Borserie
it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.
Forumrxes
Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.
Haven Kaycee
It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film
greschiem2002
This is an Anti War film directed by Anthony Mann, a low budget film set during the Korean War. This film rates as amongst Mann's best films along with "The Fall of the Roman Empire" and "Winchester 73". This is one of those relatively unknown minor classic war films like "Hell is for Heroes".The fact that it was done on a low budget and reportedly without Army Cooperation means that this had to be a character piece to be a Movie at all. On this level it benefits by the always good Robert Ryan and also a fine performance by Aldo Ray as "Montana". And, as I have read in other reviews - this film stringently avoids clichés and two dimensional characterisations.The stark black and white images mixed with what appears to be relatively high contrast lighting fits this film's grim story of a lost patrol and brings out the bleakness and also banality of the landscape which contrasts heavily with the anguish and fear of the men being lost behind enemy lines.As with other war films up to 1977 (when Cross of Iron and a Bridge too Far brought a new level of realism to combat sequences) this film lacks a certain urgency in the actual combat scenes and also a lack of authenticity that these characters are used to a soldiers life . However, the final combat scene is the best in this respect bringing a strong climax to the film.If you like films with subtlety, nuance and strong characterisation then you may well enjoy this excellent war film.
Robert J. Maxwell
Korea, 1950. Robert Ryan is a lieutenant in command of what's left of his platoon, a dozen or so men. They are alone, surrounded, and unable to communicate with their division, so they face a dreary trudge of many miles in the most promising direction. They're shortly joined by a jeep carrying a stunned and insensible major (Keith) and his gruff, hostile sergeant (Ray). Ray is built like a Panzer and his neck is a very short telephone pole. His head is so large that his helmet doesn't sit on it, it encases his skull like a watch cap. All the men are scared, weary, or sick, except Ray. He exercises his combat skills until Ryan finally accepts him and his catatonic major into the group -- not that Ray gives a damn one way or the other.The enemy are treacherous and, worse, they're real SNEAKY. They camouflage themselves with bushes and branches. "They move like cats!", exclaims one sergeant (Persoff).The movie isn't too inventive or realistic, on the whole. James Edwards, while bringing up the rear, learns that you should never sit down, decorate your helmet with flowers, and take off your shoes while you're alone. Every soldier in a war movie knows that you can't relax, even for a moment, when the enemy are around. (They should never climb a tree either.) We've seen it before. There's little in the way of believability either. When Ray and his major first arrive, Ray has his Thompson sub-machine gun pointed at Ryan's chest as he disobeys one order after another. When Ryan finally relieves him of the gun, Ray pulls a knife and prepares to attack the officer. Yet a few minutes later, Ryan returns the gun to Ray. Would you do that? The story, for all it danger and suspense, doesn't seem to have been well thought out. The platoon drags itself along from one dangerous incident to another with little clear direction of what their goal is. Bayonets are always fixed. They must survive an ambush and snipers, run through an artillery barrage, step gingerly through a mine field, take a hill occupied by the enemy. Bonds are formed but remain unexplained. Why did James Edwards insist on taking care of the frightened Vic Morrow? Nobody else cares. And what is the nature of Aldo Ray's utter devotion to "my colonel"? Why would two frightened soldiers manning a light machine gun, shout, "Let's get outta here!", and then run up the hill toward the enemy, firing their rifles? I may be too hard on the film. It doesn't insult the audience. I don't mean to suggest that it's putrid, just routine. I'm sure the production was hampered by a low budget. The dusty hills and gum trees are in Los Angeles, not Korea. We never see more than a handful of men. At the end, when the cavalry comes too late, the single man on guard comes tumbling down the slope to announce their arrival -- but we don't see them. No acting is called for but the men we observe do professional jobs.Good for a watch, but probably not a second.
generalz-1
For me this movie goes back a long way!! I saw it when it was first released in 1957, in "Ann Arbor"!! I was 10 years old! "Ann Arbor", at that time showed only "1st" run movies!! Even back then, I felt that something was wrong with, the scene with "James Edwards" I was 10 years old, and I felt that I would have never done, what "Killian"(the part played by "Edwards"), would have done! I also saw this scene in saving "Private Ryan", with "Ken Vesel", remember?? Even in the "tv" series "combat", you see it again!! What it is,is a "reluctance", "inability" or,"outright refusal" to portray "black" soldiers in a positive, competent light!! But then again, "who was writing the scripts"!! If you know what I mean??!! I enjoyed the movie none the less, then and now!! I saw this movie at the "Michigan" theater, when it was first released in "Ann Arbor"!! Just as an aside!!
dougdoepke
I recall seeing the film on first release and being much impressed. It compared well to other war films of the 40's and 50's in terms of what I understood to be combat realism. Besides, the great Robert Ryan could make a one-man invasion appear believable. Now, it looks like an extension of the war films of that pre-Vietnam era, cut basically from the same triumphant cloth. Yes, there are the casualties, the guys we see and the guys we like. They die in a variety of inglorious ways—knife, gunshot, explosion. But they die cleanly, no screaming, weeping, or fetal positions. And, of course, the star survives, the guy we most identify with. Sure, the medal ceremony suggests certain ironies, but the sacrifices are not in vain—the objective is gained and the enemy annihilated.My point is that in terms of combat realism and resolutions, the movie is very much a creature of its time. That's not to say the production lacks in dramatic values or entertainment. Running the artillery gantlet is genuinely nerve-wracking (though no one seems concerned with shrapnel spray) and so is the treacherous minefield (though that trails off inexplicably). However, I'm with the reviewers who find the assault on the hill poorly done, lacking in basic military intelligence on the enemy's part. And I agree that director Mann is much better at staging noir than at staging battle. Nonetheless, it's an excellent cast. Ray and Ryan play off one another very effectively, and there's none of that cutesy WWII banter that was so Hollywood. Other good touches for the time include the depiction of racial harmony (Morrow & Edwards) and passing glimpses of a fully human enemy.However, fifty years have passed and I now better understand the gap between what's on the movie screen and what isn't, and, most importantly, why. Director Mann and the screenwriters worked as best they could within the constraints of budget and Cold War requirements. After all, too much realism or futility and people would be less ready to march off to war. Anyway, as a whole and within those limitations, the movie remains an entertaining artifact of its time.
