The Lost Battalion

In 1918 in World War I, in the Meuse-Argonne Sector in France, the former New York lawyer and Major Charles White Whittlesey (Rick Schroder) is assigned by Gen. Robert Alexander (Michael Brandon) to a massive suicidal attack against the German forces in the Argonne Forest with his five hundred men battalion. However, the forces supposed to be giving support through the flanks retreat and the communications with the headquarter of the 77th American Division are cut. Major Wittlesey holds his position with his men, mostly Irish, Polish, Italian and Jew gangsters from New York, surrounded by the German army. Without food, water, ammunition and medical supplies, only two hundred men survive after five days of siege.

Based on a true event, "The Lost Battalion" is a great tale of bravery and courage. I do not know how accurate the facts are displayed, but I liked this movie very much. The battle scenes are very gore and realistic, in a war of trenches and bayonets, and the actors have great performances, being impossible to highlight an individual acting. Just as a curiosity, this film does not have any actress, only men in the cast. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Último Batalhão" ("The Last Battalion")

I'm surprised this movie didn't garner more attention. By and large it is factually accurate in the actual events as well as the uniforms, weapons, and grittiness of close quarter combat. The acting is way above average in its portrayal of the diversity of the soldiers that made up the 77th Infantry. I've watched it twice looking for flaws, which were few and far in between. If you're into WWI history, this is a must-see.

Just before I wanted to write a review on this movie, I saw the comment from another viewer that it has nothing to do with the reality of WW I and that this is pure propaganda for the US Army. Being European myself, I know that it is very popular in Europe to throw mud at everything that has something to do with the US army, especially since they started the second Gulf war. And to be honest, I agree with most of those protests, but that still doesn't mean that history should be rewritten, does it? I'm very sorry, but if it is your opinion that this movie is nothing more but some cheap propaganda, than I really doubt if you have understood anything about it.

It's a fact that it is thanks to the American involvement at the end of the war (they only entered the war in 1917), the allies won. If they hadn't come to help the French, the British and the Belgian (yes there were a lot less Belgian soldiers fighting in the war than French or British, but we are only a very small country - to give you an idea on how small Belgium is: there are about 10 million inhabitants today), we would probably have lost the war. It's true that the Germans were war-weary, but so where the other parties. The Russians had already signed a truce, allowing the Germans to withdraw a lot of their troops from the Eastern front and sending them to the Western front and the French and the British had lost too many good troops at Ypres (Belgium), Verdun (France) and the Somme region (France). In fact, if the Americans hadn't entered the war, it might not have ended at the 11th of November 1918, but might have continued for many months or perhaps even years.

So far for my history class, back to the movie now. In my opinion this is far from a propaganda movie: It clearly shows the futility and horror of the attacks that the ordinary infantry soldier had to go through. It doesn't leave out the fact that the generals only had few respect for people's lives and it also shows that many mistakes were made like bombing the own troops. It all happened in reality and it is all shown very well in this movie. And if that's propaganda for an army than I'm glad I don't have to fight for them!!!

Perhaps you are afraid that it all is a bit too soft or that the acting will not be good, because it is a TV movie. Well, than this might be the surprise of your life. The acting is very good, it's far from corny and it shows all the horrors and the brutality of the war in a very graphic way. In fact I believe it might be good to warn people with a soft stomach not to watch it, because seeing a man being blown to a million pieces by a direct shell hit, someone being stabbed to death with a bayonet, someone's leg who was torn off because of a blast,... isn't exactly for the faint of heart. Personally I can deal with it, but I'm sure many can't.

I'm a great amateur of realistic (anti-)war movies and I'm very glad that this one belongs to my collection. Of course you don't have to believe me if I say this is a good movie, but do know that it was produced by the History Channel. I guess you might see them as a good reference when it comes to accuracy and realism, don't you think? I give it an 8,5/10. Definitely a must see for everybody who's interested in WW I.

In 1918 and six weeks before the end of the war, Gen. Alexander orders an attack on the Argonne forest in France. New York lawyer Major Whittlesey (Rick Schroder) disagrees with the order but leads his men into the attack anyways. Alexander pushes Whittlesey forward despite the French having already withdrawn. Poor communications and general confusion leave Whittlesey and his more than 500 men stranded with everybody else retreating back to their trenches. They are surrounded by German forces while the Allies search for their exact location.

This is a well made war movie considering it's only a TV movie. The action is superbly shoot. The sets are good and muddy. Schroder gives an effective performance as the sincere warrior with a conscience. Most of the cast does well. The true story is compelling patriotism and filled with good tension. It is a simple but impressive story.

To reply to D.Smyth's post, yes, the film might make some use of war clichés, but given that the original 1919 film did as well, it seems to be keeping honest to the source material. The battalion was historically a diverse one, and while we've seen the type before in war films, I didn't find the film's portrayal to be so terribly clichéd as to detract from its authenticity or enjoyment.

Also, regarding the goofs D.Smyth points out, the zippo indeed is post-WWI (early '30s); however, it was based on an earlier, Austrian design, which may have been the basis for what shows up in the film.

Also, I'm not sure what his basis is for "o'clock" not existing until twenty years later; to give just one example that contradicts it, Ford Madox Ford references the system twice in his poem "On October, 1914 (Antwerp)" ("This is Charing Cross; / It is one o'clock. ... / This is Charing Cross; it is past one of the clock;"), which was published in 1918.

-nqr