SnoopyStyle It's 1918 at the end of WWI. A private (Lee Marvin) kills a German soldier but he finds out that the war is already over. It's then WWII as the same soldier now as Sergeant of a squad in the 1st Infantry Division nicknamed The Big Red One. They land on the North African shore but Private Griff (Mark Hamill) is unable to kill. The Sergeant is injured and captured during Kasserine Pass. He escapes during a battle dressed as an Arab and rejoins his unit going to Sicily. Only four men remained from the original twelve. After Sicily, they are sent to Normandy on D-day.This is basically a series of small squad action instead of large epic set pieces. It's interesting to go small in a big budget movie. It doesn't have great memorable characters other than Lee Marvin as the nameless leader. He shouldn't be the lead character. He's more fitting as a supporting character. This movie is in desperate need of Hamill taking charge but he never does. The guys become nameless faceless cannon fodder although that's kind of the point.

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.

jimmydavis-650-769174 Watched this film again recently and was shocked at just how embarrassingly clichéd it is. The characters are undeveloped cardboard cutouts and most of the action sequences ring hollow; all in a film that was made in 1980! Sam Fuller was way passed his best, not that i'm certain he was ever up to much. Just think of an action film like 'The bridges at Toko-Ri',made 26 years earlier and how much more realistic and adult it is!Now it's worth pointing out that there are several interesting sequences in this chaotic mess of a film, including the whole concentration camp scene and the scene in the insane asylum, but even these are marred by a clumsy approach. It seems to me that Fuller had a stubborn strangle hold on all aspects of the films production and this is what damages what is a promising albeit ambitious proposition. It has always seemed strange to me that a veteran should want to describe his experience of war, perhaps only an old man with emotions blunted by time could attempt this and perhaps he would have to do it in such a way as to avoid dealing with his real feelings. This may be the reason for the films curious lack of character development and emotional detachment, as well as the perverse machismo displayed, especially the scene involving the homosexual orderly in the hospital.In conclusion I think this very self conscious film tells us more about war than one might at first imagine, albeit through the distorted lens of a veteran and outdated film maker.

matjusm Perhaps I am an exception but this film really did nothing for me.The premise is simple: the experiences of a US infantry squad led by Lee Marvin fighting in Europe and North Africa during WW II. It was supposed to be about the experiences of the men who fought but I didn't feel the film delivered that: none of the characters were really explored or given much depth, even the great Lee Marvin seemed distant and cold. There isn't too much dialogue, in fact there isn't too much of anything in this film. Its just there but it doesn't really give you much, it just leaves you cold. The plot is occasionally just plain weird and confusing, not the good kind of quirky type of weird but just strange for no apparent reason and with no charm to it.The action scenes are average, nothing special but enough for their purpose. What annoyed me was that so many different locations were so obviously filmed in the same sandy country (Israel) and it just didn't come off as very convincing. I didn't believe that what I was being shown was really the place it was supposed to be. Its also a quiet film, with very minimal music which in itself isn't bad but just gave the whole thing a somewhat sleepy atmosphere. I wouldn't go so far as to say the film was boring, it wasn't but it just wasn't that attention grabbing either.Its a film that is there but it did absolutely nothing for me. Others however might enjoy it.