BINGEWORTHY? The Attackers (Istrebiteli) (2013)

 

                   I like to watch Amazon Prime Russian television series while walking on the treadmill.  Concentrating on the subtitles takes my mind off the walking.  Amazon has a surprising number of Russian series set in WWII.  The first series I watched was “Night Swallows”.  The series are similar in that they both cover air warfare on the Eastern Front.  “Night Swallows” is the story of a squadron of female bomber pilots and “The Attackers” is about a fighter squadron that includes female pilots. 

                   “The Attackers” is set in 1943 during the period when the situation was in flux.  The squadron of Yaks is based near the front line and is mainly tasked with determining and thwarting German intentions.  They occasionally tangle with “Messerschmitts” (Me. 109s).   The characters include the pilots, their commanders, and the ground crew.  The main characters are a count who is an excellent pilot but suspected of being a German supporter, two brash young male pilots, a no-nonsense female veteran pilot, her friend who is more feminine, a slimy political commissar, and their gruff, but empathetic boss.  The twelve episodes play out as an extended soap opera with the pilot’s lives intermixing and some romances ensuing.  The soap opera scenes are leavened with some action, usually brief missions to locate enemy bases or downed pilots.  Some of the missions are carried out by biplanes.  This all leads to a German assault on their airfield which forces them to defend themselves and it will not end well for several of the main characters. 

                   “The Attackers” is pretty typical for a Star Media production.  You can expect competent acting by a decent cast.  Usually  there are photogenic female actors and in this case, a particularly cute pilot who is worth watching while walking on a treadmill.  The characters are distinctive and appealing.  They are not as stereotypical as you would expect.  Noteworthy is the commander who goes to bat for his men and women and often stands up to his superiors (although not successfully).  The villain is the political commissar, but he is not totally evil and gets a bit of a redemption arc.  The Germans are faceless and not demonized.  The series is not particularly propagandistic.  It does have an interesting episode where the count is captured and put in a camp with Soviet collaborators who are treated well by the Germans, but it turns out to just be for propaganda purposes.

                   The weakness comes in the quantity and quality of the air combat.  The CGI is inferior.  The dogfights are too rudimentary and sometimes don’t fit the scenario.  However, at least the Yaks are not made to do things they were not capable of.  For a series about a fighter squadron, there is a surprising lack of action.  The missions are abbreviated and sometimes end abruptly.  And they tend to be repetitive.  Speaking of abruptly, the final episode is a major letdown.  It appears the producers ran out of time and had to rush the conclusion, which is decidedly unsatisfying and blew a clear opportunity to end with a bang.  Kudos for being willing to kill off major characters.

                   “The Attackers” is a decent watch.  It should be near the end of your to-be-binged list. I would watch “Night Swallows” before it.

GRADE  =  C

Hill 24 Doesn’t Answer (1955)

                   “Hill 24 Doesn’t Answer” is an Israeli film that was directed by Thorold Dickinson.  It was the first feature film produced in Israel.  It is a tale set in the last hours of the 1948 War for Independence.

                   The movie focuses on four people who are sent to occupy and defend a hill before the cease fire goes into effect.  The 24 refers to the height of the hill, which means the movie is making a mountain out of a molehill.  The story of the four is being told by James Finnegan (Edward Mulhare).  Finnegan was an Irish policeman who fell in love with a Jewish woman.  His flashback shows how he came to be a fighter for Israeli independence.  Each of the other four get their own flashbacks to explain why they are willing to die for Israel.  Finnegan’s is by far the longest back-story.  The movie is more about Finnegan than the group. 

                   This is a boring movie.  Finnegan’s tale is about an incompetent policeman who falls in love with a woman he is surveilling.  It does include some action that is realistic street-fighting, although  they do pull the grenade pins with their teeth.  The cinematography reminds of “Rome, Open City”, but the screenplay doesn’t.  It is Israeli propaganda, which doesn’t disqualify it.  It’s simply not an entertaining war movie.  The cast does not make it more interesting.  Mulhare is the only recognizable actor and he is just as week as the rest.  It had the making of a good film.  The flashback structure is nothing new, but it is botched.  One of the four is not even given a flashback!  And although you might have sensed the outcome, the movie foolishly leads with the results of the hill battle. 

                   I had “Hill 24 Doesn’t Answer” on my watch list because I had seen it on some best-of lists.  I have no idea what those critics were thinking.  This is not even a good movie, much less great.  When it comes calling, don’t answer.

GRADE  =  D

Jarhead 2: Field of Fire (2014)

               “Jarhead 2” is a straight to DVD sequel to “Jarhead”. It was directed by Don Michael Paul (who also directed Jarhead 4).  The movie sets the tone as it starts with a pompous, macho bull shit voiceover. The setting is Patrol Base Cobra in Afghanistan. It is under heavy fire. It doesn’t help that is is located in a valley with the enemy controlling the high ground. (This is a similarly ludicrous strategic situation that we get in “The Outpost”.) But this is not an Alamo movie, it is a lost patrol movie. A convoy of four trucks and Humvees is ambushed and all of the vehicles are destroyed. As  is typical for this type of combat porn, the Americans never miss when they fire at jihadists and every shot is a kill. Navy SEAL Fox (Cole Hauser) takes command as they attempt to reach a village. Included in the group is an Afghan collaborator and an educated Afghani woman named Anoosh. Being educated makes her a target for the Taliban. Along the way, the have a duel with a sniper and take on two technicals (pickup trucks with machine guns in the bed).  When they reach the village, they hold up in the police station. (So, I guess there is an Alamo after all.)  And a rescue mission as Anoosh gets taken and has to be saved. I have to credit the movie for having a variety of scenarios.

       If you saw “Jarhead” and complained about the lack of action, you might actually like this sequel better. It certainly has more combat in it. It is basically a series of set pieces connected by walking. But while the lack of killing in “Jarhead” is realistic, “Jarhead 2” is laughably implausible. The tactics are ridiculous, but it is entertaining fluff. It definitely fits into the combat porn subgenre. But you should have guessed that the moment you read that it was straight to DVD.  It is set apart from the usual sequel that plays off the success of the original because it has surprisingly good acting. The cast is not well known, except for Hauser who was a good casting. No one embarrasses themself. You may not know the actor, but you will recognize all the stereotypical characters. Their deaths are predictable and the movie is not afraid to kill off heroes.

            “Jarhead 2” is mindless entertainment. If you prefer violence over talking, it might fit the bill for rainy day where your mind does not want to do any heavy lifting.

GRADE  =  C

Nuremberg (2025)

 

 

            “Nuremberg” was written, directed, and co-produced by James Vanderbilt. He began research in 2013 after reading the book “The Nazi and the Psychiatrist: Hermann Goring, Dr. Douglas M. Kelley, and a Fateful Meeting of Minds at the End of WWII” by Jack El-Hai. He got Russell Crowe to star. Crowe was eight years older than the 53-year-old Goring. He reached 277 pounds for the role. Obviously the film was not filmed sequentially because Goering lost 65 pounds during his confinement. The film was nominated for several AARP Movies for Grownups awards: Best Supporting Actor (Michael Shannon), Best Screenplay, Best Ensemble, and Best Period Film. The movie was a box office success, making $73 million on a budget of $7-10 million.

            “What follows is based on the accounts of those who lived through it. And those who didn’t.” It is May 7, 1945, the day Germany surrenders. American soldiers watch a stream of refugees heading westward. One of the GIs pisses on a swastika. They stop a fancy car and Hermann Goring is captured. He is put in a prison with 23 other Nazi leaders. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (Shannon) is appointed Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. In this position, he helps create an international code of laws governing war crimes. He insists the defendants deserve a fair trial. The fair trials includes having a psychiatrist interview the defendants to determine their mental capacity. Dr. Kelley (Rami Malek) is brought in for this job. He develops a relationship with Goring who he helps lose weight and kick his pervitin habit. (Pervitin was a methamphetamine that was given to German soldiers by the millions of pills.) Kelley enjoys verbal sparring with Goring, but he also has plans for writing a book about what made the Nazi leadership tick. Kelley acts a go-between for Goring and his wife and daughter, which was against the rules. Meanwhile, Jackson and his team are planning for the trial. They use footage of the death camps to show just how bad the “Final Solution” was. This builds to Goring’s time on the stand which is the moment he had been waiting for, confident that he will make fools of the prosecutors. He knows he will be found guilty, but loves the attention. The end is a foregone conclusion. However, the hangman is going to be disappointed.

            “Nuremberg” is a movie divided between two arcs that sometimes interconnect. The main core of the movie is the Kelley/Goring relationship. It is not quite the cat-and-mouse repartee that you would expect as the two men like each other and Goring is not trying to prove his innocence. He does insist he was not responsible for the death camps. Kelley is a strange bird as he violates orders, but sincerely cares about Goring’s wife and daughter and has some sympathy for Hermann. And yet, he becomes a spy for Jackson to help his prosecution efforts. There is some chemistry between Malek and Crowe. I don’t know how much Crowe fought for the role, but Goring is a fascinating person. Unfortunately, the film does not give him a lot of time on the stand. In fact, his confrontation with Jackson is something of a fizzle.

            The second arc is Jackson and his team preparing for the trial and then the trial itself. The movie glosses over the debate about whether Nazi leaders can be charged with crimes that did not exist before the war. There is no debate over the four charges that were arrived at. “Nuremberg” would seem to be a court room drama when it comes up short in that respect. Only Goring’s testimony is depicted and it is brief. By focusing on Jackson versus Goring, the film leaves the impression that Jackson wilted during the biggest moment in the trial. That may be true, but it is a disservice to his overall handling of the trial. There is no coverage of the defense offered for the defendants. The exoneration of two of the Nazis would have strengthened the theme of justice being served. And it would have been nice to know how their lawyers kept some off the gallows.

            The movie deserves credit for being mostly historically accurate. The transcripts from the trial were used for most of the dialogue in the trial scenes. The interactions between Kelley and Goring are accurate. And I assume his interactions with Streicher and Ley are probably true as well. I am confused that since there were 23 Nazis that Kelley interviewed, why were two of the least important ones focused on?

            I was disappointed in “Nuremberg”. It certainly is not in a league with “Judgment at Nuremberg”. The acting is excellent and is the main draw. As a behind the scenes look at the trial, it is interesting, but not fascinating. It provides Kelley with a traditional movie redemption that was not deserved, or true. It makes you wish that Goring versus Jackson had been given as much coverage as Goring versus Kelley.

GRADE  =  C+

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Goring’s arrest was actually arranged as far as the time and place. He was not trying to escape. Kelley had worked with thousands of PTSD (called combat fatigue) during the war. (He did dabble in magic.) His job was to determine the competence of the defendants to stand trial. He did use Rorschach tests. He did plan on using his findings to write a book. He worked with all the defendants, but spent more time with Goring than any of the others. Kelley did deliver letters between the Gorings. Emma did get arrested, but it was Bill Donovan of the OSS who got her released. Ley did commit suicide by hanging. Howie Triest was his translator and his back-story is accurate. He did emigrate to America in the 1930s and lost most of his family in the Holocaust. He only worked briefly with Kelley. The scene at the railway station where he opens up to Kelley was historical license. Dr. Gustave Gilbert (Colin Hanks) did work with Kelley. They had an adversarial relationship The fight did not occur, although Gilbert did have reason to be upset as Kelley broke their deal to publish a book together. Kelley did not work with Jackson on how to handle Goring. Kelley was not dismissed. He went home before the trial to be with his wife and write his book. Goring cried when he learned Kelley had left him. (Goring had wanted Kelley to raise his daughter if something happened to Emma as well as Hermann.) Having Kelley in the audience for the trial is necessary for plot purposes, but hard to justify historically. Kelley’s book “22 Cells in Nuremberg” was a flop. Americans were not interested in a theory that the Nazi leaders weren’t evil, he instead theorized they were opportunists motivated by ambition, immorality, and nationalism. It was Gilbert who had success with his books “Nuremberg Diary” and  “The Psychology of Dictatorship: Based on an Examination of the Leaders of Nazi Germany”. He believed leaders like Goring suffer from narcissistic psychopathy. 

              Jackson was torn a bit on accepting the job, especially since he was opposed to the death penalty. However, his belief in a fair trial convinced him to take on the daunting task of not only developing the law to cover the trials, but also prosecuting the Nazi leaders. (By the way, Elsie is his secretary, not his wife.) He believed in justice over vengeance. His dialogue in the trial scenes is almost verbatim from the transcripts. He gavegreat opening and closing statements, but Goring got the better of him as shown in the film. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (Richard Grant) did save him. In reality, his questioning of Goring was not the overly simplified exchange of the movie. He broke Goring down by not responding to Goring’s baiting and he used persistent questioning to wear Goring down. It was not just Goring admitting he would still follow Hitler. The hanging of Streicher was accurate, as is Goring’s suicide. There is some belief that the hangman purposely put the Streicher’s noose so that he would not die immediately. Col. Burton Andrus (John Slattery) was a strict jailer, but the movie does not condemn him for gross negligence for not preventing the two suicides, especially Gorings since he clearly indicated he was not going to allow himself to be hanged.  

            The “adjustments” made to the facts are acceptable for a movie that is not meant to be a docudrama. The box office for a movie about Goring must have him smiling in Hell, but viewers do learn a good bit about the Nuremberg Trials. That is a good thing in today’s political landscape. Not that the movie is clearly commenting on that. It’s probably just a coincidence.      

Salvador (1986)

            “Salvador” is an Oliver Stone (“Platoon”) film. He co-wrote it with Richard Boyle. The main character is based on Boyle, although the movie begins with a disclaimer that the characters have been fictionalized. The movie cost $4.5 million. Stone had trouble getting financial backing and had to take out a second mortgage on his home. You can’t fault his commitment to telling the story, but it was a box office bomb, making only $1.5 million. The movie got good reviews. Not a surprise since critics love movies about journalists. It was nominated for Best Actor (James Woods) and Best Original Screenplay.

            Woods plays veteran journalist Boyle. He is a stereotype of a war movie journalist. His situation is straight out of a country music song. He is unemployed, evicted, his wife and child have left him, and he has been arrested for numerous traffic violations. He hooks up with a down on his luck disc jockey called Doctor Rock (Jim Belushi) whose wife has kicked him out and his dog has died. They decide to drive to El Salvador because it is in the middle of a civil war and it is a good place for adrenaline junkies to get a fix. And they can make some money doing free lance work. In El Salvador, they hook up with photojournalist John Cassady (John Savage) who like all of this type in movies, heads in the direction of gunshots. There is a subplot that has Boyle attempting to save a girlfriend and her daughter.

            Boyle discovers that the United States is supporting the right-wing dictator. Government forces are involved in the murder of nuns and a respected archbishop who had spoken out against the government. Boyle interviews members of the insurgency and they are portrayed as heroic freedom fighters. And the US government is in bed with the bad guys. Did you expect something different from Stone? I do have to point out that Boyle witnesses the rebels killing prisoners. So, although we are supposed to sympathize with the rebels, it is clear they are almost as bad as their opponents. Those opponents are dastardly. They include the sinister latino and the gung-ho, communist hating military adviser.

            “Salvador” is a message movie, but is unengaging. Boyle is an unappealing character and hard to root for. The movie would have been better off concentrating on Cassady. Wood was a good choice for Boyle and he gives his usual slow-burn acting. Belushi provides comic relief. The trio of characters would fit into any war journalism movie. That means we get the cliches of getting a story (or a Pulitzer Prize winning photo) is more important than your family. To get that story or photo, you have to go in harm’s way. Stone stages some good action scenes and the movie finishes strong. Prepare to be depressed.

GRADE  =  C

K-19: The Widowmaker (2002)

 

               “K-19: The Widowmaker” was directed and co-produced by Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty). She and the other producers were the first western civilians to be allowed on the Russian naval base on the Kola Peninsula. The Russians provided members of the actual K-19 to serve as technical advisers, but they quit when they realized how far the script was from reality. Maybe they should have been listened to because the movie was a bomb, making only $67 million with a cost of $90 million. The movie was financed by the National Geographic Society. (It took such a beating, it did not do a comparable movie, “The Way Back”, until eight years later. It was another bomb.) $25 million of the budget was Harrison Ford’s salary. He worked 20 days. Nice work if you can get it. Years later, he told an interviewer that his role was one of his favorites.

               The movie takes place in 1961. The K-19 is a new sub and has not been broken in yet. A practice nuclear launch fails due to faulty equipment. Foreshadowing! Capt. Vostrikov (Ford) believes the boat is not ready, but Khrushchev needs to impress Kennedy with his new super sub. Vostrikov gets the message and proclaims it to be “the finest sub in the world.” The crew begs to differ when the champagne bottle used to christen the ship goes clunk instead of crash. They immediately dub their boat “the Widowmaker”. The dominoes keep falling. The nuclear reactor officer is drunk on duty and replaced by a rookie who proceeds to kiss his girl goodbye AND shows off her picture. Dude! What are the Russian words for “dead meat”. The doctor is killed in an accident. But the boat does go well past crush depth (like every other sub in a sub movie) but maybe … Nah! Speaking of cliches, would you believe the Captain and his exec Polenin (Liam Neeson) butt heads? Polenin and the crew were expecting him to be promoted to command and feel Vostrikov pulled strings to get the command. Sound familiar “Run Silent, Run Deep” fans?  There is a great scene where the sub surfaces through polar ice. Then its back to this boat sucks!  Then the reactor overheats, as well as other problems that you wouldn’t give to a monkey on a rock. I won’t spoil it, but whenever you think you have seen the last problem, you haven’t.

               “K-19” got a raw deal from audiences and critics. Actually, I don’t think you can fault audiences. Who exactly was the movie aimed at? Russians did not want to be reminded of the disaster and Westerners did not care about a Soviet sub that was saved by a valiant crew. Who was the audience supposed to be rooting for? Harrison Ford, of course. The non-actor part of the budget resulted in a authentic nuclear sub experience. The cinematography is outstanding. The interiors are realistic. Not too cramped, not too spacious. The cast is good, but the character arc  of the exec is a bit too redemptive. And the political officer is quite unrealistic (a possible sop for Russian cooperation?). I did not find the accents distracting, but I’m not an accent Nazi. Ford did get some criticism for his lack of one, but what do you expect for $25 million? Overall, the movie is suspenseful, despite the tropes. One of which is the brass asses. However, those crass asses do force Ford to make some interesting decisions that are arguable. One thing is for sure, you’ll be glad you weren’t on that sub. And you’ll feel sorry for the men who were. Unless you are a bitter old Cold Warrior.

               So, what did the survivors dislike about the narrative? Do they not understand that “inspired by actual events” means entertainment trumps history? Apparently not, because all of their complaints resulted in a big fat “so?” from the producers. They were upset with the profanity, drinking, and insubordination of their cinema selves. They disputed the conflict between the captain and the exec. They clearly had not seen any American sub movies. And they didn’t like the mutiny which did not happen in real life. (All of these complaints would have torpedoed (get it?) US Navy cooperation.)

               Besides all that, what else was inaccurate? First let me mention that the main technical adviser was U.S. Navy Capt. Peter Huchthausen (Ret.). Before you decide whether to side with him or the crew, bear in mind he wrote the book that accompanied the release of the movie. The background is accurate. The sub was rushed into development by Khrushchev’s government because he wanted to quickly enter the nuclear sub race. Because of the rush and probably because of Soviet incompetence, the boat had several accidents in production, costing 8 lives. The champagne bottle not breaking was true. But the sub was never called the Widowmaker. (Don’t you hate it when an historically based movie starts out with an untrue title?) After the accident, the crew called it the “Hiroshima”. It was commanded by Nikolai Zateyev whose exec was Vasily Arkhipov (the same Soviet submariner that did not start WWIII during the Cuban Missile Crisis when he refused to launch a nuclear torpedo at an American destroyer that was tailing his sub). I found no evidence that there was any command dysfunction. The sub suffered several problems during sea trials including some not shown in the movie. The hulls rubber coating came off. There was flooding during a crash dive to maximum depth. There was flooding due to cooks clogging the galley’s waste system. I found no evidence of the sub surfacing through the ice cap.

               The accident was pretty accurately depicted. There was a communications breakdown. The film does a great job highlighting the courage of the crew and the leadership of the captain. They did have to jury-rig a new coolant system and the engineering group did expose themselves to lethal levels of radiation. Even after that was solved, the ventilation system sent radiation throughout the ship resulting in 14 deaths over the next two years. The nuclear missiles were not in danger of exploding. There was no mutiny, but Zateyev did have most of the sidearms thrown over board to discourage the possibility. Zateyev did make the decision to sail to link up with some diesel-powered subs. He did encounter an American destroyer that offered help which was refused. There was no mooning of a helicopter. In conclusion, “K-19” suffers from the sin of enhancement for entertainment value, but that can be partly excused as a way to gin up sympathy for the crew. Sympathy they deserved.

 

GRADE =  B- 

 

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