Le bataillon perdu

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.

Without the extreme violence and profanity of "Saving Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down", Mulcahy's film achieves a higher level of cinematic and emotional success than either of its modern counterparts. The balance of true-life horror and tear-evoking courage and honor is perhaps more beliveable and acceptible than in the fictional "Ryan" or the questionable context of "Black Hawk". That is for history to evaluate. In the case of "Ryan", the ridiculous premise, based upon the true-life scenario of the deaths of the fighting Sullivan brothers, pales in comparison to the true story of Whittlesey and his battalion's mission to serve the entire American Army and its allies, not just one family. In addition, "The Lost Battalion" is a comparable technical tour-de-force, although perhaps Mulcahy derives some directorial inspiration from Spielberg. He compensates for this be eliciting a superior performance from Rick Shroeder than Spielberg did from Hanks, and by adding some nifty special effects shots here and there. This is a film that mixes the respect for the fighting soldier with a disdain for inept command, and war in general. There is no other agenda here, because the truth tells its own story. Rent this, or buy it. You will not be disappointed.

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.

Rick Schroeder stars in this made for A&E true story of an American battalion during WW1. In particular, it tells the true about a battle that resulted in the awarding of 3 Medals of Honor. This film contains a lot of battle scenes and they are quite bloody. It's the story, told from pretty much only the American and German sides, of a battle in the ending weeks of the war. The killing continues unabated, and there is plenty of blood and action to suit even the most action craving viewer. The Americans have penetrated deeply into German held territory and threaten the entire German front from behind. Naturally, the Germans want the Americans out of their area and put forth a maximum effort to dislodge them. But the Americans plan to stay and the resulting battle over the next 3 days or so is graphically depicted. There's not a woman in the film at all; the entire film takes place on the battlefield. Yet, even without romantic interludes, there are very few minutes in the film without some sort of action. The entire cast did a great job. All in all, a very enjoyable and well-made film!

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