Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Leofwine_draca THE BATTLE FOR ANZIO is about as unexciting a war epic as you can get: an overblown (produced by Dino de Laurentiis), overlong US-Italian co-production, it fails to ignite the screen with any kind of energy, excitement or drive despite dealing with an interesting theatre of the Second World War. The first third is particularly gruelling, an almost plot less introduction to the leading characters before they head off to war, full of drunken partying and over-running scenes of people flirting and talking, all portrayed in the most boring way possible. Once we arrive in Italy, the next two thirds quickly change and the film degenerates into yet another men-on-a-mission type flick of which the Italians were so fond in the wake of THE DIRTY DOZEN.I was a little surprised to find out that such a supposedly epic film had turned into the usual low key story concerning guys trapped behind enemy lines. The budget isn't very evident anyway, with disappointing set-piece battles and only a few shoot-outs that manage to raise the pulse. The script is rather sub-par, throwing in the usual anti-war messages yet topping off with a cheesy happy ending in any case, and many of the characters are interchangeable aside from the leading duo. The young actors (Thomas Hunter, Giancarlo Giannini, Mark Damon, Anthony Steel) don't have a chance to shine and pointless cameos from the likes of Arthur Kennedy fail to register. Bob Mitchum and Peter Falk are typically good value for money but they're given particularly dull characters to work with here. THE BATTLE FOR ANZIO is definitely a war film that deserves to be forgotten.

Michael A. Martinez Much noise has been made of the film's weaknesses including the decision to base it around Robert Mitchum as a tired and drunk war correspondent and Peter Falk as his barely coherent partying murderer friend. The historical details begin with some promise but as the film goes on they get glossed over in favor of various Hollywood World War II movie clichés. In my opinion this film stumbles out of the gate on the wrong foot with a tonally off opening credits sequence feature bizarre animated titles and an upbeat love song (when there's no love and barely any females to speak of in the movie!), and it never really recovers.The film just barely delivers on its title and shows us none of the actual battle of Anzio but some of the landings and an inaccurate version of the Battle of Cisterna in which 767 Rangers were surrounded and wiped out. Otherwise, the film is just another dull "trapped behind enemy lines" type movie with a lot of antiwar gum-flapping dialog about the uselessness of war.There is, however, some attractive scenery of the Italian countryside on display and a few quality war scenes at play. Wolfgang Preiss really shines in his brief scenes as Kesselring and one wishes we could have had more of him. Action-wise we're treated to two one-sided massacres; one of American rangers at Cisterna (led by a dubbed Venantino Venantini) followed by the main heroic squad mowing down several clueless Germans in a farmhouse. The only surprises really come during a tense sniper battle which for me was the highlight of the film. This wasn't quite the Dmytryk of the classic era, but he still had some good work left in him.It feels like a major missed opportunity that the film never gives us any major combat with both sides putting up a spirited fight. It may be for that very reason why the nearly-unanimous response among war movie fans to this film over the years has been that of utter disappointment.

SimonJack I agree with the bulk of reviewers about the plot for this film and quality of the production. My above average rating is based on the action in the film, and its historical reference to the failed assault plan with the Anzio landing in WW II. Others have commented as well on the level of acting by the main figures. The movie is based on a book, but I can't understand why Hollywood changed the names of the generals to fictitious ones. Sure, that whole fiasco was an embarrassment to the U.S. and our military leadership. But let's see and hear the truth, look at our mistakes, and learn from them – not cover them up or play them down. I wonder why there has not been another movie made about the Allied landing, Operation Shingle, and the Battle of Anzio, to lay out the whole story. In hindsight, it's easy to pick the right choices for actions and plans to succeed in any matter. But, in the case of Anzio, the generals, high command and even the public learned of the error early on. The Allies stopped to build a beachhead. Most know the story. Major General John Lucas was wary of getting pinned down as had happened at Salerno. He didn't want to lose as many lives. But the plan for this landing was to advance and take the Alban Hills above the beaches – and then to proceed to Rome if possible. Instead, he moved a few miles inland – and dug in short of the hills. What is befuddling is that common military sense seems to have gone out the window. First, Lucas didn't pursue the orders to take the hills. Second, when the Allies encountered no resistance at all in the landing, why didn't he push forward until they encountered resistance? That's a basic rule about finding where your enemy is and what is his strength. Third – the importance of the hills was obvious because they commanded overview of the entire beach area. That would be the place to dig in to protect the beach. As the movie shows, a jeep actually reached the outskirts of Rome with no resistance – and reported back. But Lucas still chose to dig in and wait. So, this paranoid, fearful general gave up the element of surprise that the landing had been, and instead entrenched and allowed the Germans to move in and surround the area with heavy artillery and armored power. The result was a five month battle that was among the bloodiest of WWII, with 30,000 casualties. Equally bad, it gave German Field Marshal Albert Kesselring time to later pull his troops from the southern barrier and regroup all his forces north of Rome to continue to hold the Allies at bay with costly encounters. One wonders if this operation under General George Patton wouldn't have turned out much different. Wouldn't Patton have seized the moment, cut off Kesselring's defensive line in the south, freed Rome, and prevented a German regrouping north of Rome? He could have done that in a few days. So could Lucas have done, if only he hadn't been so timid and paranoid. And, that would likely have had the Allies pushing toward Paris by the time of the D-Day landings at Normandy five months later on June 6, 1944. Instead, the worry about too many casualties led to many more and further ensured the dragging on of the war. Apparently the U.S. military leadership has not learned an important lesson from the Anzio fiasco. We have had other instances since WW II of weak generals who fail to take initiatives with much more costly results. This isn't to pick on generals. But when we consider that just a few guys at the top make decisions that affect the lives of thousands of men under their commands, perhaps we need to find a better way to pick our battle leaders and weed out or bypass those who can't make bold and clear command decisions.This film, "Anzio," is about the unopposed landing at Anzio, and the Allies decision to dig in. It's not about the bloody battle that results. It gives us a little taste of action with some Ranger forces. But it's enough to raise questions in the viewer's mind about the poor leadership and failed opportunities, and the consequences they had at Anzio and in the war. For that, this film has some value as well.

cpurvis It's a shame that the makers of a movie made about one of the bloodiest battles of WWII chose to make a semi-fictional work. The real story is far more gripping than this movie. Anzio was a four month struggle, which for the Allies, had no rear area. There was nowhere an Allied soldier could go that was out of range of German artillery and planes.The real battle for Anzio was a true Allied effort with the British and Americans locking in a duel to the death with the best German troops Hitler could put in Italy. It was supposed to break the deadlock of the Gustav line by flanking but was doomed from the start because it lacked sufficient landing strength. True, the road to the Rome WAS uncontested on D-Day, but Kesselring himself said later he would have easily cut off and destroyed any such small force if it extended itself even to the Alban Hills, let alone Rome.The story of the loss of Darby's Rangers is covered in other movies better; of the 767 Rangers sent on a mission, only six returned. It is but one of many stories of horrific sacrifice of young lives. Further south, in a diversionary mission designed to take pressure off the Anzio landing, the US 36th division lost 1600 men in a single night trying to cross the Rapido river. The British took terrible losses, especially in the German offensive of 18-19 Feb 1944, mainly due to their bad luck of being placed in the line in the area in which Hitler personally chose to concentrate the main German offensive, which came within about 1000 yards of breaking the last line of defense.Such losses are unimaginable today, yet they were accepted then as the price that must be paid to rid Europe of Hitler.There are no films that I know of that do justice to Anzio. One would be better served by reading any of the numerous books about Anzio or even reading the write-up at http://www.army.mil/cmh/brochures/anzio/72-19.htm -- it is infinitely more interesting than this movie.