Watch The Bridge at Remagen For Free

Admirable film.

A different way of telling a story

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

March, 1945. The allies are closing in on Nazi Germany. The problem for the Americans and British on the Western Front is crossing the Rhine River, a natural obstacle to the invasion of Germany. The Germans have blown all of the bridges on the Rhine, except one - the bridge at Remagen. US forces are headed for it, spearheaded by a platoon lead by war-weary Lt Hartman. The Germans have sent a top-notch infantry officer, Major Kreuger, to take over the defense of the bridge and blow it up. The confrontation between the two could hasten the end of the war, or result in tens of thousands more casualties.Great WW2 drama, based on historic events. Very gritty, especially for its time. Quite realistic in its portrayal of the cynicism of the average soldier - it wasn't all unthinking, selfless courage, blindly following orders, flag-waving and gung-ho-ness. Probably quite novel in that regard, at the time.Great action scenes, with reasonably accurate equipment. No post- WW2 tanks or, worst of all, US tanks masquerading as German tanks.Solid performances, with George Segal (as Lt Hartman) to the fore. Very entertaining.

In March 1945, it is strongly evident that Germany is loosing the war. Hitler's forces are in full retreat as the allies are pushing ever closer towards Berlin. To halt the allied advance, German military brass order the destruction of the last remaining Rhine river bridge at Remagen. Major Krueger(ROBERT VAUGHN)disobeys orders and keeps the bridge open long enough to allow battle weary soldiers to cross back into German territory. A platoon of American GIs headed by Lt. Phil Hartman(GEORGE SEGAL)have been instructed to take the bridge, before Krueger finally decides to destroy it!.THE BRIDGE AT REMAGEN is THE quintessential Second World War combat movie. It depicts the ordinary combat soldier carrying out his objective without the hindrance of a love interest or mushy backstory. Produced by David L. Wolper and distributed by United Artists, Remagen is the younger brother of the slightly inferior "The Devil's Brigade"(1968). This 1969 effort will forever hold a tight position in my personal top 20 war films. The storyline is fact based and totally engaging, without becoming convoluted or tiresome. The script makes the film all the more engrossing. It touches on the issues of low morale in a platoon, how and why it becomes so rife and the crippling effects it has on the soldiers. Battle fatigue is also tactfully depicted. The film shows how it can manifest itself into lasting psychological conditions such as depersonalisation and disassociation. I wouldn't go as far to call Remagen an anti war film, although it does contain some poignant anti war elements, some of which I've just mentioned. Neither is it an all-guts-no-glory flag waver, it simply tells the story of the Allied struggle against Nazi forces for control of the Remagen bridge. John Guillemin's direction moves the film along at a decent pace and the visuals benefit from a rousing Elmer Bernstein score. The script is strong and is crammed with equally sturdy dialogue. Thanks to this, the film contains quite a few memorable lines, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara taking most of them for themselves. I also thought the cinematography was inspired. From time to time the camera lingers over the action, this being particularly effective when the GIs make their initial advance on the bridge.The 3 leads, George Segal, Ben Gazzara and Robert Vaughn all gave staunch performances. These 3 main characters were the driving thrust behind this magnificent film. It is George Segal who gives the best performance in the film. I say this because his cynical interpretation of Lt. Hartman is probably one of the most accurate representations of a soldier I've ever seen in a film. That being said, Gazzara and Vaughn also brilliantly portrayed their characters. The on screen chemistry between Segal and Gazzara was cleverly constructed and rather unique. Bradford Dillman's portrayal of the glory hungry Major really stood out, as did E.G Marshall's. The relatively unknown actors in smaller roles as the GIs were great. Fritz Ford turned in a rigid, but abrupt portrayal of Colonel Dent. The action sequences boast mind blowing special effects. I have always been awestruck by the genuine life size buildings exploding and crashing to the ground during the streetfighting scenes. Yes, these are actual buildings being destroyed, not scale models!. The sights and sounds of ricocheting bullets during the battle on the bridge were impressively realistic. The film's combat scenes are sharp, riotous and taut!. The tank attack on the town itself was both tight and exhilarating. The attack on the bridge was rollicking too, with the director multiplying the suspense tenfold as the Germans frantically struggle to blow the bridge up in the midst of the fighting!. The air attack on the bridge was also spectacular and the opening battle between an American tank column and the German bridge fortifications was awesome. The action scenes succeed fully in driving home the true destructiveness of war.The batch of war movies made by United Artists in the 60s and 70s are grossly underrated and immensely enjoyable. THE BRIDGE AT REMAGEN is no exception. A real "Boys Own" adventure packed with superior performances, masterful action and rugged tension. 10/10.

John Guillermin directed this World War II tale set in its last days, as Allied forces are trying desperately to gather its forces in order to cross a bridgehead into Germany, where they can finish off Nazi forces entrenched there. Robert Vaughn plays a Nazi general in charge of preventing this from happening, so he is ordered to blow up the last bridge leading from the Rhine, which would trap their own forces on the wrong side, but will have to be done if they have any chance to save the Third Reich. Ben Gazzara and George Segal play American soldiers trying to keep the bridge open.Mediocre film has a good premise but is utterly undistinguished; there is just little about it that is memorable, despite some good action scenes.

"Once more over the bridge, my dear friends." Henry waved a stick around and was wearing a bucket for a helmet. Kristl had noted that this bucket was quite versatile as it functioned as helmet from any time period and place and universe, including ancient roman times, fantasy worlds like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Sometimes Henry would add something to make it fit the mood. Like adding a plume to it to signify it being a knights helmet. However today the bucket was sprayed over for the occasion with army green and was a Second World War helmet. It would function like that for some days to come."I thought that it was Shakespeare who had some king say that." Kristl mused."I made it up, although it was inspired by Shakespeare. King Henry the Fifth said something like, once more unto the breach, my dear friends..""Shakespeare.. I never took you much for a lover of the arts.""I saw the movie.""Ah..""So over the bridge, my dear friends." Henry waved his hand."Yes?""And they took it. Right up the fritzes asses.""Uhm..Lucky for them. I think they tried to blow it up. It must have been painful to push a plunger and nothing happens. Or it went boom but not boom enough. Like in the movie. Here is an interesting notion. Should a movie about the historical taking of a bridge be historically accurate or not?""What do you mean. Was the movie not historically correct?""Not everything. I read that the movie actions displayed in the movie were not although the background was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remagen#The_capture_of_the_bridge""Wadda you know. The whole fighting was made up.""More or less.""But it was an exciting movie. A bit cynical. Very sixties and seventies. It reminded me a bit of Kelly's Heroes, but more serious.""I think Vietnam was already having an effect. Like it shows the enemy, Germans, as normal people. In fact this is something I haven't seen for a while. I recall the Longest Day and Bridge too Far being the same way. And of course Gettysburg, but that is probably because the opponents were American. So here Germans are not crazy creeps that shave their heads bald and seem to take pleasure from killing other people by stabbing them to death slowly.. These are normal people; just opponents. Of course such movies are very disturbing, for what is a movie without a proper loathsome enemy?""Well, it makes it less justified to kill them. It is less troubling to kill someone when he deserves it.""There is even this scene where Gazarra kills that German boy who is shooting at them. When Gazarra finds out it is a boy he killed, Segal tells him to plunder the corpse another day. assuming Gazarra is again robbing the dead for souvenirs. Sort of: war is not fun idea.""Hmm.. I rather have them as heroes, then as these disgruntled figures." Henry frowned."You know. I always find that typical Hollywood or even American. The idea that the enemy has to be loathsome so we don't feel bad when we kill them. I realize now that it's not typical for Hollywood or America to do so. Many nations cast their enemies into the role of despicable repulsive beings. I recall an Indonesian movie where the Dutch are cast in the roles of dumb greedy foreign oppressors. An interesting aspect is how these roles change over time.. In the old days for instance Arabians were cast in the role of noble warriors, remember Lawrence of Arabia? The Turks were the enemy, so they were revolting individuals. I think there is even one scene where Turks rape Lawrence.. or at least it is suggested. Now the roles are probably reversed.""Well.. in the end it has to be an exciting movie. Where people fight each other and the good side wins.""Even if it is all silly and unhistorical." Kristl said."The problem with most people is that they take movies far too serious. They start to think that the nonsense that is seen is the truth." Henry said, "My rule is simple. Whatever is on a screen, big or small, is entertainment or opinion and therefore not true. Let is just be good at entertaining for it will never be good at telling the truth.""The power of imagery. One false image says more than thousand lines of historically documented, investigated and checked information. Historians must be pulling their hairs when they see nonsense become fact, because history has become democratic. When the majority believes something to be the truth.. it becomes the truth because wikipedia makes it the truth." Kristl said."Whatever.. I like this movie. It had some guys bickering with each other, but finally working together to capture the bridge.""Well, I find the matter of fact almost cynical attitude better than the hopelessly over romanticized mood displayed in....." Kristl mumbled. Henry put a hand on her mouth thus stopping the last words and then he put an outstretched finger on his lips, "We will not compare this one to another one." Henry said. "Kapish?"Kristl shook her head in acknowledgment