Afouotos
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
AshUnow
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
Tymon Sutton
The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.
denis888
No, this is NOT the famous 1951 black and white masterpiece that we all know and saw many times. This is a 1974 TV film, which I never heard of and never saw before. Many people criticized that take fiercely, which laves me totally shocked. Why? This full color take is not bad, this is a very decent try, a nice effort that depicts war as it is - cruel, miserable, sad, bloody, ferocious, wild, wanton, merciless, panicking, awful, bad and horrid. The movie is short, so it doesn't drag or get on your nerves. The plot of the book is depicted very vividly and it does not glorify violence, it shows it as a real terrible and blood-chilling affair. This rare film is certainly worth watching if only for educational sake and also for a fresh view of a classic
moonspinner55
Stephen Crane's classic American novel concerning fictional Yankee private Henry Fleming of the 304th New York Regiment--who loses his courage to fight after seeing the random insanity of life and death on the battlefield--is not a natural for the screen. In 1951, writer-director John Huston had tried for a thorough adaptation of the story, but that theatrical feature left audiences unmoved and was drastically altered by its studio. This faithful television version has been smartly thought-out by writer John Gay and director Lee Philips and, despite some overwrought performances and distinct 1970s haircuts, contains many powerful sequences. Richard Thomas is perhaps a bit too old to be convincing as the teenage Henry (age 18 in the book), yet his character's confusion--and guilt over his cowardice--is overpowering and intensely felt. Injured by stampeding soldiers, Henry finds strength and personal redemption in being 'wounded', returning to his fellow recruits to carry the flag into battle. This psychological tale of wartime is demanding and dramatic, yet is laid-out for us cleanly, without any creeping pretensions. The locations are disappointing (most likely due to budget restraints), however the power of Crane's storytelling is palpably realized.
connors9507
Richard Thomas was just right back then; portraying a guy who was scared and ashamed, but too proud to keep running, everything..he got it just right. I think Stephan Crane would appreciate this version better than the 1951 movie.It's confusing enough being that age, then finding yourself in the middle of one of those huge battles- you couldn't pull me away from that TV way back when. It didn't need all of the high tech special effects, Henry Fleming(John boy)and his fellow soldiers brought you into the story as well as the book did. It was a great movie and should be available to high school kids, history buffs, or anybody who enjoys a good flick. But is it available to anyone? I can't find it for sell online anywhere. What a shame. The scene showing fixed bayonets charging, one sticking in a tree trunk accidentally, was artistic license no doubt, but classic! Classic I say! Where are the rerun Gods when you need them? This would be great for my school age son...I'll keep looking.
SgtKelso
This was a great movie and it's the second time Richard Thomas starred in a remake that was better than the original. The other film was All Quiet on the Western Front and is available on DVD unlike this film which I have not been able to find anywhere.
