A Pair of 1930's films appeared on DVD today (again!), this time it is:

1938's The Dawn Patrol

In 1915 France, Major Brand commands the 39th Squadron of the Royal Flying Corps. The young airmen go up in bullet-riddled "crates" and the casualty rate is appalling, but Brand can't make the "brass hats" at headquarters see reason. Insubordinate air ace Captain Courtney is another thorn in Brand's side...but finds the smile wiped from his face when he rises to command the squadron himself. Everyone keeps a stiff upper lip.

and 1936's The Charge of the Light Brigade

Major Vickers is an officer at the 27th Lancers in India 1856. When the regiment is on maneuver, the barracks are attacked by Surat Khan and his soldiers who massacre British women and children. This leaves an inextinguishable memory and Vickers promises to revenge the dead.

Neither appears on this site (yet!) but classics like these are always worth at least one viewing...

Technorati Tags: war movies, dvd, new releases

Starring legends Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster, 1958's "Run Silent, Run Deep" is a typical World War II Submarine adventure.

What makes this one not so typical though, is the incredible tension and suspense that happens on board the sub, the USS Nerka. Capt. Richardson (Gable) has been sidelined after being sunk in the Pacific by the Japanese once already. Capt. Bledsoe (Lancaster) is the upcoming officer who is given XO status on board Richardson's new command.

However, Richardson has a different agenda, namely revenge against the Japanese destroyer who sunk him and three others in the same section of sea. Of course he doesn't come right out and say it, which brings suspicion and doubt for the rest of the crew.

In the end, Richardson suffers a nasty head injury, which proves to be his downfall. Before that he saves the day by figuring out the mystery which had proved so elusive to the four previous victims.

The acting of course is superb with this cast, which also includes Jack Warden and Don Rickles(!) The effects consist mostly of models it would seem, but its not that badly done. Most of the film takes place below decks or on the bridge anyway, so its not a big detraction.

This is one of those classics that will continue to surprise folks like me who really weren't expecting all that much. Be sure to put this on your "to watch" list.

Technorati Tags: war movies, run silent run deep, submarine, clark gable, burt lancaster, pacific, world war ii

This is a story of a ship.

And so it is, and of the men who serve on them, and of their families back at home.  A British film, it focuses on the captain and select crew of the HMS Torrin, a destroyer which is sunk early on in the film.

The rest of the film switches between flashbacks of a few of the surviving sailors, and their families, and between the events leading up to her sinking.

Just one thing I have to get out of the way.  Noel Coward, playing the captain, speaks entirely too fast!  There are times you just can't even understand what he's saying!  Other than that this effort, which was mostly his creation shines as a wonderful wartime look at the war.

I suppose you could classify this as a "propaganda" film.  I'm a little hesitant to label it as such, because of the measured loss we are shown both at home and on board the ship.  But given the times it was made and viewed, it would have to be seen as such.

It can get a little tedious at times, but the moving moments are worth it.

You also get a good look at the inner workings of a Royal Navy destroyer and the details of operations on board.  It's a somewhat interesting contrast to how we see the American ships being run.

I liked it, but I don't think I'll be jumping at the chance to see it again...

Technorati Tags: war movies, in which we serve, 1942, noel coward, world war ii, royal navy

A Bridge Too Far is a long and complex look at the spectacularly failed Operation Market Garden, where Allied troops were to drop behind enemy lines into Holland and take bridges to support an advancing ground force in September 1944.  As history has shown, it didn't go as planned.  At all.

This movie is rather long (3 hrs) and for the first two, is a mixture of rather dull scenes of talking-head-generals discussing strategy and a disjointed and confusing following of no less than five different groups going after their respective goals.

The problem here is that once they get going into a bit with one of the groups, a battle begins, we're abruptly taken away to another force who's either doing nothing, or doing something seemingly unrelated.

The last hour chronicles the final failing hours of the operation, and is actually quite a moving bit of film.  If you've made it that far, that is.  A "reel too far" maybe.

The ensemble cast is spectacular: Caan, Connery, Redford, Gould, Olivier, Hackman, Hopkins... they all do marvelous jobs.  It's just there are too many things going on here, too many interlude stories, and too many talking heads to try and keep track of.  If they'd focused on just a couple less, it might've made for a far more compelling story.

Technorati Tags: war movies, film, a bridge too far, operation market garden, 1944, world war ii

Flags of Our Fathers is the story of three men who were honored (I guess you could call it that) for their part in raising (one of) the flags over Iwo Jima in 1945.

However it portrays this "honor" as that of being used as marketing pawns in the name of selling more war bonds. Additionally it portrays two of the three in a somewhat questionable light. I don't know if director Clint Eastwood did this on purpose or if it was just a reflection of the facts that were known to him and his staff, and having not read the book this was based off of, I can't say for sure.

What I can say is I watched this movie and felt sort of, well, ticked off during most of it. Mostly because of the way these men were being portrayed. You have Rene, the guy who seems to be eating up all the fame and glory, at least thats how it seemed. Then there's Ira Hayes, the native american who spends most of the "tour" drunk. Reflections of the facts? Again, I don't know, but it was just unsettling and maddening.

Yes, I understand why. They did not see themselves as the heroes they were made out to be, they felt others deserved more credit than themselves. I guess that in itself makes up for it somewhat. The whole message (which is an excellent one we all should take to heart) seems to get lost in the negative portrayals.

The battle scenes are filmed spectacularly, and the continuity from one shot to the next, from airplane cockpit, to beach, to battleship is truly amazing. Although I still say they went way overboard with the color desaturation. These scenes nearly look black and white they've been toned out so much. The grit and fear comes through painfully spectacular.

On top of that the way the battle scenes are cut in between the scenes of the "war bond tour" can get confusing. There are a few times you wonder exactly what the timeline you're looking at is. Which came first, where are we now, what the hell is going on... you get my drift.

Is this a good movie? Yes, and no. I'm not going to put it on par with the likes of Saving Private Ryan, or anything like that. Even though I think that's what they were shooting for. I think the intentions were good, to create a Private Ryan-like memorial film for the men who fought and died in the Pacific. And I'll give points for effort, but the whole thing just doesn't fit together.

I also wonder if there isn't some other message Mr. Eastwood was going for, that of the commercialism and exploitation of those we would call "heroes."

There's a lot to think about here, and there are a lot of moving moments that make this a worthwhile couple of hours, but keep in mind the message and try not to get as ticked off as I did! Focus on the honor they pay to "Doc" and you'll come away a lot more un-angry.

Like I said I have not read the book by the same name, maybe I should. It may shed a different light on things. I'd be interested in any comments any readers may have on this, what your thoughts are.

1969's Battle of Britain is a pretty academic and mechanical look at the escalation of German bombing attacks in 1940 which we all know as "the blitz."  An all-star cast consisting of such names as Christopher Plummer, Michael Caine, Curt Jurgens, Laurence Olivier, Nigel Patrick, Robert Shaw, and more round it out.

But the real stars of this movie aren't flesh and blood at all, but the staggering number of aircraft (both real and F/X.)  Matter of fact while watching this you come to realize that the people are just kind of a sideshow to the absolutely amazing dogfight and air battle scenes.

Spitfires, Hurricanes, Me-109s, Stukas, Heinkels... the list goes on, and there are lots of them.  Lots of them seem to meet untimely demises as well, and I hope(!) they were replicas or prop pieces!  The F/X here are really quite good for '69, as you can believe it when you're shown 100's of Luftwaffe bombers coming after London.

Like I said, the air battle scenes are where this movie shines.  From the sound effects, to the incredible camera angles and views, to the pilot chatter, it's all good.

Especially interesting is the final battle scene, where the sound effects were removed and all you hear is the (albeit overly "pompous") musical soundtrack.  It comes out as a magical "airplane" ballet of sorts.

To be honest the non-aircraft parts of the film are rather mechanical in nature.  Even with such greats as Plummer, Caine, and Olivier, its obvious these scenes are just kind of "filler" for in between the raging sky conflicts.

There's also a lot of subtitled German, as we're shown the Nazi POV of things.  I mean a lot of subtitles (which I didn't pick up on at first since I had the TV "zoomed" in to fill the letterbox across the screen!)  And they're even more mechanical and academic than the Brits!

Overall, I doubt you'll see a more impressive assemblage of German and British WWII aircraft anywhere than this film.  If you're a dogfight fan, or a fan of the more "methodical" war movies, this is a must see.

Technorati Tags: war movies, film, dvd, battle of britain, 1969, spitfire, hurricane, me109, stuka, blitz

So is M*A*S*H a "war movie" or an "anti-war movie?"  It's been called both, and I think they're right on both counts.  Robert Altman's 1970 masterpiece which spawned the spinoff TV series comes at you from both directions, dead serious and dead funny. All at the same time.

It follows the doctors of the 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (MASH!) in Korea during the war.  Some of which were drafted and wind up there by fate, others are "regular army clowns" who seem to live for this stuff.

Now, if you've never seen the movie, but only seen the TV series, you need to take everything you think you know, and just throw it out the window.  About the only common traits the two have is the name, the location, and the characters' names.  And Radar.  He'd be the only actor that stuck around for the series.

There are lots of things which make MASH an incredible movie.  Not the least of which are the performances from a stellar ensemble cast.  Donald Sutherland, Elliot Gould, Robert Duvall, Tom Skerritt, Sally Kellerman, and yes even the infamous Gary Burghoff.

MASH jumps between hilarious episodes, filmed with brilliant vision by Altman (my favorite is the "Last Supper" table) and the dead seriousness of their situation.

While watching this, you also realize how much of this you probably couldn't get away with in a movie today without having the riot act read to you. It's damn funny, but given the climate of today you don't really want to laugh in case someone sees you. 

One of the problems though, is a lot of the humor is so subtle and "dry" that its lost on a lot of folks.  There's a lot of things that if you're not paying close attention, you'll miss the point.  The style is a bit disjointed and irregular, and could also put a few people off.  Once you get used to the strange cuts and angles, and realize what's going on, you'll get the hang of it.

It's been called an "anti-war" movie, and I suspect that's for a few reasons, probably more to do with the period it was made (at the height of Vietnam) and the way it belittles Army life as a series of mishaps connected by madness.

Of course, in a way, all good war movies are "anti-war" to some degree.

That is all.

Technorati Tags: korean war, war movies, m*a*s*h, mash, 4077th, review