Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

dglink A trio of fine character actors head the cast of Robert Aldrich's low-budget war film, "Attack," which is set in Europe during World War II. Based on a play by Norman Brooks, the taut, tightly directed film depicts a struggle between heroism and cowardice, professionalism and incompetence, hard-earned rank through merit and unearned rank attained through personal connections. Among the American infantry assigned to establish observation posts are Jack Palance, whose Lt. Joe Costa is a tough, but compassionate soldier, whose bravery and leadership are unquestioned. Costa's superior officer, Capt. Erskine Cooney, played by Eddie Albert, was handed his rank because of his father's military connections; the cowardly Cooney is over his head both as a military strategist and as a commander of men. The third member of the lead trio is tough, wise Lee Marvin, who plays Lt. Colonel Clyde Bartlett, Cooney's superior.Filmed in black and white by Joseph Biroc largely on sound stages and the studio back lot, the exterior battle scenes have a gritty feel, although the shadowy interiors often resemble a 1950's television drama. However, despite a B-movie budget, the performances throughout are excellent, including such other stalwarts as Richard Jaeckel and Buddy Ebsen, although Palance and Marvin are the standouts. Events lead to a moral dilemma, whose resolution will be fodder for much post-viewing discussion; whether or not the ending was dictated by the period in which the film was made is also debatable, because contemporary audiences may be more open to an alternate decision than those of the Eisenhower era. "Attack" is an excellent, if lesser known Aldrich film that deserves a wider audience, if only for the performances of Palance and Marvin.

grantss This movie had heaps of potential: the cowardly, inept company commander, the good platoon leader who hates him and the politically-minded, turn-a-blind-eye battalion commander, the friction, all set against a WW2 backdrop.Unfortunately it does not live up to this potential. The characters are incredibly one-dimensional and stereotypical. No attempt is made on the parts of the actors to make them anything but this. The plot is mostly okay, but gets overly preachy and idealistic towards the end. Furthermore, as a basic war movie it doesn't measure up. Many of the military tactics and practices didn't make sense. Characters get unit designations wrong (eg at one point battalion and company are mixed up). And you have the usual US tanks-as-German tanks issues.The only thing that sustains this movie is the frustration at the ineptness and cowardice of Captain Cooney (Eddie Albert) and whether justice will be meted out to him. That part was very intriguing and the reason I kept watching.

barrwell I found "attack" online and vaguely remembered seeing it back in the 90s on AMC (yes, they used to show commercial-free older films). I remembered it was a good psychological war movie that I needed to see it again and I'm glad I did. This movie is riveting from the first shot, it has an action sequence before the opening credits even roll that sets up the story. Every scene matters in this crackerjack of a film that has a master at the helm in Robert Aldrich and features knockout performances by Jack Palance as heroic Lt. Joe Costa and Eddie Albert as cowardly captain Cooney. The rest of the cast is great too,Lee Marvin, Buddy Ebsen as the reliable platoon sergeant, Robert Strauss and Richard Jeackel add some comic relief.The setting is the battle of the bulge (where's the snow?), but unlike other war films that play like a reenaction of events, the setting is not really relevant as this film explores themes of cowardice and treachery in battle. It could just as easy be set in WW1, or Vietnam. Reminiscent in these themes of Kubricks anti-war 'Paths of Glory', though that film explored cowardice at the lower ranks and treachery at the higher ranks, and 'attack' is somewhat the opposite in that the cowardice is clearly at the top of the company with Cooney, and the treachery seems to be all up and down the ranks. So maybe this too is an anti-war film, and maybe that is why the US military refused to give support in the filming...probably the reason that some of the sets and props lack authenticity, which is the only fault in this film.Captain Cooney is one of those officers that comes from a powerful family, and he is kept in place by a Colonel (Lee Marvin, solid as usual) who wants to use the connection for post-war political gain. So Cooney is entrenched but Costa has seen enough of Cooney's debacles in battle and is threatening to come back and "stick a grenade down your throat and pull the pin" if he is left twisting in the wind after Cooney's latest order of sending Costas platoon to occupy a farmhouse in a town that may or may not be a Nazi hotbed. Cooneys plan backfires and more men are dead, and when the platoon pulls back Costa ends up missing, but he won't be missing for long, for his searing anger toward Cooney and need for retribution are giving him all his reason for living.When you consider war movies like Aldrich's later 'The dirty dozen' or 'Saving private Ryan', though they contain many cynical lines and 3/4 of the cast end up killed, the thing that probably makes them acceptable to the US military is that you at least get the impression that the men at the top are noble, caring soldiers. Not so with 'attack', it seems the closer to the top you get the more cynical, cowardly or uncaring they get. Could this have been the problem the military had with this film? -probably. People are people, and this story goes beyond war when it shows the monumental effect of weak leadership on morale and sanity. Costa reaches a point where he has become almost as unglued as Cooney, and Palance's performance here is so powerful and intense that YES, it should have received Oscar attention, but again, it just isn't the message or the type of film on which the system likes to shine a light.That's a shame, but today it doesn't matter, it's a great film to enjoy and to watch this collection of fabulous actors who all became much better known in the 60s and 70s than they were at the time. I would guess they were all unknown (except maybe Palance, 'Shane','The big knife')to most people in 1956, as was Aldrich, though he had made 'Kiss me deadly' the year before. I think this may be his most engrossing film, it's tight, action-packed, extremely well acted...and it stuck with me afterward, made me think...high praise indeed.

Spikeopath Attack is directed by Robert Aldrich and adapted to screenplay by James Poe from the play, Fragile Fox, written by Norman Brooks. It stars Jack Palance, Eddie Albert, Lee Marvin, William Smithers, Robert Strauss and Buddy Ebsen. Music is by Frank De Voll and cinematography by Joseph F. Biroc.Europe 1944, Battle of the Bulge, and an American G.I. company not only have to contend with the German forces, but also with their own cowardly Captain.Tough as nails and dripping with cynicism, Robert Aldrich's Attack falls into a small group of excellent war movies that exude a grim realism. The material to hand doesn't pull it's punches as it features heroic men captained by a coward (Albert as Erskine Cooney), whose cowardice is ignored by their superiors on account of his father's political pull. That it dared to suggest such a scenario ticked off the military to the degree they refused to give any aid to the production, meaning Aldrich had to make his movie on a minimal budget and with only a handful of military equipment he was able to rent or buy himself. This fact makes the finished product all the more remarkable, with Aldrich crafting a film of narrative potency that's punctured with periods of violence.Starkly shot in black and white by ace cinematographer Biroc, film always feels claustrophobic, suitably edgy and bleak. Yet there is big heroic characters within the story, real men front and centre to the horrors of war. The military's refusal to aid the film seems daft, men such as Lt. Costa (Palance) and Lt. Woodruf (Smithers) are men to be proud of, that they stand against cowardice and the political manipulations of Lt. Col. Clyde Bartlett (Marvin) is note worthy and to be applauded. Would the might of the military rather the public be ignorant to the corruption of power? Attack depicts men of war as human beings reacting to said war, no soft soaping, differing responses are portrayed. This is no perfect world where thousands of personal are driven by a collective will, Attack calls it that there are bad eggs in every organisation, and it makes for a riveting viewing experience.Packed with powerful performances and directed with a keen and clinical eye, Attack is a bold and brilliant movie that still packs a punch even today. 9/10