The Big Red One

The expanded, restored version is much better than the original. The Special Features are very informative and excellent.

The Big Red One (1980) is a U.S. WWII film written & directed by Samuel Fuller. The film stars Lee Marvin alongside Mark Hamill, Robert Carradine, Siegfried Rauch, Bobby Di Cicco, & Kelly Ward. The film is based on Fuller's own experiences & was produced independently on a low budget & heavily cut on its original release, but a restored version, The Big Red One: The Reconstruction (2004) features many of the scenes that were originally cut & improves the film in my opinion. Here are the pros & cons of this film as I see it, I hope this helps you.Pros:1. In my opinion, the second-best WWII movie made after Come & See (1985)2. The film is very accurate, in fact I use to listen to the stories from a Scottish gentleman inn the 1970s who served in WWII as a medic until the end of the war, & it is amazing how similar some of his experiences were to those in this film3. Lee Marvin does a great job in this film and brings credibility to many of the scenes4. Funny, I never was a Mark Hamill fan, but I like him & his acting in this film5. Since this film was based of the WWII experiences of the director, it gives credibility to the filmCons:1. If you are looking for a WWII film with constant action, special effects, computer effects, & pointless excessive gore, then this WWII film may not be for you2. Some may find this film a bit disjointed, but that is actually a more accurate portrayal of how service was in many cases in WWII & how companies experienced the war from location to location

Don't let the nay-sayers have their way, those weaned on loud, big budget, thought challenged contemporary war films like Black Hawk Down, Glory, Pearl Harbor, and the like. This is the real thing. Sam Fuller, finally given a reasonable budget (though no where near the budget of the films mentioned above: Josh Hartnett's make-up was probably more than what Fuller could spend on costumes), produced in 1980 a strange, not thoroughly satisfactory but weirdly affecting and anachronistic little movie about a rifle squad in World War II. What became known once this film quickly disappeared from the theatres was that it was not what Fuller intended, that the studio had cut it significantly. To Fuller fans, this was his Greed, his Magnificent Ambersons, the film that could have been but wasn't. That it was his perhaps his most polished film, that it took a decidedly unsentimental view of war and American soldiers, that it contained one of Lee Marvin's final great performances, none of this could make up for the nagging question of what could have been. Now, with this reconstruction, we know, and it is indeed his masterpiece, and one of the best movies made ever about men in war. It is still a relatively low budget affair, which will turn off those used to CGI and big recongnizable stars. But what concerns Fuller is the grunt eyed view of battle, and for that he doesn't need a Bruckheimer budget. If this film can be compared to something recent, it would be Band of Brothers, another relatively unsentimental depiction of American soldiers in WWII. But Spielberg nor Tom Hanks would ever go as far as Fuller does in showing how hard and deeply cynical war can make a person, as Fuller does in the great scene of the GI partially blown up by a booby trap and Marvin chuckling as he shows the poor guy his blown off testicle and proclaiming something along the lines of "Hey, that's why you got two." The film is full of these moments. The squad doesn't give a damn about the replacements that show up to take the place of the replacements just killed. As one of the men says, the new guys are just "walking dead men." Are Marvin and his squad heroes? Fuller would laugh at that. His men have one goal in mind, and that is survival. Fuller, an infantryman himself in the First Division during the war, knows what war is. And that first hand knowledge is evidenced in every frame of this movie. The reconstruction gives the original film a much greater scope, giving it the feel of the tiny epic it promised to be in 1980. Fuller doesn't romanticize his heroes--this isn't Spielberg, this isn't Bruckheimer. He makes them hard, bitter men, boys really, who do what they have to in order to live another day. At the end, the Fuller stand-in, the wanna be writer in the squad, says, "I'm going to dedicate my book to the men who survived." This is that story, and as we slog away in another way where young men and women are dying every day, Fuller's cautionary tale is needed more than ever.

In regards to this movie, despite it's shortcomings, I believe it is a worthwhile movie that preceded the truly great 'war' movies that were to come in a few years after its release such as Saving Private Ryan and with some reserved feelings, Platoon as well.Now, one can watch the Normandy D-day invasion scenes and sure enough, it must have influenced Saving Private Ryan, probably the best movie I have ever seen. How about on the shore where you see the blood red water? We see that in Private Ryan and that isn't the only instance of this occurring. Private Ryan has those trivial conversations in it between the soldiers, perhaps not as well done but we have that in this movie too. But that is not even where the similarities stop.One drawback I find is honestly, I don't think it is period proper. That is done in movies we see now. Well, these Privates wear their hair fairly long for what you'd expect of the dogfaces. Also, how about when they invade Italy. Fairly well done but I think the town where they are in Sicily would actually be flying the Italian flag which is similar to the regular flag we know of except it has a symbol or coat of arms in the center of it. I'm not sure if that flag is period proper. Note, if you ever read about the Italian soccer/football teams that won 2 World Cups in the 1930s, at least the 1938 World Cup champions used the flag with the coat of arms in the middle and in that, may be a Cross, maybe that is a flag for "Royal" Italy, I'm not sure. Of course, if you read up, Italy lost more soldiers actually in World War I fighting on the side of the Allies, in fact, more than twice as many according to sources than were lost in World War II. Of course, other countries likewise made their brave sacrifices too.Continuing with the thought from the last paragraph, actually, I don't agree with one premise the movie seems to be based on in that "surviving" is what it is all about. Many men and women have fought and died for this thing we call freedom. They are the ones we honor for making the ultimate sacrifice.I know I will watch this one again even if some are saying it was on a low budget, it's rather intriguing and well done all the same. Yes, in parts it is hokey but I take that with a grain of salt considering when it was made and other factors involved. It really does not compare to the classic "Dirty Dozen" when all is said and done.

Liked the whole movie. Good story.

Endlich! Der am meisten unterschätzte Kriegsfilm in seiner wahren Gestalt. Der Film selber hatte mich schon als Teenager beeindruckt. Besonders die Rahmengeschichte, die dem Sergeant unmittelbar nach Kriegsende/Waffenstillstand widerfuhr, gab den Film die Richtung vor. Hier geht's nicht um große Knallerei, Heldentum, Befreiung oder Sieg. Einzig dem Wesen des Krieges und der Absurdität desselbigen sowie der Auswirkung auf die Menschen, die daran teilnahmen, stehen hier im Vordergrund. Samuel Fuller (der Regisseur) drückte es so aus: "Der wahre Kriegsruhm besteht darin, am Leben zu bleiben." Damit kann sich der Film durchaus mit den Kernaussagen von "Black Hawk Down" und "We were Soldiers" gleichstellen, wenn nicht sogar an die Spitze stellen, da er fast 20 Jahre vor diesen entstand.Die große rote Eins ist das Zeichen für das erste amerikanische Infanterie-Regiment, die so ziemlich immer als erste an der Front war. Geschildert werden hier die (fiktiven) Erlebnisse eines Sergeants und eines Kerns seiner Soldaten, die alle Einsätze im 2. Weltkrieg überlebten: Afrika, Sizilien, Normandie usw. Die Story selber ist zwar fiktiv, beruhen aber auf den Erlebnissen Fullers, der im 2. Weltkrieg Frontkämpfer in der U.S. First Infantry war. Schon zu Beginn erscheinen die Worte: "This is Fictional Life based on Factual Death".Die Rekonstruktion durch den Kritiker und Filmemacher Richard Schickel hält sich an die letzte Drehbuchfassung Fuller's, der am 30. Oktober 1997 verstarb. Schickel wertete die noch vorhandenen 21.000 Filmmeter aus und rekonstruierte anhand des Drehbuchs, was Fuller einmal wirklich auf die Leinwand bringen wollte. Laut Fuller sollte der Film selber mal 4 Stunden gehen, in die Kinos kamen damals nur knapp die Hälfte. Nun ist der Film ca. 2 1/2 Stunden lang. Dafür sind die Szenen schlüssig zusammengesetzt. Bild und Ton sind makellos aufgearbeitet und entsprechen dem heutigen Standart. Das der Film 25 Jahre alt ist, merkt man nur am Fehlen heutiger Special Effects, die die Kämpfe wie in "Saving Private Ryan", "Black Hawk Down" und "We were Soldiers" so fotorealistisch aussehen lassen. Das schadet aber weder der Story und noch der Aussage des Films.Lee Marvin zeigte hier einer der besten Leistungen seiner Karriere. Und Mark Hamill bewies, das er mehr als nur Darthvaders Sohn spielen kann. So gut wie hier war er nie.Ich hoffe, das sich niemand an der neuen Synchronisation stört. Aus verständlichen Gründen war dies für die deutsche Sprachfassung wohl nicht anders zu lösen. Jedenfalls finde ich diese Lösung besser, als die nur neuen Filmszenen mit anderen Sprechern nachzusynchronisieren oder ganz auf deutsche Sprache zu verzichten und statt dessen nur Untertitel einzublenden.Ich wünsche mir, das mehr verstümmelte Filme so anständig restauriert und aufgearbeitet werden würden. So wird auf der Bonus-DVD nicht nur dem Regisseur, sondern auch den Restauratoren, allen voran Richard Schickel durch gelungene Dokumentationen Tribut gezollt. Außerdem gibt es noch Szenenvergleiche, nicht verwendete oder alternative Szenen, ein Promo-Special von 1979, sowie Trailer, Radiospots und eine Fotogalerie.Also Rundum ein gelungener Film, zwar kein Director's Cut, aber eine würdige Rekonstruktion.

Lee Marvin is great in this classic film, one of my favorites. No CGI to get in the way. Always fun to watch.

Film di vecchia data bellissimo per chi ama questo genere. Il resto si commenta guardandolo. Consegna perfetta come al solito GRAZIE Amazon

When a film is really, really good its running time is hardly noticed. Although the reconstruction is 40 something minutes longer than the theatrical release it doesn't feel like it. Excellent performances by all the cast. Lee Marvin's best for sure.One may wonder, how many films have been ruined by the studios like the theatrical release of this one? Must be thousands, and for this film to have been "reconstructed" to close to what Mr. Fuller had originally intended is a miracle.I remember seeing this when it was first released and, outside of a few scenes, it was pretty much a run of the mill hollywood war film.Re-constructed it is a now masterpiece and should be remastered into its own UHD Blu-ray disc; keeping all the excellent extras like interviews with Sam Fuller, running commentary from Richard Schickel and the people who reconstructed it. Excellent Bang for the Buck.

This redux version is quite simply brilliant. Sam Fullers largely autobiographical telling of his wartime experience has an air of authenticity and engages you completely. The characters are flawed but plausible young men, little more than boys, led by the wonderfully grizzled old warrior played by Lee Marvin in his greatest role. It's a wonderful film and up there in the pantheon of great war movies.