This could have been interesting -- and the film has its moments -- but as it stands it's pretty dull in most respects and positively poor in others. I must say this despite the fact that John Guillerman was my director in the fabulous and much underrated art house classic, "King Kong Lives." (The public loathed it but the critics went ape.) I don't know where to begin. All the expectable stuff is here -- the sound effects are those you've heard a thousand times in other war movies. The M-1 rifles don't make sounds like CRACK or POP as they do in the real world. They sound like sneezes or like some grotesquely distorted version of the word "cashew." The acting is below par, and based on familiar types: the battle-weary lieutenant, the greedy impudent sergeant, the ambitious green officer who keeps talking about decorations. You want to know what the director thinks of your intelligence? When we first see Segal he's shaving -- and he's not looking at himself in the mirror but at an angle, at the camera, so we see his full face. Even some five-year-olds must be jarred by that. George Segal slouches around and makes expressions once in a while. But he slouches, not as if he's exhausted, but as if he's being casual and informal, as if he were in a Las Vegas lounge. Ben Gazzara is miscast. He's good at roles in which he's quiet, thoughtful, and guarded. But here his character hides absolutely nothing, because there's nothing there. Bradford Dillman has been okay elsewhere, as in "Compulsion," but his self-aggrandizing major is so overdrawn that nobody could fill the demands of the role. Worst of all is Robert Vaughan. He was just right as the slime ball politician in "Bullitt". The reason he was right in that film and wrong in this one is his voice. The guy has the sharpest sibilants known to man or beast. He doesn't lisp but the poor guy's "s" ends in a high-pitched whistle and the terminal contour is still going up as it exceeds human hearing. For all we know, bats may love it. I don't mean to make fun of him, because that voice can be nicely joined to certain roles, only not this one -- a determined, principled, brave, humane, guilt-ridden German officer. In fact, he and Guillerman have given us the movie's best scene: Vaughan's execution, which he accepts with dignified aplomb while staring distractedly at some airplanes passing overhead. Nothing is made of the scene but it's quietly effective. The story leaves out the context. The British Field Marshall Montgomery was trying to force a crossing of the Rhine about fifty miles to the north and the Americans were determined to beat him. Both attempts succeeded. The wider story, with its political and national implications, is missing. It wasn't missing in "The Longest Day" or "Patton." At any rate, this is strictly a formulaic and routine effort. Not as abyssal as, say, "Anzio" or "The Battle of the Bulge," but still only barely clearing the bar as entertainment.

I know Ken Hechler was a consultant on this film, but it's just a shame the film departed so far from his text (The Bridge at Remagen, 1955). His research was so exquisite that was, in my opinion, almost no need for a scriptwriter. Lt Hartman (who is supposed to be Lt. Timmerman) was the tired G.I. as portrayed by Segal. Timmermann wasn't that way at all. In fact, he went back in the army and fought in Korea. I spoke with Dr. Hechler last week and he said he is in the draft stage for a book on Timmermann. And Ben Gazzara made an awfully old Sgt Angelo, the guy who lead the charge across the bridge (he wasn't first across because he stopped at the tower and captured the German machine gunner inside). Where the massacre of the American troops crossing the bridge came from is unknown. It didn't actually happen. Casualties crossing the bridge were few. In fact I'm not certain Timmermann's company took any casualties getting across. Sorry to see Hollywood distort history again. It never fails. They will never produce an accurate war film, in my opinion. No one would watch it. It would be too boring or dry. George Segal, however, accurate or not, is always good, and so are many of the others. Just don't believe that things happened as they did. After all, they changed the names of all of the participants, as in Pvt Ryan. That should tell you something. The only film that didn't, to my knowledge, was The Longest Day. In that film, if an actor said something, it can be found in the history books.

The Bridge At Remagen contains some of the most preposterous war time screenplay I've ever seen. Aside from the acting, which is wooden, no tank commander attacks with his tanks parked in nice neat rows, up the middle of roads, and with troops bunched all together with their arms not at the ready. The constant suicidal behavior set off my "tilt switch" so often I found it impossible to enjoy the movie. Apparently the screen writers and director have never been through actual warfare and never bothered to bring in an expert who had. This movie is the very antithesis of the excellent detail in Saving Private Ryan. Unless you are under 7 years old, I recommend watching something else. GB

This has to be one of the best war movies made in the 1960s, an era when all too often filmmakers went overboard in glorifying war while glossing over its horrors and populating their movies with larger-than-life hero characters who could have come straight out of a boys' comic. This movie doesn't fall into that trap. The characters - both German and American - are believable, and the movie sets and the equipment used (with the glaring exception of Korean War era American tanks) are authentic for the period. With so many WWII Sherman tanks and other vehicles still in museums, private collections and (at least back in the 60s) still in use in large numbers in the armies of several smaller countries, it has always been a puzzle to me as to why so many moviemakers took the simple option and used anachronistic military hardware in WWII movies, presumably assuming that the average moviegoer wouldn't even notice or wouldn't care. The most horrible example of this is the 1965 movie "Battle Of The Bulge". But I digress. Ignoring the tank factor, "The Bridge At Remagen" is a great movie. The best performance among many strong ones in this film has to be that of Ben Gazzara as Sergeant "Angel" Angelo, and the scene in which he kills the German sniper is extremely strong, moving stuff. Highly recommended.

Very under rated war epic. Why this movie isn't just as big as the other big war movies of the 60's(the guns of Navarro /bridge to far) is probably because it was to realistic for the times! acting is good only problem is that the Germans speak a little bit to good English but the action is topnotch especially the big tank battle scene in the middle of the movie, is one of the best war scenes i've ever seen till this day!!!The Bridge scene is also very impressive with tanks that destroy huge apartment blocks! this was a big budget movie at the time you can tell you can't count the extra's walking around and the destruction is as realistic as I've ever seen !!TRULY A MUST SEE FOR WAR MOVIE LOVERS!!!

This is an annoying film as the war scenes are badly let down by everything else including poor acting. None of the players look like they have been within a thousand miles of warfare and in fact most would likely run the other way.Having the Germans speaking English is another major fault and Robert Vaughn is the worst offender who tries to convince us he is a German and that is a total joke as he looks 100% American. I lasted about an hour before turning off this nonsense. Some spectacular action and scenery gets this an extra mark from me but still a lowly: 2/10

Only someone who was there, e.g. the U.S. 9th Armored Division, can really say whether this movie about the Remagen bridgehead comes close to what they went through in securing the Ludendorf, the last remaining intact bridge over the Rhine, on March 7, 1945. Only they know of the finality of the gunfire, and the smell it left in the air along with the smell of the dead bodies. But as a combat veteran I was impressed by this movie as it retained the tension and fear involved in war. I do not like most movies because they gloss over reality, but this movie closely shows the different types of individuals that usually make up an army. There are the commanders at the top who see the overall picture, the self-centered career minded officer types who reap only contempt, and the officers and their N.C.O.s-on the American side armored infantry-that just do what they have to do and are just trying to survive. It also shows the close, emotional bonds that war can create between soliders involved in battle. This movie keeps it dirty, with nothing very unbelievable. It gives a good idea of an armored division on the move-and that ain't much fun.

While it doesn't follow the exact historical events and has its fair share of "realistic" technical and tactical flaws, I think The Bridge at Remagen is a great movie. The WW II U.S. M24 Chaffee tanks, the M8 Armored Cars, half tracks, jeeps, troop carriers, and 2 1/2ton trucks are all just great. Unlike other WW II films of the period (60's-70's)the use of these vehicles sometimes make it seem as if one is watching George Stevens footage from WW II and not a Hollywood production. The moving, combat vehicles scenes were never better. Filming on location in eastern Europe where they had whole villages and towns that could really be blown up and destroyed adds a great deal also. I think most of the technical flaws (uniforms/weapons, both American and German)can be overlooked by the quality of what they did get right and the only real tactical flaw that I can't forgive is the out-in-the-open American tank vs German Flak battery duel. I just love those American M24's so I give it an 8 out of 10.

Released in 1969 THE BRIDGE AT REMAGEN is a gritty action packed war movie. Produced by David L. Wolpor and beautifully directed by John Guillermin the picture has, over the years, gained something of a cult status and besides being a great favourite with collectors is regarded as one of the more memorable war classics of cinema. Released through United Artists it was photographed in Panavision and colour to dazzling affect by Stanley Cortez and is underlined throughout with a super gutsy score by the always welcome Elmer Bernstein. Also of note is the location filming. It was filmed in 1968, not in Germany, but in Czechoslovakia which wonderfully doubled for Germany with the Remagen Bridge scenes shot at Davie on the Vitava River using the old bridge where fake towers were constructed. It is the closing weeks of WW2 and the only escape route for Germany's 15th. Army is across the Obercassell Bridge over the Rhine at Remagen. But Berlin wants it destroyed in case the Americans can put it to their own use. Germany's General Von Brock (Peter Van Eyck) instructs Major Paul Kreuger (Robert Vaughan) to blow it up but to delay its destruction as long as possible so as to facilitate most of the 75,000 retreating German troops who will be crossing the bridge. Meanwhile the Americans under acting C.O. Lt. Phil Hartman (George Segal) head towards the bridge to destroy it. But later however Brig. Gen. Shinner (E. G. Marshall) changes his mind and decides not to destroy it but to secure it instead. The picture ends with the Americans storming the bridge and taking it. Performances are superb from all concerned. Taking the lead is George Segal as the laid back cynical but dutiful C.O. Usually cast in romantic comedies this was a real departure for the actor and is the best thing he has ever done. Excellent too is Robert Vaughan as the ill fated German commander desperately trying first to save the bridge then failing to destroy it and Ben Gazzara as Angel the colourful brash and thieving Sergeant. Those in smaller roles are also outstanding like Bradford Dillman as the the self absorbed Major detested and distrusted by his company and the always impressive Peter van Eyck as the General of the German high command. This was to be Van Eyck's final screen appearance. He died the same year from Sepsis at the age of 54. And carrying the whole thing along is the rollicking score by the always pleasing Elmer Bernstein. Best known for his many scores for westerns the composer here turned in a powerful score of great depth and excitement. His main theme is a dramatic martial statement which segues into a reflective melancholy theme pointing up the plight of the many hapless refugees trying desperately to cross the bridge to safety and not forgetting the bold and engaging trumpet theme for the German Command. The score is Bernstein's best work for a war movie. THE BRIDGE AT REMAGEN is a gripping and exciting well produced war epic and hasn't dated at all since it was made in the sixties. It remains one of the best post war movies of its kind, An ironic postscript on the final frame of the movie reads - "Ten days after the Americans captured the Obercassell Bridge it collapsed and fell into the Rhine".

'The Bridge at Remagen' has, for what ever reason, largely been lost or forgotten by today's movie-going public. I think this is a real shame because the sensibilities and attitudes that the film has toward it's own themes fit very much into the modern movie-goer's. Films like 'The Big Red One,' 'Saving Private Ryan,' 'The Thin Red Line,' and a host of other modern war films owe their dark edge to earlier films like 'The Bridge at Remagen.' 'The Bridge at Remagen' is about worn out soldiers. It is a film that doesn't like war, and stews in bitterness. George Segal's world weary eyes are matched only by Robert Vaughn's. Two men, one an American and the other a German who are trying less to kill the others forces than they are trying to just keep the men that they command. Segal has been ordered to capture the town around the bridge. He's told not to worry about the bridge because it is assumed that the Germans will have blown it up themselves by the time he gets there with his troops, or that the Allied air force will bomb it in order to trap and destroy the German 15th Army ... an army on the wrong side of the bridge. Vaughn, excellently playing the conflicted Major Kruger, is ordered to blow up the bridge. The 70,000 troops of the 15th Army and countless civilians are to be sacrificed at the greater expense of protecting Berlin. The General who gives Major Kruger the order to blow up the bridge suggests that holding the bridge for as long as possible so that fleeing troops and civilians can escape might not be a bad idea. This ultimately leads to tragedy for both sides. The film is highlighted by worn out lower level officers who must command on the front lines, and the incompetent or uncaring officers who outrank them. These lower ranking officers and their men are merely pawns to be pushed beyond the breaking point and destroyed. The lower level officers see letters of condolence that they need to write for the families of the fallen men serving under them. The higher ranking officers see flags on maps. 'The Bridge at Remagen' is deeply cynical and highly embittered. Although it is in my mind superior in every way to similarly themed films like 'Anzio,' It was overshadowed and consumed by films with bigger budgets and star power. Need one look much further than 'A Bridge Too Far'? The two leads, Segal and Vaughn are both tremendous and are playing their parts in top form. Vaughn especially turns in some of the best work of his career. The only real flaws in 'The Bridge at Remagen' aren't too serious, but they are strong enough to detract overall. The direction does lean toward heavy-handed pedantics and this can become aggravating. Only having a soldier standing in front of the camera and yelling "WAR IS BAD! WAR IS BAD!" over and over again would it have been more 'in your face.' The movie also suffers from some pacing issues, especially early on, although I think it is redeemed by the hard and gritty ending. 'The Bridge at Remagen' -- very much worth taking a look at if you can find it, and almost certainly belongs (with pride) on the DVD shelf of any serious WW2 film fan.