I’ll take that question...:-)
As a movie, it was just OK, but as history, it was awful.
The setting is wrong, the tanks are wrong, it’s full of small details that are wrong, the events in the film are only barely based on actual events.
Instead of the Americans fighting desperate delaying actions at great cost, the battle was decided by detective work and the Germans running out of gas, or getting run over by it.
It’s a shame that they spent that amount of money and star power on what could have been a tribute to the men who fought and died there. Instead, it was merely a mediocre 60’s action adventure flick loosely based on events that pales compared to other war films of the time like “The Longest Day”.
That is how I see it, I enjoyed it when it came out and to me it was a part of what used to be a huge producing of war films, that seemed almost as numerous as westerns.
It is a long, long, way from the worst war movie ever, for someone who has seen hundreds, and people who can enjoy a “Dances with Wolves” can sure tolerate Battle of the Bulge.