the audience applauded

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

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.

A trio of fine character actors head the cast of Robert Aldrich's low-budget war film, "Attack," which is set in Europe during World War II. Based on a play by Norman Brooks, the taut, tightly directed film depicts a struggle between heroism and cowardice, professionalism and incompetence, hard-earned rank through merit and unearned rank attained through personal connections. Among the American infantry assigned to establish observation posts are Jack Palance, whose Lt. Joe Costa is a tough, but compassionate soldier, whose bravery and leadership are unquestioned. Costa's superior officer, Capt. Erskine Cooney, played by Eddie Albert, was handed his rank because of his father's military connections; the cowardly Cooney is over his head both as a military strategist and as a commander of men. The third member of the lead trio is tough, wise Lee Marvin, who plays Lt. Colonel Clyde Bartlett, Cooney's superior.Filmed in black and white by Joseph Biroc largely on sound stages and the studio back lot, the exterior battle scenes have a gritty feel, although the shadowy interiors often resemble a 1950's television drama. However, despite a B-movie budget, the performances throughout are excellent, including such other stalwarts as Richard Jaeckel and Buddy Ebsen, although Palance and Marvin are the standouts. Events lead to a moral dilemma, whose resolution will be fodder for much post-viewing discussion; whether or not the ending was dictated by the period in which the film was made is also debatable, because contemporary audiences may be more open to an alternate decision than those of the Eisenhower era. "Attack" is an excellent, if lesser known Aldrich film that deserves a wider audience, if only for the performances of Palance and Marvin.

The only war movie of the 50's in Attack's (1956) league is Paths of Glory (1958), at least, that I can think of. And unlike Attack, Kubrick's expose was about corruption in the French army, not the American. Generally, American war movies of the time either sanitized battle or made service look like fun, e.g., Mr. Roberts (1955). Not that these were necessarily bad films. In fact, Roberts is really funny. However, they did present a misleading picture of the real thing, making it easier, I suppose, for audiences to fight the Cold War in hot places.It might help to understand Attack's realism and provocative message if we better understand the career of director-producer Aldrich. According to Abe Polonsky, Force of Evil (1948), whom I heard speak following Aldrich's death, the late moviemaker saw himself as caretaker of those blacklisted by the McCarthyite purges of the early 50's. For example, folks such as his friend Joe Losey, The Prowler (1951). Apparently, Aldrich took that role seriously. Because from Apache (1954) to 10 Seconds to Hell (1959), he directed a half-dozen features all of which carry strongly provocative themes in contrast to the general pablum of the time. No doubt his best known is Kiss Me Deadly (1955), which un-does the myth of the Sam Spade-type PI. Also notable is The Big Knife (1955), where Aldrich exposes ruthless Hollywood power plays. But, whatever the reasons for these social conscience films, they appear to give way in the 60's to commercial blockbusters like Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (1962). Now, I don't know enough to explain why this turn-to-commercialism occurred, but I do know that for about a 5-year period Aldrich's films were unusually daring and provocative. While Attack (1956) is perhaps the best example. No need to echo many of the consensus points made by others. One rather minor point that symbolizes the film as a whole for me is Costa's (Palance) open-mouth death rictus. Contrast that stab at ugly realism with the serenity of death in other features of the time. Of course, the film's main point—and likely why the screenplay was denied Pentagon cooperation—is the blatant corruption of Costa's army higher-ups. Capt. Cooney (Albert) may be a detestable coward and company commander, who abandons men to die, yet the real culprit is the slick colonel and battalion commander (Marvin). The colonel keeps Cooney in command even though he knows Cooney's cowardice will kill more men. He does that because Cooney's father is influential and can advance the colonel's expected civilian career. So dogface soldiers mean less to this army command than political influence. No wonder the conscionable Costa's a man obsessed. Then too, I can't think of any other actor who could make such an impact with facial contortions as Palance. Some of these are downright nightmarish.All in all, I take the last scene as a sop to convention, namely, that things will probably turn out okay, after all. But note how quickly the scene passes, as if Aldrich didn't want to emphasize it following all the grit that had passed before. Also, the issue is really left unresolved since we don't know the general's response to the phone call. Now, it should be said that no army is immune from corruption, whether American or Russian. Still, the very mention of this American possibility in the Cold War 50's was enough to damn the movie in many quarters. As I recall, there were a number of high profile theatre walk-outs. Given intervening decades, the movie may now seem non- controversial. But that was certainly not the case at the time, while the film's sheer intensity continues to hold up.Anyway, Attack is one of the anomalies and hidden gems from that era of sanitized conformity. So don't miss it, even though you might prefer looking at girls, of which the movie has exactly none. And, I'm sorry to say, appropriately so.

A 1956 movie, filmed in good quality black and white. A few slow dialog parts but overall lots of fighting and excellent script. The ending is most interesting more than once. I must say that at my age of 60, I recognized most of the actors in this movie. It is hard not to disassociate the would-be characters of Green Acres, Beverly Hill Billies and several more who play in this war movie. But after about 15 to 20 minutes, the fine acting takes over and one is caught up in the excellent script.The fights are well done and very true to what happened in WW2.The quality of the movie I saw on digital TV in 2011 was excellent.