The Longest Day

When you look back through history, certain dates hold a higher place in the history books. It can be someone's birth, someone's death, or just have an amazing historical significance in terms of impact on the world. High up on that list is June 6, 1944, the day Allied forces invaded Normandy, better known as D-Day. In the age of gigantic, sprawling epics, one of the best movies of the 1960s tackles the immense subject, 1962's The Longest Day.

A plot description wouldn't do this flick justice. It's just infeasible. The history will serve as a big enough jumping off point. After four-plus years of war, Allied forces had massed for months, all prepping for the invasion of Europe, hopefully taking back the continent from Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Third Reich. The invasion was months and years in planning, millions of men, millions of tons of equipment, thousands and thousands of ships, trucks, jeeps and tanks waiting to be unleashed at Normandy and in the French countryside. What was the mystery? The Allies tried desperately to keep the location of the invasion -- Normandy -- secret to help save lives and make the invasion smoother. The Germans similarly tried desperately to discover where the attack was coming. The war hung in the balance along with millions of lives, not just those taking part in the attack but all over the world. Not bad for historical significance, huh?

So tackling that premise in movie form seems a rather daunting task if you ask me. In the age of the epic, this one doesn't disappoint. At 178 minutes, 'Longest' covers a ridiculous amount of ground in a story that takes place over about a 36-hour time span. We see the Allies deciding the time is finally right after days of wavering while the Germans decide if this is the actual invasion or just a feint, a distraction to throw them off. Based on the book by Cornelius Ryan, it is told in docu-drama style as we meet all the participants from the high command to the soldiers, paratroopers to resistance fighters, townspeople to priests and everything and everyone in between. This isn't a movie about characters, but instead about the spectacle and immensity of what happened. If the Allied invasion on D-Day didn't work, who knows how the world would have changed?

Just a huge movie but one that never feels rushed or forced. The three-hour running time absolutely flies by. It was filmed in black and white, giving it an appropriately dated look. Maybe color takes away from what's on-screen, but the decision to film in black and white simply put, works. Ken Annakin, Andrew Marton and Bernhard Wicki combine to direct this behemoth epic and to handle it well. Technically speaking, it is a virtually flawless film. Some stock footage is sprinkled here and there, but many of the locations where the actual events took place were used as filming locations. Talk about authenticity, it can be downright eerie watching some of the scenes knowing the locations' history. The score from Maurice Jarre is used in appropriate doses with the main theme (listen HERE) a memorable piece of music that's always stuck with me.

As an epic though, one thing was required more than just about anything else. That requirement? A cast of seemingly thousands. Literally everyone in Hollywood and stars internationally were required to star in this movie. Okay, a slight exaggeration, but you get my point. Most of these parts were nothing more than cameos, but just as a taste of the ridiculous star power on display, we get John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Henry Fonda, Richard Burton, Edmond O'Brien, Rod Steiger, even a pre-James Bond Sean Connery. Many of those parts only required an on-screen appearance of a minute or two -- some for much more -- but their presence alone...just wowza. The scary part? That's only a somewhat small taste of the depth of the cast that truly brings an international flavor to the D-Day proceedings with German, French, British, American and many more brought together.

The Longest Day is an epic, plain and simple, but for every scene where the scope and scale impresses, I loved the quieter, personal and often times, terrifyingly real scenes just as effective and memorable. I loved Richard Todd as a paratrooper commander tasked with landing in France via glider and taking a key bridge and holding until reinforcements arrive...if they can. The scene where American paratroopers, including strung-up Red Buttons, overshoot their landing zone and land in a German town is tragic and moving. One paratrooper (Sal Mineo) making a tragic decision is surprising and intensely real. I especially liked the simplicity of a late scene between Burton's RAF pilot and Richard Beymer's American paratrooper discussing the necessary evil of the day but also the lunacy of it. I think the best, most iconic moment has Hans Christian Blech's German officer finally spotting the invasion force in the English Channel when the fog clears. His face drops and he mumbles 'Die invasion,' all set to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Just a ton of great moments like this.

The other counter to those scenes are the BIG moments, and that's where the technical comes into play. One tremendous scene has a German fighter strafing the beaches, all of which we see from the perspective of the plane. Hundreds and thousands of extras scramble for cover underneath in a remarkable visual scene. The same later in 'Longest' when French commandos fight their way up a street in a French town, a helicopter (I think) filming all the action. As well, the scene of the paratroopers coming down on the German-held Sainte-Mere-Eglise is a horrifying scene that utilizes some very cool camerawork. Also look for a cool scene where American Rangers -- including Robert Wagner, George Segal, Paul Anka, Fabian, Tommy Sands -- scale the cliffs of Pointe de Huc, all trying to knock out a key German emplacement. Some especially memorable moments, not all of them action scenes.

Because I don't want to forget anyone but don't want to overdo it describing EVERY character, also look for Eddie Albert, Irina Demick, Mel Ferrer, Steve Forest, Gert Frobe, Leo Genn, Jeffrey Hunter, Curd Jurgens, Peter Lawford, Christian Marquand,  Roddy McDowall, Kenneth More, Wolfgang Preiss, Ron Randell, Jean Servais, Norman Rossington, Tom Tryon, Peter van Eyck and Stuart Whitman. Okay, I'll take a breath now.

The Longest Day isn't the best war movie around, but it's one of my favorites. It tries to accomplish a ton and succeeds on just about every level. The history, the scale, the spectacle, the gigantic cast, the moments that resonate amongst all the epic qualities. It also serves as an excellent companion piece to the more recent Saving Private Ryan. Nowhere near as violent, but a more far-reaching story. A gem from the age of epics.

The Longest Day (1962): ****/****

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre

I grew up in Chicago so I love just about everything in the Windy City, all the sports teams, the downtown area, all that great food from Chicago style hot dogs to Chicago style pizza. But that Chicago history? My goodness, there are some dark moments from the Black Sox scandal to the Chicago Fire, the riots at the 1968 Democratic convention and generally all sorts of political corruption and deception. One of the most violent incidents in the city's history? That's told in a 1967 B-movie, The St. Valentine's Day Massacre.

It's early 1929 and the streets of Chicago are filled with warring gangsters from two rival gangs. On one side is Al Capone (Jason Robards), a brutal, possibly maniacal Italian gangster with Mafia ties, who rules Chicago's South Side with an iron fist. Running the city's North side is George 'Bugs' Moran (Ralph Meeker), his Irish gang trying to hold onto their territory.  Things across the city are building to an unavoidable confrontation as both sides fight for control of thousands of speakeasies, Prohibition still raging. Capone has grown tired of Moran's gang trying to build up their power and has put into work a plan to execute his rival gang leader. Can one gang win out over the other? Can anyone win with the city's streets riddled with bullets and blood?

Everyone's heard of producer/director extraordinaire Roger Corman? He's one of Hollywood's all-time greats at getting movies made on the cheap so basically the King of B-Movies. That's not a bad thing, and I say it as a compliment. This generally forgotten 1967 gangster flick is one of his best, telling the true story of one of Chicago's darkest moments. It was filmed on studio streets -- cheaper than Chicago's downtown area -- but it works, giving the city a closed in, wintery and claustrophobic effect. This is a flick that works almost like a quasi-documentary, like something you'd see on The History Channel...but darker, much darker. With narrator Paul Frees and his perfectly gravelly voice laying things out, introducing dates, people and times, it all fits together like puzzle pieces.

Where 'Massacre' separates itself from the quasi-documentary feel is that darkness, that gangster world we're thrust into. Low budget though it may be, the movie looks great with countless gangsters wearing impeccably cool suits with fedoras, rocking vicious tommy guns and 1920s boats of cars that look as cool as ever now in 2014 as they would have in 1929. As for the real life gangsters, this isn't The Godfather where you kinda sorta maybe sympathize with the Corleones, however vicious and murdery they are. There ain't a single sympathetic character anywhere in sight. These are nasty, brutal, violent folks interested in making money and killing some rival gangsters in the process. You're not rooting for anybody. You're not hoping these guys come out unscathed. You just wanna see how it all shakes out and who's gonna make it. Let me tell you...not many do.

One of the coolest aspects of 'Massacre' is its ridiculously deep cast. We're not talking a disaster flick type of cast full of aging A-list stars. We're talking a couple very solid movie stars/actors at the top and a cast backing them up absolutely packed to the guts with familiar, recognizable character actors. As for the leads, Robards is terrifyingly hammy as everyone's favorite Chicago gangster, Al Capone. He's got that look in his eye, you just never know what he's going to do next. Meeker is excellent too in a more understated but just as sinister part, Bugs Moran, an Irish gangster and Capone's main rival for power. Also look for a young George Segal in one of his best early roles, playing Peter Gusenberg, one of Moran's enforcers/lieutenants working closely with his brother, another enforcer, Frank (David Canary) while constantly fighting with live-in girlfriend (Jean Hale).

Okay, brace yourself because you're about to get hit with a whole lot of links to actor's IMDB pages. These are all the real-life people involved in the 1920s world of Chicago gang wars, an extremely interesting historical time if you're interested in the subject matter. On the Capone side keep an eye out for Clint Ritchie as the massacre's mastermind, Frank Silvera, Harold J. Stone, Paul Richards, Joe Turkel, Alex Rocco, Leo Gordon, John Agar, and Richard Bakalyan and Jack Nicholson (Yes, that Jack Nicholson) as two hired mafia killers. On the Moran side of things, watch for Bruce Dern, Kurt Kreuger, Tom Reese. Some appearances are quicker than others, but it's cool to see so many people in one movie, even if it is only for a scene or two.

Just an entertaining dark and dirty movie. If you're a fan of history whether it be Chicago or gangsters or anything in between, this gritty, cynical, particularly vicious flick is for you. I loved it.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre (1967): *** 1/2 /****

Rollercoaster

It took me a couple visits to Six Flags Great America, and some peer pressure to boot (damn 8th grade field trip), but I eventually learned to love riding a rollercoaster. Do you? It's easy to see the appeal, but I've learned enough not to push people to get on a rollercoaster if they don't want to. The heights, the speed, the upside-down loops, and oh yeah, the potential to die horribly should something go wrong. That's nothing, right? Well, if you're wavering over ever riding an amusement park ride like that, steer clear of a 1977 disaster movie, Rollercoaster.

At a fan-favorite amusement park on the west coast, a man (Timothy Bottoms) walks around the park, taking part in some carnival games, eating some cotton candy, and then late in the day, he pulls a radio transmitter from his pocket and explodes a bomb on the park's oldest, safest and most loved rollercoaster, killing all aboard the ride. An inspector from the Department of Standards and Safety, Harry Calder (George Segal) is called in to investigate, his most recent inspection turning up nothing three months earlier. Just days later on the east coast, another rollercoaster accident claims more lives. The rides in ruins with no clues or evidence, Harry is convinced the accidents are tied together, especially when he finds his own connection about the owners of the amusement parks. Can he convince someone of his theory? He may not have to. The FBI, including lead agent Hoyt (Richard Widmark), have been called in to investigate. Can they stop the bomber before he strikes again?

With the success of the disaster movie wave waning some by 1977, director James Goldstone's film hit theaters the same summer as a mildly successful movie, Star Wars, and managed to hold its own, finding a niche with audiences. I liked this movie, didn't love it. It's cool to see a disaster movie that doesn't depend on some natural calamity or a giant skyscraper on fire, but instead a suspense story that is uncomfortable, really gets the adrenaline going at times, and works because...well, let's face it. Something like this could happen. For the most part, it avoids all the pratfalls that helped doom the genre. It never gets too jokey or goofy, never feels like we're watching a novelty film, there's no huge all-star cast. This is a movie about the build-up and the suspense, not a gimmick.

As for the cast, there really isn't a huge listing. George Segal has always been one of my favorites, and I liked him a lot here as Calder, the inspector who feels some responsibility for the bombings (it was his inspection) even though it wasn't his fault. He's Joe Everyman, a regular guy trying to do the right thing. That's tough when everyone around him is seemingly challenged. Richard Widmark does a good job in that department as Hoyt, the veteran FBI agent who, dammit, is going to do things his way and isn't going to take any advice from some wanna-be investigator. Segal and Widmark are the stars though, their arguments and discussions about how to handle things providing some of the movie's strongest moments. In the meaningless cameo department, Henry Fonda is around for two scenes as Davenport, Calder's boss who he's always busting his balls about one thing or another. The same for Harry Guardino as a police officer kinda attached to the case who hangs around for a couple scenes.

And then there's that bomber fellow, played to perfection by Timothy Bottoms. An underrated actor who never became a big star, Bottoms is listed here only as 'Young Man.' He's never given a name or any background, leaving his intentions or motivations in the dark. He says to Calder at one point over the phone that it's all about the money, but something else we never really learn about seems to be lurking. Would it have been nice to get a little explanation? I'd think so, but it works without it just the same. This guy doesn't care if lots of people get killed. He's going to accomplish what he wants. Bottoms does a creepy, sinister and underplayed job here. The character doesn't seem to have a pulse until late in the movie, a monotone delivery and calm mannerisms adding to that creepy nature. A solid part, avoiding as many cliches and stereotypes of disaster movie villains, suspense/thrillers too about psychopaths, madmen and murderers.

For the most part here, it's the set pieces that work. Well, two out of three at least. The opening bombing is slowly developed, tension hanging in the air just waiting for the explosion. Bottoms is at his eerie sinister best in this scene, not saying a word as he moves very deliberately around the park waiting for his chance. When the explosion comes, it's startling and unsettling as expected. The same for the finale, Calder, Hoyt and a team of agents trying to find the bomber as a new rollercoaster is unveiled to throngs of people, an extended sequence that takes most of 30 minutes. The weak point is in the middle, Bottoms' bomber sending Calder and the agents on a wild goose chase across a park as he tries to get his hands on a $1 million dollar ransom. His solution? Have Calder -- communicating via radio -- go on a bunch of rides to lose his tail. The potential is there, but the scene just keeps going, almost 20 minutes of painfully slow build-up with no real payoff. Still, a .667 batting average ain't bad, is it?

Overall, there's some cool positives. It was filmed on location at several actual amusement parks (talk about a whole bunch of positive advertisement, huh?!?), including Ocean View Park in Norfolk (the first sequence), Kings Dominion in Richmond (the middle sequence), making that long sequence very bearable, and Six Flags Magic Mountain for the finale. The actual parks provide some cool backdrops for the developing story, as well as a quick detour later to Navy Pier and the Hyatt Regency in Chicago. So what to say in the end? It's a good movie with some really solid moments that's hamstrung by some really slow-moving sequences. Worth it, an entertaining disaster movie. Also worth mentioning? Look for a young Helen Hunt as Segal's daughter and Steve Guttenberg in a blink and you'll miss it appearance.

Rollercoaster (1977): ** 1/2 /****

The Quiller Memorandum

By 1966, the James Bond phenomenon had taken over the world with the huge successes of Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball.  Audiences wanted more spy movies, and studios obliged them whenever they could.  A wall of international intrigue movies hit theaters ranging from Bond knockoffs to spoofs like the Matt Helm and Derek Flint series to attempts that took a more serious approach to the spy genre, including 1966's The Quiller Memorandum.

This is the anti James Bond movie, a spy story focusing on the more subtle but still very dangerous life of a espionage agent.  There is no globe-trotting heroics, no ridiculously over the top shootouts and chases, no bedding down of countless women, just a good old-fashioned story of a spy with a dangerous mission that could easily cost him his life.  You know what though? All those things about the Bond series that viewers typically either hate or love...they were fun to watch.  That's missing here.  It's a dull transition to the screen from a novel by Trevor Dudley Smith that lacks anything in the way of excitement or thrills.  I'm all for more realistic spy movies, but at least make them enjoyable to sit through.

Two British agents in post-WWII Berlin have been murdered so a new American agent, Quiller (George Segal), is brought in to pick up the investigation where his predecessors left off. His superior, Pol (Alec Guinness), tells him something else about the mission that could put him in even more danger.  Both murdered agents were investigating the possible reemergence of an extremist Nazi group that wants to again claim power in Germany. If possible, Quiller must infiltrate this Nazi group (headed by Max von Sydow) and find their hideout before any of their plan can take effect. One of the few clues Quiller has though to get close to the group is a schoolteacher, Inge (Senta Berger), who may or may not know more than she's letting on.

There was a lot about this movie that appealed to me.  The setting of post-World War II Berlin is a really unique to tell this hard-boiled story that remains rooted in a believable plot, not a plan to take over the world.  Director Michael Anderson is a visual director, using some great on-location shoots as Segal's Quiller explores Berlin looking for clues.  I've never thought of Berlin as a particularly pretty city, but the locations here are a great scene-setter and background.  It's refreshing also to see a spy movie so heavy on dialogue -- and good, snappy dialogue at that -- instead of relying so heavily on babes and action.  Visually, a great movie to watch and listen to when it's 'on' but not always an exciting movie to watch.

That last part surprised me because with the cast involved and the basic premise, it sounded like a real winner.  A second Nazi party looking to regain power? Now that's a prime villain if there ever was one.  Maybe the movie's best scene are these Nazis including von Sydow interrogating Segal in a great, very unique scene unlike any other interrogation I've seen in a movie.  Watch it HERE. That's the whole movie though, great moments broken up by long periods of nothing.  There is no real plot to begin with, and Segal's Quiller makes some unbelievably stupid decisions for someone who is considered such a top spy.  His character drifts along and stumbles into clues rather than deducing anything for himself.  Add in an oddly out of place and overbearing John Barry score, and the plotline is cartoonish with this blaring music being played over it.   

I don't fault Segal for bad acting here because it's the writing, not his acting.  His Quiller is just not a very strong main character.  A very capable spy by reputation, he makes decision after decision that should have ended with him getting a bullet in the head yet somehow he survives time and time again.  I have always liked Segal as an actor, but this wasn't his best part.  His romance with the lovely Senta Berger never goes anywhere and has a forced feeling to it.  They've got a decent chemistry together, but the story gets bogged down in their romantic interludes.  Worst of all, a somewhat coherent twist late in the movie between the two characters is so poorly handled that it misses having any impact.  The movie just ends with no resolution, or not one I was satisfied with.

Now I can't say I was surprised by the positives in this movie, both of them..Guinness and von Sydow.  Guinness' part as Pol is nothing more than three or four scenes that probably total 10-15 minutes on-screen, and he steals every scene he is in, especially an explanation of the trials Quiller will face from both sides.  Underused, sure, but what's there is choice.  Playing a steely-eyed, blonde and blue eye Nazi villain, who is better than von Sydow? His character is pretty one-note with no surprises, but he brings such a feeling of menace and intensity to it you can't help but remember his smallish part. Also watch for George Sanders in a humorous cameo as a higher-up agent in London. 

The Quiller Memorandum <---trailer (1966): **/****

The Bridge at Remagen

One Memorial Day I don't know how many years back, I stumbled across a WWII movie on Turner Classic Movies that I'd never seen before, much less heard of.  1969's The Bridge at Remagen is based on a WWII battle, but because of a general lack of big names -- whether it be the director or the cast -- is not mentioned in discussions of other 1960s MGM war movies. It is a product of the times as America was fully involved by 1969 in Vietnam, but it is a very effective look at the closing days of the war.

Too often war movies pick a side and go from there, disregarding the other side completely.  Some of the better ones at least attempt to show both sides of the war.  It is said of war that 'the victors write the history books' but in many ways, the soldiers on either side are very similar.  They're fighting because that is what they're told to do, their superiors deciding what should or shouldn't be done.  Director John Guillermin splits time evenly between the Americans and Germans, giving an excellent look at one of the key battles late in WWII with an underrated cast and some great action.

It's March 1945 and the German armies are in full retreat.  The Allied forces are nipping at their heels, chasing them back into Germany.  The German High Command has ordered all bridges over the Rhine River destroyed to help slow down the Allied charge, but one bridge at Remagen remains. General Von Brock (Peter van Eyck) sees that 75,000 German troops will be cut off if the bridge is destroyed and instead sends a close friend and fellow officer, Major Paul Krueger (Robert Vaughn), to hold the bridge as long as possible. Just miles away, the Allies charge forward hoping to catch the German defenses napping, at their front an armored infantry unit commanded by Lt. Hartman (George Segal), who after weeks at the point is leading an exhausted unit.  But pressure from HQ and the battalion commander (Bradford Dillman) keeps the men going, hoping to end the war as quickly as possible.        

Where this reflects the times is the portrayal of a war near its end, the soldiers deteriorating with pure exhaustion.  The end of the war is near, and the Germans are turning on each other.  Vaughn's Krueger is promised a defense that doesn't exist and reinforcements that can't be moved.  The SS and Gestapo run rampant, ruling with an iron fist.  The ranks are thinned by deserters, and refilled with old men and young boys.  The Americans are always on the move, pushing themselves and the Germans to their absolute limits.  They're bone tired but they have no option but to follow orders.  The rules of war are gone to a certain point, and survival has taken priority over everything else.  It is a cynical story at times, the effects of war wearing men down on both sides.  Frightening at times to see the portrayal of the closing days of the war presented in a realistic fashion.

The portrayal of the opposing forces is seen through the eyes of two junior officers, both with different missions but driven to the same point.  Segal is perfect as Lt. Hartman, a company commander at his wit's ends when it comes to commanding.  He's trying to protect his men as best as possible, but HQ has their objectives.  Guest star E.G. Marshall as an American general callously states "100 may die, but 10,000 will be saved." An honest statement in the big picture, but when you're part of the 100, does it matter?  Across the river is Vaughn's Krueger, a career German officer -- not a Nazi -- disobeying orders but still trying to save as many men as possible.  The two actors don't share any scenes together, but there is a bond between them nonetheless.  They may be on opposite sides of the war, wearing different uniforms, but in many ways they're the same.

In the honest portrayal of a war in its closing days, both sides aren't shown as particularly heroic.  Ben Gazzara is a scene-stealer as Sgt. Angelo, one of Hartman's men who is a good soldier under fire but rubs the Lt. the wrong way by picking clean the bodies of dead German soldiers.  Gazzara is so good in the part that you forget at times how despicable his actions are.  He balances the good with the bad, the power of his actions wearing on him.  Forced to kill a Hitler Youth teenager, he almost snaps when confronted.  All of the Americans aren't shown in a positive light, including Hartman's unit which includes Bo Hopkins, Matt Clark, Robert Logan, Steve Sandor, and Tom Heaton. Dillman's Barnes is a good officer but he has no idea how to interact or treat his men. The Germans too are at each other's throats.  Look for Hans Christian Blech in a solid supporting part as one of Krueger's officers.

Bouncing back and forth between the American and German perspective could have caused a disjointed story, but that's never really a problem.  Instead, it drives the pace at a lightning speed as the Germans fall back, the Americans pushing forward.  The action scenes are well-handled and nicely choreographed starting with the filming locations in Czechoslovakia where a bridge similar in appearance to the actual Remagen bridge was used.  There is an epic scale to the battles with the end result possibly being an earlier end to the war, but on a personal level we see Hartman's men ordered across a bridge fully expecting it to blow at any moment.  Full of tension from the beginning, the battle sequences are aided by Guillermin's camerawork, right there on the ground with the foot soldiers.

A highly underrated WWII story.  Elmer Bernstein's score (Main Theme listen HERE) borrows from some of his more notable musical scores, and at times sounds more like a western theme, but for the most part it's good. You can watch the whole movie in a widescreen version via Youtube, starting with Part 1 of 11. Don't let the lack of big names scare you away from this one. An all-around solid look at the closing days of WWII and one of its key engagements.

The Bridge at Remagen <---trailer (1969): **** /****

Ship of Fools

In 1933, the Nazi Party took over in Germany, a power that would run through the end of WWII in 1945.  At the time, no one really could known what was coming with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in charge of Germany, but it was a turning point in history for how it changed the world and the millions of lives it impacted.  Even at first, did the German people know what they were voting for when the Nazi Party took office?  We'll never know, but 1965's Ship of Fools explores the idea of what is to come.

Director Stanley Kramer made a name for himself with movies just like this, big pictures with big casts and some big ideas.  'Fools' has the feel of a 1970s disaster movie except without the disaster.  Throw a group of people into a confined setting and let the fireworks begin.  Here though, there's no fireworks.  It is a movie that at 149-minutes is one of the most dialogue-heavy movies I've ever seen, some good and some bad.  With a huge cast, lots of tumultuous relationships, and some bigger takes on love, prejudice, and common decency, 'Fools' has a lot going on, too much if you ask me.  A streamlined version couldn't have hurt.

In 1933 in the port of Vera Cruz, Mexico, a German cruise ship leaves port bound for a quick stop in Cuba and then on home to mother Germany.  On board is a good sample section of Germans, Jews, Austrians, a few Americans from a variety of backgrounds, and over 500 field workers being sent back to Cuba because the work has dried up.  The Nazi Party has taken power in Germany, and the election is still at the forefront of discussion.  The trip to Germany is expected to take almost a month, and on this trip, nothing is going to go smoothly.

Don't take any of that to mean this is an action movie, far from it.  Here is just some of the characters involved.  The ship's doctor (Oskar Werner) is coming off heart troubles and is generally depressed at the plight of the world, but he bonds with an upper-class woman (Simone Signoret) who helped arm a workers rebellion.  A boorish German Austrian (Jose Ferrer) spouts the power of the Nazis and their plans to build a super race. A young American couple (George Segal and Elizabeth Ashley) try to figure out if they're meant to be together.  A hard-edged, washed up American baseball player (Lee Marvin) tries to figure out what to do with his life, all the while talking often with a recent divorcee (Vivien Leigh).  A German Jew salesman (Heinz Ruhmann) tries to shrug of the increasingly anti-Semitic feelings on board. The problem isn't with the strength of the casting -- all those mentioned turn in fine performances -- but with the fact that all those mentioned are about half of the storylines.

There is many more storylines with many more characters as Kramer attempts to show a wide variety of people, families, and individuals on board this second rate ship.  It's just too much as the camera bounces from story to story -- some much better than others -- instead of focusing on the key, interesting ones.  There's an odd inclusion of a Spanish flamenco group who are really nothing more than a pimp who sells his dancers and also feature two satanic little kids who at one point throw a dog overboard.  Many of these characters could have been more interesting with some more development, but it felt like Kramer was more interested in quantity over quality, and he throws a lot at the viewer before quickly moving on to another subplot.

'Fools' is based off a novel, but to me it had the distinct feel of a stage play with almost nothing to distract from the always ongoing dialogue.  Besides a tangent here and there, the 149-minutes is almost all dialogue, sometimes between two people and others among a group.  With all these presentations of what love is and its power/effect, the story does tread that line between intellectual and pretentious, usually ending up on the right side.  Michael Dunn (Dr. Loveless in Wild, Wild West) plays Glocken, the character who opens and closes the movie by addressing the viewer, telling us what we are to see and then summing it up.  It was a performance that earned him an Oscar nomination, and for good reason.  Dunn was a dwarf, and in any other movie he may have seemed out of place, but here he's probably the most normal of them all.

With such a dialogue-heavy movie, it's the actors/actresses who shine.  Leigh in her last-ever movie is remarkable in a very strong performance.  Werner isn't easy to like because he seems so down on himself and the world, but the character comes around in the end -- which is a downer.  Signoret and Werner have a chemistry together that is unlike a typical budding movie romance.  Ruhmann and Dunn have a similar chemistry -- hold the romance -- as two Jews forced to eat separately from the rest of the German passengers, both men able to laugh off the prejudice.  A scene late in the movie as they discuss this growing prejudice is eerie because as viewers we of course know what is to come during the Holocaust.

If this was from any other director, the rating might have gone up, but Kramer has Mad, Mad World and Nuremberg to his name among others, and 'Fools' just doesn't live up to those expectations.  It could have though, and that's what is disappointing.  The potential is there for a great movie.  Cut about 30 minutes and some of those extra, wasted characters, and you've got a gem of a movie.  Still, it's not a bad movie, just one with some fairly major flaws.  Check it out for the depth of a great cast and a window into 1933 and what was coming down the road. Don't be thrown off by the DVD either, this is not some light-hearted romance.

Ship of Fools <----trailer (1965): ** 1/2 /****

Netflix review #3: Lost Command

Last year I was able to catch "Battle of Algiers" on TCM after hearing so many rave reviews about the almost-documentary film detailing a part of the Algerian War in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was one of the best movies I saw last year so when I saw there was a more Hollywood take on the war, I had to at least give it a try.

Lost Command tells the story of the Algerian fight for independence mostly from the French perspective, including Lt. Colonel Pierre Raspeguy's 10th Parachute Regiment as they tangle with a rebel group in the hills and then dealing with terrorists in Algiers. Anthony Quinn plays Raspeguy, a veteran soldier worn down by all the fighting but who still feels the need to accomplish his mission. The movie begins at the disastrous battle at Dien Bien Phu as the Vietminh capture the last of Raspeguy and his men.

After spending several months in a prison camp, Raspeguy and his men are released, but the colonel finds out his regiment has been disbanded. It isn't long before the French command offers him a new regiment, albeit with men that were rejects from other units. Raspeguy agrees, and with some men from his previous unit, including Alain Delon's Capt. Esclavier, begins to train his men.

The story is good, and by the end the characters are more than just cardboard cutouts. Delon is a good counter to Quinn, his Esclavier is an idealist who needs a reason to fight, not just for the thrill of it all. In an odd choice for casting, George Segal plays Mahidi, an Arab leading a group of rebels and an ex-paratrooper who served with Raspeguy. Michele Morgan and Claudia Cardinale are the love interests, with Cardinale getting a chance to play a more villainous role. Raspeguy's men include Maurice Ronet as Boisfeuras, Maurice Sarfati as Merle, Jean-Claude Bercq as Orsini, Syl Lamont as Verte, and Gordon Heath as Dia. Spaghetti western fans should look for small parts for Al Muloch and Aldo Sambrell. Also look for Gregoire Aslan.

The high points of the movie, besides the strong cast, are the action scenes. Three major set pieces are featured, the opening attack at Dien Bien Phu including a parachute drop gone horribly wrong, an ambush of the 10th Regiment by Algerian rebels, and a firefight on a mountain side as Raspeguy and his men attempt to stop Mahidi from acquiring an arms shipment. All three battles have an epic feel to them, especially the finale.

The DVD has a widescreen presentation of the movie that's never looked better and is a significant improvement from the pan-n-scan VHS tape. The Spanish locations benefit the most with the widescreen. Special features are two trailers, one for Lost Command and one for The Guns of Navarone. An action picture more than anything, I highly recommend this one.

Lost Command (1966): ***/****