Don't listen to the negative reviews

A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It's been many years since I last saw "The Execution of Private Slovik," and I look forward to its release (someday soon, please!) on DVD. In particular, I recall a terrific performance by Ned Beatty.Those who condemn this film as an anti-military screed should reconsider. The tenor of most war films of the early 1970s was undoubtedly influenced by a national revulsion with the war in Vietnam (which, unfortunately, was taken out far too often on the Americans who fought there). But the impetus to get beyond the "triumphalism" of most American war films of the '40s, '50s, and '60s would eventually lead to "Platoon," "Saving Private Ryan," and "Blackhawk Down," films that respected fighting men by demonstrating more effectively the hell that they endure. "The Execution of Private Slovik" was an excellent effort to get beyond the myth of "The Good War" and demonstrate that war inevitably degrades and damages all who are involved.As to whether Eddie Slovik deserved his fate: Slovik was an emotionally troubled young man who never should have been put into combat in the first place, but as the U.S. casualties began to mount in the ETO in the fall of 1944, his requests for non-combat duty were rejected and he was sent to a rifle company as a replacement. He was a "coward" in the traditional sense of the word, but he was only one of more than 21,000 U.S. servicemen convicted of desertion during WWII. Of the 49 who were condemned to death for desertion, Slovik was the only one actually executed; all the others had their sentences commuted to prison time. (Another 141 U.S. servicemen was executed by the U.S. government during the war, all for the crimes of murder and rape.) If justice is supposed to be fair and impartial, it certainly appears that Slovik was singled out as an example to deter other would-be deserters. Why Slovik? One of the officers who sat on his court-martial would write years later that his execution was "an historic injustice." See: http://www.americanheritage.com /articles/magazine/ah/1987/6/1987_6_97.shtmlhttp://www.worldwar2history.info/ Army/deserters.htmlhttp://info.detnews.com/history/ /story/index.cfm?id=103&category=peopleMy father was an infantryman in the Philippines and was injured in combat a few weeks after Slovik was executed. I'm glad my father and millions of other Americans overcame their fear and did their duty, but Slovik didn't deserve death for his "cowardice." Punishment, yes; dishonor, perhaps. But not a firing squad.Note: The execution of Slovik (though the soldier is never named) also was depicted, briefly, in an earlier antiwar film, "The Victors," directed by Carl Foreman and released in 1963. The scene is played without dialog; in a savagely ironic gesture, the execution is played out while Frank Sinatra croons "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" on the soundtrack. Even more ironically, Sinatra himself once owned the film rights to William Bradford Huie's book, "The Execution of Private Slovik," but he sold them to another person before Richard Levinson and William Link obtained the rights to make this film. "The Victors" is an excellent film in its own right -- until it comes out on DVD, catch it if you can!

First of all, I am amazed at the number of people who think this is a factual account. NO movie or TV show that is a "docudrama" or even a documentary is completely factual. (Even Ken Burns made over 1000 documented errors in his Civil War series.) Everyone who puts on a uniform of the military knows the penalty for desertion during wartime. True, few pay that full penalty, but the idiots I have read who ask "why" obviously have no concept of what real war is.Is there someone out there who really believes that World War II was not necessary? Should the US have let Hitler conquer Europe and his allies take Asia? Has the US become so afraid of fighting that we no longer value our freedoms? Slovik should not have died, but the facts in this docudrama are far from complete. It was, and remains, a "Vietnam-esque" view of the military.During the Civil War, cavalry was often put in the rear of the infantry. If men tried to run from the fight, the soldiers had orders to shoot them.The message was clear: Fight the enemy, you may die -- run and you WILL die.In time of war, the Army must be harsh. War is brutal, but that is why it should be the avenue of last resort. Once the die is cast, it must be fought with all the violence and fury needed. Only if we are willing to fight will we maintain our freedom.

This has been one of my favorite films since it was first broadcast back in '74. I read William Bradford Huie's book, from which the film is based, and I also recommend it highly.This should be required viewing for anyone who claims to be a WWII buff, like myself. It helps you see some of the truth of military life that isn't in the purvue of such excellent works as Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and that other "other side of the WWII Army" movie, Catch-22.Who do we have to harass to get this released on DVD??

Well acted, emotional movie As informative as anyone could expect from an historical/documentary movie. I didn't spot "filming location(s)unfortunately.