Talk about a misleading title. This is a 2 and a half hour movie with 5 minutes of actual battle. I appreciate that this movie is trying to tell the stories of the soldiers’ home life. But you can’t name a WWII movie “Battle Cry” and not have any action. I feel deceived. This movie is more concerned about the love stories of the men and their gals than the actual war. Boooring! 1 out of 5 action rating
(actionrating.com)
Hey Scheelj,
We just finished watching this film, and I had not seen it since it first came out in 1955. For some reason, I thought this was one of the great war film of my youth. Wow - was I wrong!? I don't know what I was thinking, but it was pretty much just as you described it - "Boring Cry."
If you happen to recall 1953's "From Here To Eternity," it also was long on love story and short on battle story. However, the stories contained in "From Here To Eternity" were, for me, very interesting, and they actually made the film. The Schofield Barracks battle action at the end of the film was not the real story of the film. The real story of the film was the battle action going on with the characters during peacetime, and that action seemed to me far more interesting than what we saw in "Battle Cry."
"Battle Cry" had a lot of actors I liked, and some of the characters they played were interesting, but somehow these element just did not add up to a good story for me.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
The novel by Leon Uris is much better than the movie. I watch the film for Nancy Olson.
share