The Victors (1963) Poster

(1963)

User Reviews

Review this title
73 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Ahead of its time
tarmcgator13 July 2007
It's gratifying to read so many other appreciative reviews of this too-little-seen film.

I was 12 years old when Life magazine ran a spread on "The Victors" late in 1963, shortly before its release, and I recall the article was a bit negative in describing the film, as though the reviewer couldn't accept a film that depicted World War II so bleakly. Few films about Americans in that war had ever portrayed them so unheroically. (The only one I can think of is Robert Aldrich's "Attack!") The movie's Christmas season release in a country still reeling from the JFK assassination knocked this grim film out of theaters in a matter of three or four weeks. It was shown several times on the old CBS late movie series in the late '60s (where I first got to see it), but I've only seen it once on a premium cable presentation, in the mid-'90s. Several years ago I was able to obtain a 16mm print from the only rental house that offered it, but it was a scan-and-pan version from which some scenes had been cut.

One of these scenes, quickly trimmed from the initial release version, depicted a young European boy trying to sell a sexual service to American GIs; I think the other scene that was cut involved one of the female stars in the film. Even for the early 1960s, "The Victors" was a sexually frank film (without being in any way pornographic), which certainly must have offended some early viewers and exhibitors. Indeed, despite the American characters, the film really is more European in flavor and moral atmosphere. (Foreman, blacklisted by Hollywood in 1953, had been living in England for several years when he made the film, and his directorial style seems to owe much to the Italian neo-realists.)

(It's also interesting to contemplate that Foreman's previous film outing had been as writer and producer of "The Guns of Navarone." One is tempted to think that the gala heroics and spectacular action of that popular film may have prompted Foreman to make a more realistic war movie.)

The episodic format of "The Victors" also makes it a difficult viewing experience for people used to more continuity in their films. Foreman based the film rather faithfully on Alexander Baron's novel, "The Human Kind," itself essentially a collection of short sketches involving the same wartime characters (in the novel, they're British soldiers, but Foreman retained their names for the American film characters). Still, for a repeat viewer, it is possible to see the characters change through the episodes. Some of the characters disappear with no explanation, others are suddenly promoted, new characters appear unheralded. Life, and war, are like that sometimes. And there is some shrewd foreshadowing: Early in the film, Trower (George Hamilton) remarks that he hopes to meet a Russian soldier; and be sure to take careful note of Grogan (Jim Mitchum) in his first few scenes.

"The Victors" is not without humor or compassion, but Foreman's purpose was to eliminate the heroics and the excitement of combat and to demonstrate that, as much as we try to rationalize it, war is a degrading experience for all concerned. The corrupting of a lovely young musician (Romy Schneider) by an American soldier (Michael Callan), the fleeting affair between Baker (Vince Edwards)and a young Italian mother (Rosanna Schiaffino), the encounter between Sgt. Craig (Eli Wallach) and a shell-shocked French woman (Jeanne Moreau) -- all remain vivid in the memory.

Another interesting feature of "The Victors," which was not in the novel, is Foreman's use of wartime newsreels as counterpoint to the fictional scenes. Sometimes it's a little too cute, but mostly it works.

Foreman knew that most people who saw "The Victors" would have an idea of what war action was like, if only from earlier war movies. What he wanted to show, what few earlier war films ever showed, was the moral wear-and-tear of combat on solder and civilian alike, in victory or defeat. To a large extent he succeeds. This is a film well-deserving of DVD release (in its complete widescreen version). And if you like this film, go the TCM website and demand that they show it!
44 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A fine film that should be on DVD - uncut
wuxmup8 January 2006
I saw The Victors on the big screen in 1964 and its impact has never left me. I saw a cut version on TV a few years ago, and while forty years of film watching and life experience made the movie seem a little heavy-handed and sentimental to me, it still packed a punch. It is not a perfect film - there is the occasional bad moment, and some techniques that were startling in 1963, particularly the newsreels and the hand-held camera used in the opening scene, are now familiar.

Nevertheless, The Victors should serve as a needed lesson to "kids today" that WWII was not fun, not easy, and not "an adventure." Beating the Nazis was a grinding, miserable task that was paid for in suffering and loss. (As for concentration camps, a previous reviewer missed the scene in which one is indeed liberated.) Unusually, the film shows the effect of war on women and children, as well as on the fighting men. It's also remarkable that the movie was released years before the "disillusionment" of the Vietnam War. Had more Americans seen The Victors they might have had a better idea of what the nation was getting itself into. Watch The Longest Day or Patton, then watch The Victors and then decide which seems the most "true to life." If you don't know what "symbolism" means, the final episode, filmed at the height of the Cold War, and its epigraph by World War I poet Wilfred Owen, will show you.

The opening credits suggest the historical relationship between World war II and World War I. They also should remind everyone that there were plenty of Black GIs in WWII, and that Uncle Sam didn't win the war all by himself.

There are moments of real humanity here. The Vince Edwards episode was considered "controversial" in 1963, and in today's film culture may actually seem banal, but it's about understanding as well as loneliness. The memorable sequence involving George Peppard and the English family is wonderfully understated.

Somebody should explain why this occasionally flawed but excellent and provocative film has never been released to home video.
23 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Feels like several TV show episodes strung together
AlsExGal28 January 2023
This WWII epic from writer-producer-director Carl Foreman follows members of an American army squad as they fight their way up through Italy and throughout Europe, all the way to the end of the war, and even slightly after. The main soldiers are played by George Hamilton, George Peppard, Vince Edwards, Michael Callan, and Eli Wallach. The film is episodic in nature, a series of small vignettes, and appearing in individual segments are Rosanna Schiaffino, Jeanne Moreau, Senta Berger, Romy Schneider, Melina Mercouri, and Elke Sommer. Also with Jim Mitchum, Peter Fonda, Maurice Ronet, Mervyn Johns, Alf Kjellin, and Albert Finney.

The lack of a central story almost makes this feel like several TV show episodes strung together. As with most episodic things, some parts work better than others. I liked a sad and unnerving bit with Wallach, on his own, discovering Moreau shell-shocked in a blasted house. The acting by both is underplayed and excellent. The copy I watched was 155 minutes but apparently this originally ran for just under 3 hours. Scenes that were cut from the original version include one dealing with a child prostitute, and another where British soldiers sing a bawdy song that included the first use of the "F word" in a major motion picture. I watched the movie for second-billed Albert Finney, who doesn't show up until literally the final 4 minutes of the picture, with no lines in English (he plays a Russian soldier).
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Powerful Statement
treagan-221 November 2002
It's been many years since I've seen this picture, but there are scenes and sequences which I will never forget.

Essentially, the film tells how war, any war, ultimately de-humanizes everyone it touches. Some survive. Some don't. Others are permanently scarred. Through the cracks in the rubble, human goodness and feeling sometimes emerges, but the overall cost is unbearably heavy.

Particularly powerful are sequences where George Hamilton returns to the European city to visit the girl he'd fallen in love with, not expecting to find what he finds has happened to her; George Peppard visiting "old sarge" in the hospital, also to be surprised; the ugly face of racial violence within the armed forces.

Episodic, yes, even maddeningly so, as the film loosely follows a group of sometimes unconnected soldiers and what happens to them and others--but still, THE VICTORS haunts and reminds us that war is the last acceptable choice of human activities.
50 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Foreman Went To France
writers_reign1 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
For reasons of which I remain ignorant this was the only film directed by Carl Foreman who, along with Joe Losey, fetched up in England as a direct result of the Senator from Wisconsin. Both men had done sterling work pre-HUAC, Losey helming such films as The Dividing Line, The Boy With Green Hair, The Prowler, etc, and Foreman writing - or co-writing - such titles as Champion, Cyrano de Bergerac, Home Of The Brave, Young Man With A Horn, High Noon etc. Once in the UK Foreman wrote The Sleeping Tiger which Losey directed with both men working under assumed names. Foreman went on to write a group of well-received films, The Key, The Guns Of Navarone, The Bridge On The River Kwai, and wrote and directed The Victors with no real top-drawer stars but a fairly decent second eleven like Vince Edwards, George Hamilton, Eli Wallach and George Peppard who for once actually acts in the odd moment. A series of vignettes rather than a plot its message, don't, whatever you do, go to a war, is hackneyed but nevertheless worth repeating. Weighing in at two and a half hours it manages to hold the attention.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
In clear contrast to big-budget WW2 epics this film shows the wartime atmosphere of pervasive emptiness and quiet desperation
politfilm22 February 2020
This movie follows a group of American soldiers through different European battlefields in World War II: Italy, France, Belgium, Germany. It is composed of several short stories that share the same theme and characters, divided by sequences of actual newsreels from the war. This creates a very strong contrast between the stories served to the movie theater audiences at home in which the soldiers were portrayed as optimistic heroes and the dark reality: brutal conditions, exhaustion, depression, futility, sexual exploitation, the black market, war profiteers...

It was made at the time when Second World War movies were still big-budget epics, with an atmosphere of heroism and optimism very similar to the wartime newsreels, and most of the action was limited to battle-scenes. In this film, the focus is on daily life, moreover there are no combat scenes, and short stories complement each other to create an atmosphere of pervasive emptiness and quiet desperation. A few weeks after its release the movie was briefly withdrawn to be modified, abridged and virtually censored. As far as I know, the original uncut version of the movie is still not available.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Great Film, Butchered then lost!
david-greene530 May 2004
A few weeks after this film was released to mixed reviews it was briefly withdrawn from the theaters. A great deal of wonderful footage was cut including two major episodes, and then the adulterated version was quietly returned to theatrical distribution. I feel so very fortunate to have had the chance to see the very atmospheric, thoughtful and original film which was "The Victors" prior to this radical re-editing. The cut version is not bad, but quite ordinary compared to the original. The question remains: Where is the master negative now? Why is the film unavailable in any video format? What happened to the deleted scenes? Despite the vast cost that went into producing these, were they merely thrown away? I would dearly love to know why no answers to these questions can be found? Does anyone know what happened here?
74 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
War sucks
benbaum-280-36299325 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Lost gem of a movie that is hard to find, that has an important take on war and reminds us that when we, the public, push for war, we should consider what we are really getting into, hell. Not so much a "war" battle type movie a war "soldier type" movie. This film is set during the war and deals with the affects on mankind, soldier and civilian, after repeated exposure to wars' violence, stress, excessive drinking and loneliness. It stares at the numbness. This has been called an anti-war movie, but I'm not so sure I agree, to me its more of an honest look at how wars affects people, soldiers and civilians, how they change their personal moral codes to survive the hell they are in, how mob violence, peer pressure and the silent majority allow good people to let bad things happen to each other. In the end war is shown to be a simple waste of effort as so often happens, enemies become friends and friends become enemies. In this film we see the change from Americans and Russians banding together to fight Germans in WWII to Americans and Germans banding together to fight Russians in the Cold War a few years later. Was the sacrifice worth it with the hindsight of the cold war?
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A forgotten War Classic
andrew-l-cawston30 June 2005
I first saw this movie in 1984. And, try as I might, I have never been able to see it again. It is not available on video (why???) and it seldom plays on television.

More is the shame. We should scream for its imminent release on DVD.

The cast itself is impressive enough: Eli Wallach, George Peppard, Elke Sommer, Peter Fonda...

Still, just try to find it on video.

The movie is of the "War is Hell" genre. It makes some unpleasant watching, long long before "Saving Pvt Ryan" came to the silver screen. And it has a few moments of humor. As a series of vignettes -- each of them memorable -- it is a true masterpiece, as each vignette is a story told and enclosed in and of itself.

The movie builds to a very memorable ending, one I haven't yet forgotten 21 years since the last time I saw it.
31 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Elke Sommer Walks With this One!
shepardjessica3 August 2004
Elke Sommer, the luscious, beautiful beauty from Berlin is great in this War film. This actress was fluent in many languages and highly intelligent and unfortunately was pigeon-holed in to "dumb blonde" parts because of her pretty face and nice figure. This was a shame because she NEVER (exception of A SHOT IN THE DARK) was in a good film with some meat to her character. Anyway, as Helga she rocks in THE VICTORS.

George Peppard is steady, George Hamilton is a wuss, and Peter Fonda looks lost as he did for many years. Eli Wallach is creepy as usual. This film isn't bad, but I believe was released in different versions which really messed up any chance of success. A 6 out of 10. Best performance = Elke Sommer!
8 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Forgettable
guylyonsntlworldcom6 December 2017
I decided to see this film again, and now know why I forgot it was ever made. Cheap explosions, chunks of history ignored, and more women than every other 60s war films put together for what !!?? How on earth it gets such a high rating beggars belief, as it is presented in the most wooden way possible. A dreadful mess of a so called war drama, that looks so dated now. Better to watch paint dry, as this is one of the worst war films I have ever seen. Believe the other reviews at your peril......be afraid very afraid of wasting your time !!..!!!!!!!!!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Intelligent, powerful and very politically incorrect
thunderhillpictures30 July 2006
I saw this the first day it came out in 1964 and among the strange and memorable (if episodic) vignettes was this brief bit toward the end with this 12 year-old German boy visiting the tents of the American soldiers. It's pouring rain and the men are in their tents and this little blond kid goes into one of the tents. He comes flying out the door a minute later, having been thrown out apparently, by an angered, and cursing G.I. Another soldier reproaches the angry G.I., saying "What's the matter with you?" and the G.I. answers "Did you see what he tried to do to me?" The boy, picking himself out of the mud, yells back at him "The Russians didn't mind!" I was a teenager so I was a bit scandalized by this and mentioned it to my friends. But when they saw the movie a few weeks later - they told me that scene was gone. When I took my girlfriend to see it the following week - it was indeed gone. I had no idea at the time the movie had been recalled and re-cut, and I couldn't figure out why I would imagine a scene like that if it hadn't existed. Now I know I actually saw it (and other scenes that promptly disappeared). I wonder where the original print is.
27 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Too much footage!
JohnHowardReid24 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Made with the co-operation of the Swedish Army Ordnance Corps. Photographed in black-and-white Panavision. Producer: Carl Foreman. A Carl Foreman Production. Copyright 31 December 1963 by Highroad Productions/Open Road Films. Released through Columbia Pictures.

New York opening simultaneously at the Criterion and the Sutton: 19 December 1963. U.S. release: 19 December 1963. U.K. release: 12 October 1964. Australian release: 17 July 1964. 15,750 feet. 175 minutes. Cut by the censor to 155 minutes in Australia.

SYNOPSIS: Following training in England, a U.S. infantry squad is sent into combat in Italy. After taking possession of a small town, one of the G.I.s, Baker, finds a few hours of happiness with a young mother, Maria, who has not heard from her soldier husband for several months. A few days later the group moves on and arrives in France after the D- Day landings. During the occupation of a small town, a rugged non-com named Craig (who later has his face shot away) spends an evening with a Frenchwoman terrified by the constant bombings. Another, Chase, becomes involved with a wealthy woman, Magda, who wants him to desert and join her in the enormously profitable black market. But he rejects her and rejoins his outfit and is wounded in action. Once the group has moved into Belgium, Sergeant Trower falls in love with Regine, a nightclub violinist, but loses her when she turns into a promiscuous opportunist. Later, in Berlin, he takes up with a young blonde who lives in the Russian zone and whose sister boasts of the greater luxuries provided for her by her Russian captain. Following a disillusioning evening with her, Trower becomes involved in a pointless squabble with a drunken Russian soldier.

NOTES: Only film directed by screenwriter (Champion, High Noon, Bridge on the River Kwai, The Guns of Navarone) and sometimes producer, Carl Foreman.

COMMENT: A count-the-pretentious themes picture. On the credit side, we can count Saul Bass's titles, Senta Berger's performance, Challis' stark, newsreel-looking photography, and especially the execution of Private Slovik sequence with Frank Sinatra singing "Have Yourself a Merry Christmas".

Action fans and Albert Finney fans are likely to be very disappointed by the minute amount of time given to them. It's very obvious that far, far too much footage was shot, but even so, many people just disappear from this film without any explanation.

Needless to say, the movie does accommodate at least one actor whom we all wish would disappear, but who doesn't do anything of the kind. I refer to George Hamilton who gives am absolutely dreadful performance.

And also, sad to reveal, but Carl Foreman's direction is dull, using poorly-composed long takes to monotony, whilst his sentiments, though doubtless sincere, are expressed in rubbishy terms. One of the worst examples is the Anglo-American friendship episode underscored by "There'll Always Be an England"! No wonder Carl, a splendid writer, didn't direct any more films, although he does have further credits as a producer and an executive producer. (Also, of course, as a director, he obviously couldn't contain himself and thus shot far, far, far too much footage, most of which ended up on the cutting-room floor).
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Dog of an anti-war movie
MOscarbradley5 December 2005
This was the only film that producer/writer Carl Foreman ever directed and it's easy to see why. It's a dog of an anti-war movie, lugubrious and without any sense of style or pacing. It follows the members of a platoon through the invasion of Sicily to Germany and the end of the war in much the same way that Samuel Fuller's later and much finer "The Big Red One" did. It purports to show the horrors of war and how it dulls a man's soul but the camera is too in love with it's photogenic heroes, (George Peppard, George Hamilton), and the film is too stuffed with all-star cameos, (Melina Mercouri, Jeanne Moreau, Albert Finney), and scenes that drag on long after the point is made. (Foreman doesn't have a clue when to say 'Cut'; the film drags on for close on three hours).

It's meant to be bleak, (a soldier is executed for desertion to the strains of Frank Sinatra singing 'Have yourself a merry little Christmas'; another's pet dog is shot for a bet), but instead it just induces the kind of nullifying boredom that portentous 'significant' epics often do. Needless to say, it was a huge failure.
14 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
AN EXTRAORDINARY NEW KIND OF WAR FILM
KatMiss16 May 2001
Carl Foreman's "The Victors" is extraordinary for two reasons:

1) it emphasizes the characters over the action

2) while being a "spot the star" flick, this is a film made up of smaller stars.

Among the "smaller" stars in this, we have Vince Edwards, George Hamilton, Albert Finney, Peter Fonda, Eli Wallach and George Peppard. Perhaps they are not as big as the ones who appeared in the popular war epics of the time, but I think it benefits from this approach. The film is a bunch of low-key stories strung together by the war and these low-key actors are perfect for this approach.

There are action scenes. It wouldn't be a war film without them. But after a while, I got tired of action scene after action scene and I appreciated a film that let us get to know these soldiers and how they felt about the war and life. It predates Terrence Malick's "The Thin Red Line" by about 33 years, but it's just as effective.

Carl Foreman was famously blacklisted during the 1950s and only now is his work appreciated. His credits include "The Bridge Over The River Kwai" and "The Guns of Navarone" and in this, his directorial debut, he demonstrates the skill and drama of the earlier pictures along with the character studies. The result: a richly textured film, one of 1963's best. If only more people knew about it. Columbia, if you're reading this, release it on tape and DVD NOW!

**** out of 4 stars
60 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Well shot
lesspaceman28 January 2021
Moody monochrome.

Love the ironic music behind the execution.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Losers!!!
zardoz-134 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
In his directorial debut, writer & director Carl Foreman must have had hopes for his anti-combat, World War II blockbuster "The Victors," but this gloomy anthology of stories fleshed out by an international, all-star cast lacks dramatic impact. This lackluster, 146-minute epic is downbeat from fade-in to fadeout. Despite its powerhouse cast of actors and actresses on the cusp of stardom, this heavy-handed, black & white film feels like a bayonet stabbing your expectations about what lays ahead. Nothing at all is inspirational about "The Victors." The title is as ironic as each of its stories. For example, the vignette about a green G. I. replacement (Peter Fonda) who suffers the wrath of the platoon veterans when he smuggles a dog into their midst is typical. Like most of these stories, each has a dismal ending. Ultimately, Fonda's Sergeant (George Hamilton) orders the private to dispose of man's best friend. According the sarge, once the platoon pulls out, the dog will starve, since no Allied troops will be around to feed them. The humane thing is to shoot the poor beast and put it out of its misery. As the platoon is being hauled off in trucks into battle, this incorrigible mutt charges after them. The dog dodges the vehicles churning up the muddy road behind it during its pursuit of the truck it saw Fonda climb aboard. Finally, a heartless G. I. (Jim Mitchum of "Ambush Bay") shoots it with his rifle. Of course, we never see the bullet strike the pooch, but it is tragic enough that the poor animal died such a miserable way.

Basically, each of these stories leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. Perhaps the best but most audacious scene in this dreary outing involves the execution of an American G. I. deserter, much like the real-life Private Slovak, who is stood in front of a firing squad on a snow laden stretch of terrain and riddled with rifle bullets. Foreman lays on the irony with a trowel, driving his point home with Frank Sinatra warbling a seasonal favorite: "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" on the soundtrack. Foreman doesn't focus on the battlefield as much as behind the lines. There is even a scene at a concentration camp, too. The finale pits an American G. I. (Hamilton) against a pugnacious Soviet soldier in a street fight in an area of bombed out buildings. Albert Finney plays his adversary. Neither win because both will able to bury their knives into each other's belly for lethal consequences. Meanwhile, few of these stories occur on the battlefield. A sentry allows the men in his command to plunder a winery and slosh themselves in the grape much to the chagrin of his sergeant (Eli Wallach of "The Magnificent Seven"). The two most sympathetic characters here are limnedrespectively by George Peppard and George Hamilton. Several walk-ons with Vince Edwards and Michael Callan are well done, but they vanish and are never seen again. A bevy of beautiful European actresses including Elke Sommer, Senta Berger, Melina Mercouri, and Romy Schneider appear in different scenes. Now, World War II film aficionadas will feel cheated by most of these scenes, and fans of dramatic expose films may find "The Victors" a little pretentious. Nevertheless, World War II buffs should enjoy this one until they see the end credits run. Mind you, Foreman had the right idea, but the material adapted from Alexander Baron's novel "The Human Kind" never seem compelling enough. Originally, "The Victors" clocked in at 175-minutes, but most versions available on home video run only 146-minutes.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
right there with The Pawnbroker
mwest-enteract1 January 2005
I saw this movie forty one years ago and the feelings it engendered have never left me, even if the details are dim. Back in the post world war II era and before Viet Nam created vast dissent in the US, war was presented as the patriotic undertaking of young men. It's what a man did. No movie I had ever seen showed the human cost of war in this way. I was just a teenager raised on John Wayne movies at that time.

The next movie I saw which evoked such strong feelings was "The Pawnbroker".

Recently I tried to get both movies at a local video store for my daughter who is a film student and could not. Then I started asking around at other video stores and no one had it. I live in Chicago and everything should be available. This made me wonder why had I also never seen re-runs on TV or heard these movies discussed in film programs. I believe the answer is that both these movies create feelings that are impossible for most to cope with-they are after some thirty and forty years still too difficult. They both end in despairing desolation.
43 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best war movies
Andybern11 December 2004
I saw this movie in a late spot more than 15 years ago and I hung onto its title. I've been looking for a copy of it since. The scene that I cannot forget was when Vince Edward's unit stumbled onto concentration camp prisoners escaping into the forest. One of the prisoners stop and vaguely making out the soldiers realize that these are not Germans. The prisoner approaches Vince Edwards, kneels and kisses Vince Edwards hand.

Regarding the ending, wasn't it a statement of how Germany caused two great countries to unite to defeat it and in the end caused the cold war. Remember, the American soldier was so angry because his German girl friend was raped by Russian soldiers. I don't think this is an antiwar movie. War movies aren't just about shooting and killing. They're about soldiers too.
28 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
DISJOINTED JUNK. Arrogant and simple-minded.
Tokugawa14 August 2002
It is always amazing how people can be fooled by style, or how they think a film that jives with their own anti-war views is therefore great. This is not even a good movie.

The plot, such as it is, is in bits and pieces, episodic and disjointed. There are no combat scenes. It is unrelentingly dismal with one in-your-face anti-war scene after another. Hey, there's the scene where the soldiers prove how brutalized they've become by shooting a dog. Hey, there's the scene at the end of the U.S. soldier and Soviet soldier killing each other in bombed out Berlin. No kidding.

If war is always so bad, WHAT ABOUT THE NAZI'S CONCENTRATION AND DEATH CAMPS American and Soviet soldiers liberated?? But no, this lousy movie won't show how WW II was necessary to stop evil.

The movie is a lie, and nonsense. Sure war is terrible, but sometimes it is needed, and it sure was needed against Hitler and Nazism.
13 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The first "ANTI-COMBAT" anti-war movie
tensaip10 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Preceding the likes of CATCH-22 (1970) and JARHEAD (2005), THE VICTORS (1963) was notable for not having any scenes in which the American soldiers at the core of the story actually kill any of their German enemies. As Anthony Swofford pointed out in the autobiographical JARHEAD, any war film which features scenes of combat is in actuality a pro-war movie because it glamorizes the action aspects of martial combat and even an obviously anti-war statement such as PLATOON ends up as a recruiting tool for the military. Carl Foreman, proved himself way ahead of the game in THE VICTORS, devised by Foreman as a rebuttal of sorts to THE LONGEST DAY. Carl Foreman's WW2 experience taught him that lessons to be learned from war were not from the fighting itself but from the consequences of the fighting. In THE VICTORS, the movie title is meant to be IRONIC, for none of the story arcs featuring the central characters reach happy conclusions. Foreman's central thesis is that a war has only VICTIMS and no VICTORS not even those playing on the "winning" team.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting war film, but it's too slow and the romantic stuff is a chore
Leofwine_draca14 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
THE VICTORS is a black and white WW2 film following the misadventures of a squad of American soldiers as they work their way through various theatres of war in Europe. They begin in London, narrowly avoiding the Blitz, before moving into occupied Italy and finally - following the D-Day landings - working their way through France back towards Germany.

This isn't a film I'd particularly heard about before watching and having seen it I have to say that I found it a bit of a slog to sit through. It's an epic-length movie with a very slow pace and a narrative which is episodic in nature. The soldiers are just that, soldiers, without ever being particularly sympathetic; whether you like them or not depends on how much you like the actors playing them. George Hamilton and George Peppard are both good value and Eli Wallach is great as always, but I could take or leave the rest of them.

The film does have its strengths, including some fine cinematography which makes the bombed-out ruins of a war-devastated continent look incredible. There isn't a great deal of action here but that which does occur is realistic and engaging. Playing spot the famous face is fun, as the film includes bit parts for Albert Finney, Roy Scheider, and Peter Fonda. Some moments such as those involving the dog or the Russian soldier are extremely harrowing and downbeat. However, too much of the film chronicles the experiences of the Yanks with various European women, all of them played by top European talent like Jeanne Moreau and Elke Sommer. These romantic interludes are slow and where the film lost my interest, taking the edge off a potential masterpiece.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
it took a soldier to do that
domingox725 December 2005
What ever happened to this wonderful movie? When I was at the University of Oregon in the late 60s and early 70s it was shown on local t.v. in Eugene several times. I have not seen it since but it has lingered in my memory. What a great film.

One scene that has stayed with me all these years is the one with the dog. A new recruit shows up and joins a group of tired and war-weary vets. The new recruit has a young puppy and wants to bring it along. The puppy is cute and because I had watched a ton of American war films I thought that everyone would embrace the dog, make it their mascot and have a merry time as they wasted Krauts in the Hurtgen Forrest but the vets will not allow the dog to join them. What the vets know and the new guy doesn't is that they are headed for a place where only those with a hard heart survive. The Hurtgun is no place for pups or children. Only a certain type of individual could possibly survive there. You can see it in the vets that they would like to indulge the new guy and his dog, but they know better. They make the recruit leave the dog as they board the truck headed for the front. The puppy starts following the truck as it pulls away and the innocent new guy gets all excited and calls to him as it trails the truck. A vet pulls out his M-1 and shots the dog dead. Another vet turns to the new guy who is stunned in disbelief and says "it took a soldier to do that".

This movie, this scene and this line have stayed in my mind and its been over 30 years since last I've seen it.
30 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent realism
jroessl4 January 2007
This is probably the most realistic war movie ever made. The characters are real, flesh and blood not paper heroes. The black and white only added to the realism. The irony at the end of an American and Russian soldier killing each other and falling into a V while Beethoven's Fifth plays in the back ground is not lost. The execution of Eddie Slovak to the strains of "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" playing in the background is powerful, and you can't escape the injustice of this single soldier being executed for the act of hundreds. It anyone every thought their was any glory or romance in war this movie should disabuse them. Recent movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" have in my opinion skewed away from the stark truth of "The Victors"
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the best war films ever made.
pandamorehead9 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Aside from the theatrical release in 1963, the only chance to catch this superb film was late at night years ago. Unfortunately, it has never been made available on video. It is an intense, moving, and at times downright disturbing film which follows American soldiers through their WWII experiences in Europe. Incredibly filmed, directed and edited this film is one that stays with you. By cleverly blending old newsreel footage, you get the feeling you are there. My one wish is that this would be released on DVD in its original format. Best scene: The American squad comes upon a group of Germans in a bunker trying to surrender. Upon hearing shots, a group of French soldiers take over the situation. Watching a white flag emerge, the French open fire, eventually sneaking down and planting explosives on the bunker which they detonate with obvious delight. Leaving, the French officer, who wears an eye patch and is scarred from ear to neck, turns to the American Sgt (Eli Wallach) and says with a grin: "If you feel you need to report this pray your country is never occupied".
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed