Drums Along the Mohawk (1939)

            “Drums Along the Mohawk” is a John Ford (“The Horse Soldiers”) film set in the Revolutionary War. It was based on the novel by Walter Edmonds. It was nominated for one Academy Award – Best Supporting Actress (Edna May Oliver). The movie was a box office hit.

            The movie begins in 1776 Albany, New York. Lana (Claudette Colbert) marries Gilbert (Henry Fonda) and she leaves her upper class urban life for life on the frontier on a small farm. Her new home is a log cabin. It’s quite a contrast to the civilized life of the cities. It is a rough transition and she wants to go home. Next scene we see her as a proper frontier woman. We all know she is going to get there so why bother using film to show how she evolves?  It’s tough life even if they didn’t have the Indian and Tory problems in the valley. They are going to have to deal with Indians led by the dastardly Caldwell. How do we know he is a villain? He has an eye patch and he is played by John Carradine. Caldwell is balanced by a friendly Oneida Indian named Blue Back (Chief John Big Tree). He’s a “good” Indian. (I won’t get into the fact that Blue Back was a fool to support the Americans.) The naïve Gil wonders why this is happening. “I don’t know why we’d have trouble with the Indians.” Duh, you are taking their valley! There are times when the pioneers have to take refuge in Fort Schuyler. It’s built of lincoln logs. One of those times, Gil and Lana return to a burned out farm. They are forced to live and work for a feisty widow named Mrs. McKlennar (Oliver).  It’s on now. Gil’s militia unit marches off to get revenge. They should have taken their drilling more seriously become back with their tail between their legs. This was the Battle of Oriskany, but we don’t get to see it for obvious reasons. Gil claims that the whupped the Indians, but in reality they got their asses whipped. For a while, the valley is quiet and the farming is good, but that would be a boring ending act, so we get another Indian/Tory siege of the fort.

            “Drums Along the Mohawk” is very much a John Ford film and is very much of its time. It is basically a western set in the east. The Indians are evil, whooping savages being used by the British. The only good Indian is the one who warns them about Indian attacks. Ford directs many of his stereotype characters. The cheerful drunk, the crust old widow, the anti-pacifist preacher, the pampered young woman who is forced to adjust to frontier life. The cast is full of recognizable character actors. Surprisingly, the cast includes an actual Indian playing Blue Back. Chief John Big Tree appeared in over 50 movies. Fonda and Colbert are excellent as the central couple. It can be argued that Lana is the central character. The movie does not go to war with Gil. It stays with Lana. She’s the one who is most impacted by life in the Mohawk Valley.  The film is stolen by Edna May Oliver. The Best Supporting Actress category was created for perfomances like hers. It reminds me of Margaret Wycherly as momma York in “Sergeant York”.  Oliver lost to Hattie McDaniel in “Gone With the Wind”. No shame there.

            Ford gives a taste of life in colonial America. There is a church scene with a hymn. We see a birthing. There is a wedding. All of this in vibrant Technicolor (Ford’s first use of it.)  It is a beautiful film to watch. Ford interjects his trademark humor. The soundtrack fits the film well and pushes emotional buttons to enhance the visuals. Although it has the feel of an epic, it is actually only 104 minutes long. There is little action, but there is a great chase scene (I bet you did not see that coming) where Gil has to outrun three Indians to go for help. That’s right, Henry Fonda outruns some Indians. (Thank God none of them had a bow and arrow.)

            The movie is actually based on historical events, even though it is based on a novel. It has the feel of a chapter in a 4^th grade American History textbook. Some of the characters are historical persons, including Caldwell who was a British agent who was a British officer who fought in several places during the war. Sometimes he commanded Indian allies. He survived the war and fought in the War of 1812. He probably did not wear an eye patch. Herkimer did die after his leg was amputated after the Battle of Oriskany. The fort was not actually in the center of the farmland. When it was besieged, it was garrisoned by Continental Army soldiers, not militia. And it was attacked by British soldiers. Because of the timing of the movie, it was determined that the British could not be the bad guys at a time when America was looking at the possibility of fighting on their side in the upcoming world war. The movie resonated with audiences who could imagine the men going off to war in the near future, just like Gil was forced to do.

            “Drums Along the Mohawk” is a must-see movie. It is Ford at his best with a top notch cast. Like many of his westerns, it passes on the myths of frontier life. That makes it a shaky history lesson. So watch it as a novel brought to the screen in vibrant color.

GRADE  =  B-

           

The Great Waldo Pepper (1975)

            My brother Jason recommended I treat this movie as a movie about the making of a war movie. I had remembered it fondly as a teenager and was happy to revisit it. It was directed, produced, and co-written by George Roy Hill. It was a passion project for him. As a child he loved WWI aces and a famous barnstormer named Charles “Speed” Holman.  Holman set a record of 1,433 consecutive loops during a five-hour flight.  Hill himself had been a pilot and flew transports for the Marines in the South Pacific in WWII. In the Korean War, he flew night fighters. He reached the rank of major.

            The movie is set in the 1920’s in the waning days of barnstorming. Robert Redford plays Waldo Pepper. He makes a living giving country folk rides in his biplane and then joins a barnstorming troupe. After getting in trouble with new safety regulations, he becomes a stunt pilot for a “Hell’s Angels” type movie. There he meets a famous German ace (Bo Brundin).  (He was modeled after Ernst Udet who had 62 victories in WWI and then became a stunt flyer for airshows and the movies.) The movie concludes with a dogfight between the two.  It is arguably the best dogfight ever put on film.

            “Waldo Pepper” is a must-see for aviation movie fans. The aerial scenes are some of the best ever filmed. And we are not just talking about great stunt flying, we are also talking about great stunt work like wing-walking. The planes are awesome with the final duel between a replica Sopwith Camel and a replica Fokker triplane.  The sounds that are matched to the aircraft are realistic. 

             The acting is fine, with surprisingly the best performance by Brundin. The cast includes Bo Svenson, Susan Sarandon, and Edward Herrmann. Redford is his usual charming self. He’ll remind you of Tom Cruise in “Top Gun”.  Coincidentally, this movie boosted recruitment for barnstorming.  That’s a joke. 

             What keeps the movie from being great is it is not sure what it wants to be. It starts as a whimsical comedy and then has a major tonal shift midway through when a major character is sacrificed.   From that point on it becomes a psychological drama revolving around the old trope of men who can’t let go of their glory days.  What’s odd about this is Waldo did not even fly in the war.  He wants the adrenaline that guys like Kessler got.  And he wants to experience the mano-a-mano of a dogfight.  And he doesn’t want to wait for WWII.  Neither do we. 

               “The Great Waldo Pepper”  is not a war movie and it could have used a deeper dive into the filming of a WWI aviation film, but it is an entertaining film if you can overlook the flaws.  It is an excellent homage to barnstormers and stunt men.  You’ll be amazed how far pilots would go in the 1920s to earn a little money and entertain crowds.

GRADE  =  B

De Vijanden (1968)

            The movie was directed by Hugo Claus (“The Lion of Flanders”). It takes place during the Battle of the Bulge. Since I strongly suggest you don’t watch it, I will summarize what you should avoid. An American platoon pulls back because of the German offensive, but they forget to wake one of the men.  Harrison hooks up with a boy named Richard and an old Belgian named Alfonzo. They are making their way to American lines while trying to avoid the krauts. It is a war road trip picture. On the way, the meet a mother who Harrison rapes after she flirts with him and then has a change of mind. Harrison is something of a dick. Richard talks the daughter into showing her breasts. There are no heroes in this film. There are some fake German tanks they have to survive. They end up being captured by a rogue American group led by a woman. At one point, Harrison shoots a dogs and they eat it. By this time, you won’t care what happens to them.

            This is one terrible movie. Its 5.8 rating on IMDB might have been inflated by perverts. Much of the actions by the characters is ridiculous. It does have a lot of unintentional laughs. The battle scenes are surprisingly big for such a miniscule budget. There are even some flamethrowers which would have been used better to incinerate the film. The characters are all unlikeable and very poorly acted. Rivet counters will have heart attacks if they take the movie seriously. Insomniacs might like it. The only thing I can say positive about my experience is that it lasted only 1 hour and 31 minutes. However, I was begging for it to end before the hour mark.

GRADE  =  F-

Young Washington (2026)

            “Young Washington” is the new biopic of George Washington’s early military career focusing on his role in the French and Indian War. The film comes from Angel Studios which has become known for films that have a tinge of religion to them. Its movies are “values-based”. It was co-written, produced and directed by Jon Erwin. I taught American History for decades and most of those years my American History course covered from after the Civil War to recent American History. When the change was made to just covering post-Civil War, I decided I could not teach an American History course without covering the most important American. So, I started my course with a unit on George Washington. My students knew more about George Washington than 90% of the people in our city. It seems trite to call him the “Father of Our Country”, but it certainly fits. The movie has a couple of instances where the young Washington could have died, which will hopefully cause viewers to contemplate how lucky America was that this “indispensable man” was not killed before the Revolution.

            The movie opens with a taste of the Battle of Monongahela which basically tells the audience to stick around for Washington (William Franklyn-Miller), the action hero. It then flashes back to the 11-year-old George mourning his father’s death. He is forced to forgo a formal education because he is now the man of the plantation. His half-brother Lawrence (John Foss) becomes his mentor. George is determined to become a British officer. The film hammers the fact that Washington’s social status will make that impossible. He flirts with Sally (Mia Rodgers), but she is a rung above, so it is doomed. Thomas Fairfax (Kelsey Grammer) hires George to survey his lands. He has his first brush with death. Then Governor Dinwiddie (Ben Kingsley) sends him off into the wilderness to tell the French to cease and desist their fort-building. This is British land. (George does not argue in favor of the Indians.) This leads to an incident that starts the French and Indian War. It should have ended Washington’s career, but he seeks redemption by volunteering to serve as an aide to Gen. Braddock (Andy Sirkis). His attempt to share his hard-won experiences in the new Indian style of warfare falls on snooty British ears. The Washington we know was born in the debacle of the Battle of the Monongahela which closes the movie.

            Lets get the most important stuff out of the way first. Is it an historical atrocity similar to “The Patriot”? No, but I would not show it in class. Franklyn-Miller portrays Washington as an ambitious young man whose career is not always upward. He occasionally gives a glimpse of Washington’s temper. He has a tendency to speak in platitudes and is “value-based”. Young Washington is debonair and adventuresome, not  the imposing, stoical older Washington. One recurring theme is “a pawn can take a king” which is cringe-worthy since Washington was more of a knight on the chessboard. His lower-class status is exaggerated, but the important point the movie makes is colonial soldiers were looked down on by the pompous British. The movie makes no connection to Washington’s later espousal of independence.  

Until the final act, I found myself hoping “Young Washington” will be the first of a few films covering Washington’s life. And then came the last act which was so silly, my enthusiasm waned. Until then, the coverage of Washington’s career was acceptably improved for entertainment purposes. However, the Battle of Monongahela is laughable. Washington makes three rides through the battlefield and one run (in slo-mo, of course). He leads a charge. He saves his men. He is targeted by Indian sharpshooters, but miraculously survives. As usual, the silliest thing in a historical war movie turns out to have some validity. That is if you consider Parson Weems to be a valid historian. 

The film is not low budget. We get a Fort Necessity that is actually a big improvement on the real one. The sets and costumes are appropriate for the period and we get some dancing which is accurately amusing. The dance choreography is matched by the combat scenes which feature the volley fire to make the reenactors happy and a melee to make the stuntmen happy. And the audience, too. Or so the studio assumes. It is willing to overlook the laughter from real war movie lovers.               

“Young Washington” is not a bad movie. It will be criticized because Angel Studios supposedly has a conservative, religious agenda. I found that it did not force that on the audience. It does have some religious references, but they are relatively subtle. It did not strike me as being propaganda. Although it obviously is meant to tap into the patriotism of the 250^th Anniversary, it does not avoid mistakes Washington made. However, the last act overwhelms the “nobody’s perfect” vibe. The movie actually spends more time convincing us the British officers were asses than that Washington was a hero. British arrogance oozes from the screen. We got independence from that! 

By the way, if you are interested in a more accurate portrayal of Washington’s early years, you can watch Netflix’s docudrama on Washington which includes historians discussing his life and actors reenacting key moments. The battle scenes are actually more realistic than those of the movie. 

GRADE =  C 

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Washington’s childhood in the movie emphasizes his being deprived a formal education in England, but implies he was self-taught by reading classics when in reality he did attend school. The role Lawrence plays as a pseudo-father is realistic. The movie does a good job introducing Americans to this key figure in his life. His flirtation with Sally is overblown as it did not reach the “I wish I could marry who I want to marry” stage. The surveying section is truthy, including his surviving a dunking in a freezing river. In a typical example of historical license, Washington’s life is not saved by his companion Christopher Gist because that would not fit the legend. There was a Native American called the Half-King that Washington had run-ins with. This gives the film the chance to imply the British were better for the Indians than the French, which was the opposite of the truth. The Jumonville Affair softens Washington’s role. In the movie, it seems the fight began with an unknown person firing the first shot, although it implies it is the Half-King or one of his men. In actuality, Washington gave the order to fire. The movie gets Washington’s loss of control of his men right. Jumonville was not the officer that Washington had dinner with in the French fort. The movie rightly assigns the blame for the “assassination” of Jumonville on Washington. He manfully accepts it whereas in real life he dodged the blame and made the excuse that the translator messed up. The section on Fort Necessity is well-done as far as the mistakes Washington made. The screenwriters deserve some credit for not omitting that. His location of the fort was indeed stupid. The battle is the first inkling that the combat in the movie is going to be enhanced. In reality, it was very one-sided, but at least the defeat is humiliating. One theme the movie presents, although probably not on purpose, is the British were very forgiving considering Washington started a war and then got his ass whipped. 

Gen. Braddock does not toss him out of his office when he offers to help him on his expedition. In fact, Braddock invited Washington by letter to join the expedition. The movie does not make it clear that Braddock’s army was slowly and painfully creating a road to the French Fort Duquesne. The movie is accurate in depicting Washington suffering from an ailment (it was dysentery and hemorrhoids), but he was not bedridden when the battle began. (He was riding his horse while sitting on a cushion.) The climactic Battle of  the Monongahela is where the historical license goes off the rails. The movie treats the battle as though there were two parts – an ambush of the main column in the woods and a separate engagement of the Virginia militia in a field. This gives Washington the chance to experience the chaos of the ambush and then lead his men to victory over their adversaries. In reality, Washington organized the rear guard for the retreat.  Washington did survive with bullet holes in his coat and hat. His bravery in the battle was true. However, it was the bravery of a man exposing himself to enemy fire while rallying the troops. It was not the bravery of a man leading charges. Braddock did put him in charge and Washington did step up under very difficult circumstances. The movie leaves the impression that Washington prevented the battle from being a disaster when it actually was. The movie is weak in the aftermath of the battle. It does not do a good job portraying how Washington came out of the battle famous as the best colonial soldier in the colonies. He was lauded for his leadership, not his fighting ability. Surprisingly, the movie does not have Washington ascribing his survival to divine providence, which is the way he explained it.

LUCKY STRIKE (2026)

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

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

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

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

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

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

GRADE = C-

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

           

 

Heroes from Another Country (1998)

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

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

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

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

GRADE  =  D-

Pressure (2026)

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

GRADE = B+

WWII with Tom Hanks (2026)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GRADE =  A-

Operation Chromite (2016)

                   It took 35 years for another movie to be made about Inchon.  “Inchon” (1981) starring Sir Laurence Olivier is famous as one of the biggest turkeys of the 1980s.  “Operation Chromite” was the first joint American/South Korean production focusing on the Korean War since “Inchon”.  Continuing a recent trend that has included Bruce Willis, it stars a big American actor who clearly loves money and cares little for reputation.  In this case, Liam Neeson takes the cash and saunters as Douglas MacArthur.  Ironically, Douglas MacArthur turned in better acting performances than the actors who have portrayed him.

 

                   The title refers to the code name for the invasion at Inchon.  MacArthur’s plan was to make a daring landing behind enemy lines to change the momentum of the war.  The port of Inchon was a particularly difficult location for an amphibious landing.  Part of the problem was the tides and the mines.  To recon the harbor and gather intelligence information, a crack squad of eight South Korean soldiers are sent behind enemy lines.  They are led by Capt. Jang Hak-soo (Lee Jong-jae).   Plausibility gets off to a rough start when the men kill eight North Korean soldiers on a train and take their identities.  As per the war movie cliché, the uniforms fit perfectly.  They masquerade as an inspection team, but the local villain Lim Gye-jin (Lee Beom-soo) is suspicious because apparently some North Koreans had brains.  The clock is ticking.  Ticking toward when the crazy ass Korean combat kicks in.  Meanwhile, we intercut to the pompous MacArthur discussing his plan.

 

                   “Operation Chromite” is not among the better Korean war movies.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the worst ones have American involvement.  There certainly is a huge gap between a movie like this and movies like “Tae Guk Gi”.  You get the kick-ass combat cinematography Korean war films are noted for, but unfortunately the script and acting do not match the fireworks.  In this case, the plot starts off ridiculous and spirals to bonkers quickly.  There is very little resemblance to the actual invasion.  You will learn nothing historical from it. 

 

                   The acting is wooden, with Neeson leading the way.  It’s an embarrassing performance, but it gets forgotten in the lunacy that surrounds it.  There is little resemblance to reality and the poor CGI does not help.  The naval bombardment is straight out of a video game.  There is no character development other than Jang and Lim.  Jang is an action hero and Lim is a cartoonish villain.  The movie becomes a series of confrontations between the two.  Lim is one tough dude to kill.  It comes down to a tank duel, so try not to drink yourself into a stupor before the big finish. 

 

GRADE  =  D

 

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