drystyx This is a fascinating war story, but it's more than that. It's a "psychological expose", and to this day I am not sure if even the writer realizes what he exposes.On the surface, we see a tragic war incident go awry due to a misunderstanding and lack of communication. From the point of view on the surface, it seems that the members of an American squad try to accomplish a task by what has to be an insanely stupid method. They believe the tragedy occurs because of one man whom they actually set up to cause the tragedy.In this case, the tragedy involves a "fake skirmish" in which the Germans can avoid being executed by their own army for surrendering.And that's where the writer implicates the "mob" instead of the "one soldier". We get a look a "mob mentality". There simply is no way to whitewash this as the mania of the character played by Gary Sinise. Instead, this "vindicates" his character, and implicates the other Americans.There simply is no way to deny that the other members of the squad intentionally set it up for disaster, though one can say their intent was "subconscious". However, I don't buy this, and only a fool would buy into it.I've been in such situations where the "mob majority" purposely sabotaged one person, no matter what the results, just out of a demonic need. This is not "miscommunication". It's demonic hatefulness.War is an arena for such maniacs to try to play God, but as we see, they are fully incompetent. It doesn't turn out the way they intend it to. Had they "communicated" the "fake skirmish" to the one soldier they sabotage, everything would work out. Their desire to sabotage him is so great, as is their desire to see blood, that they believe they can create a situation to dishonor their own "comrade".It is this lack of "camaraderie" that is exposed. It isn't a lack on the part of one soldier. He is painted as the sociopath, when in fact the narration vindicates the one as a team player and the rest of the team as the true sociopath lunatics.I would like to think the author intended it this way, but had to disguise it in order to slowly draw the many sociopaths of young armies into recognizing the truth.In any event, it is revealing if one views with a mature and objective mind.

shalimar-4 Premise? Good idea... Execution.. HORRIBLE!!! This could have been a 15 minute segmentPart of an episode of "Band of brothers" and told the same story.. even better.Talk about taking a "short" and making a movie from it.Damn near as bad as "Sublime" for the same BS.Sorry but it at best deserves a 3.. such has been done infinitely better by others.Skip this one hands down.Oh and the 10 line rule for IMDb.. some things simply do not deserve that many words!

joed1667 I first saw this movie when it came out in the theaters and have the DVD, which I watch every December. I thought it was very well made but was very disappointed when I learned this movie is not factual but a work of fiction, based on the book by William Wharton who was 19 in 1944. The movie was unlike those phony John Wayne type war movies of the 50's and 60's. This movie showed the soldiers fears they had to deal with and the conditions for which they lived. Their brief stay in the Château must've been a life of luxury compared to living in a tent back at base or manning a foxhole on the front lines. Frank Whaley's dying scene seemed so real, unlike all those other phony Hollywood war movies from the years mentioned where the soldier clutches their wound, falls to the ground and gives a passion speech before peacefully dying.The one posters comments from his father of "I was a political prisoner of Franklin Delano Roosevelt" is disturbing and he must not have made it to liberate the concentration camps to understand why we were there and fought the Germans. This review could very well be in German if not for FDR and the blunders made by the Japanese and Germans.

moorespace It is worth noting that Keith Gordon (director) met with William Wharton (book author and war veteran) on several occasions and was left with the impression that the 'story' Wharton told is true. Neither author or director could use the 'based on a true story' epitaph simply because the events are completely unverifiable; but reading the book -- and watching the film to a certain degree -- does give a sense that these events did occur.Knowing that the film is a reasonably accurate portrayal of real events -- William Wharton was said to be impressed by the final cut -- makes the events portrayed in the film even more moving. It also explains why the director chose to focus on certain scenes to keep the story flowing, it was as if he wanted to commit the 'story' to film before it was forgotten.Having said that, there are touches of directorial brilliance and subtlety in this bleak and wintry tale. For example, the panning shot of the squad of soldiers walking through the forest which finishes with the still picture of a frozen hand -- if you even notice it -- is unforgettable.These were true events according to the author; it is worth keeping that in mind when you watch the film.