Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

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

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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

professorskridlov I guess people only read the "hated it" and "loved it" reviews but here goes anyway. I can't say that I really enjoyed this film or that it offered much in the way of commentary on the nature of WW2 or war in general. There have been so many films on the subject - ranging from the abysmal to the brilliant via the flawed. Terence Malik's Thin Red Line (is the name an intentional reference to Fuller's film?) would be a good example of the latter. Having just watched the "reconstructed" version it's not hard to see why the studio would have balked and re-cut it to a more digestible length. Whether this would have made it more coherent is questionable.The relatively low budget is apparent from the start, although that isn't necessarily a show-stopper in itself. But the recycling of sets and props in notionally different locations is horribly conspicuous. Then there's the "German" tanks... Some people have criticised Lee Marvin's lethargic performance but I thought that he was one of the few good things in the film, a reflection perhaps of his own experience of combat in the Pacific theatre (he was badly wounded on Saipan). If any actor has understood the psychology of soldiers it'd be Lee Marvin.There were some nicely conceived and executed elements but they were few and far between. Some of the scenes (like those in the asylum) are simply ludicrous and overblown. The overall construction and editing of the film is alarmingly disjointed even with with the changes of theatre flagged up by captions. Many times it looked to me as though essential linking and establishing shots had been omitted. I don't think that it's a spoiler to note that Fuller himself appears as a combat cameraman in one scene, a conceit that I suspect was copied by Kubrick in "Full Metal Jacket" - another horribly over-rated movie IMO.

Joseph Pezzuto "I can't murder anybody." "We don't murder; we kill." 'The Big Red One' (1980), was made particularly in order to show people what the 1st Infantry Division entering WWII were truly like and how ordinary men fought, bled, and died for our great nation throughout the many hellish war zones and situations some narrowly survived for a few fatal years. The director, Samuel Fuller (Pickup on South Street, Shock Corridor), known for his low-budget genre movies with controversial themes, here wanted to capture the true essence of what these ordinary men had to do to survive extraordinary circumstances: the German artillery, D-Day on Omaha Beach in Normandy, a massive counterattack resulting in what became known as the Battle of the Bulge and other famous historical battles. Dodging gunfire and clinging to survival amidst dangerous war zones therein this gritty, gripping war flick, 'Big Red' is a loosely constructed epic account for reconstructing his Fuller's own days in Europe and North Africa between the years 1942 and 1945, displaying both raw power and a rough edge, all the while maintaining a cool and personal perspective that echoes his war-torn trials as they bleed from various moments throughout the picture as we sit there and witness it. So, did Fuller's version of what he personally experienced during the war truly capture the essence of it? Let's take a look.In October 1918, the patch as it is known, a red "1" on a solid olive green background, was officially approved for wear by members of the Division. Worn with pride, the patch symbolizes the legacy and tradition that binds all generations of those who have worn the Big Red One. On August 1, 1942, the first Division was recognized and redesignated as the 1st Infantry Division. The 1st Infantry Division entered combat in World War II as part of "Operation Torch", the invasion of North Africa, the first American campaign against the Axis powers that marched and combated through Algiers, Tunisia, Sicily, France, Belgium and then pushed into the German border. The Division continued its push into Germany, crossing the Rhine River. On December 16, twenty-four enemy divisions, ten of which were armored, launched a massive counterattack in the Ardennes sector, resulting in what became known as the Battle of the Bulge. The Big Red One held the critical shoulder of the "Bulge" at Bullingen, destroying hundreds of German tanks in the process. On Easter Sunday, April 1, 1945, the Division marched one-hundred fifty miles to the east of Siegen. On April 8, the Division crossed the Weser River into Czechoslovakia. The war was over May 8, 1945. Tragically at the end of WWII, there were over twenty-thousand casualties and over one hundred thousand prisoners of war had been taken. Forty-three thousand plus men had served in the ranks, winning a total of twenty-thousand plus medals and awards, including sixteen Congressional Medals of Honor. Nonetheless, the actors on the screen reflected just a glimpse of how the real soldiers back in the day fought for our great nation to the fullest extent. One of the main characters, Pvt. Griff (Mark Hamill), causes to violate his pacifist views because even amidst the chaos and utter destruction around him, he does not believe in and refuses to "murder". He values life to the fullest extent. He lives in believing and even states that the true glory of war is actually surviving it. Griff's position in the infantry is a marksman, and a skilled one at that. Nonetheless, the horrors of his war years have finally caught up with him. He is finally stripped of his pacifist views in one scene as he fires every one of his last bullets into a lone German hiding in one of the ovens in a concentration camp used to exterminate the Jews. His face contorting into agony and despair as he does so, it is revealed to him and to the audience that WWII had finally wreaked a psychological toll on Griff, regardless of his heroism and bravery for his country. The horrors of war have finally gripped him into a reality where his pacifist views have come to a grinding halt in his mentality, knowing that his aspects will never again be the same from here on out.I do believe there is a difference between killing and murder. Even though The Sergeant (Lee Marvin) explained the difference in the beginning of the film, I had to agree with what he said. However, my thoughts on the certain matter is that killing is what you have to do in war or in dangerous life-threatening situations where you have to shoot the enemy in order to defend and protect something big or meaningful, their case being the United States and the people of America. Murder has no rational thought, such as randomly stabbing someone with a knife for example. Some people murder only to save themselves or if they are convicted criminals, not for something heroic like fighting for their homeland or for victory. The plot was all about surviving WWII, along with the many horrors that encompassed it as well. This was a wonderful picture altogether, with a glorious display of historical battles given as torn pages from a found war journal for us to relive, recount and remember.

mformoviesandmore There must be lots of men who fought bravely during war but who aren't good at making war movies. Samuel Fuller is just one of them.This movie is a bore-fest.Acting: Lee Marvin is working within himself (it's no Emperor of the North) but the others must have just been handy and cheap.Story: There isn't really one. It is a series of scenarios, each from a different European theater of WWII in which American army forces took part. It's sort of like a greatest hits of actions - and clichés.It is fairly humourless, says nothing unique, and is best viewed by someone who wants to see a WWII movies and has seen the others.

sprtpilot So many good reviews here, can only be a lot of people with the most casual, limited knowledge of WWII confusing this movie with some other, well done picture. First, what was the budget for this thing? Must have been very very low. The entire movie seems to involve six guys (total on both sides), who are sharing maybe three weapons. There are no planes, no ships, two incorrect tanks (one just had a hole where the driver's machine gun should have been). Just about any made for TV series or movie about WWII comes off more convincing than this turkey. This was a "major" motion picture, wasn't it?? It simply defies credulity that there could be a single good review of this travesty on here.