13 Assassins (1963)

 

            My favorite samurai movie is “13 Assassins” (2010), so I was interested in how it compares to the original which came out in 1963. I am glad I saw the remake first because it is easier to follow the plot of the original, which tends to brush over key plot points. Both movies are about an evil warlord who is so despicable that the 13 are sent to assassinate him.

            The 1963 version starts similarly with Matsudaira killing a family. The movie is not as graphic as the remake, of course. But it does a decent job convincing you that Matsudaira is evil. The film goes through the recruitment process. There is less coverage of the thirteen, but some of the scenes are reimagined in the remake. For instance, Sahara joins for the money. Shin mentions booze and girls. Just mentions. Hanbei visits, but he has a vague conversation with Shinzaemon. It is not as clear that the two are rivals. The journey to the town is uneventful and they don’t meet a mystical hunter who provides comic relief. The fortifying of the village is brief. You get the mandatory practicing scene common in movies like this. The fight for the village is a long set piece with plenty of stabbing and slicing. The duels are similar, but not as well choreographed. Some of the dueling is smile-inducing. The ending is less satisfying.

            1963 may be a classic, but in no way is it better than the remake. The characters are not fleshed out. It needed to be longer. It clocks in at 125 minutes which is not significantly shorter than 2010’s 141, but the newer version is deeper and more comprehensive. The final battle is 26 minutes and the fighting is decent action. However, not nearly as scintillating and the deaths are bloodless, which is unavoidable in a 1960s film. The villain is average and certainly is not loathsome like in the newer film. The acting is decent and does not include the kind of scene-chewing associated with some Japanese films from that era. There are no melodramatic deaths.

            Viewing these two films is a good way to see the differences between a 20^th Century samurai movie and a 21^st Century one. The one word that best characterizes the newer movies is bigger. The villain is more dastardly, the battle is more graphic, the opposition is larger (so there are more deaths), and the effects are grander. The audiences changed and the movies reflect that. This is the reason 1963 is tame in comparison to 2010. Sometimes the remakes go overboard and make a mockery of the original, but not in this case. Although 1963 is a good movie, 2010 greatly improves on it. And isn’t that what we want in our remakes? Take the original screenplay and improve it. Should be easy, but it doesn’t always come out better. Just look at the terrible recent “All Quiet on the Western Front” which is vastly inferior to the 1930 version.

 

GRADE  =  B-

 

Flying Tigers (1943)

 

 

               “Flying Tigers” was John Wayne’s first war film.  As is well known, Wayne did not serve in the military in WWII.  This movie is part of the argument that he better served his country by making “flagwaving” films like this one.  Since it is unlikely that the uniformed Wayne would have killed as many Japanese in reality as compared to the celluloid hero, let’s concede the argument.  The fact that the movie was made in 1943 means that there were technical constraints on the effects and which impacted a script with the requisite propaganda themes.  The movie is meant to be a tribute to the American Volunteer Group (popularly known as the “Flying Tigers”) and leads off with a testimonial by Chiang Kai-shek.  The plot is basically the story of the leader of the unit (Wayne as Jim Gordon) and a hot shot jerk named Woody (John Carroll).  Gordon is the empathetic head pilot who takes in black sheep pilots to shoot down Japanese planes for the saintly (but hickish) Chinese people.  Woody is a wolf who makes no secret that he is in it just for the bounty money given for each kill.  He says “get out your checkbook, General” when he shoots down a Zero.  There is a love triangle involving a nurse named Brook (Anna Lee).  Woody wears out his charming roguishness when he contributes to the downing and subsequent strafing while parachuting death of the beloved exec “Hap” (Phil Kelly).  He does get a chance to redeem himself at the end and the love triangle conundrum is solved via subtraction.

               “Flying Tigers” was a big hit in a country that was craving Japanese ass-kicking.  People had heard of the famous unit already, but if they were hoping for a history lesson they were disappointed.  None of the characters were based on real people.  The only thing the movie gets right is the fact that the pilots were paid a bounty for each kill.  The biggest boner is having the unit earning those bounties before Pearl Harbor.  In reality, the AVG did not go into action until after Pearl Harbor.  The other departure from reality is in the air combat depicted in the movie.  That can partly be blamed on the available technology.  The effects make heavy use of models (P-40 Warhawks) and footage (including Japanese newsreels to show the effects of bombings).  Although the movie was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Effects, it looks decidedly quaint.  There are three ways to go in dogfight movies:  the use of models, the use of actual planes to reenact, and the use of CGI.  The use of models can be pulled off if you are making “Star Wars”, but in this case it just looks like models.  Plus models pre-Star Wars often defy the realities of physics and look foolish doing so.  “Flying Tigers” also falls into the Old School of showing dogfights via cockpit shots and machine guns blazing.  Any plane shot at goes down and usually with the bullet ridden body of the pilot on board (unless you want to reenact the dastardly strafing of an American pilot early in the war).

               “Flying Tigers” is patriotic bull shit, but it is not painful to watch.  The acting is good.  Wayne is Wayne, as usual.  Carroll gets the meaty role and digs his teeth into it.  The character is not two-dimensional and although quite a cad, he has some redeeming qualities.  Anna Lee is lovely and can actually act a bit (usually not a requirement in movies like this).  The plot is very predictable, but what do you expect from a 1943 movie?  I could say the same for the dogfighting scenes, but they were done much better by movies pre-1940s.

 

GRADE  =  C

War Machine (2026)

            “War Machine” is a new Netflix offering. It is not to be confused with “War Machine” (2017), another Netflix war movie. The similarities end with the name. 2017 is a satire of the war effort in Afghanistan, 2026 is an action movie with nothing to say about anything. You know the type. While 2017 is clearly a war movie, 2026 is more arguable. I would say it is a war movie. It involves Army Rangers taking on a badass alien robot. However, it fits well into the action and sci-fi genres. The reason this is important is I am reviewing it as a war movie. The grade I give it might be different if I was reviewing it as an action or sci-fi flick. The film was co-written, co-produced, and directed by Patrick Hughes (“Expendables 3”). It stars Alan Ritchson. He did most of his stunts, including his breath under water for two minutes.

            The movie begins in Afghanistan. A staff sergeant (Ritchson) is reunited with his brother who is trying to repair a vehicle in his convoy. The stationary convoy is ambushed and massacred. Every soldier is killed except the brothers. If you want to call it a war movie, the fact that there are no wounded (other than the brothers) certainly fits combat in 90% of war movies. When our hero recovers from his leg wound, he decides to join the Rangers. He does not fit in well because he is older and is made of muscles. He is a loner and thus not leadership material. The movie will fix that.

            The first half of the film covers the training. This should help Ranger recruiting as the movie is its “Top Gun”.  It skips the haircutting trope, but the rest is fairly standard. This is Ranger training, so it is a tutorial. Since boot camp sequences are pretty common in war movies, you won’t see much you haven’t seen before. However, I did mention Ritchson (who is simply called 81) held his breath for two minutes walking the bottom of a pool with weights. This feat of he-manship almost gets him bounced. He gets a second chance to prove he’s a leader. He and the surviving trainees are sent on a mock mission to destroy a downed aircraft and rescue the pilot. They are about to find out why the film threw in a brief reference to an asteroid. They encounter the titular alien. It is a combination predator/transformer. They and the audience believe the machine is hunting them. And they have as much chance as a deer against a human hunter. Before you say “But the deer has no gun”, neither do they since it’s a training activity. They eventually arm up, but that alien is dynamite! It is far from a fair fight. Blanks were just as effective as real bullets. They sure try hard and there are several amped up scenes to satisfy action junkies. There is even a chase involving a Stryker combat vehicle. The only thing in their favor is they have 81, so you know who is going to win. The plot deals with who dies when and how and how many will make it to 81’s medal ceremony. Unlike the Afghanistan scene, there are wounded men. It’s hard to remain unwounded when you roll down a cliff ala “Lone Survivor”. When 81 hits a boulder, it’s the boulder that is wounded. Speaking of wounded, the small (and getting smaller) group is toting a wounded man on a stretcher. If you think he is going to die, you don’t understand how war movie redemption works. The mystery is how will the alien be defeated. Will it be germs or a virus put in its computer or 81 covering himself in mud?

            I do not read other critics’ reviews before writing mine. But I did see several headlines that found the movie entertaining in a gonzo way. However, this is a war movie, so I hold it to higher standards of realism. I know you are wondering why a movie about an alien war machine must be realistic. Let’s just say I wanted the movie to not be silly. It failed in that respect. 81 is a battle-scarred veteran and yet he outdoes all the other trainees. He easily beats them in a run up a mountain in full gear… with a bum leg! Because he’s the hero. And of course the hero has to duel with the villain in the last act. Until that scene, the machine is invulnerable. There is no way any of the trainees should have lasted more than five minutes. But that would not have allowed for the whittling down process common in small unit movies. Few will be around for the crescendo of cheesiness at the end. This is when we find out there will be a sequel.

            The movie is full of cliches. At one point, the men are in a raging river and go over a waterfall. (We don’t learn how the machine crossed the river, by the way.) The redemption theme is hammered. Take a drink every time 81 says he has to “get across that finish line”. Ritchson is a candidate for taking over Arnold Schwarzenegger’s crown. I have no idea how the Army found a uniform to fit him. He’s a hulk and acts like one. He’s not a bad actor and he does have charisma. But he matches the war machine in emotive ability. You might think his muscles are computer generated. There is no doubt the machine is CGI and it well-done. Not surprising since Hollywood has perfected robots. When you look at my grade, I want you to factor in that I cannot recall a single female in the film. Secretary of War Hegseth approves. (I checked the cast list and 122 is a female, but obviously she made little impression and did not make the cut.)

            If you are reading this review and have not seen the movie, I strongly recommend you view it as an action or sci-fi movie. And turn off your brain.

GRADE  =  C-   

     

 

 

           

Hell to Eternity (1960)

 

               “Hell to Eternity” is a biopic of Guy Babaldon. He was a Marine who was awarded the Navy Cross for his bravery during the invasion of Saipan in WWII. It was directed by Phil Karlson (“Hornet’s Nest”). He was able to film on Okinawa.  It cost $800,000 and made about $2,800,000. 

               Guy (Jeffrey Hunter) is a juvenile delinquent and a bad-ass in high school. His dad is dead and his mom is in the hospital. His PE teacher takes him in. Guy, who is Hispanic, is adopted by the teacher’s  Nisei family. Ten years later, after Pearl Harbor, the father and mother are relocated to an internment camp. His two adoptive brothers enlist in the famous 442^nd Regimental Combat Team. Guy enlists in the Marines. Because he learned Japanese from the family, he becomes an interpreter. He bonds with Staff Sergeant Bill Hazen (David Janssen). They land as part of the first wave on the island of Saipan. His job is to coax Japanese soldiers and civilians into coming out of their hiding places, like caves. The death of a close friend snaps Guy and he becomes a Rambo. (The scene is reminiscent of Audie Murphy in “To Hell and Back” when his best friend is killed.)

               Although “Hell to Eternity” is a biopic, but it is closer to a standard WWII in the Pacific war movie. There is plenty of action on the island which is good because it takes the movie a boring while to get there. There is a particularly bad scene where Guy woos a woman in a bar, just so she can appear on the movie poster. The movie drops her like a hot potato and suddenly Guy is on Saipan. In spite of the availability of 500 Marines from a nearby camp and a lot of Japanese veterans, the beach assault is small scale and unrealistic. The veterans are used in a daylight banzai charge. The Marines charge out to meet them in no man’s land! Marines aren’t cowards that stay in their fox holes to mow Japanese exposing themselves to their firepower. At least, that’s what the movie wants you to think.  We get a chaotic melee with poorly choreographed hip-shooting and hand-to-hand fighting. It’s laughable and very inauthentic when it comes to tactics. The battlefield is left with dead bodies aplenty. Of course, no one is wounded. Now it’s time for Guy to do his job. There is a montage of him talking Japanese out of caves. It’s all so easy. No Japanese soldier refuses to surrender. This all changes after his buddy is killed. Now Guy shoots surrendering Japanese, until he gets a letter from his adoptive mother. He snaps back in time to negotiate with the Japanese commanding general. The campaign on Saipan is rife with silliness. Since the movie was released in 1960, American cinema was in its “Japan was a respected foe” phase. Its soldiers are not depicted as fanatical in this movie. And Americans are shown treating prisoners fairly. Well, most of the time.

               The cast is average and benefits from Jeffrey Hunter (who was an underrated actor) and David Janssen. The cinematography and score are ordinary. It’s just a typical B-movie. It was entertaining back in its day, but for most discerning war movie lovers today, it is too long and it is unrealistic. It insulted my intelligence, but I don’t think you need to be knowledgeable about the war in the Pacific to know that the combat is silly. Try watching this after the Peleliu scenes in “The Pacific” limited series. The gulf in quality and realism is huge.

               HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  The movie is pretty accurate. Gabaldon was in a gang in high school His life turned aroune when he went to live with the Nakanos. He learned to speak Japanese. When the family was relocated, he moved to Alaska to work in a cannery. When he reached age 17, he enlisted in the Marines. He went through basic training and was designated an interpreter. On the first night, Guy went out on his own to bring in prisoners. He was threatened with court martial for leaving his post without leave. But he kept going out. Sometimes he shot the guards and then talked the soldiers and civilians into coming out of the cave. He became known as the “Pied Piper of Saipan”. July 7 marked the largest banzai attack of the war.  On July 8, 1943, Gabaldon talked to a Japanese officers and convinced them the battle was over and he should surrender. Around 800 Japanese came in. He was credited with 1,500 on both Saipan and Tinian. (There has been  some disputing of his record and some argue that he was a self-promoter.)  I found no reference to his cracking and killing a lot of Japanese. Guy Gabaldon was the technical adviser on the film (and later named one of his kids after Jeffrey Hunter).  He did not put a stop to the sequence where he became a mass-killer.

 

GRADE  =  C-

A Hill in Korea (1956)

               “A Hill in Korea” (“Hell in Korea” in American theaters) is the first British film set in the Korean War. It was based on the novel by Max Catto (“Murphey's War”). He was inspired by a true incident in the war. The movie has a cast of recognizable British thespians, including Michael Caine in his first credited film role (eight years before “Zulu”, his third film). Caine was a veteran of the Korean War and saw Chinese hordes up close and personal. He was a conscript or as they were called in Great Britain, a “National Serviceman”. Most of the characters in the unit are these soldiers famously known for being old enough to fight, but not to vote. He remembered his performance in the film with self-deprecating humor. He said he had only eight lines and screwed up six of them. Being the only Korean War veteran in the cast, he tried to be an unofficial technical adviser, with no success. He pointed out that a patrol would have been more spread out, but was informed the camera could not cover a wide formation. His suggestion that officers would not have worn insignia that identified them as targets was ignored for obvious reasons. He did not bother to point out that Portugal looked nothing like Korea because he wanted to go on location there.

               The movie is set in May, 1951 during the period when the United Nations forces are dealing with Chinese offensives. A British patrol of 17 men is trying to avoid being cut off by Chinese forces. It is obvious from the start that the movie will fit squarely in the “who will survive?” subgenre. The whittling begins immediately with one of the men dying from a booby trap. Other deaths will be from a grenade, a minor scratch, falling rubble, sniper, friendly bombs, and a suicide attack. Sadly, one of the first deaths is Robert Shaw as Lance Cpl. Hodge. Green Lt. Butler (George Baker) leads the unit with help from Sgt. Payne (Harry Andrews).  The patrol is going to have to fight its way just to get to its Alamo which is a temple on a hill. There are plenty of “gooks” or “chinks” to slaughter.

               “A Hill in Korea” benefits from a good cast without a lot of stereotypes. You do get the unseasoned leader who grows into the job with the help of his sergeant, but there is little dysfunction over his leadership. One of the men is a coward who gets redemption. Stanley Baker plays his usual hard-ass. The deaths are not predictable and there is a variety, although some are unrealistic. One stands out. They get bombed by American planes! You don’t expect friendly fire in a movie like this.

               The action is as close to combat porn as you could expect from a 1956 British war movie. And this was eight years before “Zulu”. The Chinese are depicted as savages similar to the Zulus or Indians in old westerns. Only worse, they are commies! Watching this film gives you a clear idea of how China was viewed in the 1950s. Michael Caine did not try to correct that facet of the film. In a biography, he mentioned that he was sympathetic toward communism until he fought in Korea where he encountered the brainless attacks by indoctrinated Chinese. He must have agreed with quotes like “They seem to want to die.” Or:  “Chinks don’t know the joys of living so they fight like it’s a joy to die.” However, it is a fact that the Chinese did use frontal attacks that led to heavy casualties. The movie is one of the more realistic Korean War movies in its depiction of combat. The Chinese use bugles and whistles to signal attacks. The Brits respond with Bren machine guns and they do reload. They put out aircraft recognition panels, although that doesn’t work in one occasion. They use covering fire to get a bazooka close enough to take out a tank.

               “A Hill in Korea” is one of the better Korean War b-movies. It is noteworthy as one of the few British movies set in the war. Americans should watch it as a reminder that the Brits did help us in the war, including young British who were drafted to help us save South Korea. You might want to note that they did not do the same thing in Vietnam. Because of this movie?

GRADE  =  B

The Devil’s Disciple (1987)

               In my opinion, “The Devil’s Disciple” (1959) is one of the 100 best war movies. It is also one of the top five movies about the American Revolution. Based on a play by George Bernard Shaw, the dialogue is excellent and so is its cast that included Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster, and Sir Laurence Olivier. There was absolutely no reason to remake it. The new version could not equal, much less exceed, the original. I can only assume that someone thought there were enough people who had not seen the 1959 version and were not aware of it, to justify a reboot. At least no one spent money in a theater to see it. It was made-for-tv and it shows.

               For those not familiar with the 1959 film, “The Devil’s Disciple” is set in 1777. Gen. John Burgoyne (Ian Richardson in the Olivier role) and his army are on their campaign to cut the New England colonies off from the rest of the colonies. He is frustrated with the unsporting rebels who are fighting a guerrilla war against the Brits. Into this historical event are thrust a trio of colonists. Reverand Anderson (Patrick Stewart in the Lancaster role) and his wife Judith (Susan Wooldridge) are living peaceful lives with no connection to the Revolution. Richard Dudgeon (Mike Gwilym  in the Douglas role) is a ne’er do well who some would call the devil’s disciple. Judith is repulsed by Dudgeon because he is the opposite of her stable, rule-following husband. Guess who falls in love with this bad boy. Dudgeon breaks character to admit to a rules violation by the rule-following reverend. Dudgeon, masquerading as the reverand, is put on trial for treason. The previously pious prior has to tap into his inner machismo to prevent an atheist from being hanged.

               I already mentioned there was no reason to make this movie. It pales by comparison to the original. This is especially apparent in the acting. Even Stewart does not acquit himself well. Gwilym has nowhere near the charisma to play Dudgeon. It is much more like a play than the previous film which means it has less action. Unfortunately, it does not even bother to be witty. Do not watch this movie instead of the 1959 version!!!

GRADE  =  D

 

Commissar (1967)

            The film is based on a short story by Vasily Grossman entitled “In the Town of Beroychev”. It is set in a small town in Ukraine. It was directed by Aleksandr Askoldov. It is his only film because it got him in hot water. Although it was released during the Khrushchev Thaw, it got into trouble with the government’s censors. Askolddov refused to change the portrayal of the Jewish family. It also did not fit the heroic realism expected of Soviet films. The timing of its possible release during the 50^th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution meant it drew special attention and was deemed not patriotic enough.  Askoldov lost his job, was kicked out of the Communist Party, branded a social parasite, and was banned from making any more films. It was finally released in 1988 due to glasnost. It was awarded the Silver Bear – Special Jury Prize at the 38^th Berlin International Film Festival.

            The movie takes place during the Russian Civil War. A Red Army unit moves into the town of Beroychev. One of the commissars is a woman named Klavdia (Nonna Nordyukova). She’s more manly than the men. When a deserter is captured, she has him executed. No man is going to be more communist than her. Suddenly, she finds herself pregnant. She is distressed. Having a baby that will interfere with her job of protecting communism is not very patriotic. She has tried hard to be considered just as good as the male officers and now this pregnancy is a clear reminder that she is still a woman. When the unit moves on, she is boarded with a Jewish family. The empathetic family softens her. The baby becomes less and less of a distraction from her career path. She ditches her uniform for civilian clothes and is accepted by the community. She bonds with the baby and even sings a lullaby, an act totally out of character. This idyllic life is threatened by the approach of the White Army. This is ominous for the Jewish family and reminds Klavkia that she is still officially a commissar. She has a decision to make.

            “Commissar” is made more interesting because of its back-story. I did not read up on it until after I had seen it. To tell the truth, I did not guess that the film was controversial. In fact, the film would not be considered controversial if it had been made and released during glasnost. I have seen a lot of Soviet films and this one does stand out. There are other portrayals of women in uniform, but this is the first one I have seen where there is a female officer as a main character. She is a commissar because the character must choose between the traditional life of a woman and the life of a dedicated communist. The other element that seems to foreshadow modern Russian cinema is the depiction of the Jewish family. Their ethnicity is not a major factor. Klavdia is not an anti-semite needing redemption. The film makes it clear that the arrival of the White Army will likely lead to a pogrom. The audience is not encouraged to root for this. “Commissar” has been credited with being the first Soviet film to show Jews sympathetically.  

It’s a bit pretentious. At one point, we see riderless horses running. Symbolism! There are odd camera angles and facial closeups. It’s a Soviet war film after all. So, you won’t be surprised that the main character is a respected officer. Spoiler alert: the main theme is motherhood or motherland. Kvadia is meant to be a role model for Soviet women. But is she a role model for mothers?  

“Commissar” is available with English subtitles on YouTube. While overrated, I recommend it because of the story behind it. I would not make it the first Soviet film you watch. There are plenty more that are better. 

GRADE  =  C 

ANATOMY OF A SCENE: Das Boot – Running the Strait

            “Das Boot” is the gold standard for submarine warfare movies. I have considered it to be a great movie, but not outstanding because of one scene. I have read several books on submarine warfare and the Battle of the Atlantic, so I know u-boat tactics. The tactics shown in the scenes depicting the attempt to run the strait of Gibraltar seemed puzzling to me, especially since the captain is portrayed as a good leader who would not make any stupid mistakes. Recently, my opinion on this flaw in the movie has reared its head again and has caused me to question whether I have been too harsh on the captain for this. So, I have rewatched the pertinent scenes and read the book version of the scenes to see if the movie followed the book and if so, was the captain wrong.

            In the movie, the sub is given orders to enter the Mediterranean Sea by way of the Strait of Gibraltar. The captain is well aware that this is a very risky mission because the strait is very well defended. It will take a good plan and a lot of luck. He decides to approach the strait in the dark on the surface. The boat will evade British ships to get close to the strait and then dive and use the eastward current to save fuel and safely run through the strait. No one on the crew questions the decision, but it is obvious some of the officers are skeptical. The boat manages to maneuver through several British ships and are within ten minutes of diving when the captain sends all the conning tower personnel below deck except himself and the navigator. A plane attacks and drops two bombs that damage the sub and wound the navigator. The captain orders “prepare to abandon ship”, but he stays topside and orders full speed ahead. The second officer guesses the captain is trying to reach shallower water off the coast of Africa. When the sub runs into several British ships, the captain is forced to dive. He plans to hold at 100 meters, but the damage causes the boat to continue its dive until it bottoms out at more than 280 meters, well below crush depth.

            Were the captain’s decisions good ones and do they conform to the captain in the book? In the book, the captain’s plan is the same as in the movie. No one questions them, but there is some doubt. Heading for the strait on the surface in the daytime, they are forced to dive three times because aircraft are spotted. None of the planes attacks. They are back on the surface when night falls. They are ten minutes from diving when the plane attacks. (In the book, the officers wonder how the plane was able to find them in the dark which is appropriate because in October, 1941 the RAF’s radar on planes would not have been known to the u-boat fleet.)  The conning tower is hit and the deck gun is destroyed. No one is wounded. The boat dives, but resurfaces due to the damage. However, star shells turns the night into day, so the captain orders a dive to 100 feet (I am not sure why the movie went with meters.) The boat continues to the bottom which is more than 825 feet deep.  

            The movie is close enough to the real incident, considering it’s a dramatization. Obviously, the director and screenwriter were not going to reenact three dives because of aircraft. And the dive to the bottom is close to what happened. They did have rivets busting, by the way. It’s not just a submarine movie cliché. However, the captain in the movie makes a very puzzling decision to stay on the surface after the plane attack that damages the sub. He does not explain his decision, but it seems like he would not have known the damage would cause the sub to sink. His order to race towards the African shallows is not explained, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he knew the boat might sink and he wanted it to be in shallower water. (That’s a big assumption.) This actually worked out because although the sub does go way below crush depth, if it had sunk where it had been damaged, it surely would have been crushed by the lower depth. Probably because of time constraints the movie does not show the boat diving after the attack (which would have been standard procedure), but having to surface because of damage. The captain is then forced to dive because the alternative is being a sitting duck. Because the movie edits out some of this, it makes the captain look like a gambler who loses his bet. In the movie, it is insane to stay on the surface after the plane attacks and clearly informs the warships about the sub. He does not know that diving will result in sinking. In fact, since the ship draws fire on the surface, it is likely the damage that causes the uncontrolled dive was due to a shell hitting on or near the boat.

            This analysis has led me to adjust my view on the movie’s depiction of the Strait of Gibraltar sequence. I still feels the movie captain makes a poor decision to stay on the surface after being attacked, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because we don’t know what he is thinking and the movie might have made decisions for dramatic effect. With that said, I still believe both the movie captain and the book captain were insane to go as far as they did on the surface, even at night. In the war, the u-boats that successfully ran the very well-defended strait did it submerged using the eastward current to narrow the speed loss from not being on the surface. 

            P.S. Let’s take the scenes a little further. The movie covers the repairs to the sub and its surfacing very close to the book. And I just want to add something that might not have been apparent to viewers. The sub would not have survived if the Chief had gotten his wish to go home and/or if the captain had shot Johann when he had his panic attack.

Submarine Base (1943)

 

               In my quest to watch every submarine movie, I forced myself to watch “Submarine Base”. After a u-boat sinks a ship, we find out the Germans were helped by an American gangster turned  traitor who provided the torpedoes. (Actually, if the torpedoes were American made, then you could argue he was a hero given the fact that our torpedoes were crap at this stage of the war.) The gangster is named Morgan (Alan Baxter). He picks up the only survivor and would you believe Taggert (John Litel) has a history with Morgan since he was a cop. Taggert is taken to an island where Morgan runs a bar and resort (and a secret torpedo shop). Also trapped on the island is a colorful cast of characters, including five show girls. Hubba, hubba! Ever the cop, Taggert goes snooping around. His efforts could win the war.

               This movie starts out terrible, but manages to just be bad. The acting is what you would expect from a 1940s B-movie. The only one in the cast that I recognized was Litel. He was an American who fought with the French army in WWI. He was decorated twice. If you are a baby boomer, you likely would recognize him too because he made  more than 200 movies and appeared in many tv series. He was Gen. Sheridan in “They Died With Their Boots On”.  “Submarine Base” was a typical low-budget entry on his resume. He managed to keep a straight face through the ridiculous premise. And he got to say this choice line: “I’ll spread that nose all over your face.” Taggert belonged in a film noir. The only positive thing I can say for this movie is that it has an interesting twist at the end. If you want to know what happens, you’ll have to bite the torpedo and waste 65 minutes of your life like I did.

GRADE  =  D

Officers (1971)

            “Officers” is a Soviet war film about the friendship of two Red Army officers over decades. The film war hops from the Russian Civil War to the Chinese Civil War to the Spanish Civil War to the Great Patriotic War. It was directed by Vladimir Rogovoy.

             Alexei (Georgi Yumatov) and Ivan (Vassily Lanovoy) meet when Alexei and his wife arrive at a frontier post. They strike up a comradeship and capture a mujahideen leader. They rescue Alexei’s wife when she is kidnapped. After the original posting, the movie concentrates on Alexei and his family. Their paths cross when Alexei is a military adviser to Mao’s forces in the Chinese Civil War and Ivan is undercover with the communists. Alexei is a tanker in the Spanish Civil War. His son Yegor becomes a decorated war hero in WWII and Alexei is honored as a Hero of the Soviet Union. Years after, the two friends meet again and both are generals. 

            With a plot covering four wars and multi-generations, you would think the movie would be a miniseries. Would you believe the opposite. It clocks in at 1 hour and 36 minutes! I have found no mention that it was heavily edited. This seems odd because there are scenes that are truncated and hint at much better scenes that were cut. There are huge time jumps that leave you wondering what is happening to Alexei and Ivan in the interims. For instance, what are they doing during WWI? There is a scene in the Chinese Civil War, and none in the Great War? That seems very odd to me. Perhaps Soviet audiences did not want to be reminded of that war, but nothing also from the Russian Civil War? The movie needed to be twice as long to do justice to the pair. Or to do justice to Ivan. The movie is the story of two men, but it is really the story of Alexei with occasional appearances by Ivan.  

            The movie is very overrated. The acting is average. There is very little action and it lacks suspense. Frankly, I found it boring. I am a big fan of Soviet war movies, but I do not consider this one to be an exemplary one. The frustrating thing is that it could have been much better.

GRADE  =  D

THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT (1975)

                       “The Land That Time Forgot” was based on Edgar Rice Burroughs’ novel of 1918.  It was produced by Amicus Productions which was a competitor of Hammer Films.  One difference is Amicus tended to set its films in the present day as opposed to the gothic world of Hammer movies.  Amicus was most famous for its portmanteau horror films (several short films with a single theme), but it did some science fiction films, including several based on Burroughs books.  One was a sequel to this -  “The People That Time Forgot” (1977).  “Land” was directed by Kevin Conner.  He also helmed the sequel and “At the Earth’s Core”.  The movie did surprisingly well at the box office, but was not a hit with critics.

                       The movie opens with a message being thrown in the ocean and then we flashback to 1916.  A German u-boat sinks an American ship.  The movie makes a point to specify that the ship is American.  Bowen Tyler (Doug McClure) and Lisa (Susan Penhaligon) are in a lifeboat.  They link up with a boat carrying several crewmen who also survived.  Before anyone can even dream of eating raw sea gull, up pops the sub.  Conveniently, none of the submariners bother to come on deck until Tyler leads his men onto the conning tower.  They take over the ship in a nifty action scene.  The Germans manage to sabotage the radio, but any attempts to bamboozle these Americans will be fruitless because it just so happens Tyler’s family built it!  Tyler’s acumen allows him to sink a German supply ship (actually a model through a periscope).  They head for a friendly port in a temperate zone, so why the ice bergs?  And what’s that uncharted land mass?  The u-boat captain (John McEnery) recalls the story of an explorer who discovered a continent he called Caprona.  They have no choice but to come ashore, even though the terra incognita is distinctly hostile.  Hostile as in populated by dinosaurs and primitive humans.  They have to battle and kill a plesiosaur which begins the whittling down of the men (no need to worry about Lisa).  The Americans and the Germans agree to work together to survive.  And refine Caprona’s oil for fuel.  They will be aided by a collaborating cave man named Ahm (Bobby Parr) and helped by the fact that guns can kill dinosaurs and the natives.   It may not be a war movie, but it certainly has a lost patrol feel to it. 

                       The Burroughs’ estate had power over the script, so it had approval of the finished product.  Apparently, his descendants cared more about the story than the effects.  The movie used puppets and stop motion for the dinosaurs.  They look pretty cool … until they move.  (Whoever decided to include pterodactyls should have been stranded on an uncharted continent.)  And God forbid the dinosaurs appear in the same shot as the actors.  The movie did not aim for camp, but the fights with the monsters cross the border.  As inferior as the dinosaur effects are, the movie could have used more dino action.  The man-on-dino action is certainly preferable to the fisticuffs.  Not that the actors deserved to be eaten.  The cast is fairly decent and keeps a straight face.  And nice hair.  Panhaligon is lovely and McClure is manly and imperturbable.  It’s like he knows the man-eaters are fake.  Compared to other pulpy stories, the implausibilities are kept below average.  Don’t spend too much time thinking about the oil-refining.  But you might want to wonder why after encountering the plesiosaur, they settle down to eat some dino steaks and no one seems amazed about what they have been through that day!

                       As far as whether the estate got a decent treatment, the script is fairly good in lieu of Cliff Notes.  The framing device of the message in the thermos is from the book.  The characters are basically the same with Burroughs getting the blame for having Tyler being a u-boat savant.  The romance between Tyler and Lys takes center stage in the book and it’s a rocky road.  Lys is more of the classic damsel in distress and Tyler is her knight in shining armor.  Surprisingly, for a Saturday matinee creature feature aimed at kids, the movie scraps Tyler’s dog Nobs.  The Germans are more vile in the book, reflecting the 1918 publishing date.  The u-boat shells women and children, for instance.  Given the target audience, the screenwriters dilute Burroughs’ mumbo-jumbo about the evolutionary cycles that are taking place on Caprona.  Apparently, Ahm is in the least developed tribe, but during his lifetime he will go through stages that lead to being a Galu.  There aren’t just dinosaurs in the book as there are animals all along the evolutionary scale.  The book is better literature than the movie is film-making.  However, the movie has the benefit of providing closure.  It may be predictable, but at least we find out what happens to all the characters and the sub.      

GRADE =  C

You Natzy Spy (1940)

            The first actor to portray Hitler in a movie was Moe Howard of the Three Stooges. “You Natzy Spy” was made after Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator”, but released before it. The short begins with the disclaimer: “Any resemblance between the characters in this picture and any persons, living or dead, is a miracle.” The Stooges underestimated themselves because their portrayals of Hitler, Goering, and Goebbels would not have fooled any audience members. It was their 44^th short out of 190 they did for Columbia Pictures from 1934-1959. It has a sequel called “I’ll Never Heil Again”. 

            The short opens with three munitions makers complaining about the lack of profits. “There’s no money in peace.” They live in Moronika. They decide to oust the pacifist king and replace him with the stupidest man they can find. It just so happens the Stooges are working as wallpaper hangers in the house. So, Moe Hailstone becomes dictator. Curly Gallstone becomes Goering (with a uniform that has medals on the front and back), and Larry Pebble becomes Goebbels. When Moe asks what a dictator does, he is told, “He gives the people nothing and takes from them everything.” Moe accidentally rubs some black paint under his nose, in case anyone is wondering who he is portraying. Moe gives a speech from a balcony with Larry holding up applause signs. He introduces their slogan: “Moronica for Morons!” (A dig at the Nazis’ “Germany for Germans!”)  Some of the speech is in Hitleresque gibberish. They have a run-in with a beautiful spy named Mattie Herring (Lorna Gray, who lived to 99). To give you an idea of what level of comedy you are watching, the trio look at a map of the world that has places like the Sea of Biscuit, Bolonia, and the Bay of Windows. A meeting with foreign diplomats ends with Curly hitting them with golf balls. Spoiler alert: in the end, the Stooges are eaten by lions. (Unfortunately, the Stooges were not fortune tellers.)

            “You Natzy Spy” was a pretty daring film for its time. This was the era of the Hays Code (1934-1968). It was Hollywood’s creation to avoid government censorship by censoring itself. The code was strict. (It was probably stricter than the government would have been.) It forbid sexuality (nudity, homosexuality, sexy dances, etc.), crime (sympathetic portrayal of criminals, drug trafficking, white slavery), obscenity and profanity, making fun of religion, and interracial romance. It insisted good triumph over evil. The code was in effect until 1968, when it was replaced by the film rating system. Now films are not censored, but viewers are warned about stuff the Hays Code would have forbidden.

The code encouraged Hollywood to treat world figures (like Hitler) “fairly”. The Stooges certainly did not follow that advice, but the Hays Code didn’t police shorts as much as feature films. It was not just Hitler and his henchmen that are targeted. They are lampooned, but the munitions makers are portrayed as evil. The audience would have nodded their heads at this portrayal because there was a strong belief that the munitions makers were a cause of America’s entry into WWI. This makes the film a bit contradictory because it clearly is anti-Nazi and would have resonated with people who thought we needed to intervene, but it reminded people that we had gotten into WWI under false pretenses.

            The film has all the characteristics of a Stooge short. It was rare that they took on politics, but it was not unique. Because of the subject matter, “You Natzy Spy” relies more on jokes than most of the shorts which are dominated by physical comedy. That does not mean you won’t see plenty of eye pokes. It means that you have to listen as well as watch. The dialogue is heavy on puns and word play. “We must throw off the yoke of monarchy and make our country safe for hypocrisy.” Most of the banter is silly. Moe: “We’ll start a blintzkreig.” Curly: “Oh, goodie! I just love blintzes. Especially with sour kreig.” As you can see, there are some Jewish cultural references. It is obvious the Stooges, who were Hebrew. cared about what was happening in Europe. Catching all the jokes can be a problem if you are not familiar with the slang of the time period. At one point, Curly answers Moe’s question with: “Because there are no bones in ice cream.” That line perplexed me until I read that it was a popular nonsensical answer to questions back then.

            If you are a Stooges fan, you’ll enjoy this short. And you might get more respect for them. Making the film was daring at a time when the “America First” movement was powerful. I imagine there were people who boycotted the film. Unlike the vast majority of their films, it has historical significance. BTW if you watch it with your kids, be aware that there are two “6-7”s in it.

GRADE  =  B

The Sea Shall Not Have Them (1954)

               

               “The Sea Shall Not Have Them” is a British WWII film. It was based on the bestselling novel by John Harris. The book was published just one year before the movie was made.  It was directed by Lewis Gilbert (Carve Her Name With Pride, Sink the Bismarck!, HMS Defiant, Reach for the Sky). The title is the motto of the Royal Air Force’s Air Sea Rescue Service.

 

               In 1944, a British plane is shot down by a German fighter and crashes into the North Sea. The crew and passenger manage to get into a dinghy. The passenger is Air Commodore Waltby  (Michael Redgrave). He is carrying top secret papers about German superweapons. Naturally, those papers could win the war. Search planes are sent out to find the valuable intelligence. Guess what they do when a plane flies over.  They  yell and wave their arms. The plane does not hear or see them. They weather a storm, but things are looking bleak. The movie now intercuts between a rescue launch and the dinghy. The launch suffers mechanical problems. The movie has a series of unfortunate incidents that escalate the excitement. These include possible capturing by Germans, a minefield, and shore batteries.

 

               “The Sea Shall Not Have Them” is a decent time waster. It is very British with a very British cast. That’s not a criticism. The cast includes Dirk Bogarde and Nigel Patrick. The actors are solid, but the effects are a bit stodgy. The dinghy scenes were clearly filmed in front of a screen. In spite of the low budget, the film does have some suspense. The hardships they face were a bit much for one sea rescue operation, but nothing happens that could not have happened. In a tribute to the RAF Sea Air Rescue Service, it is appropriate to show a variety of scenarios. The movie does a good job giving credit to an organization that was not well known at the time. It builds nicely to a stirring rescue scene.

 

GRADE  =  C

The Tiger (2025)

            “Der Tiger” is a new WWII tank movie streaming on Amazon Prime. It was co-written and directed by Dennis Gansel. He directed eleven episodes of the “Das Boot” tv series. A Soviet T-55 chassis was mocked up to resemble a Tiger. It does look like a Tiger and effort was put into the interior to make it look authentic. I checked some diagrams of the interior of a Tiger and the film got it right. The movie begins with a title card reminding us that “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Not very original and after you see the movie you will wonder if that quote was meant as a deception.

The movie takes place o the Dnieper Front in the fall of 1943. The German army is on the retreat everywhere in Russia. The titular tank is protecting the retreat of one of those retreating units. It is stationed at the Soviet end of a bridge and is literally the last German vehicle that has yet to cross the bridge. In a well-done action scene, the tank holds off Soviet infantry and tanks. The Tiger is a beast that is capable of holding its own against great odds. And it can take a licking. It is apparent why it was the most feared tank in the war. This will be emphasized throughout the movie. 

The crew is led by Lt. Gurkens (David Schutter) who is a typical gritty commander, but he is not a martinet. The crew calls him by his first name. There are four other crewmen. Some are stock tank characters. The radio operator wears glasses, which is mandatory in war movies. The gunner is the commander’s best friend and is wiling to disagree with him. (He reminds of the chief engineer in ‘Das Boot” the movie.  The driver is a veteran who is good at his job. There is a loader and a co-driver. Needless to say, they won’t all survive.

            Gurkens is given a secret mission which is to go behind enemy lines to rescue an officer who has plans that cannot fall into enemy hands. If they fail, the war is lost, of course. The officer happens to be the godfather of Gurkens’ son. A series of flashbacks teases out their relationship. The movie has a mystery to solve. The road trip is a series of vignettes which is normal for these kinds of movies. They encounter a minefield where they are able to treat us to the cliché of one of the crew having to be saved from blowing up. They run into Soviet tanks and one persistent SU-100. This monster of a self-propelled gun is actually a year away from combat in reality, but it had a scarier 100 mm. gun than the SU-85s 85. At one point, the Tiger has to submerge to avoid impossible odds. They encounter a German unit burning a village and killing civilians. The commander is a stereotypical evil Nazi, but he is the only Nazi in the movie. The crew is apolitical. They eventually reach the bunker where their target is located.

            “The Tiger” is an intriguing movie. It has some of the cliches you see in tank movies, like the behind the lines mission and some stereotypical characters. But it avoids others. There is little dysfunction in the crew. All of them are appealing characters and they have the kind of camaraderie you would expect in a seasoned crew. Their banter is unforced. The death of one of the crew is heart-tugging and way above average for a low budget war movie. (I am a critic of the laughable depictions of death in most war movies.) Durkens is well-respected and is a good leader. But we do reach the point in the movie where his crew asks the inevitable question: “Is this mission worth what we are going through?” Durkens’ answer is “duty is duty.”

            I was not expecting much from this movie. The tank subgenre is not noted for its quality. There is no “Das Boot” equivalent and most of the films are below average for war movies. “The Tiger” stands out because although it has some cliches (ex. the mission behind the lines) and stereotyped characters (ex. the evil Nazi), it manages to avoid being predictable and unoriginal. It has a scene that I have never seen in a war movie (the submergence scene) and the tank does things I have never seen from any tank (ex. it launches smoke grenades). It is a well-made film with good acting and outstanding sound effects. But the main thing that sets it apart from other tank movies is a twist that I won’t give away. It’s worth the watch to see what I am talking about. Let me know if you figure it out and if you think it is better than “Fury” or “The Beast”.

GRADE  =  B+

PINOCCHIO (2022)

                 “Pinocchio” (also known as “Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio”) was a passion project for the director. He had wanted to make the film for decades as he was a huge fan of the novel The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi. The novel was published in 1883 and set in 1880s Italy. Del Toro decided to move his story to WWII Italy. He wanted his version to be darker than Disney’s. He was influenced by “Frankenstein”. The famed director wanted one theme to be generational differences between a father and his son. He also wanted the film to be about compassion. Pinocchio is not only a liar, but he is meant to be a typical boy lacking self-control. He contrasts with the puppet-like behavior of the children in fascist Italy. The twin journeys of the father and son find Pinocchio becoming more human and Geppetto becoming more loving. He based his character designs on artist Gris Grimly’s illustrations for the 2002 edition of the novel. He changed many of the characters. Spazzatura the monkey replaces the Cat. Count Volpe (Christopher Waltz) is a composite of the Fox, Mangiafuoco, and the Ringmaster. The Coachman becomes the Podesta (Ron Perlman). And del Toro adds Mussolini (Tom Kenny) as the figurehead of fascism. 

Del Toro decided to go with stop motion animation. It became the longest stop motion film ever made. The film was announced in 2008 and later Del Toro predicted a release in 2013, Unfortunately, he had trouble finding a studio that would finance a big budget adaptation of a classic animated film. Finally, Netflix decided to bankroll the film. It was a good decision because although the production cost $35 million, it made $110 million. Del Toro assembled an all-star line-up of vocal actors including Ewan McGregor, Ron Perlman, Christopher Waltz, and Tilda Swinson. Cate Blanchett begged to be on the project, but the only role left was the monkey Spazzatura. She jumped at it. For Pinocchio, del Toro chose Gregory Mann for Pinocchio because he had a normal child’s voice, not an animated character voice. The film was critically acclaimed and won best animated movie awards from the Academy Awards, BAFTA, Golden Globes, and Screen Actor’s Guild.

Twenty years after the end of WWI, Geppetto (David Bradley) lives in an idyllic village in Italy. He lost his son in the war and a treacly song over a montage of their lives together makes it clear his happiest days are over. One night while drunk, he carves a boy out of a tree that grew on his son’s grave. A wood sprite brings the puppet to life and assigns a cricket (Ewan McGregor) to guide Pinocchio. He narrates the film. Guiding him won’t be easy as Pinocchio has the self-control of a toddler. Geppetto can’t handle him so like parents over the centuries, he sends him to school to have the teachers parent him. In a movie full of villains, the town has an evil priest, the local fascist leader, and his bully son. Before he can attend school, he is connived into joining the circus by Count Volpe (Christophe Waltz) and his nefarious monkey (Blanchett). When Geppetto comes to recover his lying son, an altercation results in the death of the puppet. This is when he finds out he cannot die for good. He is revived after a certain amount of time, each time. In one of those lives, he is a propaganda tool for the government until an ill-fated run-in with Il Duce himself. He then ends up in boot camp because what could be better than a soldier who can’t be killed. But everyone else in this movie can be and most are. This movie has a stunningly high death count among its main characters. But don’t worry, Del Toro made a gritty, harsh Pinocchio, but he did not have the guts to forego a happy ending.

“Pinocchio” is barely a war movie. It is set in WWII and the war comes to the town by way of the air, but Pinocchio does not get into combat. Oddly, it is not hard on fascism and Mussolini is only lightly lampooned. You may want to explain to your children who that war criminal is. And why he is the least villainous of the villains. The number of villains stands out, but they are mostly stereotypes. The movie also has several cliches, including redemption arcs for two main characters. And there is the “you’re a burden” scene that you see in dysfunctional father-son movies. The animation is awesome. However, the songs are underwhelming. The movie is a feast for the eyes, but not for the ears.

In conclusion, “Pinocchio” is overrated, especially as a war movie. It certainly is a different take on the classic and for that reason it is worth the watch. And the talent that went into it is very apparent. I feel it is a bit harsh for younger children, so you may want to wait a few years before letting them watch it. And make sure you are viewing it with them.

GRADE =  B