SimonJack "Theirs is the Glory" is a unique film, indeed. It doesn't have a single professional actor, but its cast is made up solely of men of the British 1st Airborne Division who fought in the Battle of Arnhem. It is the only film ever made of a major war battle on the site and within a short time after it took place. The Battle of Arnhem was part of Operation Market Garden, the largest airborne assault in history. Market Garden involved more than 35,000 troops of the British 1st Airborne Division, the Polish Airborne Brigade attached to the Brits, and the American 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions. Market Garden took place from Sept. 17 to 25, 1944. One year after the battle – just four months after the end of the war in Europe, survivors of the 1st Airborne Division collected at Arnhem to stage a reenactment of the bloody battle. Every single man who appears in the film had been part of the operation. Many of the Bits donned German uniforms for the film. Along with reenactment scenes, the movie incorporates actual combat footage shot during the battle by the British Army. This film was a joint effort by the British Army film and photographic unit and the J. Arthur Rank Organization. Noted Irish filmmaker Brian Desmond Hurst directed the film. He was a World War I veteran and protégé of Hollywood director John Ford. The film premiered a year later – two years after the battle, on Sept. 17, 1946. It was a tremendous box office success, in spite of its rough production qualities.This film shows battle scenes as they actually occurred to the best recollection of the men who took part in the battle. Those who were killed and many wounded of course, were not in the reenactment scenes. As an original work, that captured a real event with the actual participants, this film is a valuable historical record. I highly recommend it for movie fans, and those interested in war films and history. And, for further understanding of the battle, one should watch this film along with the 1977 movie, "A Bridge Too Far." I appreciate the fact that no film could ever capture the reality or horror of bloody combat one may experience. Yet, I was surprised at the negative comments by some reviewers regarding the later film. I thought it paid great homage to the 1st Airborne Division and its men in the heavy fighting scenes and valiant stand they made. Of course, the 1977 film covered the whole operation as conceived by Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. So, it necessarily showed much more of the background, and the many problems with the planning and carrying out the operation. This film's focus is on the close combat of the British paratroopers. Most of the problems with the operation probably were not known to the troopers then. The 1977 film is able to give us the larger picture of the entire operation and the answers as to why there were problems and why the ultimate goal failed. Or, as Monty is said to have said in the 1977 film, why it was just "90 percent successful." Perhaps some of the veterans were disgusted with the 1977 film for what it showed about the poor planning and preparation that left the British airborne forces dangling without relief.In this film, we never see a questioning of plans, and never hear a concern about lack of communications or failure of the units to meet. Nor anything about the failure of the 2nd British Army to join up at all. It was supposed to be there within two days. Rather, we see the persevering and persistent British officers and men going forward as best they can. It's a good picture of a wonderfully dedicated bunch of men for that time. So, after or before watching this film, one should watch "A Bridge too Far" for the background and understanding of why things went awry. And movie buffs should know that that 1977 film gives much more time to the British forces, especially the 1st Airborne Brigade, and the operation planning and leadership, than it gives to the American 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions combined. "A Bridge Too Far" was based on a book by Irish author Cornelius Ryan. It was directed by Richard Attenborough, the multi-award winning and eminent English actor, director and producer. And it had a host of prominent movie stars – mostly leading British actors of the 20th century. "Theirs is the Glory" should be a part of any serious war film collection. And, alongside it should be "A Bridge Too Far."War history buffs may be interested to know a couple of details about Oosterbeek, Holland, which was where part of the Battle of Arnhem took place. British airborne commander, Major General Roy Urquhart made his headquarters in the Hotel Hartenstein. Today it houses the Airborne Museum, dedicated to the Battle of Arnhem. Every year on the first Saturday in September, Oosterbeek holds the annual Airborne March (Airborne Wandeltocht). It is a commemorative walk that passes by the hotel and the Airborne Cemetery were 1,750 British and Polish paratroopers are buried. It goes by the landing and drop zones, the battle woods, and the Old Church where the troops gathered during their retreat. People can do varying lengths of this walk, from five kilometers to 40. Nearly 35,000 people took part in the 2014 Airborne March.

Edward Turner I am writing this as I saw that the film only had a 6.9 rating on IMDb and would like to input something personal. My father was one of the first at the bridge and one of the last to be captured.Many years ago we went to see A Bridge Too Far. (The night it opened, free tickets! As a young man I was impressed. After the film we driving home and my father said that had felt like walking out halfway through. "Their's is the Glory was an account of what happened at Arnhem; this is not a patch on that, and the way they portrayed Boy Browning ans was truly disgusting)From a cinematic perspective ABTF is a fantastic film, but Their's is the Glory is not only a great film but historically accurate.I hope you enjoy it and remember the sacrifice that so many made to give you the freedom to watch it.

dbborroughs This is what we would now call a docudrama about the battle in and around Arnhem during the closing days of the Second World War. Mixing actual footage of the battle with new footage shot a year after the war in and around the ravaged city with many of the surviving soldiers playing themselves, this tells the same story that was told in the big Budget A Bridge Too Far. Its very much a you are there sort of film that pretty much seems to tell it like it was.I ran across this film in a budget collection of World War two films and since I'm a big fan of a Bridge Too Far I thought I'd pick it up. I'm not sure which is the better movie. One is a huge Hollywood financed production, the other is a small scale gritty in your face film that certainly shows what it must have been like. One I like because I like the story and the spectacle, the other I like because it shows what it was really like, and how Hollywood's version was too neat and clean.As good as this film is it has two problems in my eyes. First off its a bit disjointed. The film is telling the whole story about what happened in and around Arnhem and things get lost, "characters" blend into one another. Part of this seems to be the result of the fact that the film seems to have been dubbed after the fact and it seemed to me that several people have the same voice. Its not bad but I began to feel awash in the proceedings.The second problem with the film is that its awfully stereotypically "British". Everyone is low key and even keeled. Everyone takes everything in stride, even the fact that they are surrounded with seemingly no way out. Its all greeted with a levelness that seems wildly out of the "ideal" notion of the British soldier rather than reality. The attitude is fine for a while, but buy the half way point into the film I was shaking my head and giggling at the calmness of it all. For me it severely detracted from the proceedings and left me feeling very disappointed.Flawed or not this is a must see, especially for those who like the later inflated epic film.

john205 Correction to the casualty figures given by previous commentator; approx 10,000 men were landed of which around 8200 saw serious action north of the river Lek. approx 1300 were killed, 2200 returned to British lines and almost all the rest were taken prisoner (with the exception of the Polish Brigade which dropped just south of the river Lek. The mortality rate was around 17%.No option but to repeat (or comment does not get posted!!) Correction to the casualty figures given by previous commentator; approx 10,000 men were landed of which around 8200 saw serious action north of the river Lek. approx 1300 were killed, 2200 returned to British lines and almost all the rest were taken prisoner (with the exception of the Polish Brigade which dropped just south of the river Lek. The mortality rate was around 17%.