verbusen I wanted to rate this film higher, I saw it's in the 4's overall now which it really doesn't deserve. But after watching it fully, the ending does justify a lower rank so I'm giving it a 6. It seems to use stock footage from other war films while at the same time has a lot of military hardware filmed so it does have some kind of a budget going for it. Plus it has a cast that merits attention so I cannot see this as a war film that rates it's actual 4 score. With that said. Have you ever noticed that Soviet war films are scored very high on IMDb? I am going to guess that's the same reason why this film ranks so low. The overall vote on the Soviet films are bolstered by Russians and leftist travelers that I am going to say give it an overall plus 1 to their rating. Likewise here. this is a film about taking down Hitler (in a way), so I'm guessing for all those 10 votes the travelers give those so-so Soviet films, there are many pro Nazi types that give this film a 1 rating. As far as the cast goes, casting Mitchum as a 35 year old Colonel when he's in his 60's and not looking very excited about the role is the blaring casting mistake. Burton actually looks older then Mitchum here, like an old man with dementia in most of his scenes and is the second casting mistake. Mitchum would excel later on as a Naval officer and that is a role he can pull off, not here though. BTW what Colonel's (full bird old American ones) go behind enemy lines? That's what a Colonel tells a young Captain to do! And hey get a haircut reflecting 1944 Robert! Jurgens was good but that worn out cap didn't cut it for him being a Prussian General even if it was his WW1 cap. Steiger was good also and realistic and BTW the same age in real life as Burton and in much better looking shape health wise. Michael Parks rounds out the cast I recognize as Mitchum's NCO and Quentin Tarantino says he's the best actor still alive, FYI, so you may just want to watch it for his role which is fairly major. The hardware in the beginning looks close enough for me (probably taken from a Russian or East European war film), and using those post war US tanks for the Western front scenes is much more forgivable then using them as German tanks like in The Battle Of The Bulge! But what was up with using German bomber footage during D Day? Probably HE 111's from the Battle Of Britain film. That was crazy but only one scene so I can laugh about that one. Those anti tank guns are obsolete by 1944 also and not realistic. The film score absolutely sucks too as others have mentioned so in retrospect maybe it's worth it's 4 rating here, but I did stay with it and was overall entertained so I'm sticking to 6. The ending is stupid crazy but overall it was a lot better then many WW2 films from the late 70's so I'm going to give it a 6. Worth watching (once) for us war film buffs.

Theo Robertson This is a sequel to the very under rated Peckinpah classic CROSS OF IRON . You remember it don't you ? James Coburn as Sgt Steiner getting on the wrong side of Maximillian Schell's Captain Stransky on the Soviet Eastern Front in 1943 . BREAKTHROUGH as it's known in Britain is a film trying to market itself as a sequel and I'm afraid if it resembles anything it probably resembles a plot device in DOCTOR WHO called regeneration where a Timelord can turn in to the same character with a completely different physical appearance and personality . In the case of Steiner he was last seen as being a cynical character with a strong resemblance to James Coburn who suddenly looks like a much respected stage actor from Wales who's slumming it in a not very good movie . Strangely enough Captain Stransky is also a Timelord . I suppose that's an advantage if you've got several million soldiers in the Red Army who want payback for having their families strung up with piano wire There are a couple of good battle sequences at the start of BREAKTHROUGH but if you've seen CROSS OF IRON you'll instantly know where these scenes were stolen from . You also can't help noticing a bizarre lack of continuity to these scenes . Steiner you remember was a soldier's soldier , he might be fighting for a murderous regime but his loyalty was to his men not to the regime and for some strange reason he is now wearing a dress uniform on the front line and these's not even a speck of dust on his uniform . Maybe his clothes can regenerate after every battle with the Soviets ? You can't fail to notice how crap he is in a battle either . He's given an order to blow up a tunnel . Arrives at he tunnel , staggers down the tunnel no doubt looking for the nearest drinks cabinet , staggers alongside a Soviet tank , drops a grenade in the tank , and gets back in to his truck looking for the nearest bar . All he had to do was connect a wire to a plunger and blow the tunnel up which seems beyond his capabilities . In fact if this is the standard of the average Wehrmacht soldier the Soviets must be glad they didn't have to fight any Italian conscriptsI'm being very kind here because I awarded BREAKTHROUGH four out of ten on its own merits - not as a sequel to CROSS OF IRON in which case it would have been awarded minus points . It is a totally disjointed film especially where editing is concerned where the story jumps around from location to location with little rhyme or reason with the big name cast realising they're just doing it for the money . It says a lot when its predecessor was directed by someone suffering from intense substance abuse and was a hundred times better than this

Mark Tracy This movie never had the direction or production costs to make it a BlockBuster therefore with only B-Movie aspirations in mind this one is a gem of a WWII movie. I mean with actors such as Robert Mitchum,Richard Burton and Rod Steiger together in a War movie with a pretty decent script with some good one liners and a touch of nudity.Come on, it was made in 1979 on a budget. Every War movie can't be Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List. Don't listen to the nay sayers on this one. If you're a WWII movie fan and like the old ones and can find it(VHS only, I think), WATCH IT. I rated it a 9 out of 10 for a B-movie!

Matthew Kresal Though one can hardly tell it, this film is meant to be a sequel to Sam Peckinpah's 1977 World War II Cross Of Iron. I one for one didn't realize this until after seeing the film which shows you that this is a sequel in the loosest of terms. While it most certainly is not in the same league as Cross Of Iron, Breakthrough is still your fairly typical World War II film. It's also an example of how to under-use and misuse the talents of good actors.I'll admit the major reason I saw this was for its actors and especially Richard Burton, my favorite actor. That said the talents of the cast are sadly underused or misused for the most part. Burton is certainly miscast in the role of Sargant Steiner as he is too old (approximately fifty-five if I remember correctly) to be believable even as an older Sergeant in the German Army. The same can very much be said of Robert Mitchum as American Army Colonel Rogers who looks a bit too old to be realistic in the role. While they may be too old for their roles, both Burton and Mitchum give fair performances though far from their greatest moments to be certain. The movie does make some decent use of its supporting cast, especially Rod Steiger and Curt Jergens as American and German generals respectively. The test of the film's supporting cast gives fairly middle of the road performances as well. As a consequence, the overall acting quality in this is less then one might have expected.The production values, music and direction as well are nothing incredible either. The entire film has a very low budget feel to it from the opening credits (which in fact use footage from Cross Of Iron) to barely decorated sets and beyond. Not to mention the score from composer Peter Thomas that, with a very electronic feel to it, seems more evocative of the disco music popular when the film was made rather then a score more befitting to a World War II film. The film's direction also seems to be a bit lacking as well in many scenes which seems a shame considering that it was directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, the director of things like The Wild Geese (also starring Burton) and the World War II action/adventure movie The Sea Wolves. All said the production values, music and direction are all things that let the film down.This brings us to the script of Breakthrough. The script certainly has an interesting premise by taking some of the characters of Cross Of Iron, organizing circumstances to get them to the other front of World War II Europe and then throwing the July 20th plot to kill Hitler into the middle of it. The problem is that while the first two things are done somewhat believably things start going downhill as soon as the Hitler assassination plot comes forward. The whole thing is set-up rather strangely and requires a couple of major leaps in plot (Steiner to go towards American lines in the middle of the night at the exact same time Rogers goes looking for anti-tank guns) to get things moving and once they do things don't get better. What could have been an interesting thriller plot instead descends into your rather standard World War II shot 'em up by the time it's over with. The result is an uneven film that seems to just go from plot line to plot line in hopes of one of them taking charge of the film. The sad fact is none of them ever do.Somehow Breakthrough feels like a list of missed opportunities. With an underused / misused cast, low budget production values, an out of place score, uninspired direction and an uneven script there's plenty of instances where things could have been something better. Instead we get a fairly typical World War II movie with an interesting but sadly misused premise. In short: it could have been better, especially as it's a sequel to Cross Of Iron.