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-

The Unknown Soldier (2017)

 

                “The Unknown Soldier” is considered to be the greatest Finnish war movie.  Directed by Aku Louhimies, it is the most successful Finnish movie of the 21^st Century and the most expensive Finnish film ever.  The movie is based on a famous novel by Vaino Linna and it is the third version of the book.  The production used over 3,000 extras, some provided by the Finnish Defence Forces.  The main actors were put through a boot camp to learn wilderness skills, how to cross-country ski, and how to stay warm in the winter.

                The movie covers a small unit of Finnish soldiers in the Continuation War (1941-44).  It opens with an intriguing scene.  Two boys are swimming in a river and this morphs into the same two being shot at as their unit retreats across the river.  One of them is killed.  Their machine gun unit was originally deployed in Eastern Finland in June, 1941.  The government lies to them and proclaims that they are defending their homeland from another (the Winter War had ended fifteen months earlier) attack by the Soviet Army.  Their first action is in northern Karelia in July.  They attack and immediately go to ground due to Russian fire.  Their captain arrives and leads a charge, but is cut down.  This will be the first of many unpredictable deaths.  The men respond and capture the hill.  The combat is brief, but realistic.  From here, the movie settles into a pattern of rest and exposition followed by combat.  In the quieter scenes, several characters are developed typical of a small unit movie.  There is the noble officer who grows into the job, the black marketeer who is in it for the loot, the psychopath, the jokester, the innocent private, etc.  The main character is Corporal Rokka (Eero Aho) who is a veteran of the Winter War.  He has to leave his farm family to bring some experience to the unit.  He is cynical and does not like discipline.  He also is a damned good soldier who knows more than the officers.  The movie follows these men as they campaign into the Soviet Union and back again.  Occasionally we are told where they are so we know where the deaths occur.  The movie fits squarely into the “who will survive?” subgenre.  You don’t have to be a WWII nerd to figure their initial successes are going to turn around so we can come full circle to that opening river crossing scene.    

                The Swedish members of my War Movie Lovers Face Book group have been encouraging me to watch this movie for some time.  I didn’t need much convincing since I am a big fan of foreign war films.  I love Korean, Russian, and Japanese war movies, in particular.  The only other Finnish war movie I had seen was “Talvisota”.  This is better.  The acting is excellent, especially Aho.  He created one of my favorite war movie characters – Antti Rokka.  If you like Sgt. Steiner from “Cross of Iron”, you’ll like him too.  When asked who he is, he responds: “I’m a model for the gun industry.”  He defies authority (and gets away with it) more than most anti-heroes.  He is the most distinct character, but the others leave their mark as well.  It’s an ensemble effort.  They portray the soldiers realistically as only the higher officers are gung-ho.  Their dialogue is not flowery and is a bit terse as the movie does not have much banter.  It focuses on the common soldiers and the effects of war on them.           

                  The movie is firmly anti-war, but not through graphic wounds and deaths.  It’s hard core enough to get the point across, however.  The combat is superior to most modern war movies.  It starts with brief scenes and gradually the scenes get longer.  Most of the action occurs in forests and hand-held cameras put us with the men.  We know most of the men are not going to survive four years of it, but still the deaths are shocking in their unpredictability.  There is little on the home front (although Rokka makes a couple of trips home to see his resilient wife – a character that does not appear in the book) and the movie is not interested in giving a big picture view of the war.  The enemy is faceless and we get little on command decisions.  There is also nothing about the German role.  I would assume the Finnish audience did not need these things.  The movie is not big on strategy, but is strong on tactics.  Their actions in combat ring true.  They throw grenades and then charge, for instance.  They flank their enemy.   The movie realistically depicts trench warfare. 

                A non-Finnish viewer won’t learn much about the war besides its effects on typical soldiers.  What you will learn is the Finnish army was not a typical army.  One theme is the army was not big on discipline.  At one point, they abandon a position against orders to hold at all costs.  Rokka sums it up:  “We ain’t here to die; we’re here to kill.”  Another theme is while morale may seep away, the men remain resilient.  They sing a lot.    Although not propagandistic, the movie was meant to honor the Finnish soldiers who fought in the war, but not mythologize them. When outnumbered or outflanked, they run.  There is little indication that they were being used a pawns for their jingoistic and vengeance-minded government and by their Nazi “allies”.

                Don’t watch it as a history lesson, although there was nothing I saw that was off-kilter.  Watch it because it is very entertaining and you’ll learn that Finland fought in WWII, albeit for the wrong side.  And their soldiers may have been allied with the Wehrmacht, but they were just regular Joosefs.

GRADE  =  A

SANDS OF IWO JIMA (8) vs. WHEN TRUMPETS FADE (9)

 

VS.

 

 

ACTING:

                 “Sands of Iwo Jima” is a John Wayne movie and he gives one of his best performances.  He was nominated for Best Actor.  Sgt. Stryker became his most iconic role and he brings the full force of his charisma to it.  The character is a bit more dimensional than his cowboy characters.  He gets to play tough, empathetic, drunk, morose, heroic.  He is outstanding.  The supporting cast is adequate and very old schoolish.  John Agar is the “I can’t live up to my dead father who happened to be a mentor for Stryker” so I will hate Stryker instead guy.  Forest Tucker is the Stryker foe.  Throw in an aggravating Italian Brooklynite for dubious comic relief.  The actual war heroes inserted into the cast can best be described as “not actors”.  

                “When Trumpets Fade” is dominated by Ron Eldard as the anti-hero David Manning.  It is a remarkable performance.  The character is far from stereotypical.  He is a survivor loaded with PTSD and a cynical anti-authority attitude who is thrust into an authority position.  Eldard plays him as a guy who would have despised Stryker.  The supporting cast is satisfactory.  Martin Donovan is excellent as Capt. Pritchett.  Zac Orth does good work as the "dead meat" Sanderson.

FIRST QUARTER:    

Sands of Iwo Jima         8           
When Trumpets Fade    8

CLICHES:

                 “Sands of Iwo Jima” is not an iconoclastic movie.  In fact, it helped set the template for war movies until the 1960s.  It begins with a dedication to the Marine Corps (and is virtually a recruiting film).  The unit is not as clearly defined as heterogeneous as in many similar movies, but it is still a small unit movie.  You have a hero and a defined mission (raising the flag).  Conflict in the unit (actually two – Stryker vs. Thomas, Stryker vs. Conway) is resolved.  You have the redemption in the form of Conway who has daddy issues and is a reluctant warrior.  You get rituals like a marriage and mail call.

                “When Trumpets Fade” was obviously made with cliché-busting in mind.  However, it is a war movie so you do have some familiar elements.  It has a dedication to the men who fought in the Hurtgen Forest.  There is a mission (actually two), but reluctantly led by an anti-hero.  You definitely have the leadership forced on the main character trope, but the twist is that he fights against it and is downright surly.  Does Manning get redemption?  He would certainly have sneered at that.  There are no rituals that I noticed.  Kudos for reversing the “fat guy with glasses must die” cliché.

HALFTIME SCORE: 
Sands of Iwo Jima         14       
When Trumpets Fade    16

PLOT: 

                “Sands of Iwo Jima” is your standard boot camp to battle flic.  Stryker inherits a motley group of Marines and trains them in a tough love way for the realities of battle.  Meanwhile, conflicts within the unit are developed so that combat can resolve them.  There are two battle scenes.  The first to establish heroism and the realities of war (Tarawa).  The second to show the success of the unit evolution as it accomplishes a mission (Iwo Jima).  The flow from training to off base to training to combat is smooth and entertaining, if predictable.

                “When Trumpets Fade” has an anti-hero thrust into command of a squad of replacements.  There is no training or bonding.  Manning does not want to lead and does not care about his charges.  The traditional early arc of a combat film is dispensed with.  The transitions are mainly from Manning encountering authority to combat sequences.  Similar to “Sands”, there are two main combat scenes.  Unlike “Sands”, these episodes are basically the suicide mission variety.  Both movies have the “who will survive?” vibe.

THIRD QUARTER:  
Sands of Iwo Jima        21
When Trumpets Fade   25

COMBAT:

                “Sands of Jima” has two big combat scenes- Tarawa and Iwo Jima.  In the first, Stryker takes out a bunker in typical John Wayne fashion.  Considering the potential inherent in the Battle of Tarawa, the movie is surprisingly lacking in action.  A promised night banzai charge never materializes (WTF?) and only the first day of the three day battle is shown.  Big letdown.  The Battle of Iwo Jima is more intense and satisfying although it relies substantially on actual footage (but very well used).  The violence is very old school.  There is little blood although we do get some bullet wounds.  Nothing women can’t handle.  However, men will probably cry (you know what I’m talking about, guys). 

                “When Trumpets Fade” is from the VioLingo school and intentionally pushes the envelope created by movies like “Sands”.  It also has two major combat sequences.  The first is the mission to take out the artillery battery.  Manning is forced to shoot one of the replacements who has freaked out and is causing the rest to panic.  Sanderson uses a flamethrower to roast the Germans.  The second mission is similar with the target being some emplaced tanks.  This time grenades and Thompsons and Garands are more de rigueur.  The movie throws in two larger group actions involving the graphic results of sustained artillery fire.  The wounds are graphic and bloody and there are numerous delimbings.  Plus two losers of battles with flamethrowers.

FINAL SCORE:  
Sands of Iwo Jima       27         
When Trumpets Fade  34

COLOR ANALYSIS:  This was a great match-up between Old School and VioLingo.  VioLingo is what I am trying out as my name for modern war movies that feature realistic violence and soldier talk and behavior.  The two movies could not be more opposite.  "Trumpets" is over the top in its "war is Hell" theme and "Sands" is one of the few war movies that is not definitively anti-war.  It is almost like Stryker's death was written in because the director decided it was needed to soften the film's glamorization of war.    Certainly, no one who watches "Trumpets" rushes out to join the Army, whereas many joined the Marines due to "Sands".  Another fascinating match-up was that of hero Stryker vs. anti-hero Manning.  The hero vs. anti-hero is a crucial difference between Old School and VioLingo.  It will be interesting to see how future bouts between these schools will turn out.  For example, "Guadalcanal Diary" against "Saving Private Ryan". 

#21 - The Dirty Dozen (1967)

BACK-STORY:  “The Dirty Dozen” created the template for an entire genre of motley crew, suicide mission movies.  It’s influence has been substantial.  The movie was released in 1967 and was part of the wave of more realistically gritty war movies like “Patton”.  Director Robert Aldrich adapted it from the bestselling novel by E.M. Nathanson, but made substantial changes.  The film was made in England and took seven months to complete.  Production included the construction of a chateau that was 240 ft wide and 50 ft high, surrounded with 5,400 sq. yds. of heather, 400 ferns, 450 shrubs, 30 spruce trees and 6 weeping willows.  It turned out to be so substantially built that it could not be easily blown up so they had to construct a flimsier section for the climactic scene.

                The cast was all-starish.  The studio wanted John Wayne for the Reisman role,  but Aldrich wisely insisted on Marvin (Wayne made “The Green Berets” instead).  Jim Brown was still playing football, but when the owner of the Browns gave him an ultimatum – football or moviemaking – he announced his premature retirement.  A huge mistake admitted by the owner later.  Trini Lopez was cast because he was a hot pop singer at that time (“Lemon Tree”).  When he decided his singing career was more important than the completion of the movie, his character suffers a premature death.  The dozen actors were supposed to be divided between the stars and the “who the hell is that” group (known as the Back Six).  However, one of the Back Six broke out to become a rising star.  When Clint Walker refused to do the impersonating the general scene, the unknown Donald Sutherland was tabbed and parleyed it into higher billing and a role in a little film called “MASH”.  Many of the cast were WWII veterans:  Marvin (Marines – wounded on Saipan), Savalas (Army), Bronson (Army), Borgnine (Navy), and Walker (Merchant Marine).

                The movie was a huge hit with audiences and with some critics.  It was nominated for four Oscars;  Best Supporting Actor (John Cassavetes), Editing, Sound, and Sound Effects (won).

OPENING:  Major Reisman (Lee Marvin) is treated to a military execution.  The prisoner was condemned by a court-martial and is hanged.  The scene is short, but impactful.  This will not be an old-school WWII movie.

Reisman armed with the "official weapon of the Dirty Dozen"

SUMMARY:  Reisman is called to a meeting with Gen. Worden (Ernest Borgnine).  It is established that Reisman is a loose cannon, insubordinate, wise-ass.  Perfect role model for the anti-authority, anti-establishment Sixties’ generation.  He is “volunteered” for Operation Amnesty.  It’s a mission designed by a “lunatic” that involves taking a dozen convicts on a suicide mission to kill as many German staff officers as possible in a French chateau.  Military intelligence, as they say.  Piece of cake.

                Reisman goes to meet the twelve in their cells.  We get a little background on some.  They are a heterogeneous group, of course.  Franko (John Cassavetes) is a malcontent petty hood.  Wladislaw (Charles Bronson) is a stoical Pole.  Jefferson (Brown) is an uppity black.  Posey (Clint Walker) is a hillbilly who doesn’t like to be pushed.  Maggot (Telly Savalas) is a psychopathic, Bible-thumping, woman-hater.  (Just like the U.S. Army as depicted in some Vietnam War movies.)  Reisman explains the deal.  If you live, you get a commutation.  If anyone screws up in training, everyone goes back to jail.

                They build a compound in the countryside as a bonding exercise.  Please overlook the fact that getting this group of individualistic, rule-breakers to construct buildings with no discernible skill is quite unrealistic.  The construction does allow for some slapstick-type humor which gives Sutherland a chance to emerge.  Next comes the training.  Franko pockets some wire-cutters (there is a shocking lack of tool security by the guards) and attempts to escape.  He is stopped by Wladislaw and Jefferson in a show of white/black teamwork.  Later, Franko leads a rebellion against their spartan conditions which unites the dozen and results in revocation of grooming privileges.  They are now the “dirty dozen”, get it?

                A visit to the parachute training school run by Reisman’s nemesis Col. Breed (Robert Ryan) allows for more humor as Pinckley (Sutherland) impersonates a general inspecting Breed’s troops.  Pinckley:  “Where are you from, son?”  Soldier:  “Madison City, Missouri, sir.”  Pinckley:  “Never heard of it.”  (Watch the expression on the soldier’s face.  Priceless).  Breed sics two goons wearing decidedly unmilitary hair cuts on Wladislaw in the latrine.  He is rescued by Jefferson and Posey.  Bonding accomplished.  That’s all from parachute training school.

"Can you believe we're in this movie?"

                Back at camp, Trini Lopez sings a song about a “Bramble Bush” (apparently he was big on songs about flora) because the audience demanded it.  (See Ricky Nelson in “Rio Bravo”.)  The song became a hit, by the way.  Reisman brings in some hookers as a reward for all their hard work at sublimating their bestial instincts.  Hopefully eight women being shared by eleven men fueled by alcohol (Maggot is wisely left on guard duty) won’t ruin six weeks of character development.

                Gen. Worden agrees that the dozen will get the green light for their mission if they can prove themselves at the upcoming war games.  They have to seize Col. Breed’s headquarters.  Spoiler alert:  they cheat.  They change arm bands to infiltrate enemy lines.  They hijack an ambulance allowing Jefferson to have one of the great lines in war movie history.  When the ambulance driver complains about him wearing the opposition’s arm band he deadpans:  “That’s right – we’re traitors.”  The capture of Breed is a highlight of the movie and brings the training section to an exhilarating close.

                Having passed the test, it’s go time.  At a last supper set up to resemble the Da Vinci painting (and predating the MASH scene), the team goes over the mission.  Maggot plays the part of Judas in a nifty bit of foreshadowing.  Reisman has famously broken the plan into a mnemonic device.  Here is the entire list for those of you who have not seen the movie twenty times.

1.        Down to the road block, we've just begun

2.        The guards are through

3.        The Major's men are on a spree

4.        Major and Wladislaw go through the door

5.        Pinkley stays out in the drive

6.        The Major gives the rope a fix

7.        Wladislaw throws the hook to heaven

8.        Jimenez has got a date

9.        The other guys go up the line

10.     Sawyer and Lever are in the pen

11.     Posey guards points five and seven

12.     Wladislaw and the Major go down to delve

13.     Franko goes up without being seen

14.     Zero-hour - Jimenez cuts the cable, Franko cuts the phone

15.     Franko goes in where the others have been

16.     We all come out like it's Halloween

Wladislaw does some silencing

                They drop behind enemy lines and now there are eleven since Jimenez breaks his neck in a lemon tree.  Those who guessed that they would all survive, sorry.  That is one impressive chateau.  Reisman and Wladislaw enter disguised as German officers.  Meanwhile, the others hop to their tasks. Some of them are positioned outside the chateau.  Wouldn’t you think that might be a good role for the clearly unstable Maggot?  Instead, Reisman’s plan calls for him to sneak into the upstairs where he proceeds to stab a strumpet and open fire on Jefferson.  What a Judas!  Let the premature killing of Germans begin.  Or let the grease guns start greasing.

A guy named Maggot loose in a Nazi brothel

                Who will survive among our intrepid psychopaths?  We care, but not about how many of German women will be killed.  The German officers and their gals have taken refuge in the secure bunker leaving their lackeys to be grease gun fodder.  They take some of the dozen with them, especially the Back Six.  Not specifying, but here is the sequence:  2.  killed by German machine gun fire 3. killed by friendly fire  4.  blown up by his two grenades that created six explosions taking out the chateau’s antenna   5.  killed by German sniper  6.  killed after slaughtering German reinforcements  7.  presumed dead with #6  (although not shown – probably in his contract)  8 & 9.  killed while foolishly thinking they will make the sequel by escaping in a motor boat …  10.  If you don’t know how Jefferson dies, you are not a male between the ages of 50-70.  And by the way, he didn’t make it this time either.  Damn it!  11.  killed while exalting over his survival. 

                The climax involves some gasoline and hand grenades that turn the cozy bunker into an inferno and provide the requisite Hollywood explosions.  The survivors drive off into the night to link up with the D-Day invasion forces.

CLOSING:  The three survivors are in a hospital room awaiting their trial for war crimes.  Just kidding.  We won the war, so any killing of civilians was condoned.

RATINGS:

Acting =  B

Action =  8/10

Accuracy =  N/A

Realism =  D

Plot =  A

Overall =  B+

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT?  Surprisingly, many did.  I guess we would classify them as “bad girls”.  Seriously, the cast is very manly.  There is humor.  The violence is not too bloody, although it was pretty intense for the 1960s.  The language is pretty tame.  It’s not really a date movie.  Guys will enjoy it, but might regret exposing their girl to so much virileness.   

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  You’re joking, right?  Not according to author E.M. Nathanson who claims he “heard" about the use of convicts for special missions.  So much for research.  Some judges and draft boards may have put petty criminals in uniform, but there is no record of condemned soldiers being given a second chance.  Later, someone dug up the story of the “Filthy Thirteen” to pacify people like me.  The “Filthy Thirteen” was a pathfinder unit that did not like to do things like salute officers, groom properly, or remain sober when not on a mission.  Basically the WWII version of a Vietnam War LRP unit.  Sadly, they were not convicts forced to go on suicide missions.  Boring!

the Popemobile

                There are few inaccuracies that the audience could care less about.  First, the Army did not hang any soldier during the war.  The only soldier executed was Pvt. Eddie Slovik for desertion and that was by firing squad.  Can’t really blame the movie for setting the stage with that opening scene, however.  We need to care that Maggot could get hung.  Second, it seems that not every American soldier was armed with a grease gun.  Go figure.  They are so wicked looking.  Didn’t we want to scare the Germans?  By the way, anyone with any knowledge of WWII weaponry can tell you that the grease gun was notoriously inaccurate.  Not in the hands of these guys.  Reisman is able to cut a rope inches below one of his charges.  Woe be it to any German within its range.  In the commentary track that I listened to, Dale Dye nearly had a conniption over its depiction.  Third, they had to face a German vehicle that looked like the Popemobile.  Who designed that prop?  It had some eye holes that were vulnerable to the accurate fire of grease guns.

CRITIQUE:  “The Dirty Dozen” has several strong aspects to it.  The acting is very good.  Marvin is the perfect Reisman.  He plays him with the right amount of bravado and steely insubordination.  The scene where he is briefed on the mission by Gen. Worden and his lackey establishes him as an intriguing character.  His wise-ass comments are cynically resonant.  Reisman is very much a 1960s war movie archetype.  He reminds me of Steiner from “Cross of Iron”.  The rest of the name actors are good.  Savalas is very creepy as Maggot.  It shows his range that his other famous role was Kojak.   Bronson is charismatic and likeable.  Brown does a remarkable job in his first major role.  He does not look like an amateur.  Richard Jaeckel gets a well-deserved turn as Reisman’s second in command.  Cassavettes steals the honors with his characterization of Franko.  You can tell he is trying to steal the camera’s attention away from the others.  It is obvious he created his own character beyond the script. He deserved the Academy Award nomination. 

                The film is technically sound.  The cinematography is workmanlike, but not outside the box.  There are no wow visuals in the film.  The score is perfect for a macho film like this.  It is not pompous or overly patriotic (although it does make use of some familiar martial music).  It does not dominate any of the scenes and is used to punctuate rather than pontificate.  The sound effects are outstanding.  I’m referring to the explosions, of course.

                One strange thing about the film is the lack of graphic bloodshed.  The deaths are not “signal touchdown as you twirl” style, but they are not splatteringly realistic either.  Interestingly, “Bonnie and Clyde” came out the same year.  One of them was revolutionary in depicting gunshot wounds.  Similar to this issue is the unsoldierly tame language.  Regular Gis, let alone thugs like these, must have snickered at the curses issuing from the dozens’ mouths.  “Dirty” does not refer to their vocabulary.  Some of their curses include:  creeps, pig face, crumb, slob, bum.  Apparently, “lovers” substituted for “assholes”.  This was the late sixties, for gosh darn sakes!  Take off the gloves.

                As far as the plot, you know going in that you will have to suspend disbelief.  Very little of what happens has any foothold in reality.  It was fun to listen to Dale Dye’s commentary which takes the movie to task on numerous issues.  Basically, the movie would not have been made if he had been the technical adviser.  And yet, he is a big fan.  The whole Maggot subplot is beyond ridiculous, but fun.  You could really say that about the whole movie.  In this respect it does not differ from “The Guns of Navarone” and other movies of this genre.  And truly, it is less ridiculous than its most recent descendant -  “Inglorious Basterds”.

                The movie has the theme of military planners can sometimes be lunatics,  but if you put an ass-kicking, rule-breaker in charge the plan will be successful.  Similar to "The Eagle Has Landed" in this respect.  Another theme is even incorrigible criminals can be molded into a team (if the choice is mold or be hanged).  One theme that is not apparent is that war is Hell.  This is the rare major war movie that is not clearly anti-war.  It basically glorifies in the warrior ethos.  Aldrich’s statement that he wanted people “to know that war is hell” is a crock of crap.  Most of the target audience did not leave the theater detesting war.  If they were teary eyed, it was because of Jefferson’s failed run (reminiscent of Von Ryan’s, by the way), not due to the slaughter of trapped German officers and their paramours.  That slaughter is a troubling aspect of the film.  The unit is not conflicted about this task.  In fact, the best word for their facial expressions is gleeful.  It’s a bit perplexing that few critics focused on this war crime.  To paraphrase, if you win the war, there is no such thing as a war crime.  (Ask the bombers of Dresden.)  That usually refers to avoiding a trial, not to depicting the “good guys” committing one with no consequences in a movie.

CONCLUSION:  “The Dirty Dozen” is one of the great guy movies in the war movie genre.  It is required viewing for men of my generation.  It created a template for numerous imitators and some of them are superior to the original.  I feel that “Kelly’s Heroes” and “Where Eagles Dare” are better and more entertaining and yet neither made the Greatest 100.  “The Dirty Dozen” obviously swayed the nostalgic-minded panel.  I’m not interested in nostalgia.  I am simply judging the movies on how good they are.  This one is good, but not great.

 

the trailer

 

TRAILER:  The trailer is very good.  It outlines the mission and identifies all the main characters.  I especially like how they quote from the actor's as to how they interpreted their characters.  A 



the execution scene

 

POSTER:  The poster is very busy.  I love the "Excite them!" part.  Until I saw the poster I had no idea that the night with the prostitutes is what fueled their slaughter of the Germans.  Those strumpets were actually quite patriotic.  C 

 

PRECURSOR?  Check out my earlier review of "The Secret Invasion" and decide whether Altman should have been sued for plagiarism.