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 My above average rating is based on the action in the film, and its historical reference to the failed assault plan with the Anzio landing in WW II.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.
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.