This being my 200th post I thought I would revisit my first and edit it to reflect where I have ended up.
MISSION:The mission I have undertaken is to watch and critique each
of the films on Military History magazine’s list of the “100 Greatest War
Movies” in reverse order.I hope to
watch one movie each week which means this project will take about two years. Well, maybe not one a week, but I pledge to be consistent and finish someday.
THE LIST:The editors of Military History magazine put together a
diverse panel of experts which included historians and movie critics to
determine the greatest war movies.The
movies that made the list reflect the full spectrum of films that could be
described as war movies.It includes spy
movies, movies set on the home front, and even comedies.“What lifts the films reviewed…at least a cut
above the rest is the revealing light they shed on the paradoxes that shape
human nature…. They take us to places where the reality and unreality of war
intersect.”These qualifications mean
there are some movies on the list that many war movie fans will shake their
heads at.One of my goals as a war movie
buff is to keep an open mind as I review the questionable inclusions on the
list. In other words, I will watch some movies that are not only not war movies but are terrible - all the way to the end.
MY QUALIFICATIONS:I teach Military
History at New Iberia Senior High School. Sadly, the school no longer offers my course. All I have now is this blog.I created the course and used war movies as part of the course.I have always loved military history and have
read extensively in the field, both nonfiction and fiction.I have been watching war movies since I was a
child ( my favorite movie as a boy was “The Great Escape” ).I have also read extensively on the subject
of war films.I have seen an enormous
amount of war movies and had already seen most of the movies on the list.I have the ability to determine what is Hollywood
and what is real history by doing research.
THE FORMAT:I will watch one movie per week (or so) starting with #100 and
working to #1. I am on #34 (with only #37 - "Napoleon" unwatched. Pat on the back)My review will include back-story,
the opening scene, summary, the closing
scene ( spoiler alert! ), and the critique.I will grade the movie on action, acting, accuracy,realism, andplot.Most importantly, I will
weigh in on how accurate the movie is. I
will also include a section entitled “Would Chicks Dig It?” in which I will
suggest whether women would like the film. I will conclude with my opinion on how I would
rate the movie and whether it deserves its spot on the list.I welcome debate.
THE OUTCOME:You and I (actually, just me) will adjust the list so it is the actual 100
greatest war movies of all time. Later I will come up with a new list entitled The 100 Best Movies of All Time.I
mention you because I welcome your input.I also welcome suggestions of what movies did not make the list, but
should have.I will watch these movies
and let you know what I think.
ADDITIONAL FEATURES: I will also be reviewing movies not on the Military History list in the following categories:
CRACKER? - movies that could end up on the 100 Best
SHOULD I READ IT? - foreign films with subtitles
WAR CHICK FLICKS - movies I watch (i.e. sit through) with my wife
BOOK / MOVIE - comparison of books and the movies based on them
CLASSIC OR ANTIQUE? - does an old movie hold up?
FORGOTTEN GEM? - obscure movies
NOW SHOWING - movies I see in the theater
LIVE - movies I review in stream of consciousness
Thanks to all my followers, especially Caroline. Here's to the next 200. I guarantee that will happen. I love this project and I'll never run out of war movies. I'll keep "War Birds" by the Sci-Fi Channel on my DVR just in case.
In 2004,
Oliver Stone released his take on Alexander the Great.Historians and other intelligent people
feared what the “JFK” director might do to another historical topic.It turned out “Alexander” was closer in
integrity to “Born on the Fourth of July”.I would hate to think that was a reason why “Alexander” was a flop.Perhaps people prefer outrageous raping of
history as in “JFK” to bland retelling like in “Alexander”.
The movie opens with a quote
from Vergil – “Fortune favors the bold”.However, the movie makes a stronger case that fortune favors the
sexually dysfunctional.The movie opens
like many a biographical epic by depicting the death of Alexander (Colin
Ferrell), thus preventing the terrible shock to the audience if the hero was to
die at the end.An old man, Alexander’s
friend Ptolemy, narrates from here.We
find out that Alexander was the product of squabbling parents.Philip (Val Kilmer) and Olympias (Angelina
Jolie) are in lust, but definitely not in love.Poor little Alex.On the plus
side, he does have the greatest tutor in history (Aristotle) and the best horse
(Bucephalus).After hitting these three
points, the movie suddenly jumps to the final battle with the Persians – the
Battle of Gaugamela.Ptolemy uses a map
to get us there, but neglects to mention that two major battles and a famous
siege proceeded Gaugamela.
The Battle of Gaugamela is the
big set piece.It is epic in scale as
seen literally from an eagle eye’s view.The battle is a mixture of accuracy, inaccuracy, and accurate, but wrong
battle. The phalanx (portrayed by 1500 trained Moroccan soldiers) is authentic
as are the weapons and equipment.Philip’s scythed chariots are dealt with tactically using the disputed
“mousetrap” tactic.The movie shifts
from right, center, to left so it can be confusing,especially for a battle that is confusing
even for military historians.There is a
lot of “fog of war” here, or I should say “dust of war”.Alexander experts will sniff that he did not
fight on foot, his life was not saved at this battle by Cleitus (that was
Granicus), Alexander does not throw a spear at Darius III, and Darius escaped
on a horse instead of a chariot (that was Issus).Still, its an acceptable rendering of a
complicated battle.
From this peak the movie grinds
to a halt in Babylon with a lengthy discussion between Alexander and his more
than BFF Hephaestion (Jared Leto).Hephaestion is less than thrilled when his boyfriend marries a
seductress named Roxana.The movie has
Roxane working hard to kindle Alexander’s heterosexual urges when the reality
was that Alexander was more asexual than anything else and lost interest in
Roxane soon after the marriage.She was
more of sad lamb than the determined tigress of the film.
At this point, Stone jettisons
the linear structure and begins to bounce around hitting some of the greatest
hits of Alexander lore.We get hits
like:the executions of Philotas and
Parmenion, Philip’s wedding banquet, and the killing of Cleitus.All of them are admirably accurate.
This leads up to the other big
set piece battle which is not identified but is obviously the Battle of
Hydaspes in India.For some reason
(probably to contrast with Gaugamela’s dusty plains), Stone stages this in
ajungle instead of on open ground along
a river.This is not the only dubious
decision.The elephant charge on the
phalanx is well done.The combat is
frenetic and chaotic.Alexander leads
the cavalry to the rescue when in reality the elephant-fearing horses had to be
rescued by the steady foot soldiers.The
cinematography is blood tinged and the action is surrealistic.The climax is Alexander’s duel with an
elephant which results in his and Bucephalus being wounded.In reality, Alexander took an arrow during a
later siege and he did not agree to return to Babylon because of the close call
with death.The movie concludes with
Alexander’s death.
The movie did not deserve the
critical beating it took.Some of that
was probably residual animosity towards the pompous Oliver Stone who is
actually pretty restrained here.The
task he undertook was daunting.Alexander deserves a mini-series instead of a greatest hits
montage.And by the way, who chose to
leave out the “Gordian knot” episode?The movie is flawed because of the overemphasis on Alexander’s
sexuality, something that would have puzzled Alexander and the Macedonians in
general.The screen time given to Roxane
and Olympias is overblown as are their depictions.Obviously Stone forced Angelina Jolie into
more than was justified (especially considering she stayed clothed).
The all-star cast is a
disappointment.Colin Ferrell is not up
to the task of portraying one of the most charismatic figures in history.The best comparison would be to Brad Pitt in
“Troy”.Pitt was much better in playing
a similar personality.Val Kilmer and
Angelina Jolie are almost stunt casting.The sets (especially the palace in Babylon) are awesome and the costumes
match them.The score was
forgettable.The action is epic, but
there is also a lot of exposition and soap operaish moments.
Cracker?Sorry, no.Alexander is still awaiting a great movie.
Rating - 6/10
POSTER - It does have some of the main characters featured prominently and Ferrell mimics the side profile that Alexander favored. It's a bit busy though and some of the peripherals are unclear. It does refelct the movie fairly well. Grade - B
BACK-STORY:“Battleground” was the first significant WWII movie to come
out after the war and it proved there was still an audience for war films
provided they were excellent and realistic.The film wisely avoided the flag-waving of pictures made during the
war.Because of the timing and the
grittiness, the studio was skeptical about its potential and it almost was not
made.The suits proved wrong as the
movie was a huge hit and is now considered a classic.It was released in 1949 and directed by
William Wellman (“Wings”, “The Story of G.I. Joe”).Robert Pirosh based the script on his own
experiences in the Battle of the Bulge.Twenty
members of the 101st Airborne were used as extras. They were put through acting boot camp. The film won Oscars for Cinematography and Original Screenplay (Pirosh). It was nominated for Picture, Director, Editing, and Supporting Actor (James Whitmore).
OPENING:A crawl quotes a German general in stating that Bastogne has
to be taken for the German offensive to proceed.This is the story of the “Battered Bastards
of Bastogne”.That story begins in an
Army camp somewhere in France in December, 1944.A replacement named Layton (Marshall
Thompson) is thrust into a tent full of veterans.This will be a small unit movie.The unit is the typical mix of heterogeneous
Hollywood soldiers:the intellectual
(Jarvess), the ladies’ man (Holley), the hick (Abner), the old dude (Pop), the
Hispanic (Rodrigues), the malingerer (Kippton), the newbie (Layton), and the
gruff sergeant (Kinnie).Surprisingly,
no one is from Brooklyn.
SUMMARY:The members of I Company are looking forward to leave in
Paris.They are just as surprised as
Eisenhower when the party-pooping Germans launch their offensive in the
Ardennes Forest.They pile into a trucks
grumbling.“We get all the dirty
details”.It really sucks for Pop
(George Murphy) who is scheduled to go home.He is joined in dead meat land by the guy who showed the picture of his
wife and kids (Hanson).On the way to
Bastogne, they spent the night in the home of a buxom Belgium named Denise
(Denise Darcel).“Hubba, hubba” resounds
through the theater.Holley hits on her,
naturally. Will the movie overcome this forced attempt at sex appeal?
Before leaving the town, the
paratroopers have their obligatory encounter with demoralized retreating
Americans.The movie now adds “who will
survive?” as a theme.When they reach
the outskirts of Bastogne, they are ordered to dig in.Before finishing their fox holes, they are
ordered to move and dig in again.This
is the Army, after all.Soon the snow
comes.Rodrigues (Ricardo Montalban) is from
California and is thrilled to see his first snowfall.There is a brief, but realistic
bombardment.You can compare this to the
effects in the “Band of Brothers” Battle of the Bulge episodes to see how far
effects have come.People sitting in a
1949 theater would have crapped in their pants.One of the group, Bettis (Richard Jaekel), runs away and gets a cushy job
in Bastogne slinging hash.By now Layton
has taken up smoking – Hollywood’s symbol of coming of age.
A patrol is sent out and
Rodrigues is wounded.They are forced to
leave him hidden in a snow fort under a wrecked jeep.Wouldn’t it be ironic if he freezes to death
in the wonderful snow?The surviving
members of the unit are now guarding a railroad line when they come under
attack.Holley, who is now in command,
panics and runs but comes to his senses and sets up a flanking attack that gets
pay back for the whittling down of the unit.The fire fight is intense, but brief and the Germans give up too easily.
The next scene is in the
appropriately rubbleized Bastogne.There
is a ridiculous (but mercifully short) reunion with Chesty McBelgian that is used
to show that Layton is not only a smoking veteran, but a “playa” as well.If you’ve seen the “Bastogne” episode of
“Band of Brothers”, you can guess what happens to the only female character.
This being a movie about the
Battle of the Bulge, the “Nuts” Reenactment Requirement Act of 1945 comes into
play as the required reenactment of McAuliffe’s famous quote is thrown in.The producers also complied with the
amendment to the act which requires appearance of the Germans disguised as
Americans causing trouble behind the lines.The Germans drop propaganda leaflets similar to those dropped in “Pork
Chop Hill”.Give up and get hot chow! Alas, no appearance by "Axis Sally".
A chaplain conducts a mass for a group of soldiers (including
a black!).You may have heard there are
no atheists in fox holes.The theme of
the sermon is “was this trip necessary?”Answer:yes.Reason:the Nazis started this war and thus we had to fight it to stop
fascism.By the way, it would be better
to stand up to them earlier next time.Do you
hear me, Cold War America? Amen.
Things are getting desperate.Bastogne is bombed to rearrange the rubble and bring the ironic death of
Bettis.The men are down to their last
bullets.It’s beginning to have a Custer
feel when suddenly the sun comes out, immediately followed by the air
force.C-47s air drop supplies.Spam – are you f****** kidding me!Oh, here’s some ammo, too.Now we can counterattack through a montage
using actual footage of Americans kicking ass.
CLOSING:Spoiler alert:we win
the Battle of the Bulge.Our surviving
heroes (including the two dead meat candidates) wearily watch the
reinforcements marching eastward.They
march westward singing about Jody (WWII soldier slang for home front Don Juans)
stealing their girlfriends.This brings
the movie full circle from an earlier scene that seems to have inspired
“Stripes”.
RATINGS:
Acting -8
Action -5
Accuracy -6
Plot -8
Realism -7
Overall -7
WOULD CHICKS DIG
IT?It is a good, old-fashioned war
movie.That might appeal to some
females, but probably they need to be over 50 years old.There is nothing offensive in it, unless you
consider the inclusion of a big-breasted blonde for obvious reasons to be
offensive.The cast is appealing.Thompson and Johnson were the Brad Pitt and
Johnny Depp of that time.Okay, perhaps
that is an exaggeration, but they were leading men and cute.
HISTORICAL
ACCURACY:The movie is not meant to
be about the Battle of the Bulge.It is
instead the story of the soldiers who fought in that battle.In that respect it is accurate.The soldier talk and grumbling is PG-13
authentic.The little touches like
digging a fox hole and then having to move and dig another one are realistic (but certainly not unique to the Battle of the Bulge).
The movie is accurate in the general aspects of the unit's experience in the battle. The 327 Gliderborne Infantry was rushed by truck to Bastogne. It was stationed along the southern perimeter. The German surrender ultimatum did come through its lines and it was a 327th officer who interpreted "Nuts!" to mean "Go to hell!" for the Germans.
The
movie fails as a history lesson when it comes to the battle.The Germans are too passive which results in
a dearth of action.The rare action
scenes are too brief and too pat. In reality the 327th had numerous intense fire fights and serious fighting defending the village of Marvie. They sometimes confronted German tanks, a fact that the movie chooses to overlook.The
movie gives the impression that what the soldiers went through was not nearly
as bad as it actually was.The movie
does accurately reflect the snow and the fear, but not the combat.The movie implies that it was the sun and the
spam drop that caused the Germans to give up.There is no reference to Patton’s army cutting its way through to the
town. Lastly, contrary to the much deserved relief the survivors get at the end, the 327th was sent eastward as part of the American counterattack.
The
appearance of the German commandoes was obligatory because they were a fixture
of the battle,but inaccurate because
they were nowhere near Bastogne.The
“Nuts!” incident is faithfully rendered, however.
A minor
quibble would be with the scene where the men throw away their gas masks as
they enter the battle.That would have
occurred long before.
CRITIQUE:The movie is very entertaining.It achieves its objective of humanizing the
soldiers.The soldier interaction and
talk are the best thing about the movie.What they say and how they react are realistic given the restraints of
1940s movies.None of the main
characters are gung-ho.They complain a
lot.They have a stock phrase – “I’ve
found a home in the Army”.They all have
their moments of human weakness.Several
run away or think about running away at various moments.As Jarvess (John Hodiak) says, “things just
happen and then afterwards you try to figure out why you acted the way you
did.”The unit is slightly dysfunctional,
but they are comrades. This is not "Platoon". It is much closer to "A Walk in the Sun".
The
movie has some themes.One is the fog of
war.Jarvess sums up their involvement
in the biggest battle in American History thusly:“I guarantee my wife knows what’s going on in
the battle.All I know is what’s going on
in the 2nd Squad of the 3rd Platoon of I Company." Veterans watching this movie in the theater must have nodded their heads in agreement. Another theme is the veteranization of Layton, but his taking up smoking and womanizing is too quick (compare this to the more realistic arc of Paul Baumer in "All Quiet on the Western Front").
The
greatest strength of the movie is the actors.The ensemble is very likeable.Several of the main characters have a trait that is endearing.Abner sleeps with his boots off. Kippton clicks his false teeth.(Douglas Fawley lost his teeth to an
explosion on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific.)
The
dialogue stands out as well.Pirosh,
being a veteran, knew how soldiers talked.He obviously had to clean up the language, but he gets the complaining
and humor down pat. There is a cute running gag involving Holley and some eggs that taps into the futility of trying to live a normal life in war.These guys say some
funny things which is appropriate because American soldiers have a reputation
of maintaining their sense of humor in the most trying circumstances.Here is an example:
Holley:Yeah, they really shoulda sent out a bigger
patrol.
Rodrigues: Do you want to goof off? Holley: Who said anything about
goofing off? Rodrigues: Nobody. I'm just
saying, the best way is to tell them you heard voices talking in German. Jarvis: Let's say we heard voices
talking in Japanese and let G-2 figure that out.
By the way, I just watched “MASH”.It also won the Oscar for Best
Screenplay.However, much of the
dialogue in that comedy was improvised by the actors.Although the movie is funny, the funniest
lines are coming from actors trying to be funny.Army doctors in Korea were not that
funny.The “Battleground” actors are
reciting dialogue from a veteran and it sounds more authentic. It's not forced.
The
cinematography also won an Oscar, but the blending in of archival footage is
not seamless.Some of the real footage
is mundane.The producers made the
decision to shoot the movie on a soundstage which is remarkably lifelike, but
still obvious.There is little sound
track which is unusual, but refreshing.
CONCLUSION:“Battleground” is fondly remembered by many war movie
lovers.Some have it in their top
10.Some go so far as to call it
superior to “Saving Private Ryan”.When
it came out in 1949, it certainly deserved the acclaim it received.It’s now sixty years later and I have to say
it is overrated.The action is lacking
and is unrealistic.It has its charms
and is a must see, but does not belong at #36.
POSTER: I am trying out this new feature. I have noticed that with many war movies you can't judge a film by its poster. As a service to my public I will tell you how close the poster is to the actual movie. This one is a howler. First, Denise gets prominent placement in spite of her limited screen time. Also, why is she wearing a ballroom dress? Second, there are no helmet waving charges in the movie. Third, are those two upper guys dancing a jig? Lastly, the tag line of "the guts, gags, and glory of a lot of wonderful guys" is completely off message and must have caused Wellman to vomit. Grade: D
“Tora! Tora! Tora!” is the epic
retelling of the attack on Pearl Harbor told from both points of view.It is from the war epic genre that includes
The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, and Midway .It fits comfortably in that group, but differs from them because it is
less character driven.Of the group it
has the most documentary feel and the most fidelity to historical
accuracy.It also does not have an
all-star cast.
TTT was released in 1970.It was a joint American-Japanese project with
separate directors and production.The
two separate “films” were then intertwined to create the finisled product.The movie bounces back and forth between the
opposing sides seamlessly.The
screenplay was written by two Japanese and an American, The screenplay was based
on the eponymous nonfiction book by Gordan Prange and “The Broken Seal” by
Ladislas Farago.Prange vetted the
script.There were numerous technical
advisors including Japanese who participated in the attack. TTT strives for
authenticity, sometimes at the expense of entertainment.The Japanese dialogue is subtitled which is
helpful in understanding the Japanese psyche.
The early part of the film details
events leading up to the attack.It is
an excellent tutorial on the political and strategic machinations prior to the
attack.One flaw is the lack of a clear
time line for events before Dec. 6.The
movie offers a brass-eye view from the governmental and military levels.The main American characters are Gen. Short (Jason
Robards) and Adm. Kimmel (Martin Balsam).We also get a large dose of Yamamoto, Hull, Stimson, and Nomura.The movie forgoes the grunt level characters
like Duhon (A Bridge Too Far) or Garth (Midway).There are no major fictional characters.
TTT fits in all the “greatest hits”
of the Pearl Harbor story.These
include: the code-breaking effort, the radar pick-up, Taylor and Welch in their
P-40s, the U.S.S. Ward versus the Jap sub, Dorie Miller, the Hull-Nomura interchanges.Any fan of the battle will not be
disappointed.Fans of faux dramatics
will be.This movie is very different
from “Pearl Harbor” in that respect.
,
Dorie Miller
The attack is spectacularly
done.It features real planes.B-17s and P-40s were available and American
planes like T-6s were mocked up to play Zeros.The stunt flying is well done.The dog- fighting acrobatics are commendable, but you do get the fake
looking shots from the front typical for air combat scenes from that era.The attack on Hickam Air Field is noteworthy
as is the explosion of the Arizona.There are plenty of explosions in this movie, but that is appropriate of
course.The movie won the Academy Award
for Best Special Effects.It was a s
good as you could get pre-CGI.
the attack on Hickam Field
TTT resembles "The Longest Day" in its
impartial treatment of both sides.In
fact, it could be argued it may be a bit too sympathetic to the Japanese.The movie was a bigger hit in Japan than in
the U.S. (where it bombed).Contrast
that with “Pearl Harbor”.Another key
theme is the rehabilitation of the reputations of Short and Kimmel who were
made scapegoats in the aftermath of the disaster.The movie makes a strong case for complacency
being the major flaw of the American leadership. not malfeasance.That plus the incredible luck the Japanese
had.
The obvious comparison is to “Pearl
Harbor” and whichever one you prefer tellsa lot about you as a viewer.If
you are like me and prefer accuracy at the expense of entertainment, you would
pick TTT.I have to say that most of my
students would prefer the more splashy (and pompous) PH and would find TTT
boring, especially in the lead-up to the attack.The best thing to do is to watch them as
companion pieces.You can avoid reading
up on the attack if you take that approach.
BACK-STORY:“The Dawn Patrol” (1938) was a remake of a 1930 film and even
uses a lot of the aerial footage from that film.The plot is from the short story “The Flight
Commander” by John Monk Saunders (who also wrote the “Wings” story).It was the third teaming of Basil Rathbone
and Errol Flynn and once again they play antagonists.Rathbone was a decorated WWI veteran and wore
his decorations in the movie.The film
used 17 vintage aircraft (and 15 crashed during production).
OPENING:The 59th Royal Flying Corps squadron is stationed
at a base in France in 1915.Col. Brand
(Rathbone) awaits the return of a flight when he receives a call from
headquarters.Based on his end of the
conversation, Brand is irritable, disillusioned, and insubordinate.You know – a WWI squadron commander.He counts the returning planes – 5 of 7.Brand:“You know what this place is?It’s a slaughterhouse, and I’m the butcher.”
Scott and Courtney
SUMMARY:Two survivors are BFFs Courtney (Flynn) and Scott (David
Niven).Who did we lose?Oh well, let’s get drunk!And let’s sing our favorite song:“Hurrah for the Next Man Who Dies”.However, when Courtney meets with Brand he is
livid about Brand sending them on suicide missions.The dude is just doing his job (like Savage
in "Twelve O'Clock High").They both
draw their swords.Oops, wrong movie.
Replacements arrive.Young, enthusiastic, naïve, cannon
fodder.They can’t wait to shoot down
some Heinies.Who needs training?On the next mission, Scott is shot down.This time Courtney is not in a partying
mood.His mood changes when the German
who shot down his BFF arrives as a captive and being a fellow knight of the air
and just doing his job, let’s party!Hollister (who also had lost his best friend) accuses Courtney of
crassness and tries to throttle the Hun.Who is behaving more realistically?Scott returns in the middle of the party.Turn it up!
A German plane drops a pair of
boots with a taunting message.Brand
forbids Courtney and Scott to retaliate.Would you believe they disobey him?The raid on Von Richter’s field catches the Germans with their pants
down.You’d be amazed how many
explosions a couple of WWI fighters can create.After numerous strafing passes without a scratch, Courtney gets hit by
ground fire and Scott lands and picks him up.Then Scott gets hit and they crash in “no man’s land”.You know, a typical day.
When they return to base, Brand
is chewing them out when a phone call arrives from a general in a chateau
promoting him due to the success of the raid.As if that is not satisfying enough, he can choose his replacement.He gleefully bumps Courtney up to
most-hated-man-in-the-squadron.See how
you like putting young men in “canvas coffins”.
Courtney quickly learns that
command is a bitch.He’s not the cool
guy anymore.When Scotty’s kid brother
Donnie arrives as a typical gung-ho replacement, Courtney has to treat him like
dead meat like everyone else.Scott
breaks their friendship over Courtney not showing favoritism toward his
brother.Courtney is now Brand, how
ironic.
On the next mission, Scott
watches Von Richter shoot down Donnie.Scott, who apparently is clueless about the dynamics of the war, calls
Courtney a “butcher” and claims he killed Donnie.Courtney points out accurately that it is a
“rotten war”.
Brand arrives with a big ole
smile on his face.The brass wants a
suicide attack by one plane (?) on an ammo dump.Scott volunteers, naturally.Suddenly, Scott and Courtney are
reconciled.While Scotty catches some
winks, guess who abandons his command responsibilities to steal the mission?
CLOSING:Unfortunately for Courtney’s life expectancy, the entire
German army is ready for him.He drops a
bomb on a train and blows it up.That’s
accurate for a fighter pilot!Would you
believe there are numerous explosions when he bombs the ammo depot?I’m pretty sure he drops more bombs than his
plane carries.It’s dogfight time as Von
Richter (boo! hiss!) arrives.Courtney
shoots down the not-the-Red-Baron, but is wounded and crashes.Ladies, man your hankies.Guess who is the new squadron commander?New replacements arrive.
RATINGS:
Acting -9
Action – 7
Accuracy – 6
Realism -7
Plot -8
Overall -8
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT?Probably.The cast is
certainly appealing.It is definitely
not graphically violent.However, there
is not a single female character in the movie.
HISTORICAL ACCURACY:The movie does not claim to be based on true events.There was a 59th Squadron, but it
was a reconnaissance unit and it did not arrive at the front until 1917.The incident where Scott and Courtneyattack the aerodrome is similar to the great
Billy Bishop’s Victoria Cross exploit.The nature of air combat is realistically portrayed.Life expectancy was definitely low,
especially for the new guys.Based on my
knowledge of WWI in the air, it seems that the scenarios and vibe would be
better placed later than 1915.The main
problem with accuracy in the movie is the fact that the producers believe a
fighter plane is the same thing as a bomber.This seems to be a common misconception in WWI movies.And some WWII movies, witness fighter jocks
Rafe and Danny participating in the Doolittle Raid.
The movie holds up well.Mush better than many old WWI movies.The acting is outstanding.Flynn and Rathbone were at the peak of their
careers and Niven considered it the movie that gave his career a boost. With
that said, his Scott’s reaction to his brother’s death did not ring true.He would have known to blame the brass, not
Courtney.I especially liked Rathbone’s
portrayal of the tormented Brand.His
change of personality when he no longer had to make life or death decisions was
fun to watch.
The cinematography is
eye-opening.The aerial scenes are well
done although you have to give a lot of credit to the earlier film.The vintage aircraft are obviously superior
to modern CGI.The air combat looks more
realistic than in “Flyboys”, for instance.The close-ups of the pilots are too clearly filmed in front of a screen,
but this was common back then.The sound
is excellent.The special effects (e.g.,
the explosions) are good for that era.However, I have to say that the small bombs used in the film result in
exaggerated explosions.
The script and dialogue are
good, but the movie is a bit predictable.Courtney’s promotion and Donnie’s death are hardly surprises.There are several scenes that strain
credulity (e.g., the crash in “no man’s land”), but nothing that is LOL.The movie is commendably anti-war and not
propagandistic.You have to admire the
cynicism of a movie made with the U.S. moving closer to involvement in
WWII.At one point, Courtney describes
the war as “a great big noisy rather stupid game that doesn’t make any sense at
all.None of us know what its all about
and why.Here we are going about it with
hammer and tongs and I bet those fellows over there feel the same way.”The treatment of the captured German pilot
indicates this.One wonders if the movie
was made two years later, whether the movie could have had that camaraderie.
CONCLUSION:“The Dawn Patrol” deserves its place on the list because not
only is it an important film which created several air combat conventions,
but because it is simply a good movie.Some of the other movies that made Military History’s 100 Greatest list
are important films (e.g., “The General”), but they are just not good movies.“The Dawn Patrol” manages to influence future
movies and fit comfortably into that future.
“The Eagle
Has Landed” is an action/adventure war movie released in 1976 It is firmly in the suicide mission subgenre.It was directed by John Sturges ("The Great Escape") and was his last film.It is
based on the novel by Jack Higgins. It
opens with a reference to Otto Skorzeny’s daring rescue of Mussolini from
captivity.This inspires Hitler to try
to capture “his greatest enemy” – Churchill.
The head of military
intelligence, Admiral Canaris (Anthony Quayle), is assigned the task of
implementing Hitler’s dream.He meets
with an officer named Radl (Robert Duvall), but denigrates the whole fantasy
and wants to just go through the motions.However, Himmler (Donald Pleasence) gets involved and green-lights the
project.Radl warms to the possibilities
when information arrives that Churchill will be visiting an isolated British
village.Radl chooses a decorated war
hero named Steiner (Michael Caine) to lead the mission.
Steiner does not like Nazis
We meet Steiner (the same
Steiner who appears in "Cross of Iron") as he bucks authority by trying to save
a Jewish woman from the S.S.Steiner is
insubordinate, anti-Nazi, anti-brass, cynical, and worshiped by his men.He ends up getting court-martialed and he and
his men are sent to a penal colony.Similar to the plot of “The Dirty Dozen”, they are promised forgiveness
if they undertake the suicide mission.Radl also recruits an IRA operative named Devlin (Donald Sutherland) to
participate.He considers himself an
Irish patriot, not a traitor.
Devlin goes on ahead and makes
contact with a sleeper agent, a woman named Gray.He also meets and charms a lass named Molly
(Jenny Agutter) who inexplicably falls so hard and so quickly that she kills
her beau when he is going to rat out Devlin.Granted, he was a lummox, but her treason for love is a bit too pat.
Steiner and his men parachute into England
dressed as Polish soldiers.The sleepy
villagers are welcoming and then grateful when one of the Germans saves the
life of a local girl.Unfortunately, the
gratefulness is short-lived as the incident results in discovery of their true
identities.The populace is quickly
rounded up and held hostage in the local church.One of the townspeople manages to escape and
goes up the road to inform an American Rangers unit led by a buffoonish Colonel
Pitt (Larry Hagman)His daddy must be a
general.He looks at the situation as a
chance for glory and disregards the sane Capt. Clark’s (Treat Williams) advice
to go slow.
a bazooka in a cemetery - shame
Pitt does his Custer imitation
resulting in a nicely staged fire-fight that features graphic wounds and lots
of fireworks including some nifty bazooka work.It’s a disaster and Pitt can’t even defeat Mrs. Gray.His encounter with the spy has a twisted
ending that almost compensates for the tomfoolery.
Capt. Clark arrives with
reinforcements and a brain, so now the German’s are trapped with the hostages
in the church.Steiner, being a human
being, not a Nazi, releases the hostages.Molly shows him a secret passage out of the church so he can go kill
Churchill (the things a British girl will do for an Irish spy she just
met).Steiner’s crew offer to stay
behind to delay the Rangers and provide us with more violence.Devlin also escapes.
the last thing Churchill saw?
Steiner, now disguised as an
American, manages to get to Churchill.Does he win the war for Germany?Hey, if the Inglorious Basterds can kill Hitler, why not?
“The Eagle Has Landed” is not on
a level with “Guns of Navarone” or “Where Eagles Dare”.It is even more implausible than most of the
suicide mission subgenre.The romance
that is thrown in is ridiculous as well.The acting is a strength.Caine
ably fills James Coburn’s shoes as Steiner.He has a lot of charisma and it is easy to see why his superiors are
enraged by him and his subordinates are willing to die for him.Paired with “Cross of Iron”, Steiner is one
of the great anti-heroes of war movies.Quayle is good as Canaris and accurately portrays his disgust with Nazi
schemes.Although the movie is pure
imagination, Canaris was a leading figure in the resistance against Hitler and
even collaborated with the Allies.His
involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler cost him his life.Devlin is a nice addition and offers a
different perspective.Sutherland plays
him as a charming rogue.The one false note
is Hagman as Pitt.The sudden injection
of comic relief is a bit jarring in an otherwise serious movie.
The movie was filmed in an
English village, so the setting is picturesque.The action set pieces are well done, but too brief.The weapons appear authentic except the bazooka is a later model..The score is typical for this type of
movie.It is satisfactory, but does not
stand out like in “Where Eagles Dare”.The intrigue is also inferior to WED.It lacks real suspense.You know
Steiner will not hurt the hostages, for instance.One questionable element is the introduction
of American Rangers into a story that should have been limited to Germans and
British.This seems to be a marketing
decision to help with the box office.It
is reminiscent of Sturges’ “The Great Escape” where three Americans characters
were inaccurately added.Can’t the
British defend their own Prime Minister?I suspect American’s would have been upset if a plot against FDR was
foiled by British forces.
In conclusion, "The Eagle Has Landed" is entertaining, but certainly not one of the 100 Best War Movies. Kurt Steiner will have to be content with his "Cross of Iron" making the list. But then again, he probably would not give a damn about such a list.
Rating
-6/10
Here is my
updated ranking of the great suicide mission movies:
_03.jpg)
_02.jpg)
