Watched this and I have to say it doesn't know what kind of movie it is.
One minute it shows how hard war is on soldiers and civilians then puts
in comedy fights and pratfalls and Scottish accents straight out of
Brigadoon. America made a lot of good war movies but this is not one of
them.
I have to agree,this film is so unintentionly funny,even the serius bits in the film made me laugh.I love all the girls 1957 hair styles and dresses...and 1950's mens hairstyles.All the men treat the 'girls' as pieces of meat,or just plain stupid,falling for G.I joe in minutes of meeting them.One guy marrying an Italian girl after declaring his love for her after a dinner and attempted proposition thinking she a prostitute was so funny!!Crap film,crap acting,crap action scenes which were very,very poor....worst 50,s war film Ive seen.
share[deleted]
This is a movie you have to watch more then once to understand. The Edd Byrnes character ( Lieutenant Dittmann) is very naive about life ( not just women). Remember he did not like killing the Italian Soldier. He meets Angelina ( Etchika Choureau), who is his exact opposite, very worldly and to be honest might not be a prostitute, but is certainly a flirt and gets money and items out of guys ( check out the scene where she is walking with Byrnes). Why is he willing to marry her? Because if he does not, she will die ( remember he hated killing, and he would be haunted by her death for the rest of his life ( if he survives Anzio)). In the hospital scene he mentions about " Growing Two Inches." Its about stepping up to the plate and as James Garner ( Col. Darby) says " Cleaning up a mess" ( one Dittmann did not create). You also see how she almost glows and looks well angelic. Watch when they are reunited you see the difference in her, she looks much younger ( almost reborn), very happy to see him and the bed that was facing the door is actually by the door ( with his helmet still there ( almost symbolizing that her place his his home and she is waiting for him to return)). These two needed each other: Angelina to survive and Dittmann likely as well ( They showed ONLY 14 Rangers survived Anzio). By his sacrifice ( marrying her), perhaps God rewarded him, By surviving and getting exactly the right woman for him
I did not need to watch this twice to understand 90% of what you wrote. But more so this sub plot of Dittman ... who was not the soldier that killed the Italian ... hardly makes this a good film. Yes it was a positive vein but there was a lot more going on. My take 6.0 of 10.
shareAwful beyond words! The public was spoon-fed this pseudo-war pabulum while the US and USSR geared up for Armageddon, which nearly arrived in 1962. Modern efforts like HBO's recent series "The Pacific" portray the real war in real terms. One wonders if the paranoia of the 50s and the stupidity of Vietnam could have been avoided had the "real deal" been more apparent to the American people.
Also awful - the ear-shattering, anachronistic, boilerplate film composition of Max Steiner, taken straight out of 1940s propaganda. A bad, bad, bad composer.
The only good thing here is Jack Warden.
-drl
Awful beyond words!It's pretty routine, even by 50s standards. Especially compared to others like "Attack" or "Pork Chop Hill".
The public was spoon-fed this pseudo-war pabulum while the US and USSR geared up for Armageddon, which nearly arrived in 1962.So what's your point?
Modern efforts like HBO's recent series "The Pacific" portray the real war in real terms.Yeah, a series burdened down by today's political correctness.
One wonders if the paranoia of the 50s and the stupidity of Vietnam could have been avoided had the "real deal" been more apparent to the American people.Again, what does this have to do with this particular film?
Also awful - the ear-shattering, anachronistic, boilerplate film composition of Max Steiner, taken straight out of 1940s propaganda.1940s propaganda should be looked at in the context of it's times. You weren't around then to judge and it's always convenient to do so 60 years later in hindsight, now isn't it?
A bad, bad, bad composer.He's done better, but not here.
The only good thing here is Jack Warden.Not really. He was almost as dull as the rest of this film.
The love theme from "Now Voyager" can be heard as background music in a London restaurant scene.
share
I just thought it was deadly Boring
4/10When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
The OP pretty well nailed it. The script is the biggest problem -- horribly cliched and juvenile. On top of that, James Garner was still learning the acting ropes and really couldn't cut it.
"What I got don't need pearls." -- Linda Darnell (1923-65)
It's not an awful film, IMO, but awful for a Wellman film. Compare this movie to his great "Battleground" and it's hard to believe "Wild Bill" was in charge here.
No blah, blah, blah!
On the other hand, maybe the problem isn't that it mixes comedy and bad accents. Maybe the problem is that it is one of a very few movies which end in the destruction of an American unit. This may be too depressing for most Americans to watch.
To me, it reinforces the incredible sacrifice made by the men the movie was about and others like them.
<Also awful - the ear-shattering, anachronistic, boilerplate film composition of Max Steiner, taken straight out of 1940s propaganda. A bad, bad, bad composer.>
Max Steiner a bad composer??? That's laughable. He was behind the music in many of the classic films. For winning a few Oscars & being nominated many times over, we should be so "awful" at our professions.
Awful no it could have been alot better I just think they were trying to do to much with it. Alot of the cherocters were too bland I would get lost as to who was who half the time. There were two maybe three guys I liked garner,the poker dealer,and the LT I would forget who was who because they all seemed to blur into each other they all seemed to be trying to play the same person. It wasan;t awful but it wasan't good either.
John wayne:If you say three you will never hear the man count ten.
[deleted]
This was not an awful movie. By the way the poker dealer was Stuart Whitman and the Lt was Edd Byrnes ( who came out best). By the way, there was nothing bland about Etchika Choureau ( Angelina). Now I know there are people who can complain about the fact she was French playing Italian ( and there were some knockout Italian women in that era ( most notably Sophia Loren)). But bland? Not even close. Watch the scene where Arnold Dittmann ( Byrnes) has to hose her down because conditions were not sanitary. Byrnes is really the one to watch in this movie. Going from West Point to basically " The Real World." Where he has to kill someone in combat ( which he did not like doing). He also has to go from not understanding women at all, to getting involved with Angelina ( whom is more complex then most ( much more then Wendy Hollister the Titled woman that Hank Bishop (Whitman) has for a girlfriend)). Basically, Dittmann ends up having to decide to let her die, or to make a "Leap Of Faith" and marry Angelina so he can save her ( she needs penicillin because only Service People and dependants can get it), and risk being married to the wrong woman forever (assuming of course, he survives the War). It is noted that Dittmann is Catholic and especially in those days, Divorce is a no no. As you see in the next to final scene he does survive ( one of the few Rangers who does, and the happiness she shows when he comes back to her, that indeed she is the right woman for him and he made the right decision.
shareAgree with 'notmtwain' Watched movie for the first time a few days ago and very much enjoyed its simplicity and yet a reminder of what our servicemen did to secure our freedom, albeit across the big pond.
This is the second to the last movie directed by William Wellman. His biography in IMDB says that he lost heart at fighting with the studios over how to direct his movies and just gave it up. He me this the same year as his last movie, "Lafayette Escadrille."
It looks like your characterization of "doesn't know what kind of movie it is" is dead on. The screenplay, by the same author as "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold," was weak and the director didn't have the energy to save it.
I think Lou and Dannieboy, along with others here, have put their fingers on the problem with this film. William Wellman was trying to recreate his 5star classic Battleground (1949) and missed his mark. Lightning seems to strike where it will; perhaps getting it to strike twice took more mojo than Mr. Wellman currently had...and fighting studio hacks takes a ton of mojo. He was tired of it, and someone handed him a terrible script. The mediocrity of that script trickled down and influenced the rest of the production.
I loved Battleground, and while this film has all the elements, it just doesn't have the same heart. Though seeing the director in a cameo was fun.
The surreal fight in the fog is pretty much lifted from BATTLEGROUND, but otherwise the flick is tired. Warner Bros. obviously wanted to cram in as many of its contract players as possible, I guess. Garner, Corey Allen, Peter Brown and Edd Byrnes (his pre-"Kooky" days) Wonder why Clint Walker, John Russell and Ty Hardin didn't make the grade? I always get a guffaw over Jack Warden, with his Irish mug, playing a character named Saul Rosen!
May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?
Jack Warden was Jewish. John H. Lebzelter was his real name. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/jul/24/guardianobituaries.film
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
Warden did an excellent job in this movie. There were several outstanding performances. Byrnes best of then then Warden.
shareJack Warden was always great! He made everything he was in better. Did you ever see The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing? He was a real badass in that one!
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share