This is one of my all-time-favourite war movies, I absolutely adore this film.
But I have never seen George Segal delivering a worse performance than here. His acting is totally over the top and exagerated.
Does anybody share my opinion ?
Yeah, totally agree with you! I watched it yesterday and think it's a superb war movie, a real classic.But Segal's performance could've been much better.The over acting was too obvious and annoyed me a little bit!
shareI just rewatched it and I was underwhelmed by Segal. In the beginning I think he's trying to look like he's exhausted from lack of sleep. And later he's trying to look like he's in shock at seeing most of his men butchered in combat. But the end result is that he spends most of the film staggering around with his mouth hanging open like some dumb ape
share"King Rat" was the role he was born to play, and he spent himself in it.
shareUnfortunately, I have rarely seen George give a good performance. "King Rat" and "The Owl and The Pussycat" being the only exceptions I can think of.
"Hell, the fall will probably kill you."
Couldn't agree more. I myself was getting tired watching Segal stagger around like a zombie. Ben Gazzara on the other hand is very good and Robert Vaughn delivers a typically standout performance. Anyone else reminded by Robert Vaughn's character of Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory?
Terrorism is the war of the poor, war the terrorism of the rich - Peter Ustinov
Anyone else reminded by Robert Vaughn's character of Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory?
That's a very interesting comparison. Both are proud, strong officers who definitely care about their men. Yet both are undone by the existing command structure.
I think I liked Vaughn's car better than Douglas' motorcycle sidecar.
"Whenever Mrs. Kissell breaks wind, we beat the dog."
[deleted]
Segal's usual hamming and distinct Bronx accent were appropriate in Roger Corman's semi-satiric "St. Valentine's Day Massacre" (1967). He played a thug member of Bugs Moran's North Side gang. His performance in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?" was passable.
He does have one good line in this picture, when he tells a terrified innkeeper in the town of Remagen, with heavy irony: "My men are accustomed to nothing but the very best".
["We have all strength enough to bear the misfortunes of others./"]
--La Rochefoucault
Verrry bad!!! Just now having watched it again, I recalled how George was increasingly staggering around with his mouth open, as though he had an injury while jumpimg into one of those bomb craters. Love the movie though, good enough to somewhat effect and disturb as some truly great films do so well.
That is my belief. It seemed george was not at all himself from some point well into the film and grew progressively weak. Wonderful realistic film with some
weak characters mixed in that served to dilute a bit and keep from being more widely known. Visually it is a stunning war film and curiously dark at times but the soundtrack coulda been better.
I do not know how much of the real event is truly embodied here.
Love Robert Vaughn in his understated and admirable performance as
such an ultimately tragic figure.
[deleted]
[deleted]
He didn't even act eating convincingly.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Jesus, you do help emphasize that the term "fan" comes from "fanatic", don't you?
George Segal has always been pretty awful, who keeps hiring this guy?
[deleted]
Yes I didn`t think he was particularly good either.Terrific in "King Rat" and "The Quiller Memorandum" but totally overshadowed here by Gazzara,Hans Christian Blech and a stunning performance by Vaughn!Worst piece of acting though goes to his former CO just before he gets taken out at the wheel of his jeep:
"stay right close behind me..."(or something similar)Truly appalling delivery!
have to disagree about Segal's "terrific" performance in "Quiller Memorandum." While everyone else acts normally, he often acts very bizarre with nonsensical line delivery. Maybe he thought he was suppose to be weird because Harold Pinter adapted the book for the screenplay, but even in a Pinter play, the actors are suppose to act "normal."
shareI'm a Segal fan in general. Not only excellent in many rom-coms, but also 'Who's Afraid of VW.'
However, while watching this film I was in fact noticing some deficits in his performance. First of all, never a hair out of place. He had that perfect late 60s/early 70s male coiff. You could tell his stylist worked hard.
But Segal just lumbered around, alternating between over-reacting or mugging and a glazed look. Like when he was supposed to "react" to finding out that the sniper was just a boy, there was no feeling in it at all. It was embarrassing to see Gazzara acting in circles around him.
Maybe he is not suited to war pictures, or serious war films. And he would be too corny for a MASH type film. At any rate, I'll always watch him in 'A Touch of Class' again.
So many rabid haters or slavish fans here.
Segal is a great actor but this is not a movie he would/should be proud of. It's monstrously dated and the performances are almost soap-opera level.
As for realism, I wouldn't compare it to Saving Private Ryan. It's not fair. SPR had an immensely larger budget and the benefit of new simulating technologies and CGI. Having said that, I think it's hilarious some of the ppl here have said this film is better than SPR (in terms of combat simulation). Huh? SPR has bodies decapitated or limbs shot off. In this, as was traditional for the 60s, a soldier is "hit" and then "faints": there's no injury shown except perhaps a discreet blood stain. The explosions mostly all resemble goofy fireworks. The sound effects are ridiculous (and lazy).
But to your point: that hair. I couldn't stop seeing the 60's hair, blow-dried, with just way, way too much on the sides. I'm not military, but there's no way they'd let hair get that long. (Look at any picture from WW2 combat: even for guys on the front line, they found ways to get their hair cut.) That hair should be short-- and dirty from combat.) I never get how most combat films don't bother to get the hair right. It's one of the easiest and cheapest things you can do to further the realism and make the audience feel the different-ness of an era.
You really thought Gazzara was doing a good job? I thought Gazzara was kind of a hack here.
Vaughn was pretty good, albeit the director was trying to have it both ways: Vaughn shoots the two deserters running away (normally, he'd get the "evil" tag), but gets to emote that he feels really bad about it (so we're supposed to let him off the hook for it).
I 100% AGREE with McQueenAdlerFondaTeutul! I think Segal is great in this movie! It is his best performance. I really enjoyed him in it.
"It is with regret that I hear you must leave".
"A baseless rumour Madame".
[deleted]
George Segal is one of my least favorite "prominent" actors- he's always rubbed me the wrong way. I think he's better in musical comedies, and even then...he's abrasive.
But in this movie I think he plays his part extremely naturally and well- especially for a '69 era movie. I was shocked.
To troll his performance here reveals a true hatred of the actor. LOL.
Perhaps some people think that each and every American soldier goes through such battles completely unfazed by surrounding horrors and deaths of fellow soldiers one has gone through other horrors with before. But those people would be very mistaken.
All that aside, this thread reads like the OP, as well as many of the respondents, aren't talking about the same film I'm watching, or that they may harbor such a grudging dislike of Segal as an actor in general that they more or less predetermine any performance he offers to be poor by default.
In this instance I must disagree.
Though I'm not a Segal fan by a long stretch I see something far more than him stumbling about slack-jawed in his performance here. Along with the few moments when he does (i.e. when it makes total sense for him to be in a stunned state) he does an excellent job of presenting us a practically cynical but workmanlike soldier right through to the end of the film.
So far as comparison to Gazzara goes; Gazzara gives something that could easily be described as his average level of delivery, while Segal greatly exceeds his average delivery to the point where he makes Gazzara appear to be giving us a typically egotistical American super-soldier compared to Segal's realistic soldier.
For me, this might well be Segal's greatest screen performance.
''Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.'' (Murder, My Sweet)
I first saw this film when I was about 15 and it has always been one of my favourites. However I always felt that George Segal's performance was very bad and almost spoils what is an excellent war film. It is reassuring to find that other people think the same.
The performance is a caricature of a tough, cynical, weary, cigar chomping American soldier. So much so that I sometimes think Segal was actually mocking the role and the film as a way of showing that they were beneath him.
That's probably going too far but really: the clenched teeth, the scene where he eats so self consciously messily. The hunch of the shoulders - corny beyond belief.
Such a shame when Robert Vaughan gives such a good performance as Krueger. The look he gives the SS man (played by a young Jeremy Irons ?) following the roadside shooting. The final execution scene - terrific.
OK this is mainstream entertainment but if you are paid to do a job as an actor then take your part seriously.
Maybe Segal is really a comedy actor.
I love the pre credits and credits sequences, the crane shots suddely disclosing a wide vista.. and let's not forget the music by Elmer Bernstein - thrilling.
Perhaps one point in mitigation for Segal - when Grebs (referring to the farmhouse)asks him: what do you think they've got in there sir, Segal has to say "I don't know Grebs but it ain't candy" - a pretty corny line but then so is Vaughan's final line: "but who is the enemy?" - geddit?
Great film - love it.
PS Why do the German Generals always get to stay in magnificent country houses when the British get a girls boarding school in Godalming?
No, I for one think his acting here was actually pretty good. He's a man nearing the breaking point, and plays that part well.
shareI finally watched this film all the way through last week and I can't single Segal's acting out as being any better or worse than anyone else in it.
This isn't my favourite Segal film by a long chalk - but he puts in a decent enough performance as far as I'm concerned ... in fact some of his scenes are pretty good.
I still prefer him in No Way To Treat A Lady, A Touch of Class, King Rat, Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf, The Terminal Man, California Split, The Owl and the Pussycat, Fun With Dick and Jane, The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox, and a few others ... but his performance in TBAR doesn't deserve half the criticism that its getting in this thread.
Time flies like the wind - and fruit flies like bananas!
Plain and simple, Robert Vaughn stole this picture from Segal.
share