did not make them explode only their ordinance exploded, while bullets that hit the American Tanks would make them Explode and destroy them completely and these American tanks were so very dangerous due to the explosive effects of gasoline that was used that the soldiers could not smoke inside or near the American Tanks while smoking was OK in or on all German tanks. General George S. Patton himself actually sanctioned the use of Radial Air-Cooled Gasoline engines knowing full well the explosive problems! Our American Tanks were death-traps on tracks while the German Tanks were very safe using their "not" Explosive Diesel Fuel! This killed the movie for me like the Gasoline tanks did to a lot of Courageous American soldiers

Alright, I concede that there are a few problems with this flick, but after reading the reviews I had to speak up. Taken just for pure entertainment value this 50 year old movie rocks!! Yes, there are lots of historically inaccurate scenes, details and yes wardrobe. My Father who was in the Battle of the Bulge was okay with this film. I think after we saved Private Ryan we are grading everything by that standard. Yes this lacks the gritty feel of war that many of today's war films capture. It's 1965, one star, two stars? You've got to be kidding. I mean "Monster a Go-Go" hit the screens the same year, that has 2.3 stars on IMDb. You have to measure it with a mid 1960's yardstick. Quint, I mean, Robert Shaw is worth 4 stars just by himself and Telly is interesting too.The music score, though dated is quality. Believe me I would like to see someone do the battle justice with a more accurate film, however even if that happens I'll still enjoy this film and I think most people who don't get bogged down in the details will too.

As reviews go, , I feel reluctant to offer anything to what has already been said..after all you can only say the same thing only a few thousand different ways..With that said, this movie is poorly conceived..Is it to depict the actual battle? No, it is not..Then what? The battle itself was a mish-mash of countless skirmishes of positions over-run and ground held..pockets of resistance..my family settled in Jamestown,Virginia in 1747 and has fought in every war or police action (take your pick) that this country has been engaged in and my father was in Gen. Patton's Third Army at that time..and I have been in Belgium in the same area as the battle ..this is a movie with a lot of actors that are excellent in other movies, however this movie is an excuse to put them all together to make money for the studio..Dwight D. Eisenhower criticized this film for its inaccuracies..Robert Ryan did it for the money..Fonda thought this movie was beneath him..acting-wise..go for Hans Christian Blech for his portrayal of Robert Shaw's enlisted aide tired of war..or George Montgomery as a Staff Sergeant who takes a naive young officer under his wing..Charles Bronson and Telly Savalas doing some fine work..Robert Shaw..not bad..but not that good, either..Bronson and Savalas would be together 2 years later in The Dirty Dozen and a Warner Brothers actor Clint Walker in that but another Warner's actor..Ty Hardin in this one..Dana Andrews sleep-walks through his role..so maybe he also just did it for the paycheck..one reviewer called this one of the best..Sadly..it is not..good cast..overall poor acting..highly inaccurate in the telling and geography..cinematography?Poor..at best..I have always considered this poorly done ..to follow the actions of so few to get a comprehensive view of what took place on an eighty-five mile "breach" in the Allied front lines in on of the worst winters in fifty years..is impossible to correctly convey..and I must agree how silly it looks when the model tanks get their turrets blown off..and how both sides are fighting with the same equipment(tanks) just painted differently..and yes..I served in the military also..for my 20..which includes Vietnam..sunny skies when they are supposed to be over-cast and heavy fog..but still bright and clear and flat (no forests) for the climactic tank battle..it's just very poorly staged and executed..will never suggest watching this unless you are strapped down and forced..but for the record for the person who said The Battle of the Bulge is accurate..Military unit citations were for the Ardennes Counteroffensive..not for participation in the Battle of the Bulge..just say in'...