LUCKY STRIKE (2026)

            “Lucky Strike” is a caught behind the lines movie set in the Battle of the Bulge. It was directed and co-written by Rob Laurie (“The Outpost”).  He is a West Point graduate. It was filmed at a studio in Bulgaria.

            The film uses the flashback method to tell the story. A Captain (now Colonel) Castle arrives at the home of a Mrs. Caldwell (Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor). Right off the bat, we know the main character is going to survive. No surprise for a movie like this. (Also, this means you  won’t have to yell at the screen when he shows off his wife’s picture.) Caldwell is bitter because the Army has been holding back her dead husband’s pension. Then its back to the Ardennes Forest for the Battle of the Bulge. It’s the fourth day. You’ll have to take their word for it. If you’re expecting hordes of German tanks, think again. A truckload of black G.I.s is ambushed by a German tank. How is this going to connect to Castle’s story? Wait. Castle is the commander of an engineer company. He is tasked with holding a key crossroads to prevent the Germans from getting to an American fuel depot. He leaves with five men. That’s one small company. And they don’t go to a crossroads, they just sabotage some trees along the road. Bada bing, bada boom, now Castle is on his own far from home. Luckily, he has his trusty “walkie-talkie” which is named “Lassie”. The movie informs the audience that the 1^st SS Panzer Division are a bunch of cold-blooded killers. Do you think Castle will have some encounters with them? Give yourself a cookie if you answered “yes”.

The rest of the film is an odyssey (ironic because one of the previews before the movie was for “The Odyssey”). Castle has a series of vignettes between radio talks to his pessimistic headquarters. Most of those discussions involve the guy on the other end saying “Look, buddy, it’s Hitler’s great offensive. We got bigger problems than rescuing one G.I., even if he is Clint Eastwood’s son.” So, lucky for us, Castle will have to trek to friendly lines. And with a bullet in his thigh. These vignettes include a tragic encounter with a friendly Belgian family, stealing a tank, playing dead, a visit to the truck with the all but one dead black G.I., being chased by artillery, and meeting a another caught behind the lines victim. And then we return to Mrs. Caldwell’s apartment for a twist I bet none of you will see coming. (Try not to laugh, the old people in the theater might be offended.”

            “Lucky Strike” is a WWII movie that would be more comfortable in the 20^th Century. Castle is far from an anti-hero. This is a patriotic film and it finishes with a treacly song written by the director. However, the patriotism is not overdone. Although, the anti-Nazi theme is a bit much. Hell, Castle gets peed on by an SS soldier. It’s low budget, but that mainly applies to the cast. Besides Eastwood, the only actor that most people would recognize is Colin Hanks and he appears for about two minutes. Most of the cast do not have Wikipedia pages. However, the acting is not cringe and Eastwood does fine in a one-dimensional role. He’s stoical and handles wounds like his father. Actually, the movie is the story of a threesome – Castle, a Motorola SCR-300, and Lucky Strikes cigarettes. Cigarettes were a fixture in classic movies, especially WWII movies. It seems anachronistic to feature them in a 21^st Century war movie. And especially odd to feature a specific brand. I did some research and found out Lucky Strikes were one of ten brands (the two others I recognized were Camels and Chesterfields). Before you sniff at this, it turns out the cigarettes play a major role in the plot, albeit a silly one. The cigarettes are in the plot for a twist. The Motorola SCR-100 is in it for the adulation. It was a back-pack style radio with a telephone-style receiver. The movie is meant to give credit to the walkie-talkie (it was the first radio to be called that), but I did not pick up on that since all the radio does is tell Castle to make it on his own. 

            “Lucky Strike” leads with the tried and truthy “inspired by a true story”. As in, there WAS a Battle of the Bulge and there WERE soldiers in it. Several of the vignettes are laughable if you have seen a lot of war movies. I won’t give away those highlights, but you’ll know them when you see them. It was heavily researched by its technical advisor, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He apparently insisted there be snow. However, he had less success on insisting on realism. Could an American soldier drive a German tank? Possibly. Would a soldier in a low budget action film be able to? Of course!

            Eastwood was probably paid more than half the budget, but the movie does not look cheap. The German vehicles will pass muster for all but the most fanatical rivet-counters. There is a column of tanks that does not look CGI. The cinematography is fine. The music does not bombast. And the dialogue is satisfactorily bland. That all spells an average movie. You’ll enjoy it if you don’t want above average. And you don’t have a reaction to Lucky Strike cigarettes. I’m not easily influenced, but I did stop at the concession stand on the way out to ask for a pack of Lucky Strikes. They didn’t have any. Poor marketing.

GRADE = C-

Spoiler alert: I researched the crucial plot point that G.I.s would always light their Lucky Strike from the side with the label. You didn’t want to let the Germans know the campsite was American. My research found that this was one version of the Lucky Strike story. G.I.s would open a pack and immediately turn all the butts around except one.  Thus they lit the label end first to burn it away. They left the last one with the label at the other end as a “give me the luck to get to this one, oh great god of cigarettes.” Another version was they did this just to remind themselves when they got to the last one. If you made it, you had survived for that one pack o time. And later died in bed of lung cancer. 

           

 

Heroes from Another Country (1998)

            “Heroes de Otra Patria” is Puerto Rican movie written and directed by Ivan Daniel Ortiz. It was Puerto Rico’s submission for the Best Foreign Film Oscar at the Academy Awards, but did not make the cut.  The movie follows Carlos (Jorge Castillo) and Raul (Jimmy Navarro) on a mission in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the film cuts back to families in Puerto Rico.  Carlos’ mother and sister face eviction. This is meant to be comparable to the buddies being lost in the jungle after their squad runs into an ambush. There’s a lot of walking and talking in this movie. I counted 13 dialogue scenes.

            The film is very low budget and it shows. Sincerity can not make up for that handicap. Ortiz wanted the movie to be a tribute to Puerto Rican soldiers in Vietnam. They certainly deserve the recognition. Oddly, that tribute is out of sorts with the overall tone of the film that sends the message that Puerto Rico’s involvement in the war was a  mistake. It does seem a little weird that he chose to describe Puerto Rico as another country. Besides the low budget, the movie gives the impression that the actors did not rehearse and every scene was one take. The two leads are fairly decent actors, but the rest of the cast is amateurish. They look like actors playing soldier. The movie does not have an authentic feel to it.

            The movie is too talkie. It has a very high percentage of dialogue and very little combat. That might be a good idea because the action is laughable. The men have no noise discipline. They are just stumbling in the jungle and the mission is unclear. The hand-held gets too close to the men. It is clear that they are not in a jungle environment.

            I could be snarky and say that “Heroes of Another Land” is the best Puerto Rican movie about the Vietnam War, but I won’t because the film was made for a good reason. The attempt to mesh the home front problems with those of the men was well-intentioned. It just doesn’t make for compelling cinema.

GRADE  =  D-

Pressure (2026)

 

 

            “Pressure” is the heavily promoted new WWII movie. The title has a dual meaning. It refers to barometric pressure that is used to predict the weather and to the pressure Eisenhower and his chiefs were under during the last days leading up to D-Day. The movie was directed by Anthony Maras. The source material is the 2014 play by David Haig. Haig and Maras wrote the screenplay. Brendan Frazer read several Eisenhower biographies to prepare for the role and got his head shaved. In a major coincidence, a grandson of James Stagg was hired as an assistant editor to help go through 46 hours of archival footage.

            The movie covers the last 72 hours before the planned Operation Overlord landing scheduled for June 5, 1944. It leads with the aftermath of Exercise Tiger. This was a practice landing involving American troops landing on a beach in northern Great Britain that was similar to the Normandy beaches. Hundreds of G.I.s were killed by friendly artillery fire due to a communications error. The incident highlights the unpredictability of any military endeavor. SNAFU is not mentioned, but it applies here. Eisenhower is angered by the disaster, but also is reminded about how stressful future decisions will be. Into the tension filled Allied headquarters comes James Stagg (Andrew Scott). He has been sent to take over as chief meteorologist. Stagg is a brilliant scientist, but he has a dour personality. He immediately ruffles feathers with the American team which is headed by Irving Krick (Chris Messina). Krick uses past weather charts to predict future conditions based on similar situations. Stagg is dismissive of this approach and uses weather information from weather balloons and other data to determine his forecasts. Krick insists June 5 will be warm and clear. Stagg believes the opposite. He deflates Eisenhower and his chiefs (including the very skeptical Montgomery (Damian Lewis)) by recommending the invasion be postponed to June 19. Ike has a tough decision to make because the forces are primed for June 5 and maintaining the secret landings for two more weeks is daunting.

 

            The movie focuses on the relations between Ike, Stagg, Krick, and Kaye Summersby (Kerry Condon). Summersby is Ike’s assistant and therapist. The latter role she assumes with Stagg who has the added pressure of a very pregnant wife who he cannot contact for security reasons. The actors are great and get their characters right, as well as looking like them. ( Not that that is important.) Credit to the casting director. The plot throws in Montgomery for added dysfunction. In spite of the film being a joint French/British production, the movie gives us the obnoxious Monty seen in movies like “Patton”. He doesn’t care what the weather will be like on June 5 and tells Stagg to get with the optimists. He accuses Stagg of losing his damned mind. This Monty will surely be a crowd-pleaser in American theaters.

            “Pressure” is based on a play, but it does not have a stage-bound look. Most of it takes place in Southwicke House, but it is not claustrophobic. It is, of course, dialogue-driven. This is not a negative as it crackles. Ike can be volatile, Monty is pompous, Stagg is uncompromising, Krick is egotistical, and Kaye is empathetic. It’s a nice mixture. 

            Is a movie about weather forecasting entertaining? Surprisingly, yes. In one moment aimed at the viewer, Kaye tells Stagg that weathermen can be boring. Stagg gives a great defense of his profession. And this exchange will go well with modern meteorologists, especially since Stagg is going to become the most famous meteorologist in history because of this movie. I do envy viewers who need spoiler alerts because they know little about the role weather played in D-Day. War movie lovers know the basics from “The Longest Day”, but “Pressure” fleshes out that small part of the movie in a satisfying way. I have to admit I was skeptical whether a full movie could be made about it. It turns out there was enough drama to make an entertaining film.

            “Pressure” is the type of war movie that as I was taking notes I ended up with a number of plot points that I questioned the veracity of. Upon research, I feel the movie gets a B for accuracy. The biggest complaint I have is that in order to make Stagg the hero, the movie writes out the member of his team that actually predicted the poor weather and the window of acceptable weather. That man was a Norwegian named Sverre Petterssen. The conflict was actually between him and Krick with Stagg siding with Petterssen. Most of the inaccuracies involve acceptable artistic license. For instance, the relationship between Summersby and Stagg is overblown. However, the antagonism between Stagg and Krick is spot on until a cinematic reconciliation. Speaking of which, the last act is weak as the coverage of June 6 goes off the rails too much. War movie lovers will be perturbed by the use of footage of paratroopers landing in daylight! The movie leaves the compound for a shaky rendering of Omaha beach. It was a play after all.

            I recommend it and commend it for being aimed at a diverse audience that includes women and the young who don’t have any idea of the role weather played in a decisive moment in history. There is a huge “what if?” covered in this movie. What if Ike had listened to Krick? OMG

GRADE = B+

WWII with Tom Hanks (2026)

 

            The History Channel has returned to its roots when it was the Hitler Channel. It took Tom Hanks to convince the bosses to carve out some time between programs like Pawn Stars and Ancient Aliens. It will be 20 episodes and promises to be all encompassing. Here’s what the first episode tells us about the series.

            The first episode is entitled “The Beginning”. It starts with a “graphic images” warning, but few people watching it will be traumatized by what appeared in episode one. The series will undoubtedly show quite a few dead bodies, but it will be more traumatizing to be reminded how bad some humans can be to other humans. There is a good short introduction by Hanks and he serves as the narrator for the series. (He narrates the great film at the WWII Museum in New Orleans.) For those not aware of it, the actor has history cred. And not just because he has starred in some good to great WWII movies. But he is not just an actor. He was very hands-on for “Band of Brothers” and significantly did not take a role. I trust him.

            Hanks is not one of the talking heads. Those consist of mostly college professors, probably because they are used to lecturing students, as opposed to historians whose main talent is writing. (I bet the vetting of the experts included what percentage of their students fall asleep in class.) Not surprisingly, the experts are not just white males. Please don’t assume this makes the series “woke”. I did not notice anything in the first episode that would indicate the series has a liberal agenda. Unless you consider portraying both Hitler and Stalin as evil to be “woke”. (If so, stop reading this and go f*** yourself.) There are some historians of note, including Jon Meacham and Anthony Beevor. I have read extensively on the war and taught it for decades, so I can vouch for the accuracy of what episode 1 covers. There were only a few things I had never read about, so that’s a credit to it.

            The episode begins oddly with the invasion of Poland. I assume that was to get explosions in early to keep the audience from leaving. Thankfully, after that taste, it flashes back to the Versailles Conference and gives background leading to the invasion. However, it is just a cursory look at events leading to the start of the war. In a series that has 20 episodes, I would think it would have allowed for a whole first episode dedicated to how we got to Poland. The invasion of Poland should have been episode 2, but you can’t have a whole first episode with no shots fired. Hitler gets some biographical coverage, but there is no mention of the Reichstag Fire. The audience is left with little understanding of how he came to power. Although I assume there will be an episode on the Holocaust, the series does not wait for that to begin coverage of the mistreatment of the Jews. The SS and the Einsatzgruppen are introduced. And so are the NKVD as the series is not going to play nice with Stalin. The Katyn massacre is mentioned. The episode concludes with the bombing of Warsaw. Oddly, there is no mention of blitzkrieg. The series is not going to be a treat for hard core military history buffs.           

            The obvious comparison would be to the “World at War” series. Since that was my generations gold standard, “WWII with Tom Hanks” clearly hopes to be the 21^st Century equivalent. It actually has more in common in format to Ken Burns’ Civil War and American Revolution series. It compares well to them and benefits from the massive amount of footage. Any topic the talking heads want to talk about has visuals to match. Fans of “World at War” might find the colorized pictures jarring, but the History Channel has prepared us for the colorization of the war. However, for this series, the decision was made to use colorized photos, but not footage. And the decision was made to forego the docudrama approach. I just finished watching the excellent docudrama “Soviet Storm” about the Great Patriotic War and it is superior to this series, if you want a heavy dose of strategy and tactics. For your average viewer, the History Channel made the right decision on format.

            I am happy to report that my fear of it being pop history was unfounded. Although the very first expert is a podcaster (Dan Carlin of Hardcore History, wearing a baseball cap), the series does not try to sensationalize the war. It does skip boring stuff and concentrate on the greatest hits. For instance, in the second episode, which covers the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain, there is a long segment on Dunkirk and little about Norway. Based on the first three episodes, it appears the series will have problems with running out of time to cover the episode’s topic and has no interest in carrying on in the next episode. It just moves on to Operation Barbarossa in episode 3. Speaking of which, that episode gets all the way to the Battle of Moscow.

            Overall, I recommend the series and I am looking forward to watching it. None of my red flags were confirmed. I was worried about the lack of maps, but there are seven in the first episode and they are animated. I can’t be too hard on the History Channel because I don’t want to discourage it from airing history. I do believe in redemption and I encourage the executives to try to get into Heaven. Clearly they are concerned because this same week they are starting a series on the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. You go months of nonstop reality shows and then two history series in the same week?! I’ll take it. This is what DVRs were made for.

GRADE =  A-