Micransix Crappy film

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Leofwine_draca ATTACK! is a decent WW2 film made in a decade inundated with similar-looking pictures. It was an early feature in the career of director Robert Aldrich, who lends the film a touch of class missing in some of the cheaper genre efforts. The one thing that makes this film really stand out, though, is the effort to characterise the main players, rather than simply emphasising the action.This is just as much a psychological thriller as it is a war film. For a lot of the running time, the characters are holed up in single locations and fighting each other rather than the enemy. The battle of wills between hero Jack Palance and coward Eddie Albert is quite electrifying, building to some truly nail-biting scenes at the climax that buzz and crackle with power. You don't often get to experience that in war films.Palance is the real stand-out in this movie, finally getting the chance to play the hero after years of imposing henchman-type roles. He conveys his character's anguish very well and the bit where he tackles a couple of German tanks is incredible. Albert is well cast as his foe, and the likes of Lee Marvin, Robert Strauss, and Peter Van Eyck supply good supporting turns. ATTACK! is a film I'm surprised people don't know better because it's very impressive.

tomsview I always remembered this intense war film with its blazing performances ever since I saw it in the late 50's.During the fighting in Europe in 1944, tensions run high in a company of U.S. infantryman when the cowardice of the company commander, Captain Cooney (Eddie Albert), cause losses among his men. One of his platoon leaders, Lieutenant Costa (Jack Palance), threatens to kill him if he costs the life of one more man. But Cooney has the protection of his commanding officer, Colonel Bartlett (Lee Marvin), who hails from the same hometown. Everything comes to a head during a German counterattack.It would be carping to find too much technical fault with this film, despite a small budget it looks good and the military action seems convincing, although the Russell Ranch used for the outdoor scenes seems about as open as the Russian Steppes.Much is made of the fact that the unit involved is from the National Guard, which carries issues from the region back home in which it was raised, especially the relationship between Cooney and Bartlett. Of all the WW2 films from that time, "Between Heaven and Hell" starring Robert Wagner is the only other one I can think of where this was also a subject (Buddy Ebsen was in both films).The internal conflict drives "Attack" as Cooney and Costa go over the edge with stunning performances from Palance and Albert.Costa, although not without fear, overcomes it with a sense of responsibility to his men and the mission. Cooney on the other hand has never won the battle against fear; the way he makes excuses for his failures is wince-inducing.The most balanced soldier is Lieutenant Woodruff who does his duty, but also has the moral courage to stand up for what he believes in – maybe he best represents those ordinary men who stuck to the job and won the war.Eddie Albert actually served with distinction in WW2. "Attack" was made just 10-years after the war, and a number of the cast had served in the conflict: Jack Palance and Lee Marvin of course, but also Buddy Ebsen (Coast Guard), Richard Jaeckel (Merchant Marine) and Peter van Eyck (U.S. Army) – many of the staff behind the camera would also have served.I think when we watch movies from that era; it adds another dimension knowing this. Those people invested a great deal of equity into films such as "Attack". In a way, WW2 movies from that period can never be remade with that same level of involvement.

TheLittleSongbird Having liked a lot of Jack Palance and Lee Marvin's work, and after hearing Attack described as one of the best films for both actors, I watched Attack with high expectations...and fortunately was not let down at all.Attack may not fit the definition of visually stunning, but it's very professionally photographed, is shot in crisp black and white that still looks good now and the claustrophobic production values are entirely appropriate for the atmosphere and setting of the film and come off very effectively. The score drives the action well and doesn't feel out of place or cheesy.The script is poignant, hard-hitting and remarkably honest, without trying too hard, it gets a touch melodramatic towards the end but not dreadfully so, just in comparison to the rest of the film. Attack also has a very compelling story, with action/war scenes that pulsate with intensity and suspense, emotional moments that are genuinely heart-wrenching rather than overwrought and Palance's climatic scene has got to be one of the most harrowing in a war film. While Attack may have unpleasant characters, it doesn't neglect to make them interesting and in the end these unattractive characters are also ones that are easy to care for and relate to, ones where it is also easy to understand their actions. It's very skilfully directed by Robert Aldrich, who never lets the tension slip and makes the story constantly engrossing while avoiding the dangerous traps it could easily have fallen into.Lastly, to say that the cast are very strong is an understatement, the acting is top-notch and there are a few career-bests here. Coming off particularly well is Jack Palance who has never been better in an unforgettably gut-wrenching portrayal, and while Lee Marvin has had meatier characters in his career he still gives his role here his usual steely intensity. Eddie Albert is skin-crawlingly good too, while his character is a weasel and malevolent at times in the second half of the film it was surprising at the amount of sympathy I felt for him. Buddy Ebsen is impressive and William Smithers plays one of the film's most sympathetic characters very believably, to the extent that one wonders why he didn't do more films.To conclude, an unforgettably powerful film that has the acting and its emotional impact as its main strengths. 9/10 Bethany Cox

grantss This movie had heaps of potential: the cowardly, inept company commander, the good platoon leader who hates him and the politically-minded, turn-a-blind-eye battalion commander, the friction, all set against a WW2 backdrop.Unfortunately it does not live up to this potential. The characters are incredibly one-dimensional and stereotypical. No attempt is made on the parts of the actors to make them anything but this. The plot is mostly okay, but gets overly preachy and idealistic towards the end. Furthermore, as a basic war movie it doesn't measure up. Many of the military tactics and practices didn't make sense. Characters get unit designations wrong (eg at one point battalion and company are mixed up). And you have the usual US tanks-as-German tanks issues.The only thing that sustains this movie is the frustration at the ineptness and cowardice of Captain Cooney (Eddie Albert) and whether justice will be meted out to him. That part was very intriguing and the reason I kept watching.