Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

This rather rough movie mixes documentary footage with reenactments by the same men who fought to keep control of the bridge at Arnhem. The focus is exclusively on the First Airborne who landed by glider and parachute and ultimately managed an escape from the hellish battle by crossing the Rhine. They'd lost 80% of their original 10,000 men. We see nothing of the Allied armor, the Poles, the Americans, or the Germans.A harrowing story, vitiated by the fact that none of the men who recreate their experiences are actors and by the fact that production values were evidently low, although the tanks we see are apparently genuine German Panthers.I admire the film, it's technical quality aside, because it deals openly with an unqualified Allied defeat. It was released only a year or so after the battle itself and the true horrors of war, including the failures, were only given serious treatment a few years later, when enough time had passed for passions to cool. It's the story of an heroic stand but, unlike Dunkirk or Wake Island, it was not a necessary one. It was originally designed as part of a successful and innovative attack. In a way, it's a film that was ahead of its time.The actual attack was known to be risky from the beginning. It was Montgomery's main dare. The airborne would capture various bridges across Holland and the armored column would race along the single available road and gain a foot hold in the Ruhr, German's industrial area, which would bring the war to a quicker end.The attack suffered from poor planning and bad luck, none of it detailed here, possibly because in 1946 not all the pieces had been put together. I'll give just one example of bad planning and one of bad luck. Intelligence underestimated the strength of the German forces that were in the immediate area. A German soldier investigating a wrecked glider found a briefcase containing the entire plan of attack.Many years later, Richard Attenborough tried again with "A Bridge Too Far", much more splashy and expensive but equally confusing.The weaknesses of films like these can't be thought of as comments on the men who fought at Arnhem or along that narrow corridor across the Netherlands. They fought as valiantly as any men have fought anywhere. Still, the end result was a tragedy for everyone involved, including the Germans. The failure simply meant that the war would be extended that much longer, and many more lives and treasure would be spent before it ended.

Released in 1946 on the second anniversary of the Battle of Arnhem Theirs is the Glory became the biggest grossing war film for nearly a decade. It vividly recaptures the battle of Arnhem but there are no credits before or after the film. All we see at the start of the film is a short foreword Theirs is the Glory has been produced entirely without the use of studio sets or actors. Every incident was either experienced or witnessed by the people who appear in the film.This is followed by a short statement by the narrator This film is a tribute to every man who fought at Arnhem and is an everlasting memorial to those who gave their lives.Importantly and selflessly the men selected to star on the big screen received no individual credits as they were representing the 10,000 men of the 1st Airborne. The Director, Producer and crew also declined credits in the film for the same reason. Who were these men we see on screen? Did they really deserve the accolade Theirs is the Glory? The director of Theirs is the Glory was Brian Desmond Hurst, Northern Irelands greatest film director. As Brian's relative and biographer I have long realised the significance of Theirs is the Glory as both a piece of art (with film as the canvas as Brian was previously an artist) and a piece of military history (Brian was a veteran of the First Worl War) . Therefore at a blue plaque unveiling for Brian Desmond Hurst in Belfast (April 2011) I selected Theirs is the Glory as the film to be shown to help celebrate the event. The honour being bestowed on Hurst was only the fourth cherished blue plaque to be awarded by the Directors Guild of Great Britain. Before the film began I offered the audience one simple piece of advice Look into the eyes of the men as you watch the film unfold and those eyes will take you as close as you will get to experiencing Arnhem.Interestingly A Bridge Too Far and Theirs is the Glory were compared in the battlefields magazine Against All Odds (published in October 2010) and the comparison is stark and revealing "A Bridge Too Far is a slow moving epic, well worth a viewing with some authentic scenes, but is unconvincing in its portrayal of the battle of Oosterbeek...'Theirs is the Glory' is the only feature film currently released that accurately portrays the events at Oosterbeek in atmospheric and chronological terms, despite its jerky portrayal of events. This is a film to watch.Theirs is the Glory was jointly produced by the J. Arthur Rank Organization and the British Armys Film and Photographic Unit. The film had premiered on the second anniversary of the start of the battle, 17 September 1946, and became a blockbuster of its day. Dr Leo Enticknap based his thesis, in part, on Theirs is the Glory. During his research he discovered a poster for the 1956 film The Battle of the River Plate held by the British Film Institute describing it as The biggest-grossing was film since Theirs is the Glory implying that Theirs is the Glory held this distinction for a decade.Brian, in his unpublished autobiography Travelling the Road, explains about the idea for the film. Castleton-Knight, head of Pathe News, came to me soon after the war ended and asked me if I would like to make a film about the Arnhem drop When I heard what the film company proposed to do with the story, using stock shots, and a few jokes, I said to myself: This is not on. It was also suggested to me by the producer of the Rank Organisation that we should use their most popular male star. I said No, he doesn't know one end of the rifle from another.There was nobody who appeared in the film, officer or soldier, who had not fought at Arnhem it is a true documentary reconstruction of the event. In the scenario we just followed the battle day by day.I hope you enjoy watching this film. As Brian Desmond Hurst said "it is a true documentary reconstruction of the event". Even more importantly I have had the pleasure of meeting many 1st Airborne veterans and they all agree! This is, indeed, a film to watch.Allan Esler Smith

This is what we would now call a docudrama about the battle in and around Arnhem during the closing days of the Second World War. Mixing actual footage of the battle with new footage shot a year after the war in and around the ravaged city with many of the surviving soldiers playing themselves, this tells the same story that was told in the big Budget A Bridge Too Far. Its very much a you are there sort of film that pretty much seems to tell it like it was.I ran across this film in a budget collection of World War two films and since I'm a big fan of a Bridge Too Far I thought I'd pick it up. I'm not sure which is the better movie. One is a huge Hollywood financed production, the other is a small scale gritty in your face film that certainly shows what it must have been like. One I like because I like the story and the spectacle, the other I like because it shows what it was really like, and how Hollywood's version was too neat and clean.As good as this film is it has two problems in my eyes. First off its a bit disjointed. The film is telling the whole story about what happened in and around Arnhem and things get lost, "characters" blend into one another. Part of this seems to be the result of the fact that the film seems to have been dubbed after the fact and it seemed to me that several people have the same voice. Its not bad but I began to feel awash in the proceedings.The second problem with the film is that its awfully stereotypically "British". Everyone is low key and even keeled. Everyone takes everything in stride, even the fact that they are surrounded with seemingly no way out. Its all greeted with a levelness that seems wildly out of the "ideal" notion of the British soldier rather than reality. The attitude is fine for a while, but buy the half way point into the film I was shaking my head and giggling at the calmness of it all. For me it severely detracted from the proceedings and left me feeling very disappointed.Flawed or not this is a must see, especially for those who like the later inflated epic film.

I saw this movie when I was a child back in the 1940's in England. Possibly when it was released, which I expect would have been about 1947, it would mean I was a Primary School child.I have never forgotten the impact the film had. Sure there were wordy scenes, but I did not realise that it was recreated, so I thought "Well that's how adults talk!". It did not detract for a child from the impact of the movie.We had seen lots of worse propaganda films during WWII which were so bad we could not believe them. So to see a film with the authenticity of that film was simply mind blowing.The soldiers paid a terrible price but it was so true to life - one could have watched it over and over again. There should be more salutes to bravery like this film!