100 BEST WAR MOVIES: 31. Valkyrie (2008)

 

                “Valkyrie” is based on the true story of the plot to assassinate Hitler.  The assassination and the implementation of the government takeover were known as Operation Valkyrie.  The main conspirator was Col. Claus von Stauffenberg who is portrayed by Tom Cruise.  The movie was directed by Marc Singer.  It is his first and only war movie and he treated it as a thriller based in a war.  The film had a bit of a difficult gestation.  Tom Cruise’s association and his Scientology beliefs made many Germans (including the Stauffenberg family) skeptical about the film and at first there was opposition to filming in Germany.  However, support from German newspapers and filmmakers eventually overcame the roadblocks.  Singer was even allowed to film scenes in the Bindlerblock (now called the Memorial to the German Resistance) where the plot was centered. 

            The other obstacle that had to be overcome was the lukewarm studio reaction to the project.  Tom Cruise was damaged goods, although his performance in “Tropic Thunder” had generated a lot of good will.  The idea of a World War II epic with a heavy dose of Nazism in it was also cause for concern.  In spite of this, United Artists poured $75 million into the project.  Some of that money went to building a replica of the Wolf’s Lair which took three months.  When the movie was completed the studio was not sure what to do with it.  The release date was pushed back until a test audience gave it a seal of approval.  At that point the suits decided it warranted a Christmas release because nothing says Noel more than a Nazi death plot.  The movie did not start off strong at the box office and got mixed reviews, but it ended up making $83 million domestically and over $200 million worldwide.

            The movie opens with German soldiers taking an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer.  This is a crucial scene because it explains the anguish most of the conspirators will go through in violating that oath. This established the movies main theme which was that a person may have to make sacrifices to fight evil.  One of those soldiers who breaks that pledge is a Col. von Stauffenberg.  We meet him in Tunisia in the waning days of the Afrika Korps’ defense of North Africa.  He mouths off about S.S. atrocities and clearly is at a tipping point in his loyalty toward Hitler.  An air attack by two P-40s on his column results in grievous injuries including loss of an eye.  Stauffenberg’s fighting days are over and his plotting days have begun.  He will be a newcomer to the conspiracy as Maj. Gen. Trasckow (Kenneth Branagh) is already actively trying to kill Hitler.  He manages to place a bomb on the Fuhrer’s plane when he visits the Eastern Front, but unfortunately it fails to work and Trasckow has to rush to Berlin to retrieve the incriminating evidence.  This is the first scene that makes you wonder how much of the screenplay is enhanced for entertainment value.

            Stauffenberg is recruited into the plot and takes charge of the disparate conspirators.  He realizes that they have not given enough thought to what happens after Hitler is dead.  He suggests they use the already in place Operation Valkyrie plan.  That plan provides for the Reserve Army to deal with a national emergency.  Stauffenberg daringly attends a meeting of Hitler’s inner circle to get him to sign off on adjustments to the plan.  After two aborted attempts, Stauffenberg manages to bring a briefcase with explosives to a strategy meeting hosted by Hitler. 

ACTING:   A                 

ACTION:   N/A

ACCURACY:  A          

PLOT:  A                     

REALISM:   A           

CINEMATOGRAPHY:    B

SCORE:   C               

SCENE:  the explosion

QUOTE:   Von Stauffenberg:  I'm a soldier, I serve my country. But this is not my country. I was lying out there bleeding to death, thinking, if I die now, I leave nothing to my children but shame. I know now there is only one way to serve Germany, and doing so I'll be a traitor - I accept that.

            “Valkyrie” is a big budget effort and the effort shows.  The cast is international and stellar.  Cruise is the only  superstar, but the rest of the cast are recognizable for their talents.  They are also recognizable as the real historical people they play.  A sampling of their pictures alongside their characters shows the great work of the casting director and the make-up artists.  This was not a vanity project for Cruise and although he is not the best actor involved, he does a satisfactory job portraying Stauffenberg.  He deserves credit for the eight months of research he did in preparing for the role.

            The money was not spent just on the salaries of the cast.  Rebuilding the Wolf’s Lair must have been expensive.  Singer went to great trouble to get the details right.  He used authentic P-40s for the one combat scene.  Not that anyone would notice, he acquired thirty period teletype machines for the scenes set in the communications room.  To top that off, the messages we see arriving are all actual messages from the archives!  The sets and costumes are spot on.  I found little of the usual carping about improper insignia, etc.  The score is fine and fits the mood well in an understated way.

            The plot is suspenseful, especially if you don’t know much about what happened.  The movie manages to juggle numerous characters without too much confusion, although a second viewing helps.  One weakness is there is not a lot of character exposition.  We do not clearly know why Stauffenberg is motivated to break his oath and kill a leader he admired at one time.  Providing this insight would have substantially increased the length of the film probably.  Most importantly, the movie does not smack of Hollywood excess.  Stauffenberg is not an action hero.  But he undoubtedly is a hero and the movie does an admirable job doing justice to the brave members of the conspiracy.  Many viewers will learn for the first time that there was a significant resistance to Hitler.  Not all Germans were cowed by the Nazis.  However, the movie does leave the impression that if Hitler had still been winning the war in 1944, he would not have been in danger of assassination.

            As far as the accuracy, the movie is reminiscent of “Downfall” and is an excellent companion to it.  Like that other Hitler epic, “Valkyrie” is amazingly accurate.  Nothing happens in the movie that is significant tampering with history.  For instance, the seemingly Hollywoodish first attempt via a bomb on the plane is basically what happened with the tweak of having Tresckow retrieving the package instead of an aide.  Why not use Branagh for that?  All the real historical personages are portrayed as they were, not just in looks.  The reenactment of the July 20 attempt is excellent and the movie even uses some Hollywood theatrics to show what should have happened.  It is important to note that although some people are familiar with the bombing, the movie does an admirable job depicting the ensuing events which are less well known.  “Valkyrie” is basically a big budget, all-star documentary.  You need not look or read elsewhere if you want to know the story of the assassination attempt.  This movie is the gold standard for its topic.

            I have to admit that when I first heard about this movie I was upset.  Part of that feeling was due to concern about Cruise making a historical movie, but mainly because I questioned the potential for a movie about a failed attempt to kill Hitler.  I just could not imagine that there would be a substantial audience for that subject.  Why would Hollywood spend $75 million on a war movie that no one wanted?  I still feel the money could have been better spent on a film about the St. Nazaire Raid, for instance.  However, I have to admit I was wrong.  “Valkyrie” is an excellent movie on a subject that deserved treatment.  It’s nice to know a movie like this can make money.  It is definitely one of the 100 Best War Movies.

WTF? Beyond Valkyrie: Dawn of the 4th Reich (2016)

                Each year I check on what war movies are being planned for the future.  Often there are movies that sound interesting on paper and I look forward to someday seeing them.  As I look back over the years, many of those intriguing titles never made it into production.  And some, unfortunately, did.  This leads me to wonder two things: 1.  Why do good movies not get made?  2.  Why do bad movies get green-lighted?  “Beyond Valkyrie” fits in the second category.  It was directed by Claudio Fah.  Remember that name.  He’s going to be big someday.  Or not.  The movie went straight-to-video which still means that it got further than a bunch of the titles I had been looking forward to.  Life is not fair.

                The movie begins with a title card that informs us that Germany is losing the war, but the Nazis are stockpiling something in East Prussia.  In England, “Operation Jedburgh” has the mission of going behind enemy lines to bring out a German officer who is part of Operation Valkyrie (the attempt on Hitler’s life).  The movie is unclear about why they need this guy, but don’t worry about it - the script doesn’t.  A below average CGI transport plane gets shot down and our four commandoes are on their own.  They are led by Capt. Blackburn (Sean Patrick Flanery) and include a crusty sergeant played by Tom Sizemore.  If you continue watching after Sizemore’s involvement in the movie, you are truly a war movie fan and/or a masochist.  Either way, keep drinking.

 

                Our quartet hooks up with four Soviets led by Maj. Kulkov (Pasha Lychnikoff).  There is a Mexican standoff before the Allies bond.  They are joined by a hot spy (actress Julie Engelbrecht in case you want to skip the movie and see just this scene)  who gratuitously shows her breasts to assure us we are watching a straight-to-video movie.  The band of brothers are trapped in a house by Nazis leading to a ridiculous shootout with the usual German mindless assaulters being mowed down. Think "Where Eagles Dare".  Then it’s on to rescue the good Nazi while being chased by the evil Nazi.  It all gets a bit redundant with prodigious expenditure of ammo.  The German soldiers are worse shots than Imperial Stormtroopers. 

                “Beyond Valkyrie” is not the sequel to the Tom Cruise movie that you were hoping for.  And this time they still don’t get Hitler.  What we have here is the classic straight-to-DVD bait and switch involving a title.  Of course, if you are fooled by the title, you get what you deserve.  And that means terrible effects, terrible acting, terrible dialogue… you get the idea.  Or I could have simply said you get Tom Sizemore. 

GRADE  =  F   

WAR MYSTERY: The Night of the Generals (1967)

  

               

                   “The Night of the Generals” is the rare mystery set in war.  It was a Franco-British production helmed by Sam Spiegel who was attempting to replicate the success of his “Lawrence of Arabia”.  To maximize his chances, he reunited Peter O’Toole and Omar Sharif for the first time since that epic five years earlier.  This might have worked except for the fact that neither star was happy to be involved in the movie.  The two actors were forced to make the movie for laughably low salaries for new mega-stars because they were still under an earlier contract.  In fact, Donald Pleasance was paid a lot more than the other two.  Sharif was uncomfortable with playing a Nazi and had a very awkward moment in a Warsaw café when he forgot he was in uniform.  Spiegel hired Anatole Litvak as director instead of a new up and coming director.  He then proceeded to micro-manage and undercut Litvak throughout the shoot.  It took four screenwriters to put together the script.  In spite of all this dysfunctionality the movie was a big hit – not!

                The movie opens with the murder of a prostitute in Warsaw in 1942.  A Major Grau (Sharif) from the Abwehr (Nazi intelligence) is brought in because the girl was a German agent.  The three suspects are three German generals.  It is no spoiler to admit that it is obvious from his first appearance that Gen. Tanz (O’Toole) is the murderer.  End of mystery, but unfortunately not end of movie.  Stick around for a truly bizarre performance by O’Toole.  He plays Tanz as a looney and a sadist.  He is insane and evil even for a Nazi.  He has a soft spot for kids while he is wiping out their neighborhood with tanks and flamethrowers.  Grau is snooping around when he gets transferred to Paris.  Guess what three suspects end up in Paris two years later at the time of a similar prostitute murder?  It’s a small war after all.  The film throws in a subplot about the conspiracy to kill Hitler and does a satisfactory job reenacting the assassination attempt.  Tanz kills another prostitute and frames his driver, but then lets him flee so he can later implicate him when we flash forward to Hamburg in 1965. 

                   This movie is a misfire of epic proportions.  Nothing works.  It is a mess.  It has no flow, partly due to the nonlinear structure.  It drags along like a crippled otter.  There is a romance involving Tanz’s driver that is lame and has no logical reason for being in the movie.  Except to give the great Tom Courtney something to do to please his multitude of fans.  The weaving of the mystery with the assassination conspiracy does not work.  More importantly, the mystery is undermined by O’Toole’s truly weird performance.  It is painfully clear that he sabotaged the movie out of spite for his paltry salary.  At one point he makes a trip to a museum and freaks out over a self-portrait of Van Gogh.  The next day he returns to the museum and stares at the painting and then leaves.  WTF?  Of course, you have to put some of the blame for that on the four screenwriters, but he did not have to play Tanz as the Hitler Youth voted Most Likely to Kill Prostitutes.  He also does not bother to even attempt a German accent. Then again, neither does any other member of the cast. 

                Bleh!

GRADE  =  D  

Valkyrie (2008)

                “Valkyrie” is based on the true story of the plot to assassinate Hitler.  The assassination and the implementation of the government takeover were known as Operation Valkyrie.  The main conspirator was Col. Claus von Stauffenberg who is portrayed by Tom Cruise.  The movie was directed by Marc Singer.  It is his first and only war movie and he treated it as a thriller based in a war.  The film had a bit of a difficult gestation.  Tom Cruise’s association and his Scientology beliefs made many Germans (including the Stauffenberg family) skeptical about the film and at first there was opposition to filming in Germany.  However, support from German newspapers and filmmakers eventually overcame the roadblocks.  Singer was even allowed to film scenes in the Bindlerblock (now called the Memorial to the German Resistance) where the plot was centered. 

                The other obstacle that had to be overcome was the lukewarm studio reaction to the project.  Tom Cruise was damaged goods, although his performance in “Tropic Thunder” had generated a lot of good will.  The idea of a World War II epic with a heavy dose of Nazism in it was also cause for concern.  In spite of this, United Artists poured $75 million into the project.  Some of that money went to building a replica of the Wolf’s Lair which took three months.  When the movie was completed the studio was not sure what to do with it.  The release date was pushed back until a test audience gave it a seal of approval.  At that point the suits decided it warranted a Christmas release because nothing says "Noel" more than a Nazi death plot.  The movie did not start off strong at the box office and got mixed reviews, but it ended up making $83 million domestically and over $200 million worldwide.

Why wasn't Tom Cruise in front of
a firing squad used to market the movie?

                The movie opens with German soldiers taking an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer.  This is a crucial scene because it explains the anguish most of the conspirators will go through in violating that oath.  One of those soldiers who breaks that pledge is a Col. von Stauffenberg.  We meet him in Tunisia in the waning days of the Afrika Korps’ defense of North Africa.  He mouths off about S.S. atrocities and clearly is at a tipping point in his loyalty toward Hitler.  An air attack by two P-40s on his column results in grievous injuries including loss of an eye (from bombs dropped that the planes clearly do not have - cliche alert!).  Stauffenberg’s fighting days are over and his plotting days have begun.  He will be a newcomer to the conspiracy as Maj. Gen. Trasckow (Kenneth Branagh) is already actively trying to kill Hitler.  He manages to place a bomb on the Fuhrer’s plane when he visits the Eastern Front, but unfortunately it fails to work and Trasckow has to rush to Berlin to retrieve the incriminating evidence.  This is the first scene that makes you wonder how much of the screenplay is enhanced for entertainment value.

                Stauffenberg is recruited into the plot and takes charge of the disparate conspirators.  He is full of charisma, enthusiasm, and balls.  He realizes that they have not given enough thought to what happens after Hitler is dead.  He suggests they use the already in place Operation Valkyrie plan.  That plan provides for the Reserve Army to deal with a national emergency.  Stauffenberg daringly attends a meeting of Hitler’s inner circle to get him to sign off on adjustments to the plan.  After two aborted attempts, Stauffenberg manages to bring a briefcase with explosives to a strategy meeting hosted by Hitler.  He leaves the building confident that the explosion has killed the Fuhrer and heads back to the Bindlerblock to set up the new government.  Hitler’s miraculous survival causes the plot to unravel despite the efforts of Stauffenberg and the true believers.  As Gen. Beck (Terence Stamp) opines, “this is a military operation, nothing ever goes according to plan.”

"What do you mean we killed Moe Howard?"

                “Valkyrie” is a big budget effort and the effort shows.  The cast is international and stellar.  Cruise is the only  superstar, but the rest of the cast are recognizable talents.  They are also recognizable as the real historical people they play.  A sampling of their pictures alongside their characters shows the great work of the casting director and the make-up artists.  (They may look like the people, but don't expect them to sound like them.  "If Cruise doesn't have to attempt an accent - neither do we!")  This was not a vanity project for Cruise and although he is not the best actor involved, he does a satisfactory job portraying Stauffenberg.  He deserves credit for the eight months of research he did in preparing for the role.

                The money was not just spent on the salaries of the cast.  Rebuilding the Wolf’s Lair must have been expensive.  Singer went to great trouble to get the details right.  He used authentic P-40s for the one combat scene.  Not that anyone would notice, he acquired thirty period teletype machines for the scenes set in the communications room.  To top that off, the messages we see arriving are all actual messages from the archives!  The sets and costumes are spot on.  I found little of the usual carping about improper insignia, etc.  The score is excellent and fits the mood well in an understated way.

                The plot is suspenseful, especially if you don’t know much about what happened.  The movie manages to juggle numerous characters without too much confusion, although a second viewing helps.  One weakness is there is not a lot of character exposition.  We do not clearly know why Stauffenberg is motivated to break his oath and kill a leader he admired at one time.  Providing this insight would have substantially increased the length of the film probably.  Most importantly, the movie does not smack of Hollywood excess.  Stauffenberg is not an action hero.  But he undoubtedly is a hero and the movie does an admirable job doing justice to the brave members of the conspiracy.  Many viewers will learn for the first time that there was a significant resistance to Hitler.  Not all Germans were cowed by the Nazis.  However, the movie does leave the impression that if Hitler had still been winning the war in 1944, he would not have been in danger of assassination.

the first attempt - giving Hitler a yellow card

                As far as the accuracy, the movie is reminiscent of “Downfall” and is an excellent companion to it.  Like that other Hitler epic, “Valkyrie” is amazingly accurate.  I will be posting a “History or Hollywood” on it in the future, but for now I can preview that nothing happens in the movie that is significant tampering with history.  For instance, the seemingly Hollywoodish first attempt via a bomb on the plane is basically what happened with the tweak of having Tresckow retrieving the package instead of an aide.  Why not use Branagh for that?  All the real historical personages are portrayed as they were, not just in looks.  The reenactment of the July 20 attempt is excellent and the movie even uses some Hollywood theatrics to show what should have happened.  It is important to note that although some people are familiar with the bombing, the movie does an admirable job depicting the ensuing events which are less well known.  “Valkyrie” is basically a big budget, all-star documentary.  You need not look or read elsewhere if you want to know the story of the assassination attempt.  This movie is the gold standard for its topic.

                I have to admit that when I first heard about this movie I was upset.  Part of that feeling was due to concern about Cruise making a historical movie, but mainly because I questioned the potential for a movie about a failed attempt to kill Hitler.  I just could not imagine that there would be a substantial audience for that subject.  Why would Hollywood spend $75 million on a war movie that no one wanted?  I still feel the money could have been better spent on a film about the St. Nazaire Raid, for instance.  However, I have to admit I was wrong.  “Valkyrie” is an excellent movie on a subject that deserved treatment.  It’s nice to know a movie like this can make money.  It is definitely one of the 100 Best War Movies.

GRADE  =  A

The Best WWII Comedy

My recent review of  as the #70 movie "Hail the Conquering Hero" on the 100 Greatest War Movies list got me thinking about what is the best WWII comedy. Besides “Hail”, other contenders would be:


“The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek”

“The Great Dictator”

“Buck Privates”

“Catch-22”

“Mister Roberts”

“Operation Petticoat”

“At War with the Army”

“Father Goose”

“What Did You Do in the War, Daddy?”

“Two Men Went to War”

“On the Double”

     In this post I am going to make the case for “To Be or Not to Be” as the greatest WWII comedy. TBONTB was released in 1942. It was directed by the acclaimed Ernst Lubitsch and stars Jack Benny and Carol Lombard (in her last film before her death in a plane crash on a war bond tour). It is set in Warsaw in 1939. Josef Tura (Benny) and his wife Maria (Lombard) are members of an acting troupe performing “Hamlet”. They have a typically dysfunctional acting-spouses relationship. Maria is having an affair with a dashing Polish pilot named Sobinski (Robert Stack) who comes to her dressing room each performance when Josef begins his “to be or not to be” soliloquy. Josef is very upset with this insulting distraction, resulting in the following exchange with Maria:

Josef: Someone walked out on me. Tell me, Maria, am I losing my grip?


Maria: Oh, of course not, darling. I'm so sorry.


Josef: But he walked out on me.


Maria: Maybe he didn't feel well. Maybe he had to leave. Maybe he had a sudden heart attack.


Josef: I hope so.


Maria: If he stayed he might have died.


Josef: Maybe he's dead already! Oh, darling, you're so comforting.

     Poland is invaded and months pass via a montage of Polish resistance. Sobinski is flying for the Royal Air Force. He meets a Professor Siletsky who is supposedly connected to the Polish underground, yet does not know who Maria Tula is. Sobinski goes to his superiors with his suspicion and is parachuted into Poland to alert the resistance. In turns out that Maria is working with the underground. She goes to Siletski’s hotel and pretends to be attracted to him. One of the acting troupe arrives disguised as a German soldier and takes Siletsky to Gestapo headquarters (the theater in disguise) to meet “Concentration Camp” Ehrhart (Josef in disguise). They have a hilarious exchange, but when Siletsky figures out he is being played he flees but is killed by Sobinski.

     Josef, disguised as Siletsky, goes to the spy’s room to get some papers from his trunk, but is intercepted and brought to meet the real Ehrhart. He finds out Hitler is coming to Poland the next day. Meanwhile, Siletsky’s body is found, so Ehrhart invites Josef back and shows him into a room with the dead Siletsky and closes the door. Ehrhart thinks being in the room with the corpse will cause him to crack and talk. Instead, Josef shaves off Siletsky’s beard and puts a spare fake beard on his chin. He then gets Ehrhart to pull on the beard and scolds him for not doing it earlier!

     A play is to be performed for der Fuhrer and the troupe plots a way to escape from Poland on Hitler’s plane. One of the actors (Bronski) does an excellent Hitler so they play like Hitler and his entourage are leaving the play early and thus commandeer his car. They have to pick up Maria, but when Bronski walks into her room he finds Ehrhart seducing her. Bronski immediately leaves, but Ehrhart is horrified to realize he is messing with Hitler’s girl. Maria adds to this by running after Bronski yelling “Mein Fuhrer!” They escape in Hitler’s plane. Bronski orders the two pilots to jump out without parachutes, which they do robotically.

     “To Be or Not to Be” is a true classic, but that fact was not recognized at the time of its release. The timing had something to do with this. The public and critics were in no mood for a comedy about the Nazis. The tragic death of Lombard also dampened enthusiasm for the film. Now that time has passed, the movie has taken its rightful place among the greatest comedies. AFI ranked it #49 on its list of greatest comedies. The only WWII comedy rated higher is “The Great Dictator” at #37. In my opinion, it is a much better film than Chaplin’s. It is certainly more laugh out loud funny. It is also less dated. The cast is great. Lombard is at her best and she definitely goes out at top of her game, sadly. Benny was never better. The dialogue is crisp and funny. There is taut suspense rare for a war comedy.

MARCH MADNESS: Inglorious Basterds (3) vs. The Great Raid (14)

ACTING: “Inglorious Basterds” is a Quentin Tarantino film with his usual eclectic cast. It stars Brad Pitt as Aldo Raines who leads a special commando squad behind enemy lines. The character is over the top and Pitt takes a deep bite into the role (as well as the foreheads of Nazis). He is not even the best actor in the film. That honor goes to the amazing Christophe Waltz as the charmingly malevolent S.S. Col. Hans Landa. The female leads, Diane Kruger as actress Bridget von Hammersmark and Melanie Laurent as the Jewish cinema operator Shoshanna, are amazing. “The Great Raid” has a B-list cast headed by Benjamin Bratt as Col. Henry Mucci and James Franco as his subordinate Bob Prince. It also has a beautiful blond (Connie Nielsen as Margaret Utinsky) who plays the nurse helping the Filipino Resistance. The cast is capable, but unspectacular.


Score at the end of the first period: Basterds – 10 Raid – 7

REALISM: Did I mention Basterds is a Tarantino film? ‘Nuff said. It is one of the most unrealistic war films ever made. It makes the “Dirty Dozen” look like a documentary. It would be hard to find anything that happens in the film that is plausible. But that is not the point. It is meant to be outlandish. For this reason, I give it a default 6. Raid does a good job portraying life in a Japanese prison camp and the difficulties of a raid behind enemy lines. The romance is, of course, unrealistic and you have some other Hollywood contrivances, but on the whole most of it rings true.

Score at half: Basterds – 16 Raid – 15

ACCURACY: Did you know that we killed Hitler and his high command when he attended a movie premier in Paris after D-Day? Did you know that during WWII we had an elite commando unit in occupied France which slaughtered and scalped Nazi soldiers? If you did, you think like Tarantino – get to a psychiatrist immediately! Default 6 again. Raid is based on the books The Great Raid on Cabanatuan by William Breuer and The Ghost Soldiers by Hampton Sides. I have read Sides’ book and it was one of the best books I have ever read. The movie does not live up to it, but none could. I was prepared to be severely disappointed. The movie is actually quite true to the book, other than the romance. Surprisingly, the Utinsky character is faithful to the truth. The raid itself is close to what happened, but with the typical Hollywood bullshit that insists on a showdown with the evil camp commandant. The little touches are right. For example, the fly-over to distract the Japanese. If you did not want to read the books, the movie retells the story in an educational way.

Score after three periods: Basterds – 22 Raid – 24

ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: Basterds was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture and Waltz won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. It has some amazing scenes, especially the French farmhouse opening, the basement bar showdown, and the explosive and fiery mass assassination. Several deaths are shocking in a good way. Tarantino’s style and homages to familiar movies are mesmerizing. Raid looks like a made for TV movie. A good one, but it lacks the pizazz a great war movie has. The raid itself is one of the best action war scenes in recent memory. It deserves credit for reviving a story that was huge in 1945, but had been forgotten over the decades.

Score at the end of regulation:  Basterds - 31  Raid - 31

FINAL SCORE: Raid 32 Basterds – 31

*** In overtime, Raid wins because it is a pure war movie and honors the most successful rescue mission in American History.

#78 - The Desert Fox

BACK-STORY: “The Desert Fox” is a war movie that was released in 1951. It is a biopic of the last years in the life of the famous German General Erwin “Desert Fox” Rommel. Rommel was a celebrity even during WWII and certainly a likely candidate for film treatment after the war. The movie was controversial because coming only six years after the war, it’s sympathetic portrayal of an enemy commander was greeted with anger by some critics and a number of veterans. One theory that has surfaced to explain the positive spin on Rommel is the U.S. was in the Cold War and there was a need to show that there were good Germans. Regardless, the movie was a big hit and James Mason was lauded for his portrayal. Interestingly, because of the criticisms, Mason’s portrayal of Rommel in “The Desert Rats” several years later is less sympathetic. (See my review of “The Desert Rats” http://warmoviebuff.blogspot.com/2010/09/88-desert-rats.html)


OPENING SCENE: The film is off to a rousing start with a British commando raid on Rommel’s headquarters in 1941. They sneak up and break in, killing a lot of Germans, but having to retreat losing most of their men and all for naught because Rommel was not even there. The scene is very effective and gets the adrenalin flowing without the use of a blaring soundtrack. This scene was ground-breaking because it was the first time a film began with an action scene before the credits. This is, of course, standard today.

SUMMARY: We meet the narrator as a prisoner of the Germans in North Africa. Desmond Young (playing himself) will go on to write a biography of Rommel after the war with emphasis on determining the actual cause of his death. (The German government having perpetuated the falsehood that he died due to injuries suffered when his vehicle was strafed.) The movie flashes forward to Young visiting Rommel’s wife and son after the war. From his interviews with various Germans, he pieces together the true story.




the real Rommel

     The movie flashes back to the aftermath of defeat at El Alamein. Rommel’s Afrika Korps is being starved of supplies and overwhelmed by Montgomery’s 8th Army. The movie intersperses real combat footage (taken from the documentary “Desert Victory”) to good effect. In a crucial scene, Rommel receives a no retreat order (“Victory or Death”) from Hitler. He is stunned at the insanity of the order which is basically ordering the sacrifice of one of the great armies of history. His subordinates argue for disobeying the order and Rommel eventually agrees, but only after giving Hitler the benefit of the doubt and blaming his toadies. The film makes it clear that Rommel is very reluctant to disobey orders from a leader he once admired. After this scene, the movie makes a jarring leap to the German surrender in Tunisia.

     Rommel is not at the surrender. Instead, he has been forced back to a German hospital for health reasons. He is visited by an old friend, Dr. Strolin, who tries to lure him into a conspiracy to remove Hitler. Rommel is not interested.

     Rommel is appointed to defend the beaches of northern France against the anticipated invasion. He meets with the overall commander in France, Field Marshal Von Rundstedt.. They commiserate on the poor state of the defenses. Rundstedt refers to Hitler as the “Bohemian corporal” and denigrates his grasp of strategy. He is very sarcastic and it is obvious Rommel is not ready to go as far in his questioning of Hitler’s sanity and that the two men dislike each other. The portrayal of Von Rundstedt by Leo Carroll is spot on.

     Dr. Strolin makes a return visit and this time is more open about the plot. Rommel is still not interested and is offended by the criticism of der Fuhrer. Rommmel: “A soldier has only one purpose – to obey orders.” The scene is powerful and well acted.

     The D-Day invasion is handled through archival footage (of mostly American soldiers) in montage format. There is no narration, just music (including, bizarrely, the Marine Corps Hymn). In a nice touch, the filmmakers assume the moviegoers do not need to be told the facts about Overlord.

     Rommel meets with Von Rundstedt post-invasion. They discuss Hitler’s refusal to release forces defending Calais even though at this point it is clear the Normandy invasion is not a diversion. Von Rundstedt insists Hitler’s decisions are being made under the influence of his astrologer. Rommel reveals the plot, but the elderly Field Marshal declines saying he is too old to be a rebel.

     Rommel decides to lend his support to the removal (but not assassination) of Hitler, but hopes that by meeting with Hitler he can get him to see reason. At the tension-packed meeting, Luther Adler (a Jewish actor!) plays Hitler with appropriate histrionics. He accuses Rommel of defeatism and not knowing the big picture. The new V weapons will win the war, he rants. Rommel bites his tongue and is now fully on board for the coup d-etat. Unfortunately, soon after he is wounded when his vehicle is strafed. He is in the hospital when the assassination fails three days later. Three months later, his involvement catches up with him while home convalescing.

FINAL SCENE: Gen. Burgdorf, a Hitler lackey, arrives at the Rommel home with an arrest warrant for treason. Hitler, because of his hero status, offers Rommel a state funeral if he takes poison and does not insist on a trial which would result in death by garroting. Rommel leans toward the trial until the loathsome Burgdorf implies that Rommel’s wife and son will suffer the consequences of Rommel embarrassing the regime. The parting of the Rommel’s is touching and realistic. He tells her to be brave. It will be quick and painless. He drives off with Burgdorf. The movie closes with a eulogy by Winston Churchill, a warrior who recognized a noble and worthy opponent.

RATINGS:

Action – 4 (not much after the opening)

Acting - 9 (Mason is awesome)

Accuracy - 9

Realism - 8

Plot - 7

Overall - 7

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Since the movie is not your typical action flick and instead is something of a character study, most women would probably like it. Rommel was a good husband and father. Lucie Rommel (Jessica Tandy) has a major role. The movie has its poignant moments. The domestic scenes are well done and ring true.

ACCURACY: “The Desert Fox” is admirably accurate. Mason’s take on Rommel is true to the man. One thing that can be criticized is he does not go far enough in showing how Rommel was quite loyal to Hitler until events caused him to reluctantly break with him. But that is a minor quibble.

     The main events in the movie all happened and pretty much the way depicted. Even the pretense for the movie – Desmond Young’s quest to set the record straight is true. The one exception is the opening action scene which is not based on fact. There was a Dr. Strolin and he did eventually convince Rommel to support the plot. The movie may have exaggerated Rommel’s role a bit, but he definitely lent his name to it. The depiction of the assassination is authentic (except that the actor portraying Von Stauffenburg has his eye patch over the wrong eye).

     The movie implies that both Von Rundstedt and Rommel thought Hitler’s insistence that the invasion would come at Calais as foolish. In reality, Operation Fortitude (the Anglo-American deception effort) fooled most German generals including Von Rundstedt and Rommel. The movie is accurate in reflecting that after the invasion occurred both men were not able to convince Hitler it was not a diversion. It would have been more accurate and interesting if the film had concentrated on their disagreement on where to station the Panzers. Rommel wanted them close to the beaches to stop the invasion cold. Von Rundstedt wanted them further inland to be used to counterattack. Hitler chose a compromise position. We will never know which general was right.

     Rommel’s death is accurately depicted. It was as is shown. In that respect, the movie does Young’s job well in setting the record straight. This is not surprising since Mrs. Rommel served as a technical adviser and Desmond Young was actually in the movie.

CRITIQUE: “The Desert Fox” is your standard 1950s biopic. It stands out because of Mason’s iconic portrayal of Rommel. The acting is uniformly good. Leo Carroll as Von Rundstedt and Luther Adler as Hitler are quite effective. The criticism of the filmmakers for being overly sympathetic is too harsh. Rommel was no saint, but he was a noble adversary and did the right thing in the end for his country. The movie does not sugarcoat his reluctance to turn against der Fuhrer. It accurately portrays his temper and his ethical dilemma when being tugged between obedience and sane tactics.

     The movie does not reach great status and is overrated at #78 partly because it falsely promises more on combat in North Africa in its dynamic opening and then does not deliver. It also would have been better if we got to see Rommel’s rise as well as his fall. We do not find out why Rommel was a military genius. We do find out what kind of human being he was.

CONCLUSION: While a bit overrated, “The Desert Fox” is still a fine movie. As a biography instead of a standard action-oriented war flick, it delivers. It is interesting to imagine what this movie would have looked like if it had been made around the time of “Patton”. A sixties take would have been radically different from the fifties version. Considering the similarity of the subject matter, it is telling that “Patton” is much superior to “The Desert Fox”. Another example of how, in my opinion, modern war movies are generally superior to older ones because they can be more unorthodox.

UP NEXT:  1940s War Movies - Overrated?