MovieChat Forums > To Hell and Back (1955) Discussion > The test of time

The test of time

posted 18 years ago by semiloaf
14 replies | jump to latest

I've finally seen this movie and honestly, it fell flat to my liking. I think a lot of movies made in the "golden age" of cinema do not stand the test of time. If you watch this, then watch "Saving Private Ryan", "To Hell and Back" looks, for lack of a better term, silly.
First off, the score was horrible. I actually think that if someone were to re-score this movie, that it would improve it's mood tenfold. Lots of orchestral music from early cinema seems to be too involved, like it's a character in the movie, almost distracting and it lessens a darker mood which this film lacked. A score more moody would've sufficed. Something a little more haunting during the war scenes. It's WWII for crissakes!
The characters were so unbelievable, unreal. Cracking light-hearted jokes before or in between battle scenes seemed horribly out of place. It seems that no one was affected by their surroundings, aloof to the fact that they are in the middle of a war. If we compare the characters to war movies of today like "Pvt. Ryan", the characters are grittier. More real. Scared, furious, overwhelmed and heroic. "To Hell..." every charcter is a perfect hero, perfectly shaven, perfect manners. It's very unbelievable.
Battle scenes. I understand the limitations of special effects back then, but they just weren't good.
Acting, I hate old time acting. Movie actors of that time act like they're on stage. They over-emote and it comes off as very unrealistic. Method acting saved Hollywood. Thanks Brando!
I am a big fan of "older" movies, Hitchcock, "On the Watefront" are among the many movies from thatera that i love and stand the test of time. Unfortunately, this one does not.

[–] rangerzep83 17 years ago

Soldiers joke all the time, including, believe it or not, in firefights. That's the only way we can cope. It's not at all out of place or unrealistic. The characters in the movie were exactly as they were in the book, which was exactly as they were in real life, seeing as how they are actual people.

[–] gsfsu 10 years ago

Perhaps your army was different than mine but there was no joking in my experience in Vietnam and I really doubt it existed that close to battle in WWII either. Once away from the front soldiers engage in lots of black humor in order to relieve tension but in a foxhole, no. And I was constantly amazed at soldiers smoking and talking loudly near the front lines. You can smell a burning ciggy for hundreds of yards if the wind is right - not to mention see the red tip.

[–] teri51629 17 years ago

Well, for one thing...it was 1955. Nearly EVERYONE back then (in the movies) was clean shaven and had starched shirts and the women (unless it was a western) had petticoats and heels on. I will say that I agree that THaB was not an academy award winner!

Audie himself was upset with the way they did the movie. At one point he wanted to stop it altogether, but he was under contract so he couldn't.

So many of the scenes were downplayed (not like Saving Pvt. Ryan)where all the ghorr and horror was shown exactly the way it happened. Also, the scene on the tank for which he won the Medal of Honor, should have lasted at least an hour, but it was only 5 minutes or so. Movies weren't made back then like they are now. That's the reason movies have RATINGS now!

I would suggest you read the book if you want to know HOW IT REALLY WAS!

Teri in Texas

[–] Homer900 17 years ago

Maybe in 1955, just 10 years after the end of WWII and the service of some 16 million men during our part in that war, and just 2 years removed from Korea, it wasn't necessary (though the Hayes Commission wouldn't allow it anyway) to show the gore and horror of combat. Remember, MANY of the actors, obviously Audie Murphy himself, as well as many of the other actors, crew and technicians had LIVED it as did many of the audience. They knew the horror of war in 1955 and didn't need to be reminded like we do today.

[–] tarmcgator 17 years ago

Anyone here ever heard of the Breen Office? The Production Code Authority? Back in 1955, every mainstream Hollywood movie was subject to an industry-wide code of self-censorship that severely limited the depiction of violence in any movie, including war films. Hence, no exploding bloodbags, mutilations, etc.

In addition, unlike many war films made today, "To Hell and Back" was made with the cooperation and assistance of the U.S. Army and Defense Department, which had strict script approval and was surely not eager to see too realistic a depiction of combat deaths and injuries. After all, the Cold War was on, young Americans were subject to a peacetime draft, and many people still wanted to think that it was sweet and lovely to die for one's country. (It may be necessary at times but it surely ain't sweet.)

Please don't ask filmmakers of the past to conform to modern expectations. They were what they were.

[–] texbw 17 years ago

I agree with the original post. Even considering the limits of special effects technology and the production code and all that, they should have been able to do a better job than this.

And yeah, the characters were unbelievable and unreal. They are all one-dimentional stock characters. For example, the one guy who is a womanizer, that's ALL he ever talks about. Every time he opens his mouth it's "Knew a girl once, back in..." But of course we can't go glamorizing that kind of behavior, so it turns out later on that he's got a steady girl and just makes up that stuff about all these women so the other guys won't think he's all mushy and sentimental (modern translation: "pussy-whipped").

[–] hswitzer 17 years ago

If you want to whine about the realism of the effects due to technological differences or the standards of film at the time that's fine. It shows you as a product of the X-box, MTV generation but hey, alot of people are.

But complaining about the characters shows your complete ignorance of reality. War movie characterizations are common...Saving Private Ryan had them too. You've got the grizled Sgt, the swarthy cool guy, the tough guy, the FNG, the reflective officer etc. The reason these characterizations are in so many movies is that they ARE very realistic. Spend some time under harsh conditions with a bunch of dudes and you will see it yourself. Furthermore, the characters are based on people Murphy new in the actual unit, so your review falls far short.

THaB is a classic, a true classic. It tells the story of one of the greatest heroes this country has ever produced, and the story is as true today as it was in 1945 and in 1955.

propaganda=on IMDB, apparently any movie with Americans as the good guys

[–] calcaylor 17 years ago

I rented this movie with much optimism. But I have to say that I mostly agree with you semiloaf. I will also say that I think most movies do not stand the test of time. I guess I would say that, if I had been about mid-20s when this movie came out, I bet I would have given it a 9 or 10. The reality is that movies are such a product of the time period and their tendency is towards disposability. And as an avowed Hitchcock lover, I would say that even the great one's works take their lumps in many places.

The beauty of a movie like this though, to me, demonstrates how much better we are at making movies today and it makes me a little giddy to think of how they are going to improve. It seems almost impossible they will improve to the degree that they have so far but the history of film dictates that they will.

my 2¢

[–] Homer900 17 years ago

Calcaylor, in what way do we make movies better? That there is more "realism" in the films? Give me an old movie with good plot and character development, an intriging story line and fine acting over any of the over blown summer "blcokbusters" of today. I'll watch Casablanca over and over before I spend one dime on anything currently showing at my local theater. Great acting, wonderful script, taunt action and nary a curse word, not one blood squib nor actor "acting" his bodily functions. Nope, few movies today stand up to the classics of yesterday.

My .02 cents!

[–] tarmcgator 17 years ago

Amen, brother Homer900!

I had the experience of watching "Casablanca" a few years ago with a couple of friends (all of us old farts, over 40). After Louis and Rick walked off into the fog, I was about to speak, when one of my friends took my precise words out of my mouth: "They don't write them like that anymore!"

Where have all the screenwriters gone?

[–] Homer900 17 years ago

What is funny tarmcgator is that the Epstein brothers were writing this on the fly and that the movie itself was shot almost entirely in sequence. It amazes me every time I watch it the words that flow from those fine actors that populate the entire screen. Sigh, to be able to go to a movie today and find such words and acting...

[–] barry70 9 years ago

Give me an old movie with good plot and character development, an intriging story line and fine acting over any of the over blown summer "blcokbusters" of today.

None of which "To Hell and Back" had.

[–] gumborific 16 years ago

In a recent issue of Amercian Legion Magazine, vets rated this movie as the number 2 War Movie, to Saving Private Ryan being #1.

I am sure the poll was mostly older vets, and I think the point made is that they are looking for realism, not action.

As far as judging THaB on strict film terms, I agree, it is not that good.

"In our wings that bark, flashing teeth of brass, standing tall in the dark" - David Bowie

[–] Hippo9 9 years ago

Honestly this is just a bad film. Alot worse than alot of the World War II films made during that time. Has nothing to do with the era or test of time. This is a movie like Space Jam where the fame of the guy (Audie Murphy) sold tickets more than the content of the movie.