Watch The Big Red One For Free

So much average

Good concept, poorly executed.

Fresh and Exciting

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

I really have no idea why this film is so highly rated, I think it must be down to reviewers nostalgia from seeing it as a child. The attention to detail is awful; I understand that it was probably not possible to source authentic equipment in 1980 and obviously there was no CGI but really, is it too much to ask not to have 1980's hairstyles , modern Israeli(Oh the irony!) tank drivers with modern helmets and Germans shouting "Americaner schweinhund!". I've tried to watch it three times now, and I'm sure a modern re telling would do a much better job.It's clearly a fascinating story but this version doesn't make it so.

Watched this film again recently and was shocked at just how embarrassingly clichéd it is. The characters are undeveloped cardboard cutouts and most of the action sequences ring hollow; all in a film that was made in 1980! Sam Fuller was way passed his best, not that i'm certain he was ever up to much. Just think of an action film like 'The bridges at Toko-Ri',made 26 years earlier and how much more realistic and adult it is!Now it's worth pointing out that there are several interesting sequences in this chaotic mess of a film, including the whole concentration camp scene and the scene in the insane asylum, but even these are marred by a clumsy approach. It seems to me that Fuller had a stubborn strangle hold on all aspects of the films production and this is what damages what is a promising albeit ambitious proposition. It has always seemed strange to me that a veteran should want to describe his experience of war, perhaps only an old man with emotions blunted by time could attempt this and perhaps he would have to do it in such a way as to avoid dealing with his real feelings. This may be the reason for the films curious lack of character development and emotional detachment, as well as the perverse machismo displayed, especially the scene involving the homosexual orderly in the hospital.In conclusion I think this very self conscious film tells us more about war than one might at first imagine, albeit through the distorted lens of a veteran and outdated film maker.

"In cinema's presumption, in its pretension to being the real - which is the craziest of undertakings - no culture has ever had toward its signs such a naive, paranoid and terrorist vision." - BaudrillardThere are only five or six types of war films, the most common being "the Platoon movie". Traditional this sub-genre contains three basic elements: hero, group, and objective. The group is made up of a mixture of ethnic types, most commonly including an Italian, a Jew, a cynical complainer from Brooklyn, a sharpshooter from the mountains, a Midwesterner (nicknamed by his state, "Iowa" or "Dakota" for example), and a character who must be initiated in some way (a newcomer without battle experience) and/or who will provide a commentary or "explanation" on the action as it occurs (a newspaperman, a letter writer, an author, a professor). As the group moves forward, action unfolds in a series of contrasting episodes that alternate in uneven patterns: night and day, safety and danger, action and relaxation, dialogue and non-dialogue, comedy and tragedy, good weather and bad weather, combat and non-combat, and so on. Military iconography is used and explained, conflicts break out within the group (in which the objective, leadership and war itself is questioned), rituals from home are discussed and remembered and new combat rituals are enacted. As the group advances, they encounter the enemy and certain members die. A final climactic battle, often a last stand referred to as an "Alamo", takes place at a bridge or in a town, and reveals the film's overall purpose. The hero or narrator, who has usually had the objective forced on him, then has to make a series of difficult (and unpopular) decisions. He sometimes survives (although most of his men don't), and he sometimes dies. These films were common in the 40s and 50s, and rarely deviated from this formula. The genre remained silent for a number of years, thanks mostly to the Vietnam war, before two films reactivated it briefly in the 80s and 90s: Sam Fuller's "Big Red One" and Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan".Fuller's film, which eschews realism at times for a more metaphysical outlook, and which revokes corny moralising in favour for stoic silence, has been criticised by some for being "fake". Filmed on a minuscule budget (1/25th the budget of "Private Ryan") and without the benefits of modern technology, viewers dismiss it as a "dated movie". But with repeated viewings (and an extended cut released recently) the film reveals a maturity, an immediacy, a sort of no-nonsense authenticity, that most "platoon" films lack. Indeed, of all WW2 platoon movies, from "Bataan" to "Guadalcanal Diary" to "Objective Burma" to "Saving Private Ryan", the trio of "The Big Red One", "Beach Red" and "The Thin Red Line" are arguably the best, not because of their "realism", but because of their metaphysical trimmings. But when people complain that old war films are "not realistic", what do they really mean? When "Bataan" was released (the first film to pull together all the elements that came to define the genre) it was praised for its "gritty realism". Shot entirely on studio sets, viewers and critics were blown away by its extreme violence, its authenticity and the bloody "Alamo" finale in which everyone dies. A violent beheading (which largely occurs off-screen) was deemed particularly shocking, despite the fact that no blood is shown. As time passed and censorship restrictions were loosened, genres of violence (horror, war, gangsters, and westerns) all increased in bloodiness. Sam Peckinpahs "Cross of Iron" and "Platoon" were praised in their day for their gore and realism, but today both seem hopelessly stupid. Likewise "Private Ryan" and "Black Hawk Down", two films praised for "taking it to the next level", today look indistinguishable from next generation hyperreal computer game shooters. In reality it is only technology that progresses, cinema's "understanding of war" regressing into the infantile comfort of movie narratives over 90 years old.And yet with each wave of technological innovations, the latest war films pretend to bring us "closer to the truth of war". When "Private Ryan" was released advertisements proudly proclaimed "Now You Know!", the implication being that after witnessing the film, we now know what combat is like. Hyperrealism has somehow become conflated with truth, when in fact the two are often in complete opposition.The shaky, desaturated looks of "Ryan", "Schindler", "Black Hawk" and "Hurt Locker" are designed to simulate reality, when in fact they mimic archived, documentary or news footage. The intention is thus not to bring us closer to reality, but closer to a mediated hyperreality, an image of an image of an image, regressing further into what Baudrillard calls the simulacra, further and further from any ground zero reality.Coupled with this, these films offer a curious lack of any real insight into the psychology of the soldiers or the nature or politics of warfare. Beyond spectacle, we get offers of heroism and redemption, but little else. It's as though an obsession with rendering the aesthetics of war "real", has pushed past realism into video game simulation and rendered all context and truth void. All that matters is the look and sound of the thing. Surfaces are all you need to know.This, of course, is Baudrillard's description of the 21st century American desert-city. Surface is no longer about the realisation of a thing's essence, about history and truth, but assumes almost the exact opposite meaning. An overemphasis of depth-less surfaces leads to object-hood, rather than art.8/10 - Whilst most war films ("Ryan", "Schindler" etc) exploit the context of war to tell a story of rescue, survival and redemption, the restoration of family and the recuperation of a nation and its history, Fuller has less propagandistic aims. Like his earlier war films, this is pulp journalism, prose before image, his blunt poetry capturing the tone of a Jones or Hemingway.

In the early 1950s, writer/director Sam Fuller made a name for himself making ultra-low budget war films such as "Steel Helmet" and "Fixed Bayonets". The films shared a few things which appear once again in "The Big Red One"--a relatively small cast, small numbers of extras, clipped but realistic dialog and a grittiness not seen in many other war films. So in "The Big Red One", despite showing battles such as the invasion of Sicily, North Africa and Normandy, the actual number of soldiers in these massive engagements is very, very small. Many times, in fact, it just showed the same five guys! Fuller tried to hide his small budget by focusing on a small number of individuals but it was obvious he couldn't afford more. Compare these with movies such as "The Longest Day" and "Saving Private Ryan"--you'll notice a huge difference. Now this is NOT necessarily a harsh criticism of the film--just an observation since Fuller obviously did not have the huge budgets like Zanuck and Spielberg. This low budget also comes out if you look carefully at the Germans--many of which look rather Mediterranean or Semitic.The film was inspired by Fuller's own WWII experiences--something that made him an excellent war film director. He, too, served with the same unit featured in the film and here he pays homage to the brave men he served with, though it is not meant to be a literal retelling of Fuller's combat career. Like the tough sergeant played by Gene Evans in "Steel Helmet", here we have old reliable Lee Marvin playing nursemaid to a group of rookies as the film begins. The film follows them from 1942 to the end of the war in 1945. In many ways, the film also plays a lot like Leon Uris' "Battle Cry"--which was also based on his WWII experiences.Overall, an interesting homage to the infantry who fought WWII and without the flowery and over-glorified stuff you'd typically find in a Hollywood war film. Certainly not great (as I think Fuller's earlier war films were better and more original) but well worth seeing.