If he had played Gandalf then when the Balrog definitely wouldn't of tried to pass. He'd of tucked his fire tail between his legs and fucked right off.
Stanley Kubrick DEFINITELY saw (and kinda stole) scenes from this version of the movie... There's another scene in this version which is reminiscent of the news cast style scene with the soldiers talking to the camera. I'm guessing Kubrick asked Fuller to show him the deleted footage or something as this release came out after both of them died.
It's not like these kids had much choice in the matter--some may have volunteered, but if they didn't, they'd still be forced to go out and fight, just like is happening with young Russian men now. (Not little boys. Not yet.) Your country is being invaded by several other countries at once. The Russians, in particular, were not in a forgiving mood, and many atrocities were committed in response to earlier German atrocities. (And simply because all-out war attracts a lot of men who like murder, pillage, and rape). You don't want to believe your side are the bad guys, even though they are. The boy has been told Hitler is a great man, and if he has to die for the bastard, he wants to believe that's true. But what he really wants is to be back home with his parents, having some nice Weiner Schnitzel, maybe a bit of strudel. And it's not the pain of the spanking, so much as the humiliation of it--and the recognition that his life is being spared by men he was told were irredeemably evil--that breaks through, and makes him call for his real father, who loved him (and for all we know died in combat). Instead of the false father that was Hitler. I doubt this , btw. I think the reality more often was, they would just shoot the kid--hard to take prisoners in the field. Fuller said in an interview that his unit had a rule--if a German soldier they were fighting surrendered, they'd check his gun. If he had even one bullet left, they'd take him prisoner. If the gun was empty--shoot him. He didn't really surrender. He only gave up because he couldn't shoot back. But I still love the scene for the humanity of it. Fuller's Sergeant is maybe echoing Jesus here--the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery. "Let he who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." They know they're all killers, following orders--never mind their side is better, their leaders are elected. The boy was fighting for his country, and if they'd been in his place, they'd have done the same. They're soldiers, not executioners. If they had to kill him, they would. The Sergeant demonstrates that this particular gun is no longer loaded. He's just a little boy again. So killing him would be murder. They don't murder, they kill. I like it. Whether I believe it or not is a different question. I guess just about every possible scenario played out in that war. There's probably nothing you could possibly imagine that didn't happen. Only God saw all of it.
@@christopherlyons5900 Good analysis but these guys behaved like total scumbags, you shouldn't assault prisoner's of war in such a degrading fashion especially ones so vulnerable, if I'd been there I'd have pointed my gun at Lee Marvin and ordered him to stop pulling the kid around like that, it never would have even got close to the spanking.
@@Mr.Goodkat Dude, you would never have made it past the beach. They yelled at the kid. He was trying to kill them, and where they are, taking prisoners isn't much of an option. I agree in principle with what you say, but highly trained Israeli soldiers just killed Israeli hostages who were waving white flags. Get over the fact soldiers in the field screw up constantly. And always will, for as long as we screw up so that war exists.
@@christopherlyons5900 Wither I would make it past the beach or not is completely irrelevant to my criticisms, I also never suggested they take him as a prisoner, all I did was say they were scumbags for the way treated him and how it should be punishable to treat prisoners of war like that, it doesn't accomplish anything besides maybe some irrational vindictive desire, I am not giving them a hard time for "screwing up" I am criticising a decision they made to humiliate a defenceless POW, a big moral failing.
This scene along with every other truly amusing scene was butchered out of the film by Warner Brothers and replaced miraculously in the jaw dropping 2004 restoration. This DVD is in itself a film school quality education in restoration and the personality of Samuel Fuller. GET THIS DVD it is very much worth it !
I can't agree the theatrical cut (which I saw in a theater when the film was released) cut out every good scene. Most of the best material was still there, and in some ways, it flows better. But when I had a chance to see the restored cut in a theater, I got my ticket, and I went. It doesn't move as well, but you do see Fuller's vision much more clearly. Sometimes he hits you over the head too hard with his ideas. It was one of his flaws as a storyteller (probably a side-effect of his working as a tabloid journalist). But I still want to hear what he has to say. And this scene just brought tears to my eyes. People weren't ready for the whole Megillah in 1980. Point is, the film got made. And the unused footage was preserved. Don't go all film buff on it. This isn't artsy-fartsy film school stuff. This is a goddam MOVIE.
@@christopherlyons5900 well fair enough you're entitled to your opinion but I strongly disagree by the way the director's cut with the first cut that I watched and I thought it looked perfectly well. They perhaps went to too much effort to exploit the Western genre film inspiration of the opening scene but if you're really into that kind of thing it's fascinating I just didn't happen to be.
@@christopherlyons5900 by the way what you refer to as him hitting you over the head with his ideas is commonly known as a stylistic signature one might call it perhaps over the top in a kind way ,vbut you have to realize that that stylistic signature is a choice and the will of the director and it IS to the admiration of the audience as well it established his whole career
@@tednorton5150 I think you're not quite grasping what I was saying. I like most of the scenes that were cut for time, very much. But a good scene doesn't necessarily add to a movie's appeal as a piece of storytelling. Quentin Tarantino had final cut for Kill Bill, and there's a lot of scenes you can read about that he never even filmed, not because he didn't like them, but because the editor in him was saying they were too much, and not strictly necessary to the story. Fuller didn't have that kind of power, but he also wasn't necessarily the best editor of his own work. His best film as a film is probably Pickup on South Street, where there's not a single scene that doesn't advance the story. But from Fuller's POV, this is more of a sprawling overview of the entire war, not including the Pacific. And a statement on what war really is, and isn't. He was justified in thinking he needed more time to tell the story, but whereas a short story can be perfect, a long novel almost never is. I like both versions, and am grateful to see the restored material. But I was never going to see the full version of it at the Times Square theater in Manhattan (on a double bill with The Dogs of War, if I remember correctly). Never would have gotten there. Not in that era. Would have been restricted to a few art houses. Fuller wasn't an art house director. He made movies. Some very good ones, and some pretty bad ones, but they were always his. You can see his vision in all of them. Nobody can ever blot that out.
@@tednorton5150 You need to get all that film school crap out of your head. Fuller is chortling at you from The Great Beyond now. "Stylistic signature." Such as? Can you compare it to his earlier war movies? I've seen just about all of them, and they get awfully preachy, the earlier ones. Fuller was a newspaperman at heart, meaning that he loved to write editorials, but what he excelled at was punchy street reporting. Lee Marvin is so damn good, that a lot of the time, Fuller can stop with the sermonizing, and just let his lead's face tell the story. Fuller knew early on Marvin was the one, long before he had the money to make this, and never mind if he's too old to be play a sergeant leading men in the field. "You're going to be my sergeant!" he said, years earlier, and he kept his word. Marvin made good on it. What the theatrical cut does is keep the focus on Marvin. A lot of the cut material is about people who are peripheral to the central story--like Marvin's German opposite number. While it's great to see what he's doing when the main characters aren't around, it slows things down a lot. Also, it's a bit jarring to hear him say "We don't murder, we kill" then kill one of his men who is walking away from a lost war. Then at the end, he protests the mass exterminations to a superior. It's a more complete film, I agree. But it's more focused in the shorter cut. I wish Fuller could have done both cuts, but compromise was something he was really really bad at. That's part of what made him Sam Fuller. It's also the reason why he didn't make that many really good films. This (either version), Pickup on South Street, Underworld USA, Shock Corridor (had to be focused because there's almost no money), and I'd like to say White Dog (also saw that in a theater), but he completely misunderstood the ideas behind Romain Gary's novel, which is far superior. He also got into a fight with some NAACP guys who came by to express concerns about a movie where a dog randomly murders black people (doesn't happen in the novel--dog never seriously harms anyone but Gary himself, telling a very fanciful story about his own experiences, that he may have made up to make a point about racism) There are brilliant moments in all his films. But for a film to hold together as a coherent whole, the storyteller has to know what to leave in, and what to leave out. Fuller was an auteur, absolutely--but even great novelists have editors.
Watched this movie like 10 years ago, and thought it looked old. Looking back at this now, with the knowledge that it came out in 1980... I think it looks even older
And with movies, older is usually better. Now it's all CGI and airbrushed faces. Saving Private Ryan looks positively antique. Because Spielberg never saw war. Fuller did.
It's strange to see this scene taken out of context. The origanal version of this was exellent and with the extra footage it has improved again. The child kills one of their men and when it comes down to it none of them can kill a little boy, no matter how wrong his beliefs may be, he's a hitler youth.
You can't kill an idea just by killing the people who believe in it. The boy isn't the problem. The men who put a gun in his hands rather than admit they've lost are the ones who need to go. Just like Putin needs to go.
@@mcwildstyle9106 I have the original book - they shot virtually every scene that Samuel Fuller included in the novel, but the full length of the movie then got to something around 3 hours or more! A couple of scenes with the German sergeant (Siegfried Rauch) as well as this scene were cut for, as was said, time and pacing. They also cut a scene where a German infiltrator got into the squad and is shot by the old woman at a house where they are staying - the filmed it the day that Lee Marvin found out that Robert Shaw, his old drinking buddy, had died of a heart attack; Marvin's emotions are utterly ragged as a result, and the scene is wrenching to watch anyway.
The best option was to not be degradingly assaulted at all, it should be a war crime to treat prisoner's of war like this assuming it isn't and it's disgraceful.
This scene must look ridiculous for many. But the most feared enemys were the 10-14 year old kids at the end of the war. This is why I fear the ISIS kids coming back to Europe.
Sorry, but those iconic video clips showing GIs jumping back out of their helicopters to retrieve fallen buddies under ferocious VC or ANV fire continues to drop my jaw.
It reminds me of that scene in that John Wayne will be involved in the US cavalry when they spanked this Confederate Cadet. He said you dirty Yankee said he got his bottom blistered
Think he would have had the same compassion for a young Japanese sniper that just killed one of his men during the battle of IWO Jima?? That’s Hollywood for ya!
This was directly out of Samuel Fuller's recollections from the war, which he then converted into the novel on which the movie was based. Not sure what "inaccuracies" you're pointing to, but many parts of it were someone's lived truth.
Steve Campbell sorry to hear that. My Grannie just gave me my papa’s service coat and garrison hat with a bunch of medals and pins because she knew I’d take care of it. I wish everyone would recognize the value and also family value in military uniforms
This Location is just unsuitable (Ireland) Doesn't resemble Germany at all. I mean come on, the didn't even bother to chase away the Kerrygold employees away wich can be seen in the background...
That's back when all children got spanked for being bad. I doubt your comment would have been supported by anyone in 1944. It could have been far worse. Imagine what an Imperial Japanese soldier would have done to a boy his age for sniping one of their soldiers ? Execution by beheading. If not, slowly cut and sliced till dead. Starvation sound a bit more cruel ? They starved children for nothing, so didn't the Nazis. You say this is cruel during WW2 ? Is that a joke.
If you can't kill the kid then just break all his fingers. If that sounds mean it doesn't compare to being shot. In any apocalyptic scenario kids and women are more likely to shoot first, this is why we still have child soldiers 75 years later.
@@volpiguitar He was in at least his mid 20's in WW I. 26 years later, he's in his 50's. While he might still be a superannuated sergeant, he'd be stationed in a training camp, instructing draftees, NOT in combat. BTW, HITLER was never in combat during WW II.
![WW2 | Operation Barbarossa | Wehrmacht blitzkrieg & Soviet ura charge [ Pt.1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CSf3ycz71gI/mqdefault.jpg)
![WW2 | Operation Barbarossa | Wehrmacht blitzkrieg & Soviet ura charge [ Pt.1]](/img/tr.png)
The Reconstruction of The Big Red One needs to be put up on streaming services!
I always thought that Lee Marvin should have been Gandalf. The Eyebrows, THE EYES
If he had played Gandalf then when the Balrog definitely wouldn't of tried to pass. He'd of tucked his fire tail between his legs and fucked right off.
@JustTom117 the most gayest shit I read all day.
Feels EXACTLY like Full Metal Jacket with the girl sniper in the end..
Yeah, only difference was she was shot for sniping American soldiers.
Stanley Kubrick DEFINITELY saw (and kinda stole) scenes from this version of the movie...
There's another scene in this version which is reminiscent of the news cast style scene with the soldiers talking to the camera. I'm guessing Kubrick asked Fuller to show him the deleted footage or something as this release came out after both of them died.
Lee Marvin looks like he went through WWII and he did.
He was far too old.
That shows US how a child's mind can be manipulated.The system can be a mindbender.
anibal cesar nishizk Remember Vietnam.
It's not like these kids had much choice in the matter--some may have volunteered, but if they didn't, they'd still be forced to go out and fight, just like is happening with young Russian men now. (Not little boys. Not yet.)
Your country is being invaded by several other countries at once. The Russians, in particular, were not in a forgiving mood, and many atrocities were committed in response to earlier German atrocities. (And simply because all-out war attracts a lot of men who like murder, pillage, and rape). You don't want to believe your side are the bad guys, even though they are. The boy has been told Hitler is a great man, and if he has to die for the bastard, he wants to believe that's true.
But what he really wants is to be back home with his parents, having some nice Weiner Schnitzel, maybe a bit of strudel. And it's not the pain of the spanking, so much as the humiliation of it--and the recognition that his life is being spared by men he was told were irredeemably evil--that breaks through, and makes him call for his real father, who loved him (and for all we know died in combat). Instead of the false father that was Hitler.
I doubt this , btw. I think the reality more often was, they would just shoot the kid--hard to take prisoners in the field. Fuller said in an interview that his unit had a rule--if a German soldier they were fighting surrendered, they'd check his gun. If he had even one bullet left, they'd take him prisoner. If the gun was empty--shoot him. He didn't really surrender. He only gave up because he couldn't shoot back.
But I still love the scene for the humanity of it. Fuller's Sergeant is maybe echoing Jesus here--the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery. "Let he who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." They know they're all killers, following orders--never mind their side is better, their leaders are elected. The boy was fighting for his country, and if they'd been in his place, they'd have done the same. They're soldiers, not executioners. If they had to kill him, they would. The Sergeant demonstrates that this particular gun is no longer loaded. He's just a little boy again. So killing him would be murder. They don't murder, they kill.
I like it. Whether I believe it or not is a different question. I guess just about every possible scenario played out in that war. There's probably nothing you could possibly imagine that didn't happen. Only God saw all of it.
@@christopherlyons5900 Good analysis but these guys behaved like total scumbags, you shouldn't assault prisoner's of war in such a degrading fashion especially ones so vulnerable, if I'd been there I'd have pointed my gun at Lee Marvin and ordered him to stop pulling the kid around like that, it never would have even got close to the spanking.
@@Mr.Goodkat Dude, you would never have made it past the beach. They yelled at the kid. He was trying to kill them, and where they are, taking prisoners isn't much of an option. I agree in principle with what you say, but highly trained Israeli soldiers just killed Israeli hostages who were waving white flags. Get over the fact soldiers in the field screw up constantly. And always will, for as long as we screw up so that war exists.
@@christopherlyons5900 Wither I would make it past the beach or not is completely irrelevant to my criticisms, I also never suggested they take him as a prisoner, all I did was say they were scumbags for the way treated him and how it should be punishable to treat prisoners of war like that, it doesn't accomplish anything besides maybe some irrational vindictive desire, I am not giving them a hard time for "screwing up" I am criticising a decision they made to humiliate a defenceless POW, a big moral failing.
use the force luke...
MARK'S BEARD WOOOOW
This scene along with every other truly amusing scene was butchered out of the film by Warner Brothers and replaced miraculously in the jaw dropping 2004 restoration. This DVD is in itself a film school quality education in restoration and the personality of Samuel Fuller. GET THIS DVD it is very much worth it !
I can't agree the theatrical cut (which I saw in a theater when the film was released) cut out every good scene. Most of the best material was still there, and in some ways, it flows better. But when I had a chance to see the restored cut in a theater, I got my ticket, and I went. It doesn't move as well, but you do see Fuller's vision much more clearly. Sometimes he hits you over the head too hard with his ideas. It was one of his flaws as a storyteller (probably a side-effect of his working as a tabloid journalist). But I still want to hear what he has to say. And this scene just brought tears to my eyes.
People weren't ready for the whole Megillah in 1980. Point is, the film got made. And the unused footage was preserved. Don't go all film buff on it. This isn't artsy-fartsy film school stuff. This is a goddam MOVIE.
@@christopherlyons5900 well fair enough you're entitled to your opinion but I strongly disagree by the way the director's cut with the first cut that I watched and I thought it looked perfectly well. They perhaps went to too much effort to exploit the Western genre film inspiration of the opening scene but if you're really into that kind of thing it's fascinating I just didn't happen to be.
@@christopherlyons5900 by the way what you refer to as him hitting you over the head with his ideas is commonly known as a stylistic signature one might call it perhaps over the top in a kind way ,vbut you have to realize that that stylistic signature is a choice and the will of the director and it IS to the admiration of the audience as well
it established his whole career
@@tednorton5150 I think you're not quite grasping what I was saying. I like most of the scenes that were cut for time, very much. But a good scene doesn't necessarily add to a movie's appeal as a piece of storytelling. Quentin Tarantino had final cut for Kill Bill, and there's a lot of scenes you can read about that he never even filmed, not because he didn't like them, but because the editor in him was saying they were too much, and not strictly necessary to the story. Fuller didn't have that kind of power, but he also wasn't necessarily the best editor of his own work. His best film as a film is probably Pickup on South Street, where there's not a single scene that doesn't advance the story. But from Fuller's POV, this is more of a sprawling overview of the entire war, not including the Pacific. And a statement on what war really is, and isn't. He was justified in thinking he needed more time to tell the story, but whereas a short story can be perfect, a long novel almost never is.
I like both versions, and am grateful to see the restored material. But I was never going to see the full version of it at the Times Square theater in Manhattan (on a double bill with The Dogs of War, if I remember correctly). Never would have gotten there. Not in that era. Would have been restricted to a few art houses. Fuller wasn't an art house director. He made movies. Some very good ones, and some pretty bad ones, but they were always his. You can see his vision in all of them. Nobody can ever blot that out.
@@tednorton5150 You need to get all that film school crap out of your head. Fuller is chortling at you from The Great Beyond now. "Stylistic signature." Such as? Can you compare it to his earlier war movies? I've seen just about all of them, and they get awfully preachy, the earlier ones. Fuller was a newspaperman at heart, meaning that he loved to write editorials, but what he excelled at was punchy street reporting.
Lee Marvin is so damn good, that a lot of the time, Fuller can stop with the sermonizing, and just let his lead's face tell the story. Fuller knew early on Marvin was the one, long before he had the money to make this, and never mind if he's too old to be play a sergeant leading men in the field. "You're going to be my sergeant!" he said, years earlier, and he kept his word. Marvin made good on it.
What the theatrical cut does is keep the focus on Marvin. A lot of the cut material is about people who are peripheral to the central story--like Marvin's German opposite number. While it's great to see what he's doing when the main characters aren't around, it slows things down a lot. Also, it's a bit jarring to hear him say "We don't murder, we kill" then kill one of his men who is walking away from a lost war. Then at the end, he protests the mass exterminations to a superior.
It's a more complete film, I agree. But it's more focused in the shorter cut. I wish Fuller could have done both cuts, but compromise was something he was really really bad at. That's part of what made him Sam Fuller. It's also the reason why he didn't make that many really good films. This (either version), Pickup on South Street, Underworld USA, Shock Corridor (had to be focused because there's almost no money), and I'd like to say White Dog (also saw that in a theater), but he completely misunderstood the ideas behind Romain Gary's novel, which is far superior. He also got into a fight with some NAACP guys who came by to express concerns about a movie where a dog randomly murders black people (doesn't happen in the novel--dog never seriously harms anyone but Gary himself, telling a very fanciful story about his own experiences, that he may have made up to make a point about racism)
There are brilliant moments in all his films. But for a film to hold together as a coherent whole, the storyteller has to know what to leave in, and what to leave out. Fuller was an auteur, absolutely--but even great novelists have editors.
This scene defines how everyone's a gangster until a real gangster enters the room
01:35 use the FORCE, Luke...
pahaha
communistjesus 😆
no, use the Joker laughing gas
Watched this movie like 10 years ago, and thought it looked old. Looking back at this now, with the knowledge that it came out in 1980... I think it looks even older
And with movies, older is usually better. Now it's all CGI and airbrushed faces. Saving Private Ryan looks positively antique. Because Spielberg never saw war. Fuller did.
我滿喜歡這位老牌影星！👍👍👍👏👏👏
Mark Hamill looks so Bad Ass.
Yea probably his best movie
Well he is kind of Bad Ass. Hamill and Lee Marvin became good friends after a fashion.
He kinda is Badass. Lee Marvin liked him.
Well, he really is. Chopped of Vaders arm and had sex with totally prime Annie Potts in Corvette Summer. What is your claim to fame?
Use the force Luke!
I remember having the full DVD with all the deleted scenes. Not now 😭
Lol this is filmed in Ireland. Trim Castle.
Sounds like Castle Anthrax.
It's strange to see this scene taken out of context. The origanal version of this was exellent and with the extra footage it has improved again.
The child kills one of their men and when it comes down to it none of them can kill a little boy, no matter how wrong his beliefs may be, he's a hitler youth.
You can't kill an idea just by killing the people who believe in it. The boy isn't the problem. The men who put a gun in his hands rather than admit they've lost are the ones who need to go. Just like Putin needs to go.
They would have just killed him.
The version I have does not contain this scene. Now I wonder what else is missing.
I think they removed it for the purpose of time constraints and pacing
@@mcwildstyle9106 I have the original book - they shot virtually every scene that Samuel Fuller included in the novel, but the full length of the movie then got to something around 3 hours or more! A couple of scenes with the German sergeant (Siegfried Rauch) as well as this scene were cut for, as was said, time and pacing. They also cut a scene where a German infiltrator got into the squad and is shot by the old woman at a house where they are staying - the filmed it the day that Lee Marvin found out that Robert Shaw, his old drinking buddy, had died of a heart attack; Marvin's emotions are utterly ragged as a result, and the scene is wrenching to watch anyway.
I think in about 2004 they restored the full length film
For a really really painful spanking, the flat side of the bayonet works waaay better...
speaking from experience?
I was thinking the buttstock lol.
@@georgesakellaropoulos8162 🤣
This was the best option for the boy, he was lucky.
The best option was to not be degradingly assaulted at all, it should be a war crime to treat prisoner's of war like this assuming it isn't and it's disgraceful.
This scene must look ridiculous for many. But the most feared enemys were the 10-14 year old kids at the end of the war. This is why I fear the ISIS kids coming back to Europe.
they didn't know what to do with him lol
Как учил Карл Маркс: "Битие определяет сознание"
I love how he whoops him 😂
Best thing for the kid. Marvin chose a weak link in his squad and got his way. Boss.
If you think Zab was a weak link, you didn’t see the movie.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT LUKE SKY WALKER, and the Leader of the NERDS had fought
in Europa during WW2..
Ha ha
@santoroyerdeantorcha i wanna see this damn film to but no one is uploading, i mean this is one of most famous war movies right? :S
They let their wounded buddy just float away?
Better than getting killed themselves
Sorry, but those iconic video clips showing GIs jumping back out of their helicopters to retrieve fallen buddies under ferocious VC or ANV fire continues to drop my jaw.
Just wanted to see Trim Castle, great scene though
Lovely rifle the Garande. Had the pleasure of being the wrong end of it! Gladly for only some minutes.
สวัสดี😅
Mark Hamill is handsome in this
He's always handsome!!!"
💗💘💋
Yoda would have said "Handsome is Mark Hamill in this"
👍
papi! papi!
lol
can someone upload this fucken movie ? thank you.
Luke Skywalker playing GI Joe.
It reminds me of that scene in that John Wayne will be involved in the US cavalry when they spanked this Confederate Cadet. He said you dirty Yankee said he got his bottom blistered
And you say spanking is bad...
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???!!!?!?!???!?!??!!!?!?!?
My thoughts exactly, u have a Hitler Youth that just killed one of your own, and u give him a spanking. Wouldn’t happen in my squad!!!
Fun fact: Lee Marvin was an Iwo Jima survivor....
Think he would have had the same compassion for a young Japanese sniper that just killed one of his men during the battle of IWO Jima?? That’s Hollywood for ya!
Rats. Just checked Marvin's bio again. He wasn't in Iwo Jima, but he did get wounded in the Battle of Saipan. Sorry, my mistake.
And Sam Fuller was a veteran of the 1st Infantry Division and went through all the battles the film depicts
@@larryarnold7546 watch Hell in the Pacific
Defiant till the end.
your friend gets shot in front of you, and you let his body, or possibly wounded body flow down river???
Yeah, after taking care of the Hitler Youth sniper, a good spanking ought to teach him, go back to the river and fish the Thompson out.
Bucky Barnes
AAY PAPI
Lmfaooo
Not every German was a Nazi.
Ah yes the "good Germans"
Not every southerner is Confederate racist scum either, just most of them
Not every German but all of Germany. ;)
3:01 A real Neard..... 😆
Jeez, this is riddled with inaccuracies so blatant.
This was directly out of Samuel Fuller's recollections from the war, which he then converted into the novel on which the movie was based. Not sure what "inaccuracies" you're pointing to, but many parts of it were someone's lived truth.
That would be the last American soldier he ever killed.
Cheapest fakest movie ever
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
jojo rabbit there
the first division use m43 field jacket?....
it's a hollywood movie... they probably got some of their uniforms from the local army surplus store.
They did
Steve Campbell I found an m43 jacket with the hood at a surplus store that was going out of business for about $12. My lucky day I guess
Steve Campbell sorry to hear that. My Grannie just gave me my papa’s service coat and garrison hat with a bunch of medals and pins because she knew I’d take care of it. I wish everyone would recognize the value and also family value in military uniforms
Why do americans never strap their helmets
Most combat veterans believed stories of chinstraps causing a broken neck if they were fastened and the force from an explosion threw the head back
@@rustyshackleford5706 You could also be easily chocked from behind. The strap closure was horrible.
This Location is just unsuitable (Ireland) Doesn't resemble Germany at all. I mean come on, the didn't even bother to chase away the Kerrygold employees away wich can be seen in the background...
Fuck you, Nazi boy. Most of it was filmed in Israel. They film the asylum scenes in fucking Ireland
You are a Nazi asshole. So Disgusting
lol spankin instead, thts good.. they aren't so mean
what the fuck is he talking???
this absolutely makes no sense...
Saving ryan
Torture or humiliation of prisoners contravenes the Geneva Contention.
MylesOHarcourt I would torture a nazi
So does using children as soldiers dumbass.
That's back when all children got spanked for being bad. I doubt your comment would have been supported by anyone in 1944. It could have been far worse. Imagine what an Imperial Japanese soldier would have done to a boy his age for sniping one of their soldiers ?
Execution by beheading. If not, slowly cut and sliced till dead.
Starvation sound a bit more cruel ? They starved children for nothing, so didn't the Nazis.
You say this is cruel during WW2 ? Is that a joke.
Why is it gay?
فركوي·····امريكي اكشن
If you can't kill the kid then just break all his fingers. If that sounds mean it doesn't compare to being shot. In any apocalyptic scenario kids and women are more likely to shoot first, this is why we still have child soldiers 75 years later.
ja die Fahne ist mehr als der Todt...
When i see this i appeciate the Vietnamese films where the US troops are shown as crowards...
lmfao ok
Boo hoo hoo - my comment was removed. It doesn’t change the TRUTH!
Deal with it.
Marvin was far too old.
Nah, he was perfect
Yup, perfect. Only 56 BTW. Normal age for a 1st WW Veteran in 1944.
@@volpiguitar Too old to be in combat, and only a Sgt
@@mikegrossberg8624 Did you really get it? If he's a 1WW Vet he ain't too old. Younger than Hitler.
@@volpiguitar He was in at least his mid 20's in WW I. 26 years later, he's in his 50's. While he might still be a superannuated sergeant, he'd be stationed in a training camp, instructing draftees, NOT in combat.
BTW, HITLER was never in combat during WW II.
Gay
It's now 2022. Back in 1944 there were no gay people.
Must be something in the tap water, don't drink it now. Drink beer.🤣
Maudlin bullshit. If this kid was the sniper.....he's dead. Massively overrated film.
Fuller was just a B-movie director, and Marvin was far too old.