verbusen I wanted to rate this film higher, I saw it's in the 4's overall now which it really doesn't deserve. But after watching it fully, the ending does justify a lower rank so I'm giving it a 6. It seems to use stock footage from other war films while at the same time has a lot of military hardware filmed so it does have some kind of a budget going for it. Plus it has a cast that merits attention so I cannot see this as a war film that rates it's actual 4 score. With that said. Have you ever noticed that Soviet war films are scored very high on IMDb? I am going to guess that's the same reason why this film ranks so low. The overall vote on the Soviet films are bolstered by Russians and leftist travelers that I am going to say give it an overall plus 1 to their rating. Likewise here. this is a film about taking down Hitler (in a way), so I'm guessing for all those 10 votes the travelers give those so-so Soviet films, there are many pro Nazi types that give this film a 1 rating. As far as the cast goes, casting Mitchum as a 35 year old Colonel when he's in his 60's and not looking very excited about the role is the blaring casting mistake. Burton actually looks older then Mitchum here, like an old man with dementia in most of his scenes and is the second casting mistake. Mitchum would excel later on as a Naval officer and that is a role he can pull off, not here though. BTW what Colonel's (full bird old American ones) go behind enemy lines? That's what a Colonel tells a young Captain to do! And hey get a haircut reflecting 1944 Robert! Jurgens was good but that worn out cap didn't cut it for him being a Prussian General even if it was his WW1 cap. Steiger was good also and realistic and BTW the same age in real life as Burton and in much better looking shape health wise. Michael Parks rounds out the cast I recognize as Mitchum's NCO and Quentin Tarantino says he's the best actor still alive, FYI, so you may just want to watch it for his role which is fairly major. The hardware in the beginning looks close enough for me (probably taken from a Russian or East European war film), and using those post war US tanks for the Western front scenes is much more forgivable then using them as German tanks like in The Battle Of The Bulge! But what was up with using German bomber footage during D Day? Probably HE 111's from the Battle Of Britain film. That was crazy but only one scene so I can laugh about that one. Those anti tank guns are obsolete by 1944 also and not realistic. The film score absolutely sucks too as others have mentioned so in retrospect maybe it's worth it's 4 rating here, but I did stay with it and was overall entertained so I'm sticking to 6. The ending is stupid crazy but overall it was a lot better then many WW2 films from the late 70's so I'm going to give it a 6. Worth watching (once) for us war film buffs.

Matthew Kresal Though one can hardly tell it, this film is meant to be a sequel to Sam Peckinpah's 1977 World War II Cross Of Iron. I one for one didn't realize this until after seeing the film which shows you that this is a sequel in the loosest of terms. While it most certainly is not in the same league as Cross Of Iron, Breakthrough is still your fairly typical World War II film. It's also an example of how to under-use and misuse the talents of good actors.I'll admit the major reason I saw this was for its actors and especially Richard Burton, my favorite actor. That said the talents of the cast are sadly underused or misused for the most part. Burton is certainly miscast in the role of Sargant Steiner as he is too old (approximately fifty-five if I remember correctly) to be believable even as an older Sergeant in the German Army. The same can very much be said of Robert Mitchum as American Army Colonel Rogers who looks a bit too old to be realistic in the role. While they may be too old for their roles, both Burton and Mitchum give fair performances though far from their greatest moments to be certain. The movie does make some decent use of its supporting cast, especially Rod Steiger and Curt Jergens as American and German generals respectively. The test of the film's supporting cast gives fairly middle of the road performances as well. As a consequence, the overall acting quality in this is less then one might have expected.The production values, music and direction as well are nothing incredible either. The entire film has a very low budget feel to it from the opening credits (which in fact use footage from Cross Of Iron) to barely decorated sets and beyond. Not to mention the score from composer Peter Thomas that, with a very electronic feel to it, seems more evocative of the disco music popular when the film was made rather then a score more befitting to a World War II film. The film's direction also seems to be a bit lacking as well in many scenes which seems a shame considering that it was directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, the director of things like The Wild Geese (also starring Burton) and the World War II action/adventure movie The Sea Wolves. All said the production values, music and direction are all things that let the film down.This brings us to the script of Breakthrough. The script certainly has an interesting premise by taking some of the characters of Cross Of Iron, organizing circumstances to get them to the other front of World War II Europe and then throwing the July 20th plot to kill Hitler into the middle of it. The problem is that while the first two things are done somewhat believably things start going downhill as soon as the Hitler assassination plot comes forward. The whole thing is set-up rather strangely and requires a couple of major leaps in plot (Steiner to go towards American lines in the middle of the night at the exact same time Rogers goes looking for anti-tank guns) to get things moving and once they do things don't get better. What could have been an interesting thriller plot instead descends into your rather standard World War II shot 'em up by the time it's over with. The result is an uneven film that seems to just go from plot line to plot line in hopes of one of them taking charge of the film. The sad fact is none of them ever do.Somehow Breakthrough feels like a list of missed opportunities. With an underused / misused cast, low budget production values, an out of place score, uninspired direction and an uneven script there's plenty of instances where things could have been something better. Instead we get a fairly typical World War II movie with an interesting but sadly misused premise. In short: it could have been better, especially as it's a sequel to Cross Of Iron.

floridawar This movie is very disappointing. Following on the heels of the fascinating Cross of Iron, this flick is a true dud. Richard Burtons' Sgt. Steiner (as opposed to James Coburns'portrayal in CofI) might have been intriguing but for the bland, and badly made film that surrounds him. Wheras Cross of Iron had at least a feasable script, the main theme of of war disillusionment and the plot to kill Hitler just gets in the way. I suspect this whole red herring was added to make the movie more palatable for its German co-producers etc.(or vice versa) the score by the Berlin Orchestra is ridiculous, and sounds like something from a fast paced breaking news cast; Also very distracting. Regardless, Burtons' enigmatic portrayal of a stereotypically stoic German soldier stands out. It is just too bad this movie's makers failed to capitalize on their best assets: their actors!

SgtSlaughter A film can usually be judged on its own merits. But a film claiming to be a sequel to Peckinpah's "Cross of Iron" and featuring some of the greatest actors who ever lived needs to be held to a high standard. "Breakthrough" is a waste of time and fails in virtually all departments.The plot cannot be taken seriously. It begins in late May of 1944, during the German retreat on the Eastern Front. "Cross of Iron" is set in January of 1943, yet our sequel begins where it left off, yet it's almost 16 months later. We are immediately introduced to several familiar characters, none of whom seem to measure up with their personalities from the original film. Sergeant Steiner (Richard Burton) is ordered by Captain Stransky (Helmut Griem) to blow up a railroad tunnel in order to prevent the Russians from using it. Steiner's squad fails miserably. Stop again: Coburn's Steiner was a crack NCO. He wiped out several different Russian outposts, patrols and tanks – with style. It's out of character for Steiner to be defeated to easily by one lousy Russian tank. Anyway: Steiner takes a breather in Paris, right as the Allies land in Normandy. His unit is transported to France, where they occupy the village of St. Bologne. General Hoffman (Curd Jurgens) appears and orders Steiner to cross the enemy lines and inform the American commanders (Robert Mitchum and Rod Steiger) that the German high command is plotting to assassinate Hitler and would like to surrender. This plan comes undone, and the American forces move to attack St. Bologne – which Stransky has planned to blow up – a plot which will wipe out the attackers and the civilian inhabitants.That's quite a bit to cram into one film, and McLaglen doesn't seem to know where he's going with this material. This is a very open-ended film, with little to link the sequence of events except pure coincidence. The script is serviceable on its own, but nothing here compares to "Cross". For starters, this new film ignores the last ten minutes or so of "Cross" and picks up right after the death of Lt. Triebig. Steiner appears to have no remorse against Stransky and, along with Kruger (Klaus Lowitsch) and Anselm (Dieter Schidor), joins the retreating force. Burton's portrayal of Steiner is simply unacceptable. For one thing, he's a bit too old and haggard to be considered a combat sergeant. He never gets involved in any physical action for this exact reason. Instead, he merely delivers dialog with a phony German accent and kills just as many Americans as fellow Germans as he seems confused as to whose side he's on. Unlike Coburn's Steiner, Burton's fails to stand for anything: he is loyal to his men, but winds up killing several of them in order to keep a promise to Colonel Rogers (Mitchum).The film also fails miserably because, despite a slew of Hollywood legends and some familiar German actors, the acting is banal and limited. Mitchum and Steiger are both wasted in mediocre roles as American officers. Steiger's part is particularly disappointing, as he always seems sincere but isn't given very much to work with. The only American actor in the ensemble who seems properly placed in Michael Parks in a small but seemingly-enjoyed role as Sgt. Anderson, who tags along with Mitchum on various dangerous outings. Dare I forget to mention the presence of the legendary Curd Jurgens, who gets little to do here but plays his typical typecast role of an aristocratic German General with gusto despite his obviously forced surroundings!The cast is chock full of German supporting actors, all of whom are forced into roles beneath their acting ability. Helmut Griem ("The McKenzie Break") is a pretty sorry stand-in for Maximilian Schell. He sure seems interested in getting his Iron Cross, but theme is reduced to an occasional reference or gag. The new Stransky is nothing more than a typical, one-dimensional Nazi out for American blood. Klaus Lowitsch is back and is a lot of fun as Corporal Kruger, although his character has changed, too: now he's wearing a German uniform and it's hard to tell is his cynicism is sincere. Werner Pochath ("Wartime") is a predictable pervert amongst the ranks of Steiner's squad; Gunter Meisner ("Is Paris Burning?") pops up in his usual role as a creepy SS officer; Horst Janson ("Shout at the Devil") is completely wasted as Steiner's company commander; even Joachim Hansen ("The Eagle has Landed") has a minimal role as Hoffman's aide. This film yearns for James Mason and David Warner, whose characters are simply forgotten in the midst of the chaos. On its own, "Breakthrough" still fails to make any sort of impression. The lack budgetary restrictions show up in nearly every frame. The first few scenes are composed almost entirely of stock footage from "Cross of Iron" and "The Battle of Neretva", while the rest feature a tremendous lack of extras and flair. We rarely see more than half-dozen actors on screen at one time, and the battle in the St. Bologne uses many of the same shots more than once, alternate takes of some shots, and some rather shabby soundstages. The direction always seems pretty standard and unimaginative; McLaglen, who's usually at least a competent director, doesn't take any chances in this film. Nothing happens that we haven't seen before, and the lack of flair makes the whole affair seem even more pedestrian. The music score is ill-fitting and badly written. It's composed mostly of symphonic cues which belong in a spaghetti western – or perhaps one of Antonio Margheriti's early sci-fi adventures – but certainly not an anti-war film! Fans of the cast will be disappointed. Fans of its predecessor will be severely disappointed. It's even a let-down for me, and I consider myself a pretty opened-minded war film fan. Don't even bother with this one.