If there's one thing I've learned from watching movies for this site, it's the respect and admiration a lot of critics have for director Lewis Milestone.  In 1930's All Quiet on the Western Front, he explores the experience of a young German who eagerly signs up for duty in the army during the first World War, and is quickly shown exactly what it means to be a solider.  It's based on the novel by the same name (which I have yet to read) by Erich Maria Remarque.

I've basically outlined the story for you already.  A German schoolboy named Kat (Louis Wolheim) joins up for the army after a rather overplayed exposition by his teacher.  Really this opening sequence almost put me off the movie entirely.  The overzealous preaching of the teacher, coupled with the giddy "oooo sign me up!" actions of the kids, topped off by the trashing of the classroom in excitement and patriotic fury... it's a bit much.  But I suspect that's on purpose, just to show how over the top a lot of propaganda and flag waving can get.

But he signs up, and is shipped off from his peaceful little German burb, to a nearly decimated city someplace else near the front, and is quickly initiated into soldierhood.  The shells start falling nearly as soon as they're off the train, and some of his squad mates meet their doom early on.

From there he waits, quivering in a bunker with the rest of his mates as the shells fall around them.  Trying their wits and nerves, and even the grisled veterans are visibly nervous and scared.

Then it begins, they're called to action in the trenches, and Milestone makes his statement about the pointlessness of it all.  The encroaching Allied forces getting cut down by machine guns, overrunning the trenches and the messy close-quarters combat that ensues.  Then they're pushed back, only to have the tables turned as the Germans make an advance on their lines, to suffer nearly the exact same fate.

I'm going somewhat out of order here, so bear with me....  There's a section where Kat returns home, lauded as a hero, but he wants none of it.  Called back to that same classroom to tell his glorious tales of battle, he winds up telling quite the opposite tale, of being scared out of his mind, and of the horrors he's seen, much to the dismay of his patriotic teacher.

In another segment, he's pinned down in a hole with the body of a French soldier whom he had to kill, and we're treated to some more of that Milestone pontification that seems to permeate his films to the core.

And there is a lot of that.  Although its fit in much better here than in other Milestone pictures such as the dull "A Walk in the Sun", and even the more mainstream "The Halls of Montezuma."  The squad talks about the usual Milestone topics: Why are we here, fighting? What does it mean? Does anybody really care?....  You get the point.

How does it end?  Well, on that note I was a bit disappointed, but I suppose it fits with the entire theme of the picture.  Be it a little too "art school" for my tastes.

Even for the early days of "talking" cinema, this film can get a bit intense.  And given the era, I can't really fault the performance of anyone, I mean in 1930 "movie acting" was still a new art, and the cast really isn't full of your typical "stars" to speak of.

Sure All Quiet on the Western Front is more "anti" war at its core than a lot of pictures (aren't most of them anyway?) and it's told from the "enemy" point of view....  But this isn't a picture about us vs. them, or historical events, or any of that.  It's a thoughtful look into the events and experiences that (as they say) turn boys into men, and men into crying little boys again, and that scar their souls for the rest of their lives.

And in that respect it truly is a classic war movie.

Technorati Tags: war movie review, all quiet on the western front, 1930, world war i 1, lewis milestone, erich maria remarque, louis wolheim

Company K is the story of a group of Marines during World War I, based on the novel of the same name by William March.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, what might make for a good book (which I've not read) doesn't necessarily translate well to the screen. In the film, the fictional Delaney (Ari Fliakos) is the main character. Well, I think. He's supposed to represent March, aka. Campbell in this semi-autobiographical work.

The movie starts off wonderfully, with Delaney writing his novel, discussing parts of it with his wife, and the narration with (presumably) quotes from March's novel making a bold statement.

Before the US officially got involved in "The Big One,"  several volunteers headed off to France to learn the newly created art of military aviation.  Flyboys follows the adventures of some of them, most notably Blaine Rawlings (James Franco.)

Now, I'd made some comments previously about this film, when all I had to go off of were the previews.  Quite honestly they made this film look just ridiculous.  I'm happy to say that it isn't so, and that I actually, and surprisingly, liked this movie, a lot.

I'd almost say that this film could have been made in the 40's or 50's.  It just has that same, I don't know, quality to it.  There's really no harsh language to speak of, no horribly graphic violence (but just enough to garner it a PG-13), has the obligatory love story side plot which doesn't get in the way of the main story, and provides enough action to really keep you on the edge of your chair!

Yeah, yeah, I know... there was a lot of "artistic license" taken when it comes down to the actual dogfight scenes.  But put in context those outlandish scenes from the trailers really aren't so bad, especially the plane-through-the-exploding-zeppelin bit.  If you look at it from the perspective I'm talking about (your classic "action/adventure" type war movie) I think its perfectly forgivable.

Franco's role as the "hero" was well played, as was Capt. Thenault (Jean Reno) and Lucienne (Jennifer Decker), but the broody veteran Cassidy (Martin Henderson) got a little tiresome.  The rest of the guys were just along for the ride....

But (you knew that was coming) there were a couple of minor issues I had with it, first the absolutely in-your-face racial bit.  Must we turn everything into a statement?  I'll say though that once it was "out of the way" it resolved itself gracefully, and didn't factor into things later on.

The soundtrack was very good, but unfortunately a few bars of the main theme sounded exactly like the main theme from "Saving Private Ryan", which for me at least, was a bit distracting.  YMMV.

Then there's the "Afterwards, so and so did this and that" subtitle ending.  I hate that.  Just let us imagine what happened to these guys.

Flyboys is an action filled movie that pays appropriate tribute to the pioneers of military aviation, and even if it gets a little unrealistic, just sit back and enjoy it. Its a fresh change from the current crop of hardcore, blood and guts, f-this and f-that war movies.

Technorati Tags: war movie reviews, flyboys, 2006, james franco, jean reno, jennifer decker, martin henderson, world war i, military aviation, france

Before I start, I should mention that I had never seen Lawrence of Arabia before today. Not even a hint of it. Why not? Sure I've heard how great it was, but because of its length I've never been able to wrangle the opportunity. Until today.

Lawrence of Arabia is the very definition of a "movie epic." It's probably in the dictionary. From the sheer length (nearly four hours!) to the scope of the vision, the camera work, the story, the characters.... It really is that good. You might be saying, "But I thought you hated long movies!" Not so at all. Only when they are too long for their own good do I not care for it.

But I would say that the nearly four-hour length of Lawrence of Arabia isn't nearly long enough. In fact when it was over I was saying to myself, "That's it? Where's the rest of the story?!"

What an odd movie Paths of Glory is!  Only the fourth film from director Stanley Kubrick, this movie goes back and forth from tongue-in-cheek M*A*S*H-like anti-war movie, to out-and-out war movie, to legal drama at the blink of an eye.  And it all falls together with Kirk Douglas as the star.  Oh, and the entire thing is filmed in a 1930's style which only makes it more interesting, and even more of an enigma.....

Does that make it a bad movie?  Hell, no.  This is really a good movie, better than I was expecting, actually.  Until it started I wasn't even aware of Kubrick's involvement, and it was interesting to see some early work from such a genius as Kubrick.

Before the movie-generating events of World War II, there was "the big one" and the heroes that emerged from it. "Sergeant York" explores the events surrounding one of the most legendary heroes of the war, one Alvin C. York, masterfully played by Gary Cooper.

Once you get past the first oh, hour or so, of wondering exactly where this movie is leading, it all starts to make sense. York is a stereotypical Tennessee hillbilly, from a stereotypical 1916 rural Tennessee hillbilly town. He's a rough character, and eventually he starts to turn around when he meets a young lady, one Gracie Williams (Joan Leslie.) From there he gradually starts turning his life around, taking on more and more responsibility, and eventually completely turning himself around after a life-changing revelation brings him to religion....

Then the war breaks out. He has to reconcile himself with the fact he may be called into duty, and the conflict with his newfound religious beliefs. He's called up before his conscientious objector status can be confirmed, and is torn from his isolated existence and thrown into a brand new world.

Here he's given a big choice. He must choose between his duty to God and his duty to his country, and eventually realizes that the two aren't exclusive. He returns to duty, and is eventually shipped off to France, to fight in the trenches.

It's here he goes above and beyond the call of duty, singlehandedly overtaking a German machine gun emplacement and in the process, capturing over 100 enemy prisoners. Gaining himself several medals, including the Congressional Medal of Honor, and is thrown into the limelight.

He eschews all the fanfare and celebrity, though. He decides to return home to Tennessee and live happily after ever with Gracie.

I will admit to becoming a little disillusioned for the first hour or so. I had expected this to be more war movie than biography, but once the pieces fell together for me, I found it to be a very enjoyable, and very introspective bit of film. I'd go so far as to put it up against any war movie of our time for its ultimate message and portrayal of those we consider to be "war heroes."

The entire "hillbilly" routine gets a bit comical, also, but I suppose that's how it went. Keep in mind the timeframe this movie was made in. Released in 1941, it came out before the US was thrown into World War II, but provided, I think, a good bit of propaganda as to why we should've been there sooner, while at the same time addressing a lot of issues that go along with that notion. Whether that was the intent or not, I can't say.

A full 8/10 from Sgt. WMB. I'd have gone higher but the hillbilly bit dragged on a bit too much, and well, the southern drawl thing... I guess voice/accent coaches were hard to come by!

If I had to choose a word to describe 1969's The Bridge at Remagen, it would be *angry*. That's just the feeling I had coming away from this movie. Everyone in this movie is pissed off, all the time. But that doesn't necessarily make for a bad film.

The Germans have been ordered to destroy the bridge at Remagen rather than have it fall into enemy hands, however, General von Brock (Peter Van Eyck) orders Major Krueger (Robert Vaugn) to keep it open as long as possible, in order to give the retreating Germans a chance to escape.

Meanwhile, on the Allied side, Lt. Hartman (George Segal) and his squad, led by Sgt. Angelo (Ben Gazzara) are charged with preventing said destruction, and of course, all hell breaks loose.