Mackenna's Gold

Oh, cable, how I love you. I basically have two channels on if I'm watching TV, either MLB Network or Encore Westerns. A whole channel devoted to western TV shows and movies?!? Aaahhh my head just exploded! It gives me a chance to revisit a whole bunch of movies I haven't seen in years, like 1969's Mackenna's Gold, a big-budget, all-star extravaganza that I remember liking (I think) on my first viewing. Does it hold up?

A marshal for the western town of Hadleyburg, Mackenna (Gregory Peck) is out on the trail when he's ambushed by an old Apache man who dies after a quick shootout. Before he dies, the Apache gives Mackenna a map to a famous, supposedly lost, canyon of gold ('Canon del Oro') that treasure hunters have long sought. Mackenna throws the map in the fire but not before noticing a couple landmarks on it. He's soon cornered by a Mexican bandit, Colorado (Omar Sharif), and his gang who similarly are looking for the canyon of gold. They're not alone. The desert seems full of treasure hunters and gold-hopefuls desperately searching for the gold. Discovering that Mackenna may hold the key to finding the canyon, he's taken along as Colorado's unwilling prisoner. The supposed location is days away across the vast desert with Mackenna, Colorado and his men forced to deal with a do-good posse out of Hadleyburg, an intervening cavalry troop and an Apache war party. How far will the prospect of gold drive all these folks?

I'm a sucker for westerns -- good and bad -- but this one is bad and just not that enjoyable. Talk about a movie where the ingredients don't come together (at all), and you've got this movie. The talent on-hand is unquestionable from director J. Lee Thompson, stars Gregory Peck and Omar Sharif leading a ridiculously deep cast, a cool, potential-filled story and a drop-dead look to it all...it should have been so much better. Or I guess I'd settle for just 'good' too. The formula seems to go after a western Guns of Navarone meets Treasure of the Sierra Madre combination, but it never jells into anything remotely coherent or especially enjoyable. That's tough to say because a cast this good should make a movie pretty decent on its own but alas, it wasn't meant to be this time! If you're looking for a Peck-Thompson-Carl Foreman pairing, stick with 'Navarone.'

Kudos to Encore Westerns. Watching the movie for the second time but first time since 2009, I watched it in widescreen, as it was meant to be. Thompson filmed in Super Panavision 70, a filming technique that fills the screen to epic proportions, almost like a panoramic picture. Shooting on-location in Monument Valley, Glen Canyon and Canyon de Chelly in Arizona adds a great visual appeal to the movie. Shots of riders galloping across these expanses are excellent to watch, a sight to behold, and unfortunately, one of the few genuine positives to take away from a western that's too long at 128 minutes. When a movie's looks are the best thing going...that's never a good thing.

Poor Gregory Peck, he looks like he's as bored as all get-out and doesn't quite know what to do. One of my all-time favorite actors, he's undone by all the shenanigans going on around him. Getting to play straight man to a murdering bandit, a gold-for-eyes posse, a bloodthirsty Apache war party, a murdering cavalry sergeant (an underused Telly Savalas), and all sorts of ancient legends coming to life is never a good thing. As reliable as anyone who's ever graced the screen, Peck is given little more to do than look out for Camilla Sparv's damsel in distress while navigating a love triangle with Julie Newmar's Apache warrior and Sparv. Yeah, you read that right. Catwoman plays an Apache warrior and looks great doing it! She even gets an odd nude swimming scene where she tries to kill both Peck and Sparv. So there's that!

So much of the rest of the cast is simply miscast. I like Sharif in just about any film he's ever done, but he's an odd choice to play our Mexican bandit, Colorado. His gang includes Keenan Wynn as a Mexican bandit named Sanchez, with Ted Cassidy (Lurch from The Addams Family), Rudy Diaz and Robert Phillips as Apache warriors. All spot-on casting! Brace for this list of appearances that amount to little more than cameos, members of a "posse" out of Hadleyburg that's looking for gold. The group includes Eli Wallach, Anthony Quayle, Lee J. Cobb, Burgess Meredith, Raymond Massey and Edward G. Robinson!!! Look at that Hollywood royalty! Unfortunately, they're introduced, given nothing to do and there basically because of their name recognition. So....yeah....there's that! Quite the cast, huh? I just wish they were given more to do. Maybe that character development was cut from the rumored 3-hour version of the film. Yeah, that's it I'm sure.
  
Just too many moving pieces that never get going in the same direction. There's virtually no story, just some character introductions and then they're off into the desert. The only detour are various ways to kill off characters in waves. Then, there's the beautiful location shooting, with a slight problem. Countless times, one after another, we see the location shots and then a quick cut to our actors in front of a rear projection shot. Nothing takes you out of the story's momentum like Peck, Sharif and Co. riding a "horse" as they tear across the desert. Throw in some odd, out of place narration (it's not Victor Jory's fault!), some painful theme ballads, and generally odd cutting and editing that is more and more jarring with each passing scene.

There's a meanness to the story that's hard to account for. Characters are introduced for the sake of dispatching them in unceremonious fashion, but the general tone of the movie itself isn't that dark. It feels like they're going for that "Greed will make you do horrible things" tone, but it's too light, fluffy and goofy to pull it off. There's some potential obviously with the all-star cast, some equally impressive camera angles and shots, and the location shooting, but there's just too much negative going on to ignore it. A stinker.

Mackenna's Gold (1969): **/****

49th Parallel

One of the greatest actors of his time, Laurence Olivier was in countless classics, almost always turning in performances that are still remembered today. While I can appreciate his ability as an actor, I've never been a huge fan of his.  Truthfully, I just haven't seen him in much even though he has been in over 60 films.  Held in high regard, 1941's 49th Parallel is one of those films, and oddly enough, one that fans and critics alike seem to watch. It's a prime example of a WWII propaganda film, but not in a good way.

There of course is some background with the propaganda machine that produced this movie. Director Michael Powell was approached by the British government in 1940 to make a film about mine-sweeping, but instead he decided to make a film that he hoped would "scare the pants off the Americans." Still a year away from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States was very much a neutral country. World War II was hanging in the balance as Germany swept across Europe, swallowing up countries at a lightning pace. Powell's motivations were legitimate, but now watching this movie over 70 years later, the effort is almost laughable.

Patrolling and attacking along the Canadian coast in the Atlantic, U-37 (a German U-boat) is gaining notoriety for attacking every ship it comes across.  Hiding out in Hudson Bay from patrolling ships and planes, the submarine is attacked and sunk, leaving only a small landing party alive on-shore to fend for themselves.  As the ranking officer, Lieutenant Hirth (Eric Portman) takes charge, searching with five other survivors for some sort of safety. With little options of where to go or what to do, Hirth decides to head for the U.S./Canadian border (the 49th Parallel) and seek asylum in the still-neutral United States. Thousands of miles stand between them though, and the countryside is alive with people looking for the escaped Germans.

I'm not quite sure what I expected heading into this movie. Maybe I confused it with another movie. Maybe I misread the year. I do know that I didn't expect such an obvious, sometimes painful effort at a propaganda film.  The story is an episodic one broken up by long fades to black.  The survivors make their way across Canada in hopes of reaching freedom. They attack a far-off, lonely trading post. They rest at a village of German farmers, and even come across a pacifist (Leslie Howard) living in the wilderness. The whole purpose of the film is to show how evil, how despicable, how cutthroat these Germans are, doing anything they need to survive. All sides in WWII were capable of atrocities, but the effort here falls short...or far maybe, depending on how you look at it.

Trying to convince neutral Americans that their country should join the war, Powell and the screenplay deliver one of the most heavy-handed attempts I've ever seen at propaganda. The Germans are perfectly evil, reveling in the cold-blooded murders of Canadian shipping, admitting they're killing women and children somewhat proudly. Portman's Hirth and his fellow survivors open fire into a crowd of innocent people, and later he orders the execution of one of his own men, Vogel (Niall MacGinnis), for questioning why they're doing what they're doing. It is a frightening performance for Portman, and a strong one, but it is too exaggerated, too stereotypically and cartoonishly evil to register.

In his efforts, Powell does a somewhat funny thing in demonizing the Germans. He humanizes some of them during their travels. Raymond Lovell plays Lt. Kuhnecke, a capable officer who is killed off almost immediately. MacGinnis' Vogel seeks solace in the farming community, becoming a popular baker and wanting to leave Hirth and the others behind. Instead, Hirth orders his execution at the hands of his most loyal followers/survivors (including Peter Moore, John Chandos, and Basil Appleby). The thought process is an interesting one, showing that all Germans aren't obsessed, driven Nazis, but wouldn't that work against Powell's intentions? Or does it do just the opposite? I guess it does show that the most extremist Nazis were capable of horrific acts, even against their own. It may make sense, but it gives the film an odd two-way feel that never quite clicks into place.

The episodic nature of the story allows for some interesting casting as I mentioned earlier in the intro.  Nominated countless times for Academy Awards and winning several over the course of his career, Olivier's performances are legendary, but this ain't one of them. He plays Johnnie, a French-Canadian trapper who incurs the wrath of Hirth's squad. His attempt at an accent will assuredly produce some chuckles, and the performance is basically one big stereotype to begin with. Howard is more interesting as Philip Armstrong Scott, a pacifist who questions everything about the war.  Raymond Massey saves the best for last, an AWOL Canadian soldier who Hirth meets on the road as he nears the border. The posters push Olivier, Howard and Massey as the stars (even giving Olivier a love interest that doesn't actually exist), but don't be confused. The performances from that trio are more of the cameo nature than leading roles.

This is a movie that is almost....almost...saved by its ending. It is the type of ending that has a mean streak in it a mile wide, the Allies showing the Axis forces who's really the boss.  It delivers a nice little twist, but leading up to it, the movie's flaws are just too much. Visually uninteresting with long monologues, preachy and heavy-handed in its approach (even for a propaganda film), I struggled mightily to make it through this one.

49th Parallel <---trailer (1941): **/****

Seven Angry Men

One of the most controversial people in American history was a driven, even obsessed abolitionist who made a name for himself in the years before the Civil War, John Brown. I have always been fascinated by Brown mostly because his belief that all men should be free. The only problem was his extreme execution of these beliefs. His actions were those of an extremist, an individual who was going to get what he wanted no matter the cost. His reasoning was sound, but his actions bordered on the insane.

Complete hogwash in terms of historical accuracy, 1940's Santa Fe Trail is the only movie I can even think of that has Brown playing a major role. He played a huge role in starting the Civil War -- the bloodiest conflict in American history -- but has generally been forgotten in the pages of history books over the last 150-plus years. At the height of his popularity, actor Raymond Massey played the infamous abolitionist in a movie that while entertaining, is about as accurate as saying that the sun is green and the moon is made of cheese. It is a performance that is downright terrifying at times. Some 14 years later, once again bearing a striking resemblance to the real-life Brown, Massey reprised the role of John Brown in 1955's Seven Angry Men.

It's 1856 and brothers Owen (Jeffrey Hunter) and Oliver (Larry Pennell) are traveling to Kansas to work with their father, John Brown (Massey), in his efforts to help the territory enter the United States as a free state. Four other Brown brothers are already waiting as the family is reunited, all in hopes of making Kansas a place where slaves are illegal.  Their father, John, though is willing to do anything necessary to ensure that with the coming vote.  Sticking with his father through thick and thin -- even going against his wife, Elizabeth (Debra Paget), and her intentions -- Owen quickly realizes how obsessed the man really is. John has bigger, grander plans than just Kansas though. He has his sites set on Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and the U.S. Military arsenal there where he hopes to arm an army of freed and escaped slaves.

The Civil War is one of the most interesting times in American history, but the build-up to the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil is just as interesting.  In the five years before the war, Kansas was dubbed 'Bleeding Kansas' as abolitionists fought pro-slavers over the future of the state, whether it would enter the United States as a free or slave state. Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry (read about it HERE) is similarly one of the most fascinating chapters in American history (to me at least). However miserably the raid failed, Brown's intentions are amazing when you think about it. The topic can be a touchy one (Kansas and Harpers Ferry) so it's easy to understand why movies have generally steered clear of it, but the history is incredibly interesting.

The tone of the two movies -- Santa Fe Trail and Seven Angry Men -- are basically polar opposites, but the positive you can take from both movies is Raymond Massey's acting performances as John Brown. As I mentioned earlier, he bears a striking resemblance to the real-life Brown. His acting though is so much more, bringing this obsessed, completely and blindly driven man to life. His intentions were genuine -- all men should be free regardless of color -- but his actions were deplorable, believing in an Old Testament form of justice. Making him more interesting/believable/frightening is that Brown (an ultra religious man) believes God is using him as his vessel on Earth to do what he needs to get accomplished. Scary much?

So director Charles Marquis Warren has those two great things working for him -- interesting history, more interesting historical person -- and what does he focus his story on? The budding relationship of Brown's son, Owen, his right hand man, and a fellow abolitionist, Elizabeth, who believes John's actions are despicable. Do you think there's a chance they might put their differences aside and get hitched? They talk about these problems a lot, and then share some very passionate 1950s movie kisses and some scandalous embraces. Because of that, Massey's John Brown gets pushed to the background far too often.  In the rest of the cast is Dennis Weaver, James Best, John Smith and Pennell as the brothers who actually make an impression. Also look for James Edwards as Green, a freed black man fighting with the Browns, and Leo Gordon in heavy mode as pro-slaver leader gunning for Brown.

I wanted to like this movie more than I did, but it just has so many things working against it. A B-movie or even an A-level movie on a smallish budget can overcome a lot with some basic things; avoid overacting, don't get too exaggerated, keep the music in a non-blaring mode. 'Angry' misses on all counts. Carl Brandt's score is painfully obvious, almost willing you to feel certain emotions. The love story is equally bad, and I can't decide if that's on the actors, the script or the director. Maybe worst of all is that the movie just doesn't know what it wants to say. Is John Brown a hero or a traitor? The ending has the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing over Brown's execution just minutes after vilifying the man. Which one is it? Massey is great, and the relatively forgotten history is interesting, but otherwise this one is worth passing on.

Seven Angry Men <--- TCM clips (1955): **/****        

Reap the Wild Wind

As a fan of John Wayne and just about every one of his movies in one way or another, I can appreciate that by a certain point in his career (say 1960 or so) he was basically playing variations on the same character.  Some would say he was playing himself, but I won't go quite that far.  Early in his career even after the success of 1939's Stagecoach, Wayne had not yet been pigeon-holed into one type of role so in the early 1940s, he played some roles that are different from the norm in generally forgotten movies, like 1942's Reap the Wild Wind.

Still finding his niche as an actor, Wayne gets lost in the shuffle here some with an impressive cast.  It's an impressive movie on a lot of different levels, but that doesn't mean it's a particularly good movie though. Directed by the legendary epic moviemaker Cecil B. DeMille, 'Wild Wind' feels like his answer to the classic movie released three years before, 1939's Gone With the Wind. It's lavish and extravagant with a sweeping story full of action, intrigue and romance. It plays too much like a soap opera though ripped right off a stage somewhere. Rarely bored but never truly invested in this movie, it falls short in the end.

After his ship is wrecked on the reefs near Key West, Captain Jack Stuart (Wayne) is nursed back to health by lovely Southern belle, Loxi Claiborne (Paulette Goddard), who instantly falls for him. Stuart has come under fire though, the blame being placed on his shoulders for the wreck. He is set to go on a cruise that will eventually end up in Charleston where he'll face a ruling from the company's board of directors. Looking to help the man she loves, Loxi heads to Charleston by land, looking to woo the lawyer who will look to crucify Jack, Stephen Tolliver (Ray Milland). Stephen falls for her too, and she can't help but have feelings back toward him. The situation will come to a halt though when a salvaging pirate, King Cutler (Raymond Massey), puts them all on a course to meet on the high seas on the company's new steam ship, the Southern Cross, as it heads toward the dangerous Key West reefs.

The story ends up playing out like an average, even at times bad, soap opera. Overacting is around every corner, the love triangle is always tumultuous with all sides swearing they're right, and no one is going to give in easily. It's a big movie, living up to an epic status, with gigantic sets adorned with detail, costuming period accurate, and extras filling the screen. DeMille's film had the biggest budget of any film made since Gone with the Wind, and he spends it well.  Visually (even with some bad green screen shots), it is a great movie to watch. The story doesn't keep up though, and you're left waiting for everything to resolve itself.  I was willing the movie to move along a little quicker as the 123-minute run time dragged on endlessly.

So even if the story is too ridiculously over the top to take seriously, the cast is nothing to shake your head at.  Ray Milland is the real star here, dominating the movie with Goddard. He's painted as the upper class businessman, but that's quickly thrown out the window.  It's built up as this great rivalry with Wayne's Capt. Jack, but nothing develops there. Wayne's character is window dressing which is disappointing for me as a fan.  Massey is perfectly cast as Massey, I mean King Cutler, the villain who sneers and glares his way through line deliveries.  As if those three names weren't enough, Robert Preston is along for the ride (and given little to do) as Dan Cutler, King's little brother and business partner. Lynne Overman gets to ham it up too as Capt. Phil Pillpott, a veteran of the seas always ready with a dig or a barb. 

While the male characters aren't developed much and are probably the better for it, the female characters are not so lucky.  It's interesting that the two main female roles -- Goddard and Susan Hayward -- were both passed over for the role of Scarlett O'Hara for GwtW. I've never seen Goddard in another role (that I remember at least), but based on this part, I won't be seeking her out too much more. God bless her, she's a pretty girl, but she's an awful actress. She chews the scenery in each and every scene, pulling off both her acting faces, the sly, sweet Southern belle and the screaming terrified woman gone batty.  There's little middle ground either, it's one or the other. I felt bad for Hayward who's character has nothing to do but fall for Preston's Dan in a wasted subplot and then serve a purpose late. It's a wasted part for a talented actress.

Trying to save the best for last, 'Wild Wind' surely gets points for effort in the finale. A sizable portion of the budget was used to construct a giant squid that attacks Wayne and Milland as they go diving for the wreck of a ship. The underwater sequences -- giant squid attack included -- are impressive for 1942 considering all those things actually had to be filmed.  It is an ending that obviously left an impression as it was almost exactly reused several years later in another John Wayne flick, Wake of the Red Witch. Reap the Wild Wind also belongs to a rare club of John Wayne movies, but I can't give too much away here. I didn't like this movie much, but it does try and almost lives up to its own high expectations.

Reap the Wild Wind (1942): ** 1/2 /****

Action in the North Atlantic

Early in World War II, one of the biggest issues facing United States involvement in the war was getting our troops, equipment and materiel across the Atlantic Ocean to the European mainland.  The problem wasn't the ships, there were plenty of those, but the German navy -- especially the U-boats -- which wreaked havoc on those ships, sending thousands of ships and even more men to the bottom of the ocean. But even as the sunk tonnage went up, the ships kept making the dangerous journey.  That's the story of 1943's Action in the North Atlantic.

Now for all you non-history buffs out there, 1943 was right in the midst of World War II when the war was still very much in the balance.  Hollywood did its best to turn out stories that would inspire on the home front and convince Americans that this was a war that needed to be won.  In other words, we're not talking a whole lot of subtlety here, just straight propaganda.  It would be interesting had this movie been made in the 1960s or even now in the 21st Century just to get a different perspective on the story.  But it didn't happen that way, and we get a movie that is very much a prisoner of the time it was made in.  Not always a bad thing.

Sailing to deliver a dangerous shipment of thousands of gallons of fuel, a ship of Merchant Marines commanded by Capt. Steve Jarvis (Raymond Massey) and first officer Joe Rossi (Humphrey Bogart) is attacked and sunk by a German U-boat.  Jarvis, Rossi and some of the crew survive and are picked up, welcomed home as conquering heroes.  It's not long before Jarvis gets a new ship with much of the same crew as they hope to help the war effort aboard the USS Seawitch.  Their first mission is an important one as they will sail as part of an immense convoy traveling from the US all the way to Russia with badly-needed supplies and materiel.  A convoy this big can't help but attract attention, and it seems like it will only be a matter of time before the Germans come around.

Dripping with propaganda and messages of hope, 'Atlantic' is a good example of the movies Hollywood churned out during the war.  The story itself is an interesting one that deserves to be told in an honest, straightforward manner.  Unfortunately, we get the portrayals of these American sailors as angelic men who could do no wrong, and their German counterparts as evil, sadistic bastards who laugh as they ram doomed Americans.  On the positive side, director Lloyd Bacon (Raoul Walsh is an uncredited director here) commits to this garbage all the way. It doesn't hit you over the head the way some early 1940s movies do in getting its message across.  Bogie's final monologue could have been too sappy, but in his hands it is the ideal capper to a solid story.

Now at 126 minutes final running time, 'Atlantic' could use some trimming.  With much of the story taking place at sea, we get some pretty seamless shots of actual ships sailing on the ocean with some well-handled miniature shots.  Of course, that only goes so far.  Stock footage is overused to the point where you can fast forward through large chunks of the story without missing a beat.  The movie is obsessed with showing you what life on a ship is like, but it gets tedious, and it does so quickly.  There's also the portrayal of the German U-boat chasing the Seawitch.  I'm guessing all-told, there is probably about 20-30 minutes of the Germans in the 2-hour movie.  They even speak German...but with no subtitles!  Do you know how boring a movie gets when you can't understand a thing anyone is saying? It's a 2-hour movie, and I watched it in about 90 minutes because the fast forward got a workout.

The saving grace is the cast, including one of my favorites in Bogart.  The man was a chameleon when it came to the roles he could play, and he shows it off here.  This isn't a part that requires a ton of heavy lifting, but Bogart handles it as smoothly as possible. He gets a love interest (easy on the eyes Julie Bishop) that feels tacked on and doesn't serve a real purpose, but Bogart also gets to play the up-and-up hero for a change too.  No concerns if he's the anti-hero just waiting to reveal himself, Bogie is the all-American hero here.  Massey is all right as Capt. Jarvis, but he doesn't have to do much other than growl and talk about how badly he wants to get revenge on the Germans.  I'm sure 1943 audiences ate it all up.

Working from a John Howard Lawson screenplay, 'Atlantic' at its best is when it is dealing with the daily lives of the crew, merchant marines who weren't officially part of the Navy but nonetheless did their best to aid the war effort. The interactions among the crew and the relationships, the friendships, the arguing that develop feel authentic from the start, and you like this motley group of sailors who include Alan Hale, Dane Clark, Sam Levene, Peter Whitney, and Dick Hogan. I don't know what it's like to work and live on a ship for days, weeks and months at a time, but this felt real to me, and not forced.  So in spite of its flaws, I'll still recommend this WWII flick.

Action in the North Atlantic <---trailer (1943): ***/****   

Desperate Journey

Before becoming one of the U.S.'s most popular presidents, Ronald Reagan made quite a name for himself in the 1930s and 1940s as a movie star. Makes that whole 'Star Wars' idea a little funnier if you ask me. He was usually limited to B-movies, but as an actor he had an easy-going, likable way about him on the screen. Reagan often played second banana to the main star of the movie and made a career -- a movie career at least -- at playing the funny sidekick.

By 1942, Reagan had already teamed once with Errol Flynn in 1940's Santa Fe Trail when they teamed up again for a WWII adventure, 1942's Desperate Journey, that is pretty blatant propaganda watching it now over 70 years later. It's not subtle in the least, and why should it be? Released in September 1942, the U.S. was only a few months removed from entering the war in the North African campaign, and maybe the home front needed some boosting. That propaganda borders on the painfully unfunny at times, but the movie itself is interesting enough to recommend.

Flying a dangerous mission to take out a German railroad yard, Flight Lieutenant Terry Forbes (Flynn) is forced to take command when the commander is killed. Forbes' bomber is able to take out the objective, but the plane is shot down in the process, and it's not long before German forces have scooped them up. The five crew survivors are interrogated by an SS major (Raymond Massey), but they manage to escape with key information about underground Messerschmidt factories. Among the group is a Scottish veteran of WWI (Alan Hale), a cocky American navigator (Reagan), an American flight officer (Arthur Kennedy), and a young British officer (Ronald Sinclair) trying to live up to his father's reputation. Can the five somehow get back to England with their news before the Germans catch them again?

The whole premise is pretty ridiculous and far-fetched in itself but it's entertaining enough. Flynn's Forbes is pretty gung-ho as the flight lieutenant who wants to take the war right at the German war effort. He's a leader who questions himself because the actions he undertook ended up taking the lives of some of his crew, but Flynn is also Joe America (even though he was Australian), the ideal soldier to lead the fight against the Nazis. With his gung-ho attitude, Flynn isn't content with just getting the news back to England, wanting to sabotage anything he can on the way back.

A reviewer at IMDB does point out that the Germans are rather cartoonish or particularly evil with little middle ground, asking where are Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz? Hogan's Heroes reference there for you. Their efforts are pretty clumsy in capturing the prisoners as it seems Massey's German major is the only one actually taking part in the chase. For five prisoners with news that could cripple the Germans, wouldn't more people join in the effort? Flynn and Co. even make it across Germany and into the Dutch countryside with little issue or much in the way of danger...and in German uniforms at that, even boarding Goerring's private train at one point.

Now all that said, the movie is incredibly entertaining, a good old-fashioned popcorn movie. The action is exciting -- especially the last half hour as the Germans close in -- including a car chase across the empty Dutch countryside with some boats of cars chugging along. Credit for making it so damn entertaining is the casting, especially Flynn as a WWII version of a swashbuckler who even manages to flirt some with a comely resistance fighter (Nancy Coleman). Reagan and Hale go for the laughs, hamming it up in some scenes that are hard to watch they feel so out of place. Kennedy is the straight man trying to keep the mission on the others' minds.

As for the propaganda, there's several scenes of dialogue where the cast is talking directly to the viewer. Coleman's resistance fighter tells Flynn (and American) to tell everyone that there's people fighting back against the Axis powers and don't forget about them. Flynn's final line is almost laughable "Now for Australia and a crack at those Japs!" but at the time I'm sure it probably drew some cheers from audiences. It's all part of this ridiculously over the top, far-fetched action adventure that is entertaining almost in spite of itself.

Desperate Journey <-----trailer (1942): ***/***

The Naked and the Dead

When I think of author Norman Mailer, one thing comes to mind. Big books, real big books. I haven't read any of Mailer's stories, partly because I get intimidated when I see a paperback I could knock someone out with if using it as a weapon. His take on WWII in the Pacific, based on his own service, was a huge hit upon its release and surprise, surprise, turned into a movie of the same name, The Naked and The Dead.

Now looking at a reissue of Mailer's novel, the Amazon listing has it as over 700 pages so any movie version is going to have to cut things out. The 1958 movie clocks in at 131 minutes so I tried to keep that in mind while watching it. TCM's Robert Osborne said the novel upon its initial release was a huge success because of its 'salty language' with plenty of four-letter words and its frank way of dealing with some touchy subject matters. Of course, a movie from 1958 had to strip much of that away with censors. So right off the bat, the movie already has two strikes against it, but I'll move on.

The story centers around an American infantry battalion on an unnamed Pacific island midway through the war. Three main characters step to the front, giving the viewer a good sense of all the different ranks in the battalion. First, there's Sgt. Sam Croft (Aldo Ray in a part he was born to play), the leader of an intelligence and recon platoon that is understrength after several campaigns on the front lines. His men hate him almost to a man, and he gives them good reason. Croft is sadistic, killing unarmed prisoners callously and then prying the gold teeth out of their mouths. Second, there's Lt. Robert Hearn (Cliff Robertson), a young officer with connections back home. Translation = Earns a job far from the front lines. And third, there's General Cummings (Raymond Massey), the battalion commander obsessed with casualty estimates and striking fear into his men's hearts, often for pointless power trips.

I liked the idea of seeing the war from different perspectives, from the high-ranking general to the men on the front line. With war movies, it's typically one or the other. But in the execution, something doesn't translate. The first 70 minutes are extremely reliant on dialogue scenes meant to flesh out the main characters. Maybe this was the purpose, but none of the three are particularly likable. Croft is pure evil, Hearn is a cocky, arrogant spoiled son of a you know what, and Cummings borders on the crazy. These early scenes drag on too much.

The pace picks up when a twist to the storyline is thrown in. On this Japanese-held island, Cummings' advance has slowed to a halt. He puts into action a plan that should break the stalemate, but he needs behind the lines info. Croft and his platoon are selected to go behind the Japanese lines and set up an observation post for their advancing battalion mates. After pissing off Cummings, Hearn is given command of the platoon. So now, they're not only tangling with Japanese patrols, but a fight for power between Hearn and Croft.

The patrol segment is by far the better part of the movie. There's a natural tension as Croft and his men walk through the jungle (Panama substitituing for the actual Pacific) trying to get to their objective while avoiding the Japanese. What I enjoyed most in the movie was Croft's platoon which includes Richard Jaeckel, William Campbell, James Best as the bible-thumping, drawling medic, Jerry Paris and Rat Packer Joey Bishop as two Jewish soldiers, Robert Gist, and L.Q. Jones at his overacting best. Jaeckel and Jones are really the only ones given any development, and reading the book reviews it seems the platoon's back story was sacrificed from the 700-page plus behemoth.

For a WWII movie, the action is pretty sparse and when it comes along, it's pretty disappointing. The gunfire sounds like prop guns and the explosions look as staged as a movie explosion can be. As mentioned before with the censors, the violence is often off-screen, like a Japanese patrol burning in a lit-up field, and comes off as too tame. It's hard to judge a movie for the time it was made in, but if this movie was released in the 90s we're talking a Pacific version of Saving Private Ryan.

So compared to other WWII movies in the 50s and 60s, this one is pretty average but a lot of my complaints come from the censors. Director Raoul Walsh tried to make the definitive, honest look at a platoon of soldiers in the Pacific in WWII, but it is hamstringed by any number of forces working against it. Worth a watch for Aldo Ray's performance and the list of character actors who make up his platoon, but otherwise this one's only worth it for diehard war movie fans.

The Naked and The Dead (1958): **/****