JOHN CARTER (2012)

                   This is the latest in my series of reviews of movies based on books by Edgar Rice Burroughs and their comparison to the book.  “John Carter” (originally intended to be entitled “John Carter on Mars” until Disney ludicrously decided Mars in the title would turn off females) was the culmination of decades of interest in filming “A Princess of Mars” which was published in 1917.  The novel was the compilation of a series that ran in a pulp magazine named The All-Story in 1912 under the title “Under the Moons of Mars”.  Burroughs wrote the series under the pseudonym  Normal (accidentally changed to Norman) Bean (“normal human being”) because he was worried readers would find it silly.  In the 1930’s, Disney took a run at an animated version, but early samples were greeted with less than enthusiasm by theater owners.  Other attempts also fell through until Andrew Stanton took an interest in the project.  He had the cachet from having directed “Wall-E” and “Finding Nemo”, but had never directed a live-action film.  He was given a huge budget that reached $263 million, although Disney was skeptical from the start.  It had good reason to be.  The.movie was a huge bomb (although it did well in Russia). 

               The movie begins with a narrator giving background about conditions on Mars (Barsoom).  The planet is dying.  There are two rival cities.  Helium is the center of science and civilization.  Zodanga is intent on planetary dominance.  The uneasy balance is about to be broken because the leader of Zodanga, Sab Than (Dominic West), has been given a super weapon by a mysterious group of godlike men called Therns led by Matai Shang (Mark Strong).  Mars is going to need a savior.  Cut to New York City in 1881.  John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) has recently died and has left his journal to his nephew, Edgar Rice Burroughs.  The journal launches the flashback to how Carter ended up on Mars.

               Carter is a Civil War veteran in the West.  He is obsessed with finding gold.  When he escapes from being conscripted into the cavalry, he takes refuge in a cave and is attacked by a Thern.  Suddenly, he finds himself on Mars where the low gravity and his denser bones gives him great strength and the ability to leap far distances.  He is captured by green Martians called Tharks.  However, his special powers allow him to escape and he gains the respect of the Tharks.  He befriends the chief’s daughter Sola and acquires a “dog” because this is a Disney movie.  He manages to rescue the Princess Dejah of Helium (Lynn Collins).  They undertake a journey down a river to try to get him back to Earth.  Carter and Dejah don’t get along at first, so you can guess where their relationship is heading.  This will become awkward because Dejah is supposed to marry Sab to bring peace to the cities.  (Think “Princess Bride”.)     The movie is careening to a big set piece battle between Zadonga and Helium, with the Tharks siding with Helium.  Supervillain Shang is around to cause trouble.

               “John Carter” did not deserve the ridicule it got from the critics.  It is not a great movie, but it is also not a disaster.  If you did not have money invested in Disney, you might marvel at the special effects.  The huge budget shows.  The film is gorgeous.  The CGI is amazing and even the multi-limbed Tharks look real.  Unfortunately, the technology allows for the hordeish melees typical of modern battle scenes.  For instance, at one point, John Carter defeats an entire army of Green Martians, by himself.  The hyperbole of Carter’s prowess can be blamed both on Burrough’s imagination and modern cinemas penchant for overdoing every action scene.  While the land battles tend to be messy, the air battles are cool.  The airships are similar to Roman galleys and tactics include boarding.  They look like what a fantasy writer might have envisioned was the future of warfare. 

               Part of the reason for the failure of the movie at the box office must have been the lack of living Burroughs fans who would have flocked to see their muse’s imagination brought to the screen.  To everyone else, the pulpy nature of the story might seem quaint.  The story requires a love for the fantastic as opposed to the logical.  There are plenty of threads to be pulled at if you are of a mind.  For example, the objective of the Therns makes little sense.  More specifically, the super weapon should have made all challenges to Zadonga moot.  Setting the movie on Mars did not cut it off from Earthly clichés.  For a fantasy, it is pretty predictable.  Stranger rescues Princess, they fall in love, he wins battles for her.

               Disney assembled a worthy cast to the point where the supporting actors (Mark Strong, Bryan Cranston, Claran Hinds, James Purefoy) could give acting lessons to Kitsch and Collins.  (In my opinion, the movie would have been better if Purefoy had played Carter.)  Whether you are a child or not, Woola steals the show.  The soundtrack by Michael Giacchino lends some class.

               I am going to assume most readers of this are familiar with Burroughs’ novel and prefer it to the movie.  I have a theory that a movie should be able to exceed the source novel for entertainment value.  The screenwriters (Stanton, Mark Andrews, and Michael Chabon) did what they thought was right to update the story for a modern audience.  It is clear, they did not use Burroughs fans as a test audience.  Substantial changes were made to the narrative and to the characters.  They decided to make Carter a typical modern anti-hero.  He is not the knight of the book.  He is reluctant to get involved and is focused on getting home until he falls in love with Dejah.  He fights for no one until he fights for someone.  And he’s a dick, until his innate humanity comes out.  He is damaged goods as the movie gives him a back-story involving his family.  As far as Dejah, clearly you don’t attract females with a heroine who is a damsel in need of rescuing.  Watch any recent Disney animated movie.  Dejah is both a scientist and a kick-ass warrior.  In the book, she agrees to the marriage for the good of her city. In the movie, she selfishly refuses to get married.  The rest of the characters are essentially the same, with the exception of Shang, who does not appear in the first book.  The movie loses Tars Tarka’s back-story and omits most of his heroism.  Carter sucks up most of this.  On the other hand, Sab is bumped up to Lex Luther status.             

               The screenwriters decided that Carter would logically be focused on returning to Earth because so would the audience.  In the book, he assimilates enthusiastically into Martian culture.  He learns the language, but not via a ludicrous potion device. The book reads like a travelogue and tourist guide in parts.  Hell, there is a chapter on Martian sex!  The movie Carter is your standard fish out of water.

               The writers added elements so the movie could join the action/adventure club.  The movie adds the medallion as a McGuffin because Carter must have a way to get back to Earth.  (The book Carter is content with life on Mars because he has been reborn there.)  The villain is given tattoos and a super weapon.  Carter is not the virtuous knight of the book, but this makes him more interesting, if stereotypical.  He does not win all his fights easily, like in the book.  His arc with Dejah is also tropeish, but an improvement over the roller-coaster ride of the book.  But the biggest improvement is the movie ditches the racism and sexism of the book.  ERB could be excused for making the Tharks savages in the book because it was the early 20^th Century, but this would not have flown in the 21^st Century.  Finally, excuse the pun, the movie replaces the ridiculous ending of the book with a much better conclusion.

               ERB was wrong about the public finding the serial to be too outlandish when it was published in 1912.  It turned out to be very popular and launched the series of novels.  However, the movie was made one hundred years later and times have changed.  The “improvements” made by the screenwriters were considered necessary to attract a modern audience that grew up with “Star Wars”.  This resulted in a generic action film, but a competently made one that is entertaining.  If you are an ERB purist (which I am not), the changes made dumbed down the movie.  If you are not, the movie improves on some of the novel’s weaknesses.

GRADE  =  C 

DUELING CHRISTMAS WAR MOVIES

 

Christmas Homecoming (2017)

               I have an expansive definition for war movies, so I include military movies in the genre. As you can tell from the title, there is no combat in this movie. And you might guess that it is a Hallmark movie. If you have seen even a few Hallmark Christmas movies, you know the formula that is used. Hallmark does not believe in revisionism. Its huge catalogue of Christmas movies includes few that would be considered very good. They are all comforting and mildly entertaining. And very family friendly. There are over 450 Hallmark Christmas movies so there has to be a few war movies in there.

               Amanda (Julie Benz) is a war widow who is the curator for the town’s war museum. Her husband was killed two years ago, but she still has not recovered completely. She is sour on Christmas and can’t get into the spirit. A wounded Master Sergeant Jim Mullins rents a room from her. Jim is fully into Christmas. Will he melt Amanda’s heart and restore her love of the season? If you don’t know the answer to that question, you have never seen a Hallmark movie or a Hallmark card. By the way, Amanda and Jim send out Hallmark cards in one scene. I would say that is acceptable product placement.

               Would you believe Amanda has a boyfriend? Craig (Toby Levins) has never seen a Hallmark movie so he has no idea that he is heartbreak bait. Because he is your usual clueless beau who is the last person in the cast and all the viewers to know he’s a sap. However, he is Type A of Hallmark jilted third legs which means he takes it well. He is not Type B which is the villainous boyfriend who deserves to be crushed.

               Jim warms up Amanda by being relentlessly giddy about Christmas. He is like a big teddy bear of a kid. “This is going to sound corny, but I believe in the Christmas spirit.” Is this the first time “corny” has been mentioned in a Hallmark Christmas movie? The word would fit every one of them. The one fairly novel element of the plot (but the opposite of novel for a war movie) is that Jim is being torn by his growing affection for Amanda and his affection for his mates. It’s coin toss in war movies whether the character will choose bros over hos. Guess what wins out in this movie. Jim seals the deal and completes his spiritifiction of Amanda by  helping her with a fundraiser to save the museum. He literally outbids Craig for her hand.

               I have seen a few Hallmark Christmas movies (and zero other Hallmark movies) and “Christmas Homecoming” is better than average. The leads are appealing, of course. There is some chemistry. The evolution of their relationship makes sense. You do feel sorry for Craig. He doesn’t deserve the jilting, but he takes it like a man. Plus, Amanda had not committed to him so it’s not like she left him at the altar. The movie is not smarmy. Before you say that it can’t be a war movie just because one of the cast is a veteran, the inclusion of the museum subplot puts it more comfortably in the genre. But feel free to say “bah, humbug” to that.

GRADE  =  C

Operation Christmas (2016)

               “Operation Christmas” is one of the over 450 Hallmark Christmas movies. It is one of a few Hallmark War Christmas movies along with “Operation Christmas Drop” and “Christmas Homecoming”. It should not be confused with the Colombian army’s operation against guerrillas. This is a fictional story of love set in the Christmas season in America.

               Olivia (Tricia Helfer – Cyborg “Number 6” in “Battlestar Galactica”) meets Scott (Marc Blucas – Riley in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) on a ski slope. Scott is an Army sergeant. They are both single. She’s divorced and he’s a widow. But any possibility for romance is ruined by the fact that she is Kings fan and he’s an Islanders fan. (Why didn’t the screenwriters choose a real rivalry like Rangers and Islanders?)  He’s an optimist and she’s a cynic. But wait, this is a Hallmark movie, so there is still hope. And when you factor in their adorable kids becoming friends any doubt is removed.

               Just when things are warming up, prodded by the kids, he is called back to duty right before Christmas and can’t make a date. Naturally, his message does not get to her. She knew Christmas sucks! BUMP #1  Eleven months later, Scott shows up as her liaison for her Toys for Tots drive. This is his first opportunity to explain what happened, charmingly. Apparently, he was so busy killing terrorists that he could not correspond with her to offer numerous apologies. She’s not buying his very late explanation, but she has to work with him. Awkward!  He takes her to church and they have their first kiss. Relationship sailing smoothly, right? BUMP #2 Army life doesn’t fit civilian life very well. There are more bumps to come, but love will conquer. Duh!

               “Operation Christmas” is a typical Hallmark Christmas movie. Or a typical rom-com without the com. It does differ from most Hallmark movies because there is no love triangle. There is no villain. As usual, we have a cynical woman who needs melting. And since this woman is played by Tricia Helfer, there’s your lure, guys. Tell your wife or girlfriend (or both) that you will watch a Hallmark Christmas movie because you love her so  much. And for the females in the audience, you have Marc Blucas. (He also starred in “Holiday for Heroes”.) Call it a tie. And thrown in some cute kids with acting chops who do the matchmaking scheming. Throw in beautiful, very white scenery provided by British Columbia. And add TEN songs. You end up with a nice, comforting Christmas flick.  

GRADE  =  C

The Wereth Eleven (2011)

 

              “The Wereth Eleven” is a docudrama that tells the story of eleven African-American soldiers who were murdered by the SS during the Battle of the Bulge. It uses CGI to recreate some of the incidents and archival footage, including from the Germans. There are also scenes using actors.  One of the unit’s veterans is interviewed as well as a son of one of the eleven and the son of a Belgian family that tried to give them refuge. There is extensive narration.

              The Wereth Eleven were eleven members of the 333^rd Field Artillery Battalion which was overrun on the second day of the battle. Unlike the whites from Battery B of the 285^th Field Artillery Observation Battalion that were taken prisoner that same day at Malmedy and then executed, the members of the 333^rd were taken prisoner and made it to German prison camps. There is a clip from a German propaganda film that includes members of the 333^rd being marched to Germany. The Wereth Eleven members were the exceptions to that because unfortunately they avoided capture at first. I have recently been researching the Battle of the Bulge and ran across this story. The fact that I was not familiar with it shows how unknown the story is. The movie attempts to rectify that and does a good job of it.

Thankfully, the producers decided to go a different route than movies like “Miracle at St. Anna”. Sincere efforts like that are often hurt by poor acting and dialogue. This movie avoids that by using a minimum of recreations and they are not laughable. For instance, the deaths are not the hilarious ones associated with low budget films, and even some big budget ones like “Battle of the Bulge”. The blend of CGI, footage, and real actors works. The narration is often, but adds to the story. The film has time and place for some of the scenes, but maps would have been nice. The interviewees are good and the one veteran of the battalion, George Shomo, is outstanding.

Docudramas do not get the love that some of them deserve. I would rather see a CGI Tiger tank then another tank mocked up as one. It is often the best way to tell a true war story. A good docudrama avoids the historical fiction that creeps in when you have a screenplay, actors, and limited authentic gear, weapons, and vehicles. And it avoids a big problem in low budget WWII films. They often use overage, overweight reenactors. “The Wereth Eleven” uses a trip to the Ardennes by the son of one of the Eleven and an executive producer who is an older white man wearing a uniform. It’s almost as though the movie is asking us, “would you prefer to see this guy acting in the movie?”

What “The Wereth Eleven” does, it does well, but it does not tell the whole story. Clocking in at just over an hour, it could have used more time to flesh out the discrimination the unit faced starting in boot camp and how it earned respect in France. The film briefly mentions an incident when the battalion provided very accurate fire to aid a white unit, but it does not add more depth to their evolution. It also does not do a good job fleshing out the situation they were in during the first half of December in 1944. It uses a postscript to explain the lack of an investigation and the failure to bring anyone to justice for the execution. However, those caveats aside, it does an admirable job of bringing a forgotten story to light.

GRADE =  B

Here is the story I posted about the real Wereth Eleven, don’t read on if you want to avoid spoilers.  THE WERETH 11 -  The 333^rd Field Artillery Battalion was an African-American (“colored”) unit that landed at Utah Beach in July, 1944. It was commanded by Lt. Col. Harmon Kelsey. Kelsey was not happy with the assignment and was sure the unit would never see combat because it was incompetent blacks. He was wrong on both counts. It first saw combat in Normandy when it was tasked with destroying a church steeple that was being used to snipe at 82^nd Airborne paratroopers and for artillery spotting. The men got to work, chanting their unit song – “Stand Back! Ready! Rommel count your men! Fire! Rommel, how many men you got now?”  Within minutes the steeple was destroyed, along with the Germans in it. The unit gradually  gained a reputation for being quicker and more accurate than white artillery units. In the siege of Brest, it fired 1,500 rounds in one day. An article in Yank magazine made the unit famous in the American army. It ended up being assigned to Troy Middleton’s VIII Corps. In the Ardennes, it was located near Schonberg in support of the 2^nd and 106^th Divisions. When the Battle of the Bulge began, Schonberg fell on Dec. 17, 1944. Most of the battalion was taken prisoner. 11 men escaped into the countryside. They tried to make it to American lines. They ended up knocking on the door of the Langer family. The Langers were anti-German in a small community that was mainly pro-German. They were hiding two Belgians escaping German conscription. Unfortunately, one of their neighbors ratted them out and Germans from the 1^st SS Panzer Division arrived and the Americans were take without a fight. They were led to a field where they were tortured, mutilated, and murdered. They were treated much worse than the white soldiers executed at Malmedy.  The culprits were never brought to justice.

Army of Darkness (1992)

               “Army of Darkness” is the third in the Evil Dead series. It was directed, co-written (with his brother), and co-edited by Sam Raimi. In a tonal departure from the previous two films, this one is more of a comedy horror movie. It was a box office disappointment, making only $22 million with a budget of $11 million. It has since gained cult status. Although it got mixed reviews, it did win the Saturn Award for Best Horror Film. It was a weak year for horror films. Raimi’s script drew on a variety of sources for inspiration, like “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”, “Gulliver’s Travels”, and  “Jason and the Argonauts”.

               Ash (Bruce Campbell) is time portaled back to medieval England. He is immediately captured by the army of Lord Arthur (Marcus Gilbert) and is part of a slave march back to the castle. (The march is to music that reminds of the scene in “Ben Hur” when Judah first meets Jesus.)  Ash is thrown into a death pit that evokes the garbage room in “Star Wars”. We meet the first of the cheesy monsters the movie will unapologetically foist on us. Ash is reunited with his chainsaw. And is united with a love interest in the comely Sheila (Embeth Davidtz who won the role over Tuesday Weld). The resident Wise Man tells Ash that for him to be able to return to his own time, he must get a book called the Necronomicon. It’s not going to be easy as the arrogantly IQ-challenged Ash resurrects an evil version of himself and a skeleton army. (The skeleton’s are the Jason homage.) The army of the dead lay siege to the castle and mayhem ensues. Not caring about upseting the time continuum, Ash introduces the knights to dynamite so the movie can have explosions. This builds to the inevitable duel between Ash and Evil Ash.

               If you expect a scarefest similar to “The Evil Dead”, you will be disappointed with the tongue in cheek vibe of this film. But you will not be disappointed if you are a Bruce Campbell fan or a fan of mock horror films. Campbell is clearly having a great time chewing all the scenery. It looks like fun, but parts of the shoot were hard on him. Specifically, the fight scenes against special effects to be created later. Campbell had to memorize the choreography steps. One sequence took 37 takes with Bruce swearing profusely throughout. His friend Sam Raimi enjoyed torturing him. It does not appear that Campbell was tortured by the hammy dialogue. The film is definitely low brow. At least, in this horror movie, the laughs are intentional.

The special effects are from the Ray Harryhausen school of stop animation.  Unlike Jason’s skeleton foes, the skeleton’s in this movie are a variety and bring smiles rather than scares. The long battle is amusing with the choreography surprisingly good. Unlike many horror movies, there is no reason to fear for the protagonist. At least not in the theatrical release. In the original ending, Ash time travels to post-apocalyptic London. The studio deemed this too jarring for audiences. It was probably right.

Is it a war movie? Well, we have an army and a castle siege. Obviously, it is not a documentary on how to capture or defend a castle. Swords clang and battering rams ram, but dynamite arrows blow up skeletons. There is a melee inside the castle that would fit in many medieval warfare movies. If war movies are characterized by unlimited ammunition, then it qualifies. Ash’s two-barrel shotgun makes mockery of that trope. If you want to watch a movie that makes fun of horror movies and war movies, check it out. You can watch it late at night, alone. With your grandkids.

 

GRADE =  B

Six Minutes to Midnight (2020)

  

            “Six Minutes to Midnight” was directed by Andy Goddard. He directed some episodes of “Downton Abbey”. The story was written by Eddie Izzard and Celyn Jones. It made only $2.4 million. The title refers to a code used by the British agent played by Izzard.

            It’s August, 1939 in Great Britain. War is on the horizon. There is a finishing school for girls from Nazi families. A British agent is working undercover as a teacher. When his cover is blown, he tries to alert his handlers, but is killed first. British intelligence replaces him with Capt. Thomas Miller (Izzard). He finds out the German government is planning to bring the girls home. When he tries to pass the news on, a female teacher who is actually a German agent kills his handler and frames him for the murder. Miller goes on the lam. And it’s a race against time before the girls will be flown out secretly, along with the woman agent.

            “Six Minutes to Midnight” has too many contrivancies. More than your typical espionage thriller where the hero is accused of a crime he didn’t commit. It breaks the envelope of realism that these kind of movies have.There are plot developments that make no sense. Why don’t the British want the girls to go back to Germany? Holding them hostage surely would cause the German government to retaliate by holding British citizens caught in Germany when the war begins. Besides, if the Germans send a plane to pick up the girls, isn’t that a warning that war is imminent? Seems like that would come in handy for the British government to know.  There are some interesting plot twists that make it fairly entertaining. Izzard is solid as the protagonist. It was a pet project of his so he gives his all. He wouldn’t be my first choice for a secret agent, but he doesn’t distract. Having Judi Dench as the head of the school adds some gravitas to a film that would be even more of a trifle if not for her.

GRADE  =  C-

Redacted (2007)

 

            “Redacted” was directed and written by Brian De Palma. It’s a companion of his “Casualties of War”. This time the war crime occurs in Iraq. He based his screenplay on the Mahmudiyah killings in Mahmudiyah, Iraq. The movie cost only $5 million to make and it flopped, making only $782,000.

            PFC Salazar (Izzy  Diaz) enlists in the Army with the goal of eventually going to film school. He plans on making a documentary that he hopes will get him into the school. He carries a videocamera when he goes on patrols and other duties. One day when on duty at a checkpoint, Salazar is filming when an Iraqi car comes speeding up to the check point. PFC Flake opens fire, killing the pregnant woman who was being rushed to the hospital by her brother. Flake did not fire any warning shots, but the killing is declared justified by the rules of engagement. Flake shows no remorse, even when interviewed by Salazar for his film. Later, a popular sergeant is killed by an IED which puts the platoon on edge and looking for payback. Flake and another soldier make plans to visit a house where they noticed an attractive teenage girl. Salazar goes along to film even though it is apparent a war crime is likely.

            De Palma’s “Casulties of War” is a good movie with a similar plot about an actual war crime in Vietnam. This movie is nowhere near as good. It lays it on much thicker than the earlier film. De Palma has lost his game. The screenplay is ham-handed and shrill. The acting is amateurish by an unrecognized cast. It is supposed to be all footage from Salazar or a French documentary crew, but clearly some of it is not. So much for the gimmick. The raid is hard to swallow. Salazar comes along to film and Flake allows him to!

            Clearly, De Palma was trying to shine a light on American mistreatment of Iraqi civilians. God knows there was some, so the story is not clearly fictional. However, the execution dilutes the message with overt anti-Americanism. It doesn’t help credibility that the movie ends without a conclusion. It is not a surpise the film made no mark at the box office.

 

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  The actual incident was worse than the film depicted. Flake was based on PFC Steven Green who was just flatout evil. He and four others raped the girl and killed her family. The story was passed on secondhand by a soldier who heard it from a soldier that Green told the story to. In a scene reminiscent of “Casualties of War”, the soldier was reamed by his commanding officer for ratting out other soldiers. He was told to drop it, but didn’t. The five were eventually arrested and all got long prison terms. Green committed suicide in prison.

            De Palma was criticized for depicting American soldiers in a poor light and conservatives encouraged Americans to boycott the film. The movie certainly is not pro-American, but it does not exaggerate what bad soldiers did in Iraq. And it is based on an actual incident. De Palma did not make up the incident. He used it to shine a light on American actions. Were Green and the other four typical? Of course not. But neither were the soldiers in “Casualties of War”. The big mistake De Palma made was not mentioning that justice was served in this case. Unlike in “Casualties”. And he may have had blood on his hands because of that. Because one result was a gunman killed two American soldiers in Frankfurt in 2011. He claimed he was getting revenge for a YouTube video he saw of American soldiers raping a teenage Iraqi. The video was a clip from the movie.

 

GRADE =  C

Sisu: Road to Revenge (2025)

 

                 Three years ago, I went to see a Finnish movie called “Sisu” in a local theater. I was surprised a foreign film like it was playing near me. This time I was surprised that a Finnish movie was playing at the same theater and doubly surprised that the original had a sequel. It turns out “Sisu” did unexpectedly well at the box office (if you can call $14 million as good box office with today’s inflation), so a sequel was in order. Encouraging the sequel was the positive critical response to the original. In fact, the response was astounding. The film ended up with a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes. To give you an idea how insane that is, here are some of the war movies that did not reach that level: Lawrence of Arabia (93), Spartacus (93), Last of the Mohicans (88), Zero Dark Thirty (91), Letters from Iwo Jima (91), Full Metal Jacket (90), Downfall (90), and Patton (92). If that is not mindboggling enough, I have read articles claiming it is one of the best war movies of the 21^st Century!  I have to assume whoever wrote those articles has seen very few war movies. I rewatched it last night to confirm my opinion that it was not anything special. I gave it a C-. It’s fairly entertaining in a mindless way. I did not have high hopes for the sequel.

                 “Sisu: Road to Revenge” is directed by Jalmari Helander again. Both movies were influenced by Indiana Jones, James Bond, and Buster Keaton movies. However, the most obvious link is to Rambo. Jorma Korpi plays Aatami Korpi who is a veteran of Finland’s Winter War with the Soviet Union. In the first film, he is a gold miner living a simple life after the Nazis murdered his family and after he avenged them. This movie occurs two years later, in 1946. Korpi’s home is now in Soviet territory, so he decides to rebuild in Finland. To do this he takes down the house and carts off all the lumber in a truck. The war is over, so this should not be a problem, right? Right? In order to get his sequel (instead of the wiser decision to do a prequel), Helander comes up with the idea of the Soviets wanting Korpi dead. They decide the best way to kill this unarmed old man is to release a Nazi war criminal from prison to finish the job he started when he killed Korpi’s family. Draganov (Stephen Lang adding some juice to the sequel’s cast) is sent after less than a minute of set-up. Hey audience, just roll with it. In fact, that is good advice for everything coming up.

                 The sequel follows the same template as the original. It is divided into chapters that give you an idea of what kind of mayhem is coming up. The set pieces include a motorcycle chase reminding of Mad Max, strafing fighter planes, a tank (this time driven by Korpi), and a train. In the first film, Korpi is being chased for his gold, in this one he is trying to get his lumber to its new site. Of course, it’s just an excuse to see Korpi kill bad guys in a variety of gruesome ways. And survive a variety of deaths. I made a note every time Korpi should have died. I counted 11. There were eleven times that either Korpi should have died or the bad guys should have easily killed him. This is the kind of movie where an opponent passes up the chance to simply shoot this killing machine in the back in favor of tackling him. Or Korpi escapes certain death through some amazing forethought. Don’t bring logic to this movie, if you want to enjoy it. If you liked the first one, you can expect this one to top it in ridiculousness. And graphic violence. And torture. And body count. And Korpi’s ability to hold his breath under water.

                 I predict film schools in the future will debate whether the Sisu movies are comedies. As part of a larger discussion of whether combat porn films are supposed to make you laugh. I can’t speak for Helander. He might be offended by the suggestion. However, there is a scene where Korpi walks barefooted on broken glass, then rolls on it with his bare, flogged back, and then gets his hand caught in a mouse trap. Hilarious! And Draganov suffers a death that Bart and Lisa Simpson would laugh at.

                 Is it better than the first one? It does have a 95%  on Rotten Tomatoes, so whether you think that is incredibly overrated, it is considered to be equal to the first in the minds of critics. If you want more brain rot, this one tops the first. They have equal amount of dog. The hero is even tougher to kill and even more creative in his killing. However, if you care about plotting (I know, just humor me here), chasing a man and risking grisly death for gold is more compelling than watching a guy try to get lumber across a border. The first had more and better villains. If you are into dialogue, Korpi had one line of dialogue in “Sisu” and zero in this one. Speaking of zero, there are zero women in this one. I think most would agree that the female subplot in the first movie was a nice touch. So much for giving machine guns to chicks who have more reason for revenge.

                 Should you go see it? Yes, if you liked the first one. Or if you think the critics are good judges of war movies. No, if you are more interested in movies that make sense.

GRADE  =  C

TWO WOMEN (1960)

               ”Two Women” was co-written and directed by Vittorio de Sica (“Bicycle Thieves”). It was based on the novel The Woman from Ciociaria. It was originally to star Anna Magnani with Sophia Loren playing her daughter. Magnani did not want to play mother to Loren and backed out. Loren was recast as the mother although she was only 25 years old at the time. This means she would have been 13 when she gave birth. Her performance was lauded and she became the first actress or actor to win an Oscar for a foreign language film. Jean-Paul Belmondo was cast because French investors insisted on a French actor playing a prominent role. His voice was dubbed for the Italian release. The film was a big hit.  

               The film starts in Rome in 1944. The Allies are nearing the capital. It is coming under increased air bombardment. Cesira (Sophia Loren) is a war widow who runs a shop. She decides to leave with her 12-year-old daughter Rosetta (Eleonora Brown). The walk to Cesira’s hometown of Ciociaria which is in the mountains. Along the way they are strafed by a plane, but the town is a calm in the storm. She meets the local intellectual. Michel (Belmondo) falls in love with Cesira. He is a pacifist, but will be dragged into participation with tragic results. The war finally comes to the idyllic town and the two women decide to return to Rome, which has been liberated by the Allies. That rape scene that the movie has been forewarning about will occur on this journey.

               “Two Women” is a dominated by Loren. She is outstanding in what may be her best performance. She won 22 international awards, including the best performance award at Cannes and the Best Actress award at the Academy Awards (an event she did not attend because she feared she would faint when her name was called). Belmondo and Brown are fine. The film is best enjoyed as an acting showcase. It is very much a woman-oriented war movie. Cesira represents all the women impacted by war atrocities. In particular, Italian women who were commonly subjected to rape by both sides. You also get a taste of civilian life in war-torn Italy. In this respect it is a companion to “Rome, Open City” and gives the rural perspective.

               The movie is appropriately titled because it is the story of the relationship between two women and how they are impacted by war. Cesira and Rosetta are very close, so you dread what is coming for them. It is clear that something is going to happen to them because the movie is strongly anti-war. You just don’t know when the trauma is coming or how it will occur. In fact, aside from two strafings, the two manage to avoid the war until deep into the film. When it happens, the movie takes a jarring turn. The two women react differently to the trauma. One theme of the film is the loss of innocence as portrayed by the Rosetta character.

               Although not a true story, the movie is based on the Maroccinate. This term applies to a series of mass rapes by Moroccan Goumiers. They were French colonial troops who developed a reputation for horrible atrocities against Italian civilians, women and men. The most infamous incidents occurred after the Battle of Monte Cassino. In the aftermath of the battle, the Goumiers took the harshness of the battle out on villages in the vicinity. The movie comes nowhere near the incredible debauchery committed by these undisciplined soldiers. While possibly exaggerated, the atrocities undoubtedly occurred. The movie gives no context to its rapes. It appears to be a wrong place at the wrong time situation. I theorize that the French investors were not keen on financing a movie that emphasized atrocities by French troops. But black French colonial troops…

GRADE  =  B-

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (2025)

                 The eagerly awaited documentary series “The American Revolution” premiered tonight. It has been long in the making. Directed by Ken Burns and Sarah Botstein, it covers the American Revolution starting with the British actions that led to the rebellion. The shooting lasted 165 days and took place in 150 locations. 100 new maps were created. The largest replica of a redoubt in America was built. The series is narrated by Peter Coyote and has an all-star roster of voices including Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Jeff Daniels, and Ethan Hawke.

                 The first episode is entitled “In Order to Be Free”. It starts off shaky by trying to link the Iroquois confederation with the Revolution. Ben Franklin did use it as a template for his urging the creation of a union. While true, it’s a stretch to link the Iroquois to the American republic. It comes off as an attempt to force Native Americans into the series. And yet, when it covers the French and Indian War nothing is said about most of the Indians siding with the French. However, it does focus on the anger of colonists when the British government prohibited settlement west of the Appalachians. This was one log on the fire that will become the revolution. Having taught the Revolution, I would not put relations with the Indians high on a list of causes of the Revolution. The series takes a similar approach to slavery in the colonies. This of course is used to up the irony that the colonists were fighting for liberty and yet they allowed slavery. That is certainly inexcusable, but I do not view it as a cause of the Revolution. This information would have been better placed in the discussion of the Declaration of Independence, specifically its reference to “all men are created equal.”

Early in the series we are introduced to George Washington. He will obviously be a central figure in the series. It will be interesting to see how many negative aspects of his personality and actions will be covered in the series. Most Americans will learn for the first time that Washington started the war and later came close to being killed with Braddock’s force in the wilderness of Pennsylvania. Washington’s bitterness about not being offered a commission in the British army is used to foreshadow his participation in the rebellion. Washington will be one amongst many key figures that are quoted in the series. Burns has managed to find some common people who left primary source material. I think we will see these individuals pop up occasionally to give a different perspective. I predict Joseph Plumb Martin will be a frequent source for what Continental soldiers went through.

The first episode covers from 1754 to 1775. It is outstandingly educational and covers all the greatest hits like the Stamp Act, Boston Massacre, and Boston Tea Party. It concludes with Lexington and Concord. This segment is excellent as it blends Burns’ famous location shots with reenactors. But the real strength of the series is the paintings that play the role photography played in the Civil War series. The paintings include portraits of all the historical figures. I did not realize that you can find numerous paintings for a power point on the Revolution. Another strength are the maps. The effort put into them is clear. The maps are animated with arrows showing movement. They are great.

The series will not disappoint. (Unless you are British.) So far it has not been overly patriotic. In fact, it has emphasized some negative aspects of the Revolution. It is not interested in making the British the villains. So far, I have not noticed any link to our current political situation. The series does not make a great case for the rebellion. Taxation without representations get a shout out, but the episode does not debate the causes. Perhaps this will come in the Declaration of Independence segment. Based on the coverage of Lexington and Concord, I look forward to the other battles.

GRADE = A

STALINGRAD (1990)

 

                       “Stalingrad” was written and directed by Yuri Ozerov. It was co-produced by the Soviet Union and East Germany. Ozerov directed the “Liberation” series as an answer to “The Longest Day” which he felt short-changed the Soviet contribution to victory in WWII. “Stalingrad” is a sequel to his film “Battle of Moscow”. In 1965, he was awarded the Honored Artist of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic). Warner Brothers agreed to help finance the film if the American actor Powers Booth was cast. Many of the extras were Soviet soldiers.

                       The movie starts with Hitler telling Gen. Von Bock about his plan to take the Caucusus. They will be the first of many famous WWII figures to appear in the film. The plot is going to jump between German command decisions to Soviet ones. Stalin (Archil Gomiashvili) meets with his generals, including Zhukov (Mikhail Ulyanov). The movie was made during Perestroika, so it was safe for Ozerov to accurately portray Stalin as not believing the Caucusus was the target of the German summer offensive. There is some combat between the headquarters scenes. There are plenty of tanks roving the countryside. Maps with arrows provide background.

                       The movie is basically a series of vignettes about the battle. Some of these include a Spanish soldier serving with the Red Army receiving a medal and breaking into a song. Stalin compliments a general for bayonetting 22 Germans. He tells him “Cruelty is a necessary quality for a front commander.” (I have seen a lot of Soviet movies and I can tell you this is not the way saintly Soviet officers are depicted.) Khrushchev’s son kills a comrade when trying to shoot a bottle of his head. Churchill visits Moscow. Hey, where’s the second front? Germans cross the Don River. The action is epic, but lame. Every time a tank is destroyed it is from an explosion in its rear. There are also a lot of buildings that get blown up. Naked Soviet women soldiers are sprayed. Full frontal nudity in a war movie. I guess that was glasnost.  Stalingrad is bombed by very fake-looking planes which makes sense since the city is a model. Powers Boothe is Gen. Chuikov! The Russians make an anti-tank minefield by planting Molotov cocktails that are then shot when the tanks get near. Hey, AI. Russian infantry make frontal attacks against machine guns to patriotic music. A German pilot is given to civilian women. This will not end well for him. A German tank runs over a statue of Stalin. (Very gutsy, 1990 Soviet filmmaker.) Pavlov’s House gets a brief shout out. House-to-house fighting. Zhukov launches the counteroffensive. Goering’s air supply effort fails. Manstein fails to break through to the Germans trapped in the city. German prisoners march by. Stalin refuses to trade Von Paulus for his own captured son. A narrator criticizes Stalin’s tyranny and cult of personality!

                       “Stalingrad” is educational for those unfamiliar with the battle. It covers the battle from preliminaries to the end. It does this by covering commanders as well as some common soldiers (not any Germans). The film does a good job depicting the German perspective. This was probably to attract a German audience. It is the rare WWII movie that portrays Stalin, Hitler, and Churchill. The acting is nothing special and surprisingly, Boothe takes the trophy. He is good as Gen. Chuikov and he gets to say: “Well fuck their soul into God.” The combat is brief in the first half, but picks up in the second half. It is marred by silly deaths. It turns out that real soldiers do not know how a soldier dies. It’s not just an extra problem. There is a subplot involving spies that goes nowhere.  

                       The movie is one of several movies about the Battle of Stalingrad. It is somewhere in the middle of the pack. It’s fairly accurate, but it does throw in some head-scratching stuff like the Molotov cocktail minefield. It get Stalin right, so if you hate him, this movie is for you. The movie did not do well probably because by 1990, Stalin was not looking so bad. Or maybe because the film is not very entertaining. Here is my ranking of them:

1.   Stalingrad, Dogs Do You Want to Die?

2.  Enemy at the Gates

3. Stalingrad (1993)

4. Stalingrad (1990)

5. Stalingrad (2013)

GRADE  =  C

DESTINATION GOBI (1953)

                       “Destination Gobi” is a film by Robert Wise (“The Desert Rats”, “Run Silent, Run Deep”, “The Sand Pebbles”). It was based on the article in Colliers magazine entitled “Ninety Saddles for Kengtu” by Edmund G. Love. Ernest Borgnine claimed that his character in “McHale’s Navy” was named after Richard Widmark’s character in this movie. It was very loosely based on the Sino-American Cooperative Organization which worked with the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). It set up operations in the Gobi Desert in Inner Mongolia. It provided meteorology reports which were important for the US Navy operating in the Pacific. It also monitored Japanese aircraft and gathered intelligence.

                       The film opens with: “In the Navy records in Washington, there is an obscure entry reading "Saddles for Gobi." This film is based on the story behind that entry, one of the strangest stories of World War II.” It is 1945 and CPO Sam McHale (Widmark) is looking forward to returning to the USS Enterprise. How would he like to do exactly the opposite thing? He does not volunteer to go to a desert, but he is ordered to go to the Gobi Desert. McHale works under Lt. Commander Hobart Wyatt (Russell Collins). They come into contact with local Mongolians led by Kengtu (Murvyn Vye). Wyatt enlists the tribe by giving them saddles for their horses. Training montage! Unfortunately for the Mongols, the friends of our enemy are our enemy, so Japanese planes bomb the Mongol camp. This ends their weather forecasting and their alliance with Kengtu. Or does it? McHale has to lead his crew 800 miles to the coast. They have not seen the last of the Mongols or the Japanese. It’s an odyssey that includes a prison camp that they escape from and a Chinese junk that is chased by a Japanese destroyer. Spoiler alert: they use powder from bullets to fire a cannon to sink the warship.

                       “Destination Gobi” is a trifle that has understandably been forgotten. It tells the story of an operation that did not deserve coverage. I suppose weathermen consider it to be a must-see movie, but for the rest of us, it lacks suspense. And that is after the movie clearly greatly enhances the actual story of the unit. Surprisingly, while the screenwriter tries to add action to an otherwise boring story, he avoids the cliché of unit dysfunction. Only one American complains a lot. There is a bit of a twist involving Kengtu which involves the small world that Hollywood characters live in. This all leads to a battle with a Japanese warship that is one of the most ridiculous naval combats ever to grace the silver screen. On the plus side, Richard Widmark stars in the movie.

GRADE  =  C

INCHON (1981)

 

                       “Inchon” is generally considered the biggest box office bomb of all time and also considered to be the worst war movie ever made. It won Golden Raspberries for Worst Picture, Actor (Laurence Olivier), Director, and Screenplay. It has a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes which makes it the only major war movie to achieve that low score. It has a 2.9 on IMDB.  It was famously financed by Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church. He’s the guy who would marry thousands at a time. He thought about doing a movie about Elvis or Jesus, but psychic Jeanne Dixon talked with the deceased Douglas MacArthur and he urged a biopic be made about him. Moon liked the idea because MacArthur “loved God and loved people.” He fought against tyranny and communism. Moon demanded three love stories. One with two Americans, one with two Koreans, and one with an American and a Korean. The movie cost $46 million (the original budget was $18 million), which was a huge sum back then. It made less than $2 million.(This would be equivalent to costing $150 million and making $17 million today.) At the time, it was the biggest money-loser in history. It was directed by Terence Young, who made the first four James Bond movies. He also directed some war movies: “The Red Beret” and “Triple Cross”. He filmed in South Korea, California, Italy, Ireland, and Japan. The shoot was difficult with a typhoon destroying the lighthouse that is central to the invasion of Inchon. David Janssen died during the shooting and expensive reshoots had to be done.  Some of the reshoots were done by Sun Myung Moon himself with disastrous results. He was credited as a “special adviser”. Star Laurence Olivier was 72-years-old and he was not in the best of health. Makeup took 2 ½ hours. Olivier deserves credit for watching many recordings of MacArthur to get his accent down pat. Embarrassingly, the movie includes part of MacArthur’s “Old Soldiers” speech in which he sounds very different from Olivier’s attempt. He was candid about why he took the role. He did it to get money for his heirs. He was paid $1 million which came to $50,000 per day. When the shoot overran, he demanded his bonus salary be delivered to the set in a suitcase by a helicopter. I hope his heirs appreciated it because it was a very difficult shoot for him as he suffered from heat stroke and exhaustion. He had to rest between takes. The US Department of Defense provided 1,500 soldiers and Marines as extras. It allowed filming on a US Navy ship. However, the DoD demanded that its cooperation be removed from the credits when it saw the inaccuracy of the movie.

                       The movie starts with a disclaimer: “This is not a documentary. The screenwriters have used historical license.”  Thanks for the honesty and why don’t more war movies do this? A narrator describes the situation in Korea after WWII. (To prove the screenwriter were truthful about disregarding historical facts, WWII is called “the war to end all wars.”) A map is overlaid with combat footage. The background is good and it emphasizes Soviet military support for North Korea. Then we are immediately in a battle with lots of tanks and hordes of commie infantry. Barbara Hallsworth (Jacqueline Bisset) is the wife of a major (Ben Gazzara). She gets caught up in the stream of refugees fleeing invading North Koreans. Along the way, she picks up some orphans who are sooo cute. Frank Hallsworth’s affair with a South Korean is interrupted by the crisis. He heads north to find his wife. He is accompanied by Sergeant Augustus Henderson (Richard Roundtree). Meanwhile, Gen. MacArthur learns of the invasion and realizes he is the only one that can save South Korea. In one scene, he stands next to a bust of Julius Caesar. Subtle. In this small world, David Feld (David Janssen) is a cynical journalist (like he was in “The Green Berets”). (Has there ever been an uncynical journalist in an American war movie?) These characters have a destiny destination called Inchon. That date with history will be the capture of a lighthouse that is crucial to the success of the landing. And a great opportunity to reunite Hallsworth with his Korean girlfriend and her father! It’s hairy, but God is with MacArthur and America. We win and this time they do the running. The End. Don’t worry about the next two years.

                       Let me lead my critique by stating that “Inchon” is not the worst war movie I have ever seen. That does not mean it’s a good movie. It has numerous weaknesses. The plot is choppy with some scenes leading nowhere. The movie jumps several months to get to the invasion and yet, the main characters are still in the same places. There are several cliches. Hallsworth is torn between loyalty to his wife and love of his girlfriend. As usual, the love triangle is solved by killing off one them.  The characters are all stock. The Feld character is only mildly critical of MacArthur and is given little to do. Janssen did not go out in a blaze of glory. The action scenes are poorly done combat porn. Lots of tanks and lots of explosions. This is a loud movie. And several massacres and strafings of civilians because commies are bad. As per war movie rules, no one is just wounded. The deaths are from the somersault school of overdying. Jerry Goldsmith did the soundtrack. The music is pompous, although commended by some and it was released as an album.

                       It is clear the movie was just a money grab for all the stars. Their performances are wooden, especially Olivier who is creepy as MacArthur. (He was 74 at the time of the shooting. MacArthur was 71.) Gregory Peck was much better in “MacArthur”. Richard Roundtree was thrown in just to have an African-American character.

                       The movie is not the propaganda you would expect. The communists are not demonized. There is a villainous North Korean officer, but he is just thrown in because that box needed to be checked. There is not a lot of anti-communism talk. The movie is more pro-Christian tban anti-communism. MacArthur prays and at one point proclaims “God wills it!” Just like Pope Urban II before the Crusades. The moments where religion rises up are ridiculous.

                       I’m not going to go into detail on the historical inaccuracies. After all, the movie admits it’s not accurate. The movie floats along with some minor flubs and it does give a trite feel for the chaos at the beginning of the war. The role of Russian tanks is a theme that is fairly realistic. And it does have a good scene where MacArthur makes his case for the risky Inchon invasion. But the movie limps towards one of the most ludicrous finales in war movie history. I have no idea who thought up the lighthouse idea, but he deserves a special Razzie Award. Spoiler alert: Hallsworth and Henderson go on a commando raid to take the lighthouse. That light is crucial to the success of the invasion. They do this easily with the help of Hallsworth’s Korean girlfriend. A problem arises when it is discovered that there are mines in the harbor. The girlfriend’s father gets in a boat, connects the mines by a wire and then sets them off! Hilarious. Then there is a hip-shooting firefight as the North Koreans try to take back the lighthouse. The light goes out. MacArthur has to call off the invasion. He gives a long speech taking responsibility for the failure. The speech is long enough for God to intervene and turn the light back on. God blessed MacArthur! We get an impressive number of landing craft and amphtracs, and they aren’t cardboard cutouts. Here come our tanks! Tables turned. Look at them run this time. The movie ends before MacArthur tarnishes his reputation with his boneheaded handling of the Chinese intervention. I guess we’ll never get that sequel.

                       In conclusion, “Inchon” is far from being the worst war movie ever made. It is not laugh out loud funny as the dialogue is not atrocious and the stars do not overact. Other than the lighthouse, it is not atrociously inaccurate. It is not in “Braveheart” territory. It was hard to find, but you can now watch it on YouTube. I won’t warn you against doing that. However, I will warn you that you won’t get those 137 minutes back.

GRADE  =  D

Sailor of the King (1953)

 

               “Sailor of the King” is based on the 1929 novel by C.S. Forester.  It is also known as “Single-Handed”.  The director was Roy Boulting who co-directed with Frank Capra the famous documentary “Tunisian Victory”.  Although it has only one American in the cast (Jeffrey Hunter), it was an American production.  It was the first American film to use British ships.  Producer Frank McCarthy used his relationship with Lord Mountbatten to get Royal Navy cooperation.  The HMS Cleopatra played both the Amesbury and the Stratford.  The Cleopatra deserved some screen fame due to its participation in the Battle of Sirte where it and three other light cruisers took on the Italian battleship Littorio and a heavy cruiser.  The minelayer HMS Manxman played the German cruiser Essen.  The movie was dedicated to the Royal Navy, in particular the Mediterranean Fleet.  It starts with a quote from Horatio Nelson:  “I will be a hero -  and confiding in Providence,  I will brave every danger.”

               In 1916, Lt. Richard Saville (Michael Rennie) meets a British girl named Lucinda on a train and it is love at first sight.  They have a fling and he proposes, but she has seen enough war movie to know his career will come first.  Will her refusal to fall for that old trope figure in what happens twenty-four years later?  Stick around.  In 1940, Saville is a cruiser captain on convoy duty in the Pacific along with two other cruisers.  Saville decides to send the other two warships after the German raider Essen.  The HMS Amesbury is sunk, but manages to put a torpedo into the Essen.  The Essen rescues the only two survivors of the Amesbury, one of whom is Signalman “Canada” Brown (Hunter).  The Essen pulls into a secluded bay to do repairs, meanwhile Saville’s ship HMS Cambridge is hot in pursuit.  Someone needs to slow down the repairs so the Cambridge has time to get there.  Is there a sailor of the king available for that job?

               Remember when Jeffrey Hunter was a big star?  Well, he was, mainly because he was quite the hunk.  Ladies, he is shirtless through most of this movie.  Hunter was making only his second lead role in this movie.  He had earlier appeared in a supporting role in “The Frogmen” and over his long career, he made a lot of war movies, including “The Great Locomotive Chase”, “Sgt. Rutledge”, “Hell to Eternity”, “No Man Is an Island”, and “The Longest Day”.  He stands out in this movie, partly because he is the only American.  The acting is good overall by a good cast.  The roles they play, with the exception of Brown, are stereotypes.  The Brits are unflappable and the Germans are worthy adversaries.  The Essen’s commander is one of those “good Germans” you see in movies in the early Cold War.  Good enough to rescue a sailor who eventually leads to the sinking of his ship.  Moral of the story:  don’t rescue opponents. 

               The plot is certainly unusual.  I know of no other naval war movie that features a sniper.  It is unpredictable, other than the obvious come-uppance for the Essen.  A naval war buff certainly would not have predicted that the Amesbury would suicidally take on a superior warship instead of simply maintaining contact until reinforcements arrived.  But plenty of dots have to be connected to get Brown on a hill above the Essen with a Mauser in his hands.  It’s all to the purpose of creating an entertaining film.  It has an intriguing ending involving Lucinda who (depending on what ending you get), is either reunited with Saville to honor her live or her dead son.

               Although clearly fictional, Forester did base his book on two WWI battles.  In the first, British light cruisers took on a German heavy cruiser in the South Pacific and lost and then in a later battle, with reinforcements, got revenge off the Falkland Islands.

               I recommend this movie even if you are not interested in seeing a shirtless, sweaty Jeffrey Hunter.  Call it a date night movie, if you have the confidence to be compared to him.

GRADE  =  B-   

                   

"Spartacus: Film and History" by Martin Winkler

 Today is the anniversary of the release of one of my favorite movies. I have seen it possibly more than any other movie because I showed it in my Western Civ classes for years. 

1.  The Catholic Legion of Decency put pressure on Universal to cut shot of severing of limbs. drowning in soup, blood spurting on Crassus when he kills Draba, and hints of homosexuality (“oysters and snails”)

2.  Scenes that were cut and lost included several scenes of Gracchus and Ceasar.  So much of his performance was cut that the irascible Laughton sued.

3.  Kubrick disavowed the film because he felt he did not have enough control over the story.  However, he did insist on the final battle scene. 

4.  Douglas insisted the theme be “a slave whose vision of freedom almost overthrew the Roman Empire”.  He also bumped up the love story.

5.  The original plan was for an expanded battle with Glabrus, a battle montage of the subsequent battles, and a small version of the final battle.

6.  After Trumbo’s critique of the first rough cut, scenes were added including:  the first meeting with Tigranes, Spartacus’ speech at the gladiator school, Spartacus’ speech on the beach, the duel with Antoninus. 

7.  Universal cut the Battle of Metapontum, leaving only a reference made to the loss at the public bath.

8.  Kubrick wanted the cause of defeat to be moral weakness of the slave class and the Crixus split.  Douglas overruled him, thankfully.

FIVE FINGERS (1952)

 

            “Five Fingers” is a spy noir movie along the lines of “Notorious”. It was directed by the famous screenwriter Joseph Mankiewicz (“The Quiet American” (1958)). The film is based on the book Operation Cicero by Ludwig Moyzisch. The book and movie are the true story of Albanian-born Elyesa Bazna. He was the valet to the British ambassador in Turkey. Bazna would photograph top secret documents from the ambassador’s safe and sell them to the Germans. It was filmed on location in Ankara and other sites.

            The film begins in 1944 in neutral Turkey. Polish Countessa Anna Staviska (Danielle Darrieux) offers her services to German Ambassador Count Van Papen (John Wengraf) as a spy. Surprisingly, he turns her down. And then he turns around and agrees to let Ulysses Diello (James Mason) play amateur spy for money. Diello has access to British secrets and sells them. He may be an amateur, but he has the moxey of a James Bond. Because there has to be a dame in a movie like this, Diello falls in love with the downtrodden countessa and shares some of his payments with her. The British get suspicious and sent a counter-intelligent agent to Ankara. Colin Travers (Michael Rennie) starts snooping around Ulysses and Anna. The couple plan to escape to Argentina or so Diello thinks), but they need one last big score. It involves the plans for Operation Overlord. Don’t ask why those plans are in the British Ambassador to Turkey’s safe.

            “Five Fingers” is better than expected. It is not in a league with “Notorious”, but it is a true story so it has one up on the Hitchcock film. (Both films star the always reliable Mason.) Mason is great as Diello. His character is not a Nazi. He’s just in it for the money. Carrieux is not on the same level of acting as him, but she does well as a femme fatale. Their relationship has some interesting twists.

            Dialogue is crucial in this type of film and “Five Fingers” is strong in this area. Some of it is crackling. The plot rests on the usual cat and mouse format. The movie is unpredictable and that is saying a lot because the subgenre of spy movies is rife with cliches. The score supports the movie well. It is a well-crafted film. It is entertaining, but how educational is it?

            The movie adds a lot of historical license. Banza did get a job as a valet to Sir Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen. If the name gives you the impression that the ambassador was a daft nobleman without a clue, you would be right. Banza was hired with the flimsiest of background checks. His Lordship made Banza into a glorified butler and dressed him like a guard in a harem. Banza hooked up with his bosses nurse-maid, but she was not his partner in crime. The true story has no one equivalent to the Countessa. Banza was adept at picking locks so he easily got into the safe. Knatchbull-Hugessen was very careless with security. Banza passed on information about the Teheran and Cairo Conferences. Nothing earth-shaking. He was paid a lot, but it was mostly counterfeit money. Ha ha! The money came from Operation Bernhard. (Covered in the film “The Counterfeiters”.)  Banza’s biggest theft was documents about Operation Overlord which ironically, the Germans failed to use. The British did suspect someone in the embassy was passing secrets, so they sent a Cornella Kapp to catch the mole. She was not successful. There are several historians who think Banza was a double agent and there is evidence supporting this. I bet Knatchbull-Hugessen prayed that was true. He didn’t get a lot of party invitations after the war. Banza also had a depressing post-war. The money was discovered to be counterfeit and he spent some time in prison for passing it. He did not go to Rio.

 

GRADE  =  B+

The Cowra Breakout (1984)

               “The Cowra Breakout” is an Australian miniseries about the Japanese breakout from a prisoner of war camp on New South Wales in 1944.  The first episode has the main character, Private Davidson (Alan David Lee) at war on New Guinea. His patrol runs into  a Japanese machine gun nest. Most of the patrol is wiped out, including his best buddy who is mortally wounded and put out of his misery by Davidson. Their leader, Lt. MacDonald (Andrew Lloyde) runs and leaves Davidson behind. Davidson ends up as a guard at Camp Cowra. In a major coincidence, Murphy’s widow and two daughters live near the camp. They strike up a romance. He is surprised to find the surviving Japanese soldier, Hiyashi (Junichi Ishida) is in the camp. At first, Davidson is bitter towards the man who killed his friend and not sympathetic towards the other prisoners. He is very perturbed when Lt. MacDonald is assigned to the camp and he’s wearing a medal for bravery! MacDonald refuses to admit to stolen valor. At first, the Japanese in the camp are docile, but this changes when a bushido believer arrives and roils the barracks with talk of fighting back. He convinces a majority of the men that to return home after being prisoners will be disgraceful. They must rise up and die fighting.

               SPOILER:  “The Cowra Breakout” is based on an actual prison break, although all of the characters are fictional. The breakout is accurately depicted. The prisoners broke out on the night of August 5, 1944. It started with Hajime Toyoshima, the first Japanese prisoner taken by the Australians in WWII, blowing a bugle. A prisoner tried to  warn the guards, but the mob managed to break through the fence. They were armed with knives, bats, and clubs. Two soldiers, Privates Benjamin Hardy and Ralph Jones tried to hold them back with a machine gun, but they were overrun and killed. They received the George Cross. 359 of the 1,104 prisoners escaped. 231 of them ending up dying either from gunfire or suicide. Four Aussie troops died. All of the escaped prisoners were recovered. It was the largest and bloodiest prison escape in WWII.

               The miniseries is small scale, but sincere. Although the characters are fictional they certainly represented typical guards and prisoners. It was interesting to see how the original prisoners were content with serving out the war in a prison camp. The guards grew complacent because these prisoners offered no problems. The commander treated the prisoners well. The miniseries gives no indication that the prisoners were rebelling because of mistreatment. It may be a bit simplistic to blame it all on one fanatical prisoner, but it seems reasonable that the later prisoners would have been more hardcore since they would have been fighting longer. The relationship between Davidson and MacDonald is interesting and not predictable. On the other hand, Davidson’s friendship with Hiyashi is trite. The romance is obviously thrown in for the female audience. The acting is solid from a cast none of whom I recognized. Alan David Lee is fine as a soldier who overcomes his PTSD to find the humanity he lost when his best friend was killed. Junichi Ishida does a good job as a prisoner who feels it is best to live to return to his loved ones. But that philosophy conflicts with Japanese martial culture. He gets caught up in the inevitable banzai charge at the gate.

               Australia has a strong track record for war movies and miniseries. “The Cowra Breakout” is somewhere in the middle. It gets credit for covering a famous event in the war and sticking to the basic facts. It’s a bit melodramatic, but that is to be expected from a television miniseries.

GRADE  =  B-