There are three different types of sequels.Some, like “Godfather II” and “The Empire
Strikes Back”, continue the story with the same quality.Others, like “Aliens” and Terminator II”, go
in a different direction than the original and make a mark of their own.And then we have sequels like “Hangover II”
and “Home Alone 2” which simply exist to remind viewers of what they loved in
the original.“300:Rise of an Empire” is firmly in that
category.The plot template was dusted
off and ramped up to please its target audience.Mission partly accomplished.
The film picks up at the time of the Battle of Thermopylae,
but a flashback covers the Battle of Marathon from ten years previously.Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) not only
conceives the strategy and leads the 300esque slaughtering and
blood-splattering, but kills the Persian Emperor Darius.In the interim before the Persians return for
their second attempt at conquest, Darius’ “warrior protégé” Artemisia (Eva
Green) goes beyond making a man out of his son Xerxes.She makes a god out of him and then sees to
it that she is the power behind the throne. She also commands the fleet. Why would a
Greek queen side with the Persians?The
rape and murder of her family by the Greeks and her subsequent years as a sex
slave have made her one vengeful female and she’s been trained Batman/Matrix/Kill
Bill style.
Meanwhile, back in Greece, Themistocles is organizing
the defense of Greek FREEDOM.His trip
to visit Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) finds her in mourning and in no mood to join
a united Greece.It looks like the
Spartans will sit out the sequel.They
have decided “been there, done that”.So
much for those awesome infantry battles.How about if we substitute land warfare on the sea?This could work!Just tweak the plot a bit and…
While the events of “300” are transpiring on the same
screen eight years ago, Themistocles is fighting the Battle of Artemisium to
gain time and block Artemisia’s fleet.It’s
a three round heavyweight bout that has cut-men babbling insanely in their
corners.There is some ramming, but
mostly boarding.You’ve got to be
impressed with ancient footwear as I did not see a single combatant slip on the
gallons of blood spilled on the decks.For that matter, I don’t recall anyone tripping on the numerous severed
limbs.
Between rounds, as the audience is supposed to be
catching its breath, comes the soon to become iconic scene in teenage boydom.Themistocles visits Artemisia and they “negotiate”.Or as a three year old who wanders into his
parent’s bedroom would assume, they were wrestling.Extreme wrestling.Eva Green seals her place in war movie
history with this scene.
Since round three has to top the other two that means
it’s time for some anachronistic explosions.What’s the one thing “300” lacked?Fire!Do you remember the ninja
zombies and war mastodons from the original?Here we get human-bomb frogmen and corpse-eating sea monsters.
Spoiler alert to the historically illiterate:Xerxes sacks Athens.Themistocles paltry fleet, sans the suddenly
wimpy Spartans, are waiting at Salamis for the rematch.Artemisia urges the uncharacteristically
cautious Xerxes to rush in and finish the Greeks.What could go wrong in a battle where it
looks like the Persians outnumber the Greeks by 500 ships against 5?
In typical sequel fashion, “300:Rise of an Empire” is not up to the
original.This is not surprising
considering the uniqueness of the original.The sequel to “Sin City” will have the same problem.This does not mean they shouldn’t be
made.Fans demand a rematch just like
after a great boxing match.Noone complained
when Ali and Frazier punched each other again in the “Thrilla in Manilla”.With that caveat, this sequel is not unusual
in lacking the “charm” of the original. It just does not have the flair.This can partly be attributed to the battles
not being as interesting as Thermopylae.Plus the sequel can repeat much of the structure of the original, but
even a rote sequel is not going to be able to repeat the Spartan culture that
laid the groundwork for the first film.
The sequel reflects others of its ilk by ramping up
the violence.There is more blood, more
dismemberments, more of everything that made the original so visceral.If you hated “300” you will undoubtedly hate
this movie.I guarantee you no critic
who did not like the original will like this one instead.Well, possibly some feminists might be swayed
by Eva Green’s performance.She is the
one original thing about the movie and the Artemisia character prevents the
movie from being “Hangover II”.(In this
respect she reminds of adding Joe Pesci to Lethal Weapon 2.)It will be hard to forget two of her
scenes.One is when she kisses the
decapitated head of a captive.And the
other isn’t.Go see the movie.The rest of the actors are satisfactory, but
not as appealing as the originals.Stapleton is sturdy, but I doubt he will get the bounce that Gerard
Butler got.Such a bounce that he is the
only significant no show in the sequel.
The biggest problem is (drum roll please) the raping
of history.I had complimented “300” for
being admirably accurate for a movie based on a graphic novel, especially when
it did not have to be accurate at all.The sequel does not even attempt to adhere to the facts.Where you got the basic gist of the Battle of
Thermopylae, here we have little that is recognizable.This is especially true of the portrayal of
Artemisia.I will do a later post on the
specific mistakes, but in many ways the movie is exactly the opposite of
reality. Speaking of reality, it would be dickish to insist on it in a movie
such as this.All you can ask is that you
not be brought to laughter.There were
two moments in the film where I could not keep from laughing.One involved Themistocles riding a horse
across the flaming decks.Sometimes what
is meant to be awesome ends up being awful.
In short, if you loved “300” you will like “300: Rise
of an Empire”.It is more of the same,
including bare chests.It should please
all the sexual orientations.
“Stalingrad” is a Russian movie directed by Fedor
Bondarchuk (son of the legendary Sergei who was responsible for the masterpiece
“War and Peace”).It is the most costly
Russian film to date at $30 million.It
was the first Russian movie filmed in IMAX 3D technology.It was Russia’s submission for Best Foreign
Language film for the Academy Awards, but was not nominated.It did win awards in Russia and was a big
hit.
The movie is based on the famous defense of Pavlov’s
House during the battle.The house was
actually an apartment building located next to the Volga River.For a month, Sgt. Pavlov and a platoon of Red
Army soldiers held out against numerous German assaults.
The movie opens very strangely so don’t leave the
theater thinking you have wandered into the wrong movie.The first scene is in Japan after the recent
tsunami.A Russian is helping to rescue
victims that are buried in rubble.He
refers to being the son of one mother and five fathers.This leads to a flashback to Stalingrad in
November, 1942.
Sgt. Gramov (Pyotr Fyodorov) leads a squad of
scouts across the Volga to infiltrate a building strategically located on the
river bank.The building had been
possessed by the Germans who have been pushed back across the open square.The lone inhabitant of the apartments is a
chaste young lady named Katya (Maria Smolnikova).She refuses to leave her home and develops a sisterly relationship with
the five squad members. Meanwhile on the
German side, Hauptmann Kahn (Thomas Kretschmann) is involved with a trampy Russian
woman named Masha (Yanina Studilina).This puts him in hot water with his commanding officer.To get out of this dilemma, he must take the
building for der Fuhrer.Gramov and his
comrades must hold the building for sister Katya and Mother Russia.
The action is almost totally confined to the square
and the set is amazing.It took six
months to construct and it is very authentic looking.War movie lovers will recognize the fountain
where Vasily makes his first kill in “Enemy at the Gates”.From this confined space the plot lays out
the two romances and the assaults.The
assaults are in a style similar to recent South Korean cinema like “Tae Guk Gi”
and “My Way”.Or Bondarchuk’s own “The 9th
Company”.He attempts to top himself
with the opening crossing of the Volga which has a feel similar to “Enemy at
the Gates”, but amps up when Kahn triggers a massive gas explosion that does not
stop the patriotic Russians who literally charge the Germans while aflame!The ridiculousness of this bodes well for the
camp potential of the rest of the film.Unfortunately, the expected onslaught of mindless violence with little exposition
does not pan out.Large stretches of the
film are devoted to the relationship that develops between the five scouts and
Katya.The men become protective of her
and there may be more than sisterly love developing.Paralleling this is Kahn’s twisted affair
with Masha (who reminds him of his deceased wife).She despises him, partly because she is
marked as a collaborator by her people.This
may not be a Hollywood movie, but you may be able to guess where this dysfunctional
relationship is going.
When the violence comes it is pretty visceral, but
not revolutionary and sadly, truncated.There is a lot of random slo-mo and some graphic effects.There is surprisingly little bloodshed and in
one crucial scene a main character is machine gunned in the back with no blood
and not even bullet holes.The scenes
are action-packed, but tend to come to abrupt ends that make little sense.The movie is also tactically unsound.The Germans do not use artillery support most
of the time and only call in tanks towards the end for the big final assault.One of the five is a sniper who apparently
does not believe in shooting all the easy targets that fill his scope as the
Germans routinely expose themselves.In
fact, the first victim of his weapon is shot by Katya!The only other victim is a female (after he
passes up a shot at a German officer).It’s stupid things like this that make the movie aggravating.Other implausibilities include one of the
scouts being a famous tenor which results in a song for Katya’s birthday.There is also the calling in of an air raid
that arrives almost immediately and defies the German control of the air.
The acting is a strength of the movie.Kretschmann is the only actor I
recognized.He played in the 1993 “Stalingrad”
and had a nice role in “Downfall”.He
stands out, but his character is similar to the others in their lack of
development.We get little background on
the men or women.The dialogue does not
help as it is boring and does not ring like soldier talk.It is not salty for a modern war film and
does not have the edgy humor you would expect from comrades in a sticky
situation.
As far as accuracy, the movie does not claim to be
the true story of the Pavlov House although the basics are there.Gromov fits Pavlov.In reality, the building was much more
stoutly fortified with machine guns in each window and an effectively used
anti-tank gun on the roof.The shortages
of food and water that beset the defenders are not highlighted in the
film.The building survived the battle,
as did Pavlov.The truth is that a movie
more literally based on the defense of the building would have been much better
than this movie.Don’t hold your breath
until another movie based on Stalingrad appears.
The biggest problem and the scary aspect of the movie
is that it reminds me of a throw-back to Soviet movies before the Khruschev
thaw.The film comes off as an Old
School propaganda piece complete with the bombastic score.Bondarchuk tries to avoid ass-kissing
accusations by having one Russian slightly leering and psychopathic and by
having one German (Kahn) love-stricken.He’s not fooling anyone.The
movie is a puff piece with bells and whistles.It is troublesome that the movie is a step backward from “9th
Company”.For decades Russian filmmakers
have produced war films that did not toe the party line, now we get a big
budget movie that must be a favorite of Putin.Is it a coincidence that this ode to Mother Russia comes out as Putin
dreams of recreating the Soviet Union?
I was hoping “Stalingrad” would be a guilty pleasure
and an improvement over the previous four movies on the battle, alas it is
neither.The IMAX 3D visuals are cool,
but not awesome.The movie makes the
huge mistakes of reminding one of “Enemy at the Gates” which had a much
stronger plot and “Tae Guk Gi” which had much more violence in quantity and
quality.
BACK-STORY:“Saving
Private Ryan” originated from writer Robert Rodat seeing a monument to eight
siblings killed in the Civil War. He
brought the idea to producer Mark Gordon.The movie was a huge critical and box office success.Made for around $70 million, it made over
$480 million and was the highest grossing film of the year.The Omaha Beach set and reenactment cost $12
million and used 1,500 extras (including amputees) and 40 gallons of fake
blood.The Ramelle set was built from
scratch, including the bridge and the river.It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards and won 5 (Cinematography, Sound,
Sound Editing, Film Editing, and Director).Incredibly it lost Best Picture to “Shakespeare in Love” in the most
egregious miscarriage in Oscar history.Almost as perplexing was Hanks’ loss to Roberto Bergnini.The movie is currently #71 on AFI’s list of
greatest movies of all time.
OPENING:An old man visits a cemetery with his family in
tow.There are American and French flags
on display and rows and rows of crosses and Stars of David.The camera zooms in on the old veteran’s
face.Flashback time.
SUMMARY:Members of Charlie Company, 2nd Rangers
head for Omaha Beach on D-Day.They are
on board a Higgins Boat.When the ramp
goes down, all hell breaks loose.Thus
begins the most amazing combat scene in war movie history.The variety of viscerality is
overwhelming.Men getting hit by bullets
below the water.Others drowning due to
the weight of their equipment.A
flamethrower crew is incinerated.A
soldier picks up his severed arm.Someone pulls a torso.Deaths are
random.Blood turns the water red.Bullets ping off beach obstacles.Tracers whiz by. A medic blocks a wounded soldier with
corpses.
this ain't your granddads war movie
The sea wall is an only slightly safer refuge.A doctor performs triage on the wounded.A chaplain gives last rites.A soldier prays.Bangalore torpedoes open up a lane through
the barbed wire.Capt. Miller (Hanks)
leads his men against a machine gun nest and then up to the bluff where they
take out a bunker and battle Germans in a trench system.Potential prisoners are killed.With a lull in the violence, the camera pans
over the beach debris.One of the bodies
is a “Ryan, S.”
I see the place where Sgt. Fuller blew a hole in the concrete barrier
Back in the Pentagon, a typist notices three
death letters to a Ryan family.When
Gen. Marshall is informed that the last surviving Ryan boy is alive in
Normandy, he reads a letter written by Lincoln to a Mrs. Bixby who had lost
five sons in the Civil War.Marshall:
“If the boy is alive we are going to send somebody to find him and we’re gonna
get him the Hell out of there.”
It’s
D-Day plus 3 when Miller and his men are given the “public relations mission”
of finding PFC James Ryan.The
paratrooper is somewhere behind enemy lines.Miller takes six of his veterans and adds a nerdy cartographer who
speaks German named Upham (Jeremy Davies).The eight leave on their wild paratrooper chase in a foul mood.Why are they risking their lives for one
guy?They pass through the town of
Neuville so the countdown of who will survive can begin.There is a myth-busting moment involving an
enemy sniper and a Mexican stand-off with a German squad.And a Ryan who is not James F. Ryan.
A
night in a church allows for some exposition.This being an American movie there is a shot at Montgomery for tardiness
at Caen.We learn a little about the men.
Miller is the mystery man of the unit with the men debating what he was before
the war. The others are your standard heterogeneous small unit.Horvath (Tom Sizemore) is the gruff sergeant,
Mellish (Adam Goldberg) is the Jew,Wade
(Giovanni Ribisi) is the humane medic, Jackson (Barry Pepper) is the religious-hick
sniper, and Rieben (Ed Burns) is the carping Brooklynite.
The
next day answers the question of why Miller has seen the deaths of 94 of his
men as he makes an extremely poor decision to assault a well-defended radar
site.This in spite of being on a
special mission from Eisenhower’s
boss.To compound the irrationality of
the decision, Miller brings along the noncombatant medic and his brilliant
tactic is to rush the site, thus ensuring at least one death.On a positive note, the survivors find out
what Miller was before the war.This
revelation suspends a moment of unit dysfunctionality brought on by Miller’s
Geneva Conventionish freeing of a German prisoner.“Steamboat Willie” is on the honors system to
report to the nearest Allied unit.
Finally
the real Ryan (Matt Damon) is located in a concurrent assault on a German
half-track.Ryan’s unit is in the town
of Ramelle where it is defending a bridge.When informed of his good news/bad news situation, Ryan refuses to leave
his nonfamilial band of brothers.At
least not before the final set piece.If
this was a hockey match, we are now between the second and third periods.More exposition and in an homage to earlier
WWII films, a song.They, and the
audience, are resting up and preparing for the storm to come.The eerie tank-like sounds herald the arrival
of a Panzer unit.It’s go time!
CLOSING:Sticky bombs, Molotov cocktails, and thrown mortar
rounds versus Tiger tanks.It’s the
Alamo with WWII weapons.Or Fort
Zinderneuf.Or Rorke’s Drift.Or Pork Chop Hill.There is a reappearance of “Steamboat
Willie”, but not as a prisoner of war.There are some gut-wrenching deaths (and I’m not talking about Nazis)
and one Hell of a twist ending that puts us back in the Normandy American Cemetery
and Memorial.
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT?Apparently, from the box
office receipts.Excellence and Tom
Hanks trumps graphic violence and no significant female character.
where's a P-51 tank buster when you need one?
HISTORICAL ACCURACY:SPR does not claim to be based
on a true story, it does not even claim to be inspired by a true story.This is a bit surprising because it could
legitimately claim that inspiration by way of two sources.The 5 Sullivan Brothers all perished when the
U.S.S. Juneau went down off Guadalcanal. This led to the adoption of the Sole
Survivor Rule in which the Pentagon attempted to avoid the loss of entire
sibling sets.A stronger connection to
the film is to the Niland family.Frederick Niland was a paratrooper in Normandy who was pulled out of
combat and returned home after two brothers were lost in D-Day and a third was
shot down over Burma (and survived Japanese imprisonment).In spite of the similarity to the Niland
story, it is obvious that Spielberg’s film is meant to be fictional.For that reason, it is more appropriate to
discuss how realistic it is rather than how accurate it is.
The Omaha Beach scene has been justifiably lauded for
its realism (including by veterans of the assault) and still remains the most
realistic reenactment of any combat in war movie history.However, it is not perfect.The Americans landing on Dog Green sector
were actually transported on British landing craft, not Higgins Boats.The carnage rings true, but the time
compression makes the conquest of the bluff seem much too quick and easy.And by the way, bullets lose too much
momentum when they enter water to be able to kill men, as depicted in the film.
As to the mission, it seems unlikely that a crack
squad of Rangers would have been sent on this type of mission to find one man.In reality, a chaplain located Fritz
Niland.The sniper duel is reminiscent
of a confrontation involving Marine sniper Carlos Hatchcock in the Vietnam War.He put a bullet through the enemy’s scope at
about 100 yards.In the film, Jackson
estimates his shot at 450 yards which puts it out of the range of possibility
given gravity’s effect on a bullet’s trajectory.I’ve already dealt with the unrealistic
tactics in the radar site assault.As far
as allowing the prisoner to go, Miller certainly would not have faced charges
for the common sense alternative.
As far as the last battle is concerned, there are
several problems.Although there were
such things as “Sticky Bombs”, they were a British experiment and were not
make-shift.I found no evidence that
they were described in the U.S. Army Field Manual.It is also highly unlikely that mortar shells
could be armed by hitting them on the base plate and then thrown to explode on
a target.As far as the tanks are
concerned, there were no Tiger tanks in that part of Normandy at that stage of
the war.Also, tactically the Germans
would probably have sent the infantry in first.By the way, the tanks used in the film were Soviet T-34s mocked up to
look like Tigers.I have no problem with
that.What I do have a problem with is
why the tanks did not use their machine guns.I suppose that game changer would have messed with the plot.Speaking of tanks, Miller would not have been
able to fire a machine gun into the tank’s viewer.One last thing:the P-51 that arrives to save the day had no
ability to fire a rocket or drop a bomb.(Joining all the other fighter planes in war movie history that dropped
ordinance they did not have.)
CRITIQUE:
Thank God that tank forgot it's machine gun ammo
The acting in “Saving Private Ryan”
is very good. Tom Hanks is his usual outstanding self, but the supporting cast
is strong and there are no weak performances. Even Vin Diesel (thankfully not
in the film long enough to do damage) ups his game and dies well. Speaking of
which, SPR has the highest quality of death scenes that I have seen in a war
movie.SPR is famous for the ten day
boot camp the actors were put through by Dale Dye in preparation for their
roles. Matt Damon (Ryan) was purposely left out so he would be treated
subconsciously as an outsider. For a movie that attempts to be as close to
reality as possible, the actors do not come off as like they are playing army
men. They gripe a lot and question the mission. They do not want to accept the
new guy (Upham) and never really bond with him. They respect Capt. Miller, but
only grudgingly follow him when he issues questionable orders.This is realistic considering some of the
stupid decisions he makes.
Dale Dye taught me how to do this
“Saving Private Ryan” is not
remembered for its dialogue. In fact, in one of the most powerful scenes (when
Mrs. Ryan is notified about her sons’ deaths), there is not a spoken word. The
movie does have some nice dialogue. Much of it is aimed at non-war movie buffs so some of it (the running FUBAR routine, for instance) can be aggravating. Robert Rodat’s script was nominated for
Best Original Screenplay. Much of the dialogue is terse and the most famous
line is simply: “Earn this.” The monologues are well done, especially when Wade
describes pretending to be asleep when his mother would come home and when
Miller finally reveals his previous life. Best line: “This Ryan better be worth
it. He'd better go home and cure some disease or invent a longer-lasting
lightbulb or something. 'Cause the truth is, I wouldn't trade 10 Ryans for one
Vecchio or one Caparzo.” (Miller)
SPR was lauded for creating a new
style war movie when it came out and many of the masses swallowed this analysis.
In reality, it merely puts a different spin on the classic war movie template.
It is after all a hero leading a
small unit on a mission. The hero is forced to assume
command. The unit is heterogeneous.There
is a conflict within the group between Reiben and Horvath that is resolved by
external pressure. There is a ritual recalling the peaceful past (listening to
the song on the gramophone). The movie clearly alternates from combat to
rest/exposition. The movie does lack a redemption character. See my post on WWII war movie cliches
SPR combines two standard war movie
plot tropes. The first half is the patrol
on a mission and the second half is the last stand. Both segments incorporate the “who will survive?”
angle. Although not groundbreaking as far as those tried and true elements, the
way the screenwriter handles them is quite good. The objective is certainly
outside the box- a mission to rescue one soldier. The plot is very manipulative
of the audience and takes advantage the non-war movie lovers who would find
much of it fresh. It pulls all the emotional strings reaching a crescendo at
the end. It throws in a German character to link key scenes and contrive the
ending. As ridiculously implausible as this arc is, it is not embarrassing like
in “The Big Red One”.
Although incorrectly credited with
modernizing the war movie plot, SPR can be credited with taking war movie
combat to a new level of realism. It is popular these days to downplay the
greatness of the movie, but the opening scene is still the most amazing combat
scene ever filmed and has not been topped after fifteen years and many
challengers. That one scene will be remembered as a seminal moment in war movie
history. I also would like to remind everyone that Dale Dye was the technical
advisor so it was well vetted.
The cinematography of Janusz Kaminski richly
deserved the Oscar.He managed to get a
newsreel feel by desaturating the colors.Equally impressive are the sound effects.The sounds of battle have seldom been better. The highlight is when Miller loses his hearing
due to explosions and combat stress. The monstrous roar of the Tiger tanks in
the final battle is straight out of a horror movie. It could be argued that SPR
has the best sound and visual effects of any war movie. The score by John Williams is fine and not bombastic.
CONCLUSION:It is popular lately to take shots at “Saving
Private Ryan” and I have to admit that upon watching it for the tenth time and
reading about some of the mistakes, it is not perfect.However, it is clearly a masterpiece as
entertainment for the masses.People
like me have to remind ourselves that not everyone has seen a lot of war
movies.Tropes are not as obvious to
average viewers.More specifically, most
people are not concerned with the use of a Higgins Boat in place of British
LCAs.You can accuse Spielberg of
manipulating the emotions of the audience, but he is a master at this and he is
at the top of his game here.When you
watch some of his more recent efforts like “War Horse”, you can appreciate the
relative sublety of this film and be thankful it’s earlier Spielberg.In my opinion, its position in the top ten is
appropriate.
The dueling movies are two WWII
comedies.Both involve cases of mistaken
identity.“Imitation General” stars
Glenn Ford as Sgt. Murphy.He and Cpl.
Derby (Red Buttons) are with a Gen. Lane at an isolated French farmhouse owned
by a feisty French girl named Simone (Taina Elg).When the general gets killed, Murph decides
to masquerade as him to keep morale up.The complication (surprise, there is one!) is that Murph’s bitter enemy
is now on the scene.Pvt. Hutchmeyer
(Tige Andrews) holds a grudge because Murph had him busted.Comedy ensues with comic relief supplied by
Buttons, of course.The movie tries to
be a dramedy by throwing in some action.Murph uses a jeep rigged up as a tank to defend a bridge against a
German attack. There is actually a neat little tank battle (with the same model
tanks on both sides).Murph and Derby
take out two tanks by jumping on them, covering the sights and throwing in
grenades, like any general would do!All
this while avoiding Hutchmeyer.
“On the Double” is a Danny Kaye
movie which tells you a lot about what is going to happen in it.Naturally, he will play more than one
role.Kaye is the hypochondriac, coward
Ernie Williams who because of his ability to mimic anyone is tabbed for
Operation Dead Pigeon.He will double
for Col. MacKenzie-Smith who is a key person in Operation Overlord.The Germans are out to assassinate the
colonel, but Ernie is not told this is a suicide mission. This movie has a
complication as well.The colonels
estranged wife Lady Margaret (Dana Wynter) shows up and somehow knows this
buffoon is not her suave husband.They
fall in love and the real colonel’s plane gets shot down so they live happily
ever after.Well, not until lunacy
ensues.Assassination attempts allow
Kaye to do his usual shtick which includes singing a song and lots of physical
comedy.He gets kidnapped and brought to
Berlin.Did I mention this is not a true
story?After talking jibberish under
torture (three minutes of it), he escapes using a variety of disguises,
including Hitler.
This is more of a pillow fight
than a duel.“Imitation General” has
some good acting.Ford and Buttons are
their usual reliable selves.They do
their best with a lame script.Even for
a comedy, the plot is rife with implausibilities.The main problem is it is not that
funny.“On the Double” is a typical
Danny Kaye vehicle, but not one of his better ones.He gives it his all, but much of it is
forced.There is even a food fight!The plot sets up future bits in a ham-handed
way.For instance, the colonel wears a
patch over his left eye, but Ernie is poorly sighted in his right so they get
him a contact.Do you think there will
be a moment when the contact falls out and Ernie will be comically
blinded?Obviously, OTD makes IG look
like a documentary.It is far from
subtle, but some of the jokes score.It’s more quantity than quality, however.
Which film is better?That’s a tough call.If you want a little action, choose
“Imitation General”.If you just want
humor, watch “On the Double”.Just don’t
expect a lot of laughs from either.They
are both forgettable and mark the end of an era that was replaced by the
cynical / satirical school of movies like “Dr. Strangelove”, “Catch-22”, and
“MASH”. Progress is good.
P.S. Check out those posters. Apparently depictions of women bathing really drew audiences in the lat 50s/early 60s.
