Anzio (1968) User Reviews

A Stranded Whale

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 3 February 2007]

When Winston Churchill was asked to appraise the Anzio operation he said that instead of hurling a wildcat on the beach and flanking the Germans the 36,000 allied troops at Anzio were nothing more than a stranded whale.

Of course the whole Anzio landing was Churchill's own idea, but to give him some credit it was an attempt to try and break the logjam of the Italian offensive. The Allies had landed back in 1943 at Salerno and Churchill's 'soft underbelly of Europe' proved to be armor plated. Progress was measured in yards. It wasn't like the trench warfare of the first World War, but it was enormous American, British, Canadian and other assorted allies casualties.

Anzio Beach was selected for a landing up the Italian coast near Rome to both outflank the Germans and maybe take Rome. It worked, but the American commander John P. Lucas moved too cautiously having remembered the 21 Day pitched battle at Salerno in those first landings in Italy. Field Marshal Kesselring was able to bring down reinforcements from the north and contain the Allies on that beach. There in fact they stayed until they linked up with the main offensive months later, just before the American Fifth Army liberated Rome officially on June 5, 1944.

The story of the military failure of Anzio is told with fictional names as Robert Ryan, Arthur Kennedy, and Arthur Franz play Mark Clark, John Lucas, and Lucian Truscott respectively. Truscott is the guy who relieved Lucas and kept the Allies from being driven off the beach, although to be fair to Lucas his priority was a secure beachhead and he certainly succeeded.

The other story of the film Anzio is that of Ernie Pyle like war correspondent Robert Mitchum who drives all the way to an unguarded Rome and then gets caught with a bunch of American GIs and one Canadian in trying to get back to Anzio beach.

Earl Holliman, Reni Santoni, and Peter Falk play some of the soldiers with Mitchum and they do well. This is definitely not a war for glory for them, they're just trying to survive out there. Falk particularly is riveting in playing an American who was wounded and invalided out of the American army from the Pacific Theater who then moved to Canada to join their army. Why you would ask, because he's grown to like it and has a real jones for combat.

Anzio unfortunately doesn't concentrate on either story long enough to tell it in the best possible way. It had potential to be a great film, but falls short. In addition Jack Jones's singing of the theme song is jarringly out of place.

What I would like is someday for someone to tell the story of the original landings in Italy at Salerno, Messina, and Brindisi. That would make a great motion picture if done right.

When you watch Anzio you are sad for the colossal waste of human life it was, especially since the objective wasn't obtained. And a great story needs better telling.

Mixed Messages

[kikiloveslegwarmers · 7/10 · 29 May 2006]

Anzio is a weird film. Made at the height of the Viet-Nam War, it's clear this Italian film is trying to be anti-war. Robert Mitchuim, who looks like he hadn't slept for a month, and was on a week-long drinking binge, rambles on about the waste of war. He sounds like a drunk at a upscale cocktail party. Yet, the movie also uses the basic Hollywood heroics to attract the viewing public. The sniper shoot-out is done realistically and is somewhat exciting. Aside from that, the film is way to talkative, way too long, and the action in general is dull.

The best thing about this movie are the performances of Mark Damon and Reni Santoni as two U.S. Army Rangers. Peter Falk was stereotyped with this type of anti-establishment role in the late 1960s and played the exact same role in Castle Keep. Falk also looks beat, drunk, and bored. Arthur Kennedy and Robert Ryan are totally wasted and it's clear they were hired for their names. Earl Holliman gives a modest performance.

Uneven War Movie

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 9 October 2005]

It's always a bad sign when a film's theme tune sounds nothing like the genre it's claiming to be . THE BAT for example features a funky jazz tune and boy was that film a pile of rodent droppings and alarm bells started ringing when the opening credits of ANZIO started where a war weary corespondent played a very possibly drunk Robert Mitchum marched through a military HQ to the sounds of a Frank Sinatra style swing song ! Yeah there's nothing quite like a war film to get you on your feet grooving away , bah bah bah bah bah bah bah

ANZIO isn't an awful film but it's far from being a great one either with the script being the major problem . It opens one of those light hearted scenes of with over paid , over sexed and over confident US soldiers that we've seen far too many times before . I guess it's supposed to be amusing but it's not . Eventually the film lives up to its title and shows us what went wrong at the Anzio landings with the American generals Clark and Lucas not driving inland quick enough . This is a fairly good history lesson since it paints a fairly poor picture of American leadership in Italy . Remember in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN , BAND OF BROTHERS and A BRIDGE TOO FAR Monty is painted as possibly the most incompetent allied General of the war ? This was nothing compared to the ridiculous mistakes made by Clark and Lucas during the Italian campaign , though somewhat cowardly this film renames Clark as " Carson " and Lucas as " Lewis " which is a great pity because a history student could do worse than watch this film , though if they did they'd notice like a great number of war films made during this period ( BATTLE OF THE BULGE is a good example ) that both German and American tanks are from a different generation but the Anzio landings here are more accurate than the ones seen in PINK FLOYD THE WALL

After this the narrative then sadly settles down into a straightforward war film where the action could basically have taken place anywhere like France or the Phillipines where a bunch of GIs are surrounded by the enemy and have to make it back to enemy lines . As many people have pointed out on these pages the script is rather unfocused and slightly disjointed and I had a gut feeling that some of it ended up on the cutting room floor , for example we see the platoon escape from a house at night and almost immediately after the platoon are trapped by some German snipers in the middle of the day , though to be honest this isn't a movie that is afraid to kill off characters so deserves some credit alongside the historical accuracy

Anti-war drama comes off as hollow

[SgtSlaughter · 6/10 · 30 October 2002]

American director Edward Dmytryk headed to Italy to shoot "Anzio", one the most lopsided World War II epics to come out of the 1960s. Despite some good intentions, this film fails as both an anti-war drama and an action piece.

The film stars Robert Mitchum ("The Enemy Below") as Dick Ennis, a cold and cynical war correspondent that does his work on the front lines with the infantrymen. When the squad he is accompanying gets cut off behind the German lines due to an ambush, he must pick up a gun and help them fight their way back to Allied lines.

The movie has a lot going for it, right from the start. Every actor looks comfortable, especially Mitchum. Robert Mitchum has never been one of my favorite American actors, simply because he always seems to be acting – despite the dimensionality of the part, Mitchum can never seem to break out of a box. Here, he looks to be having plenty of fun and seems quite natural in the role. Mark Damon ("Between Heaven and Hell") provides the necessary dramatic opposite as an infantryman who can't seem to agree with Ennis on his policies. Arthur Kennedy ("Attack and Retreat") is the exact opposite of Ennis' character as the incompetent General Lesley, who takes too much time establishing a solid beachhead and allows the Germans to launch an offensive, pinning his men down on the beach. Peter Falk ("Situation Normal, All Fouled Up"), on the other hand, is totally wasted as Corporal Rabinoff, a soldier who has become addicted to combat. Earl Holliman ("Armored Command") is the Sergeant in command of the squad, and he makes the most out of a clichéd-role by giving his character personality. Be sure to watch for Robert Ryan, Anthony Steel, Arthur Franz and Patrick Magee as Allied Generals.

There is only one big battle sequence, which expertly staged and filled with tanks, extras and big explosions. However, its effectiveness is limited because of two key flaws. Primarily, American soldiers are seen to stand up in the open and rush German machine-gun nests, only to be mowed down by overwhelming enemy fire. Secondly, there's a ridiculous scene in which Ennis and a soldier engage in a discussion about the war right in the middle of a fight, despite the fact that bullets and artillery shells are landing all around them! The final, small-scale, climactic showdown with German snipers was much more suspenseful, due to some excellent editing and great music score.

One major flaw in the film is, unfortunately, the script. It's as if "Anzio" can't decide if it wants to be a gung-ho flag-waver, or a downbeat, anti-war story. The first half the film is filled with humorous, almost slapstick scenes, although some of Mitchum's dialog hints that this is going to change … and it does, in fact the focus turns around 180 degrees. Throughout the second half of the film, the action stops dead in its tracks so that the characters discuss issues of personal sacrifice, what constitutes above and beyond the call of duty, etc… until it's been repeated so much that you can't stand to hear anymore. For all of this discussion, the conclusion is pretty forced. Mitchum says something along the lines of, "Men kill each other because they like to. Maybe if we all sit back and realize it, we could stop the killing and get along." That statement defines over-emphasis. Instead of being a history lesson about the real Anzio campaign, the film turns into a social commentary on Vietnam.

The on-location shooting served the proceedings well, as the film looks like sunny Italy in every frame. The scene in the Italian house looked excellent, and Dmytryk uses wide angles throughout to show off the scope of the Italian locales. The score ranges from victorious and rousing to mournful and depressing, which contributes a great deal to the mood of some important scenes – such as the entry into liberated Rome and the significance of one character's death in the sniper sequence.

"Anzio" is a mixed bag, but despite a lack of focus on one theme, it manages to be entertaining and satisfying as a drama, with enough well-staged action scenes to hold it together and help obscure the muddled anti-war sentiments.

Failed blockbuster about the Allied invasion of Italy that wastes the talents of great actors and nice locations

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 1 January 2014]

This War movie contains crossfire , thrills , large-scale action , battles , shots of troops , tanks and amphibious landings . This average film never pulls things together enough to rise above continuous images of military marches , tanks , smoke and shootouts . This would-be blockbuster is not a description of such an important event but it is a context in which the battle in Italy offers the concrete development , life and death , a few men in the first days after the Allied landing on the beaches of Anzio . Nothing memorable , nonsense scenes and undistinguished recounting with all-star cast though frankly wasted such as Peter Falk as Cpl. Jack Rabinoff , Earl Holliman as Sgt. Abe , Mark Damon as Wally Richardson , Arthur Kennedy as Maj. Gen. Jack Lesley , Robert Ryan as Gen. Carlson , Reni Santoni as Pvt. Movie and Giancarlo Giannini as Private Cellini , among others . Furthermore , a hackneyed screenplay and full of cliché . Evocative cinematography in Panavision by Giuseppe Rotunno, Federico Fellini's usual cameraman ; location filming for this movie was conducted in and around the environs of Rome, Italy . Atmospheric as well as thrilling musical score by Riz Ortalani , including an enjoyable leitmotif . The motion picture was middlingly directed by Edward Dmytryk and Duilio Coletti .

The motion picture was partially based on real events : As Operation Shingle (January 22, 1944) was an Allied amphibious landing in the Italian Campaign against German forces in the area of Anzio, Italy. This operation was aimed at outflanking the German army on the Winter Line and as such allow for an assault on the capital city of Rome . It was one of WWIIs bloodiest battles as the Allies smash through the German lines which have enclosed the Anzio beachhead . The operation was commanded by American Major General John P. Lucas (Arthur Kennedy) and was intended to outflank German forces of the Winter Line and enable an attack on Rome. The resulting combat is commonly called the Battle of Anzio.The success of an amphibious landing at that location, in a basin consisting substantially of reclaimed marshland and surrounded by mountains, depended completely on the element of surprise and the swiftness with which the invaders could move relative to the reaction time of the defenders. Any delay could result in the occupation of the mountains by the defenders and the consequent entrapment of the invaders. Lieutenant General Mark Clark (Robert Ryan as General Carson) , commander of the U.S. Fifth Army, understood that risk, but Clark did not pass on his appreciation of the situation to his subordinate, General Lucas, who preferred to take time to entrench against an expected counterattack. The initial landing achieved complete surprise with no opposition and a jeep patrol even made it as far as the outskirts of Rome. Despite that report, Lucas, who had little confidence in the operation as planned, failed to capitalize on the element of surprise by delaying his advance until he judged his position was sufficiently consolidated and his troops ready. While Lucas consolidated, Field Marshal Albert Kesselring (Wolfgang Preiss) , the German commander in the Italian theatre, moved every spare unit to be found into a ring around the beachhead, where his gunners had a clear view of every Allied position. The Germans also stopped the drainage pumps and flooded the reclaimed marsh with salt water, planning to entrap the Allies and destroy them by epidemic. For weeks a rain of shells fell on the beach, the marsh, the harbour, and on anything else observable from the hills, with little distinction between forward and rear positions. After a month of heavy but inconclusive fighting, Lucas was relieved , sent home and replaced by Major General Lucian Truscott. The Allies finally broke out and turned his forces north-west towards Rome which was captured on 4 June. As four months and 30,000 casualties before the Allies finally march to Rome . As a result, the forces of the German Tenth Army at Cassino were able to withdraw and rejoin the rest of Kesselring's forces north of Rome, regroup, and make a fighting withdrawal to his next major prepared defensive position on the Gothic Line

What if George Patton had been in charge?

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 17 September 2014]

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.

An American patrol fighting Germans in the countryside south of Rome

[Wuchakk · 6/10 · 16 November 2017]

RELEASED IN 1968 and directed by Edward Dmytryk & Duilio Coletti, "Anzio" (aka "The Battle of Anzio") chronicles the uneventful Allied amphibious landing at Anzio, Italy, in late January, 1944. While a reconnaissance detail offers evidence that there's no serious enemy opposition in the 30 miles between Anzio and Rome, the commander (Arthur Kennedy) inexplicably decides to dig-in, which provides Field Marshal Kesselring (Wolfgang Preiss) the opportunity to marshal his troops against the invasion. This prolongs their capturing Rome until early June.

Winston Churchill was dissatisfied with this, commenting "I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale." The movie focuses on a war correspondent (Robert Mitchum) who accompanies a small group of Rangers who patrol the Italian countryside and are ambushed at the Battle of Cisterna and try to make it back. The soldiers are played by Earl Holliman, Peter Falk, Reni Santoni, et. al.

The movie's based on real events, but you can tell that the writers pandered to the audience in light of some of the contrived dialogues, e.g. General Lesley quoting Churchill at the end (Lesley, of course, representing the real-life General Lucas). Another negative is the incongruent soundtrack and score, most notably the opening song by Jack Jones, "The World is Yours." Yet it could be argued that this lends the movie a unique charm.

Some armchair critics complain that the movie should have focused more on The Battle of Anzio, as far as the invading Allies fighting Kesselring's counterattack, but that's here to a point (since all the events fall under the umbrella of that battle) and I think they came up with an innovative way to condense 4.5 months into a fairly compelling two hour flick.

THE MOVIE RUNS 117 minutes and was shot entirely in Italy (Naples, Caserta & Rome). WRITERS: H.A.L. Craig (et. al) from Wynford Vaughan-Thomas's book. ADDITIONAL CAST: Robert Ryan has a small role.

GRADE: B-

Diluted and boring film a clef.

[rmax304823 · 3/10 · 17 June 2004]

It's a not-entirely fictional story about the Ango-American landings at Anzio on Italy's west coast. It's diluted because the story behind those landings is far more interesting than what we see on the screen. Names, personalities, and motives are changed around so that hardly any echo of the real characters remains, although we get a lot of information about characters created in the screenplay.

Basically, Robert Ryan plays General Mark Clark who was in charge of the operation and was in overall command of the Fifth Army. He was an interesting guy for a general -- tall, vain, brave, half-Jewish, a large-featured face like the mask of Tragedy, carrying around a sidearm as a prop. Arthur Kennedy plays General John P. Lewis (modeled after Gen. Lucas), in charge of the landings themselves. Mitchum accuses him of being "timid" (three times) and in a way he was, although it wasn't entirely his fault. Arthur Franz has a small role as General Lucian K. Truscott, the junior general in command of the Third Division (Audie Murphy's division). All the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Here, basically, is how it worked. The Allies of half a dozen nationalities were being slaughtered throwing themselves against the German Gustav line, which ran across the Italian boot from sea to sea, commanded by the unconquerable Monte Cassino. The Anzio landings were designed to catch the enemy by surprise from behind and relieve pressure at the Gustav line. Mark Clark (who saw to it that any reference to the Fifth Army in the press appeared as a reference to "Mark Clark's Fifth Army") had supervised similar earlier landings at Salerno. They were successful, but just barely. The landings at Anzio were handed over to Lucas, whose orders included a drive inland, if possible, to the Alban Hills which commanded a perfect view of the beachhead and the main highway to Rome. Lucas had just troops enough to dig in and consolidate or to race pell mell to the Alban Hills, but not enough troops to do both. Lucas was advised by Clark, "Don't stick your neck out like I did at Salerno." (The line is directly quoted in the movie, but is given to Robert Ryan's fictional general.) So Lucas didn't stick his neck out. He went inland seven miles, stopped short of the Alban Hills, and dug in. Clark, who was on the beach, agreed with the decision.

And Lucas wasn't the cocksure but mistaken strategist played by Arthur Kennedy. The real General Lucas kept a diary and it's full of gloomy forebodings. The Germans, under Kesselring and Mackensen, were caught unprepared. Nothing stood between the allies and the Alban Hills, or Rome for that matter. But Lucas did nothing, and for good reasons. He didn't have the resources to take Rome and hold it. Except for the probe by Rangers, as shown on screen, and others by British troops, everyone dug in and waited for the German reinforcements to deploy, which happened apace. Kesselring was a very efficient tactician and had plenty of time to bring in troops in the stalled Allied beach head.

Instead of Anzio rescuing the troops at the Gustav line, the situation was turned around. In the end, some 24,000 American and 9,000 British casualties were evacuated from the beachhead. Clark fired Lucas and gave command to Truscott. When the German resistance finally collapsed, General Clark had an opportunity to drive eastward across the Italian boot and cut off the German troops to the south. He chose instead to forget about capturing the German army and to zip his own troops north along the highway to Rome so that he could "conquer" the open city. You know -- like Julius Caesar? The German army promptly withdrew north to their next massive defense line, where the Allied advance stalled again.

I leave it to the viewer to decide which story is more engaging, the historical one or the plot we see on the screen, which is mostly the story of seven survivors of the Ranger patrol who try to make their way back to Anzio, a story we've seen many times before. I wish I could at least say that the story presented on screen is well done but the fact is that it's not. This is one of Mitchum's lazier performances. Sometimes he sounds positively drunk. No one else stands out, including Peter Falk, who has the reactivity of a noble gas. Arther Kennedy is the smarmy General Whatever-his-name-is. And some other posters are absolutely right about the score. Whew! A simple-minded would-be catchy love song doesn't turn into a martial theme just because you throw some snare drums behind it and play it as a march.

What a missed opportunity.

Italian produced films of World War 2

[TiminPhoenix · 30 January 2004]

Italian produced films often try and paint their own involvement in World War 2 as some sort of accident.

Here in Anzio, the film tries to treat Italy as just another country like France, waiting with baited breath for liberation. Granted, Italy did surrender in the middle of the war but ask the Brits from the 8th Army at Tobruk if the Italians were neutral.

It takes on sides in a debate over the handling of the battle by the various generals. That the film is so unworthy to do so is like listening to a lecture from a 14 year old about how society works.

The film tries under the guise of being gritty to portray a number of the American soldiers as criminals, nutjobs, and horndogs. While the horndog might be accurate, the other two groupings do not represent the American military. Of course some in the military were like this, but the producer tends to shape it as if it were the rule, instead of the exception.

Robert Mitchum, one of the most over-rated actors in Hollywood history tries to play it both ways here. He talks about why men kill other men. A comment, during the second world war, which would require only a 5 second film clip from one of the concentration camps to explain why the Brits and the Americans were fighting and thus killing Germans. Within 2 minutes, however of this pacifist musing the director wants you to get all jazzed over some Germans being shot.

The stereotypes are sloppy. Falk, another actor that gets more credit that he deserves is way over the top and seems not to have a grasp of what his character is all about.

Like the actual Anizo campaign, this film is disorganized and doesn't at all live up to the potential that was there.

A missed opportunity by the film makers.

[smatysia · 6/10 · 12 November 1999]

This is an okay war film. Robert Mitchum does his usual good job as a long-time war correspondent, and Peter Falk as a Ranger corporal at the Anzio invasion is creditable. There just doesn't seem to be a lot there. This goes down as a missed opportunity by the film makers.

Unconvincing war movie

[RIO-15 · 4/10 · 19 May 1999]

The Allied invasion of Anzio,which took the Germans totally by surprise,is the background for this war movie.Because of extreme caution on the part of the Allied commander (Arthur Kennedy)the invasion became a big military failure. The plot concentrates on a small group of men trying to survive behind enemy lines after their platoon had been almost totally wiped out by the Germans.

A totally unconvincing war movie,which is surprising considering the people involved in it. The acting is bad.Robert Mitchum seems to utter his lines as if he was reading a boring book.The dialogue is childish and typical macho-stuff,but there are a few action scenes that are well staged.

A lovely war film

[balochistan · 10/10 · 22 April 2020]

I personally Loved it and I highly recommend it to war movie lovers + see Peter Falk not as a Columbo for a change :-)😀

Gritty

[dunsuls · 7/10 · 21 June 2002]

This is a strange film.On the one hand it tries to be anti-war,on the other,its as fine a action flick as I've seen.The story of Anzio is sad indeed.This films doesn't really explain all the mistakes made,but does admit to them,thats the anti-war end of it.The action end of it was,well,let me tell you one scene.Soldiers are running from enemy tanks and forced to cross a mine field to escape.Mitchell throws stones into the mine field and the soldiers run across on top of them as they throw them ahead of themselfs.One asks how Mitchell thought of this as mines blow up under the stones.I learned it from a old Chinese soldier was his reply.Where's he now,the soldier asked?He didn't make it was Mitchells answer as they were still in the middle of the mine field. I loved this flick,including the off beat performance by Peter Falk.

Too bad

[cpurvis · 5/10 · 21 September 2005]

It's a shame that the makers of a movie made about one of the bloodiest battles of WWII chose to make a semi-fictional work. The real story is far more gripping than this movie. Anzio was a four month struggle, which for the Allies, had no rear area. There was nowhere an Allied soldier could go that was out of range of German artillery and planes.

The real battle for Anzio was a true Allied effort with the British and Americans locking in a duel to the death with the best German troops Hitler could put in Italy. It was supposed to break the deadlock of the Gustav line by flanking but was doomed from the start because it lacked sufficient landing strength. True, the road to the Rome WAS uncontested on D-Day, but Kesselring himself said later he would have easily cut off and destroyed any such small force if it extended itself even to the Alban Hills, let alone Rome.

The story of the loss of Darby's Rangers is covered in other movies better; of the 767 Rangers sent on a mission, only six returned. It is but one of many stories of horrific sacrifice of young lives. Further south, in a diversionary mission designed to take pressure off the Anzio landing, the US 36th division lost 1600 men in a single night trying to cross the Rapido river. The British took terrible losses, especially in the German offensive of 18-19 Feb 1944, mainly due to their bad luck of being placed in the line in the area in which Hitler personally chose to concentrate the main German offensive, which came within about 1000 yards of breaking the last line of defense.

Such losses are unimaginable today, yet they were accepted then as the price that must be paid to rid Europe of Hitler.

There are no films that I know of that do justice to Anzio. One would be better served by reading any of the numerous books about Anzio or even reading the write-up at http://www.army.mil/cmh/brochures/anzio/72-19.htm -- it is infinitely more interesting than this movie.

Could have been better

[twolve · 4 September 1999]

Waste of a good cast. Though large in scope, battle scenes are at times laughable. Americans run up in waves upright and close up towards machine gun nests. I thought only asian armies did that. In one laughable scene, during a full fledged battle, Mitchum is lying down playing dead "so they'll stop shooting at him". This I can understand, but then this other G.I. comes and sits next to him (upright as well) and starts CALMLY talking to him about how stupid he looks until an explosion rudely interupts their conversation. The real story of Anzio has yet to be told.

what makes men keep going to war

[zenmark60 · 7/10 · 28 March 2006]

a very accurate film . Rome was an open city . if it were not for the stupidity of the American high command , a lot of lives would have been saved .don't pay attention to the previous idiots' comments about this movie . it is very good .robert Mitchum and peter Falk are above average as is the script . by the way...Americans committed plenty of atrocities in world war two ;i have three words for that -- Dresden ; Hiroshima ; and Nagasaki.one of the points this movie makes is that there are no real winners in a war . as Plato said , " only the dead have seen the end of war . give this movie a shot ;it is better than the mindless jingo-ism of a john Wayne or [ god , help us ! ] a Ronald Regan film . ciao !

Fun to see after all these years.

[navyflir · 7/10 · 22 July 2018]

I was a VA-176 attack pilot in 1967 flying form the USS Saratoga in the Mediterranean. They used footage of my squadron flying on a weapons impact range off of Italy for one scene in this movie. We were flying Navy A1H Skyraiders, not around in WWII. They have a couple of clips of us doing run-ins on a target that they used at the end of the movie when Mitchum was in a shoot out with a German sniper. They were great airplanes used in Korea and Viet Nam for close air support. Also call Sandys or Spads by those who flew them, loved them and those troops on the ground who were protected by them. That;s my 5 second claim to fame in a Robert Mitchum movie.

Not a bad move, a little heavy handed on the anti-war message. Not one of Mitchum's better movies but worth a look..

Underwhelming war film, and a missed opportunity to portray the battle for Anzio realistically

[rdolan9007 · 6/10 · 23 August 2014]

I will declare an interest at the outset because my late grandfather actually fought at the battle of Anzio(which he did survive. Therefore I was interested to see how the film dealt with Anzio. This unfortunately is a disappointing film, although not terrible by any means. It tries to be ambitious, with an anti-war stance but ends up as a strangely tame film to become a quite conventional heroic war movie. The film is not particularly realistic, and lacks a sense of danger. There are major characters killed of but you won't have any real feelings for them.

This film is not helped by the fact it does suffers from the Hollywood(US) perspective. This largely ignores the British effort, and concentrates on the American action at Anzio. The film as a sop perhaps tries to compensate for this by heavily criticising the American generals. Although the British command made mistakes, in reality the American generalship was far worse and genuinely appalling The thinly disguised General Clark who is the character Gerneral Carson, was an egotistical moron, who threatened to shoot any British who arrived in Rome on the day 'he' conquered Rome. This unsurprisingly is not in the film, but you can certainly understand why Anzio was a near disaster, when you had idiots like that in charge.

Strangely enough Anzio bears comparison to Saving Private Ryan in structure, both start with a beach landing although as the film does get right Anzio was unopposed unlike Utah beach. The film like Saving Private Ryan then concentrates on a section of American soldiers, and their actions. There is also like saving private Ryan an allied plane attack which at the end which plays an important role in the final outcome.

The film unfortunately lacks the savage intensity of Anzio. The town of Anzio, and its surrounds was under constant and intense Artillery bombardment from the Germans. There was also constant pressure from German infantry and the conditions were reminiscent of the first world war. This state of affairs was to last in a very bloody stalemate for three months, before a breakout was achieved. You simply don't get any impression of that intense and constant pressure however being placed upon the allies from the film. There is none of the sense of fear and dread, that being confined to those few miles of land around Anzio actually had on the allies. Therefore the film ends up disappointingly conventional and ignores the reality of the conditions in Anzio.

The acting is patchy, with only the characters playing the American generals and Kesselring really worthy of note. Peter Falk's performance as a playboy GI is out of kilter with the film. I like Peter Falk, but here his performance is ham-fisted, and unconvincing. Robert Mitchum is a good choice for the lead, and that face can do war weary better than most. Yet as Hollywood demands, despite being a cynical war journalist, he takes over the action and he gets to kill the last German sniper.

So you won't get any insight worthy of note about Anzio from this film. It doesn't bother to try and create a realistic overview of what actually happened at Anzio. As this film was made in 1968, I'm not particularly surprised by the emphasis on the American war effort, therefore I'm not particularly upset by it. It bears so little reality to what Anzio must have been like that I can't judge it as a historical war film like the longest day, or a bridge to far. This is just a war film with a title that tries to lend it some historical credibility. It has little or none, so I would not take it seriously.

There are it is true sporadic moments of interest and excitement, some of the battle scenes are well done, especially when some American units are ambushed by German tanks. The final action scene with the plane strafing the sniper and Robert mitchum trying to kill the sniper is well done as well. It isn't enough however dramatically, or historically accurate enough to sustain your interest.

Action packed war movie with character and introspect

[drystyx · 7/10 · 5 March 2007]

"Anzio" is an action packed war movie which balances the action with just the right amount of "pre-game war talk", character study, and plot development. What this means in layman's terms is, you get your money's worth. You'll be excited, with never a dull moment, while being interested in what the characters have to say at the same time. This also means you care about the characters, one way or another. "Anzio" might be best understood as having three dimensions in the story line. First, it's an all out blood bath series of shootings, with an extremely riveting fight against snipers in the end. Second, it's the story of military strategy, which is supplied by Robert Ryan, Arthur Kennedy, and Arthur Franz, among others, doing the "high ranking officers making decisions" bit. Third, and most importantly, it's the story of why men have wars. The war correspondent who links these all together is played by Robert Mitchum. His character is one of the most well defined characters ever written in a war movie. The third dimension really grips the story, with Peter Falk playing a veteran ranger who is famous for his exploits in the unit, a man who seems to enjoy the killing, but has a softer side, too. His character may be the second best defined character of war movies (if you omit "Jungle Fighters".) The final shootout is an emotionally gripping sniper attack that leaves you on the edge of your seat. Possibly the best filmwork for any war movie ever done, and it would be the best film editing, too, if not for one glitch in which the sniper attack comes from out of the blue in sequence. But that may be just what the director intended. It is effective, but leaves you wondering "Where am I"? more than anything else. And these troopers know where they are. The music really doesn't suit the subject matter, even in contrast. It's like one of the early MTV videos. Music and video don't match. Just ignore the music and enjoy the show.

Weird

[August1991 · 3/10 · 2 February 2004]

The music in this film is the tip off that something weird is afoot. I mean the cheery 1960s American sitcom style orchestrals. But there's also the singing scene in the back of the truck with Peter Falk. What the ... ? This is a weird war movie. Anyone know 'Kings Go Forth' with Sinatra and Martin? 'Anzio' is the 60s version. Or rather, 'Anzio' is one of the last war movies before filmmakers (in this case, Dino de Laurentiis) clued into Stanley Kubrick. (Better than Kubrick? See William Wyler's 'Thunderbolt'.)

With all this said, the history is right. The Americans could have entered Rome without problem. Their fear of casualties stopped them, leading to worse. The film clearly shows this.

Lastly, I have been to Anzio and walked through the American war cemetery at Nettuno. I smoked a cigarette over the gravestone of one guy - as I usually do in such places - and thanked them all for my right to be there to do it. God knows what they'd think of people today watching such silly war movies.

has its merits: focus on the cynicism about killing

[rvm-2 · 7/10 · 13 August 2000]

In terms of battle scenes, this movie has some interesting ones: like the one where the Rangers are surrounded by tanks, as my impression is that the purpose of most of the scene is to get you to feel what it's like to have a gun pointed at your head (though I doubt they would rush machine gun nests they could clearly see, as depicted in the film). Another is Mitchum's duel with a crack German trooper. In fact, Mitchum's character refers to that feeling late in the movie.

But the thing to focus on here is the attitude towards killing, which I believe is the point of this movie. Many of the deaths are pointless (eg the soldier with the photo of his daughter, the way the soldiers are tripped up by a timid general, and so on), and the reaction of the soldiers is interesting: when Falk, like several other soldiers, hear of someone's death, or the slaughter of many of their troops, they basically say "So what? They're dead now, so what focus on it?". Is inevitable, and you can't change it by mourning. I think this is meant as contrast to Mitchum's more "civilized" attitude. By the end of the movie, Mitchum adopts the same cynical attitude regarding the inevitability of killing and dying in war - it's going to keep happening because they enjoy the killing, or at least people don't value life the sanctity of life as much as he thought. And people are going to keep dying, so get used to it and get on with the job. Note Mitchum's speech near the end and his final line (regarding the conquering hero).

Peter Falk's character, with his matter-of-fact attitude towards killing, and the way he lives in the moment, was the pivotal one of this movie, and he does a great job with it.

It would be interesting to hear the appraisal of this movie by someone who was there.

A perfect example of what a mediocre film is

[norbert-plan-618-715813 · 2/10 · 4 December 2022]

You have to see this film which is a perfect example of what a mediocre film is. Or at least a film whose images shot by Edward Dmytryk and his cameramen are left to the talent or quality or inventiveness of the editor, the actors, the dialogue writer or the set designer, without any direction.

The direction is lazy. It is a soft film. The direction of the actors is not without quality, but the actors have a tendency to declaim their dialogue, which gives a theatrical aspect and is devoid of any realism. This can be irritating.

All the sequences are too long. And we perceive that the editor tries to make them a little dynamic or even interesting and to get them out of their monotony through certain cuts that he positions.

The acting is catastrophic. Robert Mitchum, lazy, often filmed from the back walking, doesn't seem to believe in it and seems to be constantly telling us "my dialogues suck" (fortunately for him, his stay in Italy must have been nice); the character's moods and philosophical states are childish. The actors overact: Peter Falk is ridiculous, Earl Holliman is very heavy. The music is bad.

The only interest is the historical dimension of this battle. And maybe two sequences: the crossing of the minefield, or towards the end, the confrontation of the snipers. Two passages with a bit of nerve in a lazy ensemble.

Tense war drama

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 20 August 2018]

The trouble with saturating a genre is that sometimes really good movies fall through the cracks. In the late 1960s, renowned director Edward Dmytryk made a realistic WWII drama about Anzio, starring Robert Mitchum, Peter Falk, Earl Holliman, Mark Damon, and Arthur Kennedy. Dmytryk directed Crossfire twenty years earlier, so Robert Ryan made a cameo in this movie, with one scene and a great entrance. It was very cute to see proper respect given to the old timers, but I have to warn those of you out there who love Arthur Kennedy: he looks really old in this one, so if you like him in his youthful days, you might want to skip this movie.

Anzio reminded me of Too Late the Hero; it's very tense, gritty without being overly violent, and focuses on a small band of soldiers faced with an impossible mission. I liked both movies, so I think it's a fair bet that if you like one you'll probably like the other. In this movie, a mission goes wrong and seven hundred troops lose their lives, leaving only seven survivors. Without a radio and trapped behind enemy lines, how are they going to make it back? Or will they at all?

This isn't a cheesy war movie, nor is it overly upsetting. It's more of a matter-of-fact war movie. Some people die, some bigwigs make mistakes, and sometimes danger finds you when you least expect it. There are countless scenes where the soldiers are joking or taking it easy, and either gunfire or other noise from the enemy makes them remember they're in the middle of a warzone. If you prefer movies that film from the front lines, this one won't be your cup of tea. But if you know what to expect, and you like what you're expecting, this is a great one to rent.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. In the first scene, someone swings from a chandelier, and it might make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

Awful

[mimimcg-62577 · 1/10 · 27 January 2019]

Empty and shallow telling of a bloody siege. Music is ridiculous for a war film of this nature. Short scene of a white dog broke the boredom.

The budget must have been small. Peter Falk was not up to his other roles. Mitchum spouts rhetoric about the futility of war. Arthur Kennedy is miscast.

Too bad. I wanted to learn more about that campaign. Not satisfied on any level.

Anzio (1968)

[DJJ2002 · 22 June 2003]

Anzio is an average war film. It follows World War II. The plot is okay, the acting isn't bad, and the action is good. But do you want to know the best thing about this movie; it has old Columbo himself, Peter Falk, as a soldier. Great for a laugh. Rating: 3/5