The Hunters

The 1950's were a mixed bag when it comes to war films. There's some classics -- The Bridge on the River Kwai, Stalag 17 -- but I've noticed a trend. There are almost-classics (or at least above average) that are undone by unnecessary love stories jammed into a war story. Otherwise good flicks ruined by scenes of passionate hugging and soldiers and the women they love holding each other cheek-to-cheek. Gasp! The horror! Add 1958's The Hunters to the list.

It's 1952 and the Korean War is raging. On the ground, the fighting is the same, infantry going toe-to-toe for every inch of ground. Up in the air though, things have changed with both sides using jets to control the skies. At an Air Force base in Japan, WWII veteran pilot Cleve "Iceman" Saville (Robert Mitchum) is back at it, going through indoctrination before taking over a fighter group. The aerial dogfights are a mess, the Chinese pilots not as skilled but all it takes is luck sometimes to survive the fighting. Among Saville's group are two pilots, both problems for vastly different reasons. Lt. Ed Pell (Robert Wagner) is a hotshot pilot, desperately wanting to be an ace while Lt. Carl Abbott (Lee Philips) is struggling with a drinking problem. Oh, and Saville has the hots for his wife, Kris (May Britt). As if the fighting to curb Communism wasn't enough...

Okay, here we go...Battle Cry, Force of Arms, Darby's Rangers, Never So Few, all war flicks somewhat to completely undone by stories harping on sluggish love stories typically featuring ZILCH in the chemistry department between its love interests. That's just off the top of my head too. There's more. You just know they're out there....

From director and producer Dick Powell, 'Hunters' is a pretty interesting flick. Enough time had passed since the end of the Korean War that viewers would have had a chance to breathe a little bit, put the conflict behind them. The subject matter, while dark, is far from anti-war and the film itself comes across as slightly shallow. There's just not that much meat there in a story that could have had plenty. It is a good-looking movie -- the print shown on Turner Classic Movies looked gorgeous -- with a decent cast, interesting story and some real potential that never quite takes off. If anything, any depth or a story with an edge is left behind in the wake of...

SPECTACLE. This is a movie about flying jets, fighter planes that zip across the sky and do things that no machine should be able to do. Think of it this way. An audience in 1958 would have been dazzled to see the acrobatics, the dogfights, the impressive speed. This was incredibly new to that audience. Now in 2015, it's an incredibly cool time capsule. The aerial footage is genuinely incredible. The stunts, the long shots of seemingly countless jets racing across the sky, well, Cinemascope never looked so good! Even the shots of the cast in the jets doesn't scream out how obvious it could have been. There's at least a semblance of reality that these guys are actually flying. So while the love story does its best to drag things down, these adrenaline-pumping aerial sequences are pretty freaking cool.

A favorite here at Just Hit Play, Mitchum is excellent here as Major Cleve Saville, a pilot from WWII who can't stay away when there's a fight (and he's a damn good pilot too). His Saville is the 'Hunter' of the title, a diehard pilot who has ridiculously keyed-in focus, blocking out all else to go for the kill during a dogfight. Now, some years since WWII has ended, has Saville changed? Has he mellowed? Mitchum is that low-key, laid back anti-hero the movie needs. Is it acting? Does he just not care? Somewhere in the middle most likely, but it's an interesting performance. You see a former hotshot pilot who's matured some and sees the dangers in what he used to be in those pilots now flying with him. I liked Wagner's Pell, a fast-talking, talented pilot who similarly may push too far. Also look for Richard Egan, John Gabriel and Stacy Harris as other pilots at the base.

That damn love story though. It doesn't help that Mitchum and Britt have little to no chemistry, dragging these already sluggish scenes to an even more screeching halt. No chemistry translates to no energy, especially when Philip's whiny Abbott starts to drink and question and get mad that his wife is drawn to a....blah blah blah. It's not good. When 'Hunters' sticks with the war drama, it's a pretty decent movie, especially in the second half as several pilots find themselves fighting through enemy territory after being forced to bail out from their jets. Some real drama, some tension, some nerves, it's all there. If there had been 103 minutes of that instead of what we have, we'd be talking a pretty decent (if somewhat formulaic) final product. So instead, we get a mixed bag.

A slight recommendation because Mitchum is impeccably cool, Wagner is a lot of fun, and those aerial sequences are impressive whether it's 1958 or 2015.

The Hunters (1958): ** 1/2 /**** 

Highway 301

I was worried about 90 seconds into 1950's Highway 301. Real worried. This crime thriller from the Age of Film Noir looked to be diving into the genre flick...with a warning that crime is BAD. Oh no! Worse? Those warnings come from the real-life governors of three states. So immediately a story that sounded like it had a ton of potential was turning into something not so appealing. Did it drive out of the nasty detour? Thankfully, YES.

It's the early 1930s and a gang of vicious killers and bank robbers are cutting a swath across a three-state area including Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. No job is too big or small and no life is worth more much to this small gang of gangsters that's been dubbed the Tri-State Gang. At their head is an escaped convict, George Legenza (Steve Cochran), who leads the gang with a brutally efficient, sinister hand. If anything (ANYTHING) gets in the gang's way, he'll plug it with a bullet and move on no questions asked, no emotions hanging in the air. The gang's dubious exploits and a trail of dead bodies has caught the eye of the F.B.I. and law enforcement agencies all over the three state area. Legenza and his gang haven't been too interested in hiding their faces, and that decision may come back to bite them. Time is running out and the gauntlet is getting tighter and tighter.

Right up there with war, western and sci-fi flicks, one of my favorite genres is and has been the film noir genre. This 1950 crime thriller from director Andrew L. Stone isn't an out-and-out film noir entry. Instead, it has that distinct noir feel -- mood and style against a dark, often nighttime backdrop -- mixed in with a more straightforward crime thriller. This is based on a true story (read more about the gang HERE) so 'Highway' has the distinct feel of a crime thriller documentary, almost like something TV's Dragnet would focus on in the next two decades. We get that fly on the wall feel. We see both sides, crooks and cops, with characters often addressing the camera directly, especially those on the law enforcement side. It is a style that finds a groove between the noir genre and the more straightforward crime thriller angle, and all for the better.

That blending of genre works because....well, this is a particularly nasty movie for a 1950 audience. Yeah, 1950s film noir and crime thrillers were particularly dark, but there was almost always some flawed, imperfect anti-hero who you could slightly root for. The focus here in 'Highway' does detour some from the gang but not a lot. This is a movie about a murdering, ruthless bloody gang. Cochran is a vile, nasty scene-stealer. An actor who never became a huge star, usually starring in B-movies and appearing on countless TV shows, Cochran is the perfect villain here. His Legenza -- an escaped convict with murder and burglary raps on his record -- is emotionless, his brutal crimes not fazing him in the least. He kills because he doesn't want to get caught. It is a business decision and little else. Something in his way? With the snap of a finger, Legenza will knock you off. Just a terrifyingly effective bad guy who doesn't get the attention he deserves in the genre.

Watch out for the rest of the Tri-State Gang too though. Cochran's Legenza is the head of the snake, but this isn't a bunch to take on lightly. Also look for Robert Webber and Wally Cassell as the most visible of the gang, Legenza's most trusted men. Neither man is as efficiently and brutally cold as their gang leader, but it's close. Adding an interesting angle to the gang is the wives of the members, including the cynical, smart-mouthed Virginia Grey (with Cassel) and innocent Canadian woman Gaby Andre who marries Webber not knowing what her newlywed husband's occupation truly is. It's a cool change of pace within the genre-bender, showing female characters amidst the gangland chaos. Not as visible as the other parts of the game, also look for Richard Egan and Edward Norris to round out the gang.

Director/writer Stone is at the helm of a surprisingly good, interesting flick here. It crackles along at 83 minutes, covering a lot of ground and mixing in some robberies and heists with some shootouts, betrayals and chases along the way. It's never really in doubt how this will end once law enforcement (including lead officer Edmon Ryan) gets heavily involved, but it remains solid throughout as we see exactly how this gang will meet its end. When it comes along, it is a very satisfying finale. Not a well-known film, but one that's easy to recommend. A very dark, cool change of scenery for an at times familiar genre.

Highway 301 (1950): ***/****

One Minute to Zero

When a war movie is made and released while said war is still very much being fought, you're going to get a different movie in tone and message than one released years after the end of the war. Wordy opening, huh? It's the truth though. With a film meant to encourage and move audiences during a war, it's just going to be a different film. An above average take on the Korean War comes from 1952's One Minute to Zero.

It's early in the fighting between the North and South Koreans and WWII Army vets Colonel Steve Janowski (Robert Mitchum) and Sgt. Baker (Charles McGraw) are training South Korean troops to ready them for combat. As the fighting intensifies though, Janowski and Baker are tasked with a bigger mission. The North Koreans are sneaking through American lines disguised as refugees, even forcing the refugees to hide guns and ammunition. Janowski meets an American woman, Linda (Ann Blyth), working with the United Nations, but their new relationship is threatened by the increasing conflict all around them.

Released right in the middle of the Korean War, 'Zero' is guilty of being a little heavy-handed at times. It's understandable. The goal was likely to convince American viewers that the American forces were in the right. We see the evil Communist North Koreans holding guns on South Korean refugees (babies and all), we see executed American troops, we see McGraw's Sgt. Baker teaching little kids how to blow bubbles with their bubble gum. North Korean troops are basically nastiness and evil incarnate while the Americans are for the most part, always in the right. Thankfully, director Tay Garnett doesn't go too far with his message. It's there, and yes, it can be heavy-handed, but it's never truly painful to watch like some propaganda war films.

'Zero' handles its story the right way in juggling a war story and a love story. In that way, it reminded me a lot of a film made seven years later, 1959's Never So Few. Neither film focuses exclusively on the war or love angle, and that's a good thing. For the most part, it bounces back and forth between the two. Mitchum's Colonel Janowski is a longtime vet who's risen through the ranks. He's used to fighting, but not quite like what he's seeing in Korea. As the love interest, Blyth's Linda is still coping with the loss of her husband late in WWII. She has genuine feelings for Steve, but she doesn't want to see another love ripped away from her again in war. As a bonus, Linda isn't a damsel in distress. She's working near the front lines with the United Nations at aid stations. She too sees the horrors of war.

Joining the fighting in Korea early on, Mitchum's Janowski works with an American infantry battalion, including Captain Ralston (Richard Egan), a capable officer who focuses on the mission but also watches out for his men as best as possible. Ralston's men include Wally Cassell, Hal Baylor, Alvin Greenman, and Lalo Rios. William Talman has a strong supporting part as Colonel Parker, Janowski's long-time friend and an Air Force pilot with Margaret Sheridan as his wife.

While there are moments nearing cringe-inducing territory, there are others that are equally effective in the opposite direction. Janowski and Baker teaching South Koreans how to take out a Russian tank is a gem early on in the story. I thought the best sequence though has Janowski, Ralston and Baker deciding what to do with a road crammed for miles with Korean refugees. It is know that North Korean guerrillas are hiding amidst the refugees, but something has to be done. The refugees are let through a checkpoint, but Janowski calls in artillery fire that drops closer and closer to the refugees. He hopes to call their bluff with the guerrillas revealing themselves. It is an incredibly intense sequence with a surprising end result, especially considering this would have been shown to a 1952 audience.

The highlight though was the finale as Janowski, Baker, Ralston and an infantry battalion head far behind North Korean lines to slow up a military convoy delivering badly need supplies to the front. They're forced to hold a position for considerably longer than planned, and supplies begin to dwindle as North Korean forces move in for the kill. It's an impressive extended sequence that is more effective in showing the sacrifices made by soldiers than any far more obvious flag-waving scene. Maybe it is a flag-waving scene, but it works extremely well just the same. It takes a little while for this Korean War love/war story to get going, but once it does, it doesn't slow. Well worth sticking with it through the end.

One Minute to Zero (1952): ***/****

Bright Victory

Some of my favorite war movies focus almost exclusively on the actual combat and fighting in war. Some of the best focus on the post-war lives of the soldiers. What about the soldiers who were wounded and/or traumatized by what they saw and experienced? The most obvious choices include The Best Years of Our Lives, The Men, Born on the 4th of July, but 1951's Bright Victory belongs in that grouping.

Working with a forward artillery unit laying telephone wire in 1943 North Africa, Larry Nevins (Arthur Kennedy) is struck in the side of the head by a German sniper's bullet. His optic nerves are destroyed, and doctors don't believe that surgery will ever restore his sight. Back in the states at a rehab facility, Nevins goes about the slow work of learning how to live as a blind individual. In a weird way, he has to re-learn how to be a regular person, relying on his other senses, using a walking stick. He has help along the way from other wounded vets (similarly blinded) and one girl, Judy (Peggy Dow), who he hits it off with immediately. All the while though Larry is worried about the reaction he'll get back home, especially from fiance, Chris (Julie Adams). 

Released in 1951 from director Mark Robson, 'Bright' is an impressive, well-made movie. Filmed in black and white, it's a meat and potatoes kind of movie. The focus is more on the personal level than any sort of large-scale action. This is Larry's story as he learns how to live as a blind person. We sees his reactions and how he copes; anger, frustration (even attempting suicide once), acceptance and finally a desire to work at it and move on with his life. It was filmed on location at Valley Forge Medical Center -- a nice touch for authenticity -- and detours once or twice to some cool Philadelphia locations. Why focus on the bigger picture when the smaller, more focused picture is more effective?

One of the best things going for 'Bright' comes from its honesty in exploring Larry's plight. He's born and raised in Florida, and living in the deep South, he's developed a racist streak right up his back. However, if you're blind.....Yeah, exactly. Voice inflections aside, how can you tell if someone is black or white? Working through his therapy, Larry strikes up a fast friendship with similarly wounded black soldier, Joe Morgan (James Edwards). Larry doesn't realize it though, one day making a statement about 'n***ers' being moved into the ward. And let the fireworks fly. The developing feeling in Larry is highly effective in its simplicity. It takes a life-altering incident to change his mind, but he starts to realize 'what difference does skin color make?' For a movie in 1951 years ahead of the Civil Rights movement, that's a profound message.

Casting Kennedy as Larry is a match made in heaven. Arthur Kennedy could be a despicable villain like nobody's business. More than that though, he's a great actor, and this is a part that allows him to show off his range. He's more than believable in the part, and when he's going through the life of a blinded veteran, it doesn't feel forced. His relationship with Dow's Judy is interesting without being too cute, and the dilemma he feels about what he said to Joe and also what awaits at home helps develop the character. The racist aspect gives an added dimension to the character too, all for the positive in a great part for Kennedy.

Also look for Will Geer and Nana Bryant as Larry's parents waiting back home in Florida, Joan Banks and a pre-Mr. Howell Jim Backus as Judy's sister and brother-in-law, and Richard Egan and Murray Hamilton as two blinded vets Larry meets in the rehab ward with John Hudson play Cpl. Flagg, a non-com working with the wounded vets. If you watch early, you can also see Rock Hudson in a bit part as one of Larry's repair crew working in North Africa.

An underrated WWII movie that deserves more of a following. Moments like Egan's soldier meeting his wife and son (who's he never seen/met) are perfection in their honesty. That's the feeling the whole movie gives off. It isn't aggressively shoving a story and message in its face. It's content to be what it is. An effective, well-told and well-acted story with some great performances. You can watch the entire movie HERE at Youtube.

Bright Victory <---Youtube clip (1951): *** 1/2 /****

Tension at Table Rock

In a career that spanned over 30 years, Richard Egan was in over 60 movies and made guest appearances on several TV shows.  But like so many Hollywood actors/actresses from the time, he's been mostly forgotten in the years since his death in 1987.  Some of it surely has to do with his films -- not one is a true classic -- but that doesn't mean he was in good movies.  Where some stars reach the heights of the profession, Egan became more known for his work in B-movies.  I'll never consider him a great actor, but even in his lesser roles, he had presence to spare.

A good example of his abilities is on display in the 1956 western Tension at Table Rock.  Egan plays the main character -- a gunfighter running from his past -- in a story that uses just about every western cliche available and still manages to be halfway decent.  Egan has one emotion in this movie, if you can call it an emotion, and it's monotone.  His voice never goes up or down whether he's angry, wooing a lady, or just having a conversation.  His face seems to be stuck in the one position for the whole 93 minutes, and through it all still makes it an interesting character.

Wes Tancred (Egan) is dealing with his name becoming legendary -- and not in a good way -- after he shot his best friend and partner, a fellow gunslinger, who was turning on him.  The legend builds that Wes gunned him down in the back, and soon enough, a ballad pops up describing the killing.  Wes is pardoned by the governor and moves further west under a new name. He takes a job at a stagecoach station but is forced to move on after a robbery with the loner survivor of the attempt, young Jody (Billy Chapin) in tow.  Jody has an uncle living in the nearby town of Table Rock who happens to be the sheriff, Fred Miller (Cameron Mitchell).  Some well-hidden sparks start to fly between Wes (alias 'Bailey') and Miller's wife Lorna (Dorothy Malone), but that's the least of the problems.  Fred is still recovering from a brutal attack and with a cattle drive coming his way, he will have to stick up for the town against the rowdy cowboys, with or without Wes's help.

The story does take its time setting everything up, and it's over 45 minutes in before the cattle drive and its boss (John Dehner) is even introduced.  The different storylines bounce every which way with just about every possibility imaginable taken into account in one way or another.  'Table Rock' borrows liberally from other 1950s westerns but still manages to put its own spin on things.  All the important elements of a good western are there; honesty, loyalty, doing what's right no matter the cost, and being true to yourself.  Still, it's hard not to shake the idea that the plot was never really settled on.  Everything wraps up nicely though in the end with the heroic Egan moving on to another town rather than cause a disruption where he is.

The western drifter/gunfighter has been done to death although on a positive note this was well before Sergio Leone got his hand on the genre and infused a bit of cynicism into the western.  Egan's Wes is a flawed man who's made out to be something he's not.  Sure, he's good with a gun, but he's not a cold-blooded killer.  1950s westerns love flawed characters like these because they're not bad guys, but they're not white hatted good guys either.  These sort of anti-heroes usually end up making some sort of personal sacrifice -- not usually involving their own death, it is the 1950s -- so that a family or a town can move on from their pasts.

Joining Egan is a strong supporting cast, especially Mitchell as Sheriff Fred Miller.  He's still recovering from a horrific beating that almost killed him and is thrown right into the fire to protect his town from the incoming rowdy cowpokes.  Mitchell makes Miller a character who wavers over what to do but ends up figuring out what's right and what's wrong, consequences be damned.  Malone is good as Miller's wife Lorna who can't help but be attracted to the steely-eyed, mysterious gunfighter.  Dehner is wasted as a quasi-villain with Royal Dano having some fun with his part as the crotchety old newspaper man.  Only in one scene, DeForest Kelly (pre Star Trek) makes a strong impression as Jim Breck, a hired gun with a unique mission.

Nothing really remarkable about this B-western, but as several IMDB reviewers point out, doing a well-worn formula picture well has to count for something.  At Youtube, several clips have been posted focusing on child star Billy Chapin's performance for those curious and looking for more about the movie.  Also look for a young Angie Dickinson in a small part, playing against the image she would become known for when she became a star.  Innocent enough western that is a pleasant enough way to spend 90 minutes.

Tension at Table Rock <----trailer (1956): ** 1/2 /****

Underwater!

In the 1950s, how did movie producers get audiences to come out to the theaters when families could just stay home and watch TV in the comforts of their living rooms? They went two ways, gimmicky, like 3-D, and for the spectacle. Show the audience something they couldn't or wouldn't see on the television, and they'd come out in droves.

And who better to go for the spectacle than producer Howard Hughes, almost the definition of eccentric millionaire always trying to top himself and his movies. That's what the Hughes-produced 1955 adventure Underwater! tried to do. With a story heavily reliant on underwater shooting as stunt doubles/swimmers explore coral reefs and shipwrecks, Hughes certainly gets points for creativity and effort. But the story never rises above any other typical sunken treasure story as the movie stays firmly in the B-movie genre.

Working in the Caribbean, Johnny Gray (Richard Egan) meets his old friend Dominic (Gilbert Roland). Dom convinces Johnny to go diving with him and while searching, the duo discovers a sunken wreck with clues to its identity; a Spanish ship from the 1600s that was supposed to be carrying a gold shipment back to Spain. After a lot of convincing with Johnny's wife Theresa (Jane Russell), the trio sets out to raise the money and equipment it will take to salvage the old wreck. They recruit a rich woman, Gloria (Lori Nelson) who owns a boat and quickly falls for Dominic, and a priest with knowledge of the Caribbean's sunken treasures, Father Cannon (Robert Keith). The search doesn't go smoothly though as a shark hunter (Joseph Calleia) is suspicious of their activities.

From reading director John Sturges' biography, it seems the script was never quite finished during the shooting. All producer Hughes was sure of was that the underwater diving footage would be the key part of the movie. The diving sequences are pretty good as stunt doubles for Russell, Egan and Roland explore the Caribbean depths. But everything else suffers because of it. All of the budget must have been spent on the cast and diving scenes because the rest of the movie has Gloria's boat in a tank with a pretty obvious painted background a few feet behind the ship. The same goes for indoor scenes with low budget boat and restaurant sets. You get a long shot of a beautiful bay with a boat and people visible, but the cut goes to a clearly indoor tank set.

Since he discovered Russell in the mid 1940s with The Outlaw, Hughes clearly had a bit of a crush on the young actress. The movies where they worked together seemed to be an excuse for Hughes to dress Russell up in any number of skimpy and/or tight outfits, and Underwater! is no different. No complaints because she's gorgeous, but just felt the need to point it out. Her Theresa has a Spanish accent that goes in and out from scene to scene, but is anyone actually paying attention to the dialogue? As old friends Johnny and Dominic, Egan and Roland look to be having a good time without having to put too much effort into it. Nelson and Keith are wasted in background parts, and Calleia doesn't have much to do as the shark hunter who pops in and out of the story.

There isn't much conflict throughout the story although efforts are made. Johnny and Theresa are newlyweds with some issues, but that's resolved. Dominic gets the bends late in the movie, but it's pretty clear they're not going to kill off Gilbert Roland. The story is just sort of there. It never tries to be anything other than a thin story around all the impressive underwater sequences.

That said, I enjoyed it. Underwater! serves more as a vacation brochure than anything, and the cast does seem to be having a good time. Besides Jane Russell in a swimsuit is nothing to scoff at. A classic by no means, but definitely a movie you can shut your brain off and enjoy for 90 minutes.

Underwater! <------trailer (1955): ** 1/2 /****

Netflix review #25: The 300 Spartans

Before there was Frank Miller and Zack Snyder's ridiculously over the top, highly stylized, ultra-violent movie 300, which I really liked, and before Steven Pressfield's excellent historical novel The Gates of Fire, also highly recommended, a movie released at the height of the historical epic was released in 1962 detailing the famous last stand of Spartan king Leonidas and his 300 warriors at the pass at Thermopylae, appropriately called The 300 Spartans.

Stories of massacres and last stands, Thermopylae, the Alamo, the Little Big Horn, translate well to movies. There's something noble about men believing so strongly in what they do that they are willing to give up their lives in a hopeless battle, knowing the end before it even starts. Nowhere is that more evident than with the story of the Spartans, a culture of warriors trained from the moment they could pick up a sword so they could one day gloriously die in battle fighting for their land and people.

For those that don't know the history, here's the basic rundown of the battle of Thermopylae, which the movie sticks pretty close to in terms of storytelling. It's 480 B.C. and Persian king Xerxes (David Farrar) is sweeping across the free world with his enormous army totaling in the millions. He's nearing Greece and all her city states, looking at an easy victory because the states remain divided and refuse to unify to fend off their destruction. Pride, huh? The only way the city states will organize is if the Spartans will lead them to battle.

Promising that the Spartans will be at the front of the Greek armies, Spartan king Leonidas (Richard Egan) begins to prepare the battle plan with Athenian leader Themistocles (Ralph Richardson). Leonidas will lead the Spartan army to the pass at Thermopylae which the Persians will have to come through. With a smaller force the Spartans will hope to negate the Persian numbers because the pass is too small to let large numbers of men in. At the same time, Themistocles will lead the Greek navy against the Persian fleet. But problems arise immediately, none of the Greeks can send their armies to help, and even the Spartans refuse to send their whole force.

Going against policy that requires warriors to wait till the end of a festival to fight, Leonidas leads his personal bodyguards, a unit of 300 Spartans, to the pass at Thermopylae to hold off the millions of the Persian army. It's a suicide mission from the start as Leonidas and the 300 must buy time for the rest of Greece to organize and prepare. Filmed in Greece, 'Spartans' feels pretty authentic even if the Thermopylae pass is really just a Greek hillside that slopes down into water. Hey, it looks nice though.

The problem with massacre/last stand movies is getting to that point. Everyone knows it's coming, but the movie can't cut right to it, otherwise we'd be watching 15 minute movies. The 300 Spartans takes too long getting to the battle, too long even to when the Spartans leave for the pass. The first hour is extremely heavy on dialogue, and not in an interesting way. Persians are coming, Greek representatives waver on what to do, the Spartans sacrifice themselves. Seems basic enough to me, but it moves along at a snail's pace getting there.

Part of the struggles can be chalked up to the script which is just kind of there. It's not bad, but it never really comes to life. Maybe because Gerard Butler in 300 was so theatrical and I had that picture in my head, but these Spartans never come to life. Egan is all right as Leonidas but it's not a memorable performance. The two lines that everyone knows, 'the Persians have so many archers their arrows will blot out the sun....Then we'll fight in the shade' and 'Lay down your weapons...Come and take them!' are delivered without any flair or emotion. None of the supporting cast other than Richardson really distinguishes themselves, with Diane Baker and Barry Coe as a young Spartan couple in love, got to have a love story, Donald Houston as Xerxes' top general, Anna Synodinou as Leonidas' wife Gorgo, and John Crawford and Robert Brown as two Spartans.

What does work in the movie is the production values, the spectacle of the story. Battle scenes are well done, especially the fight with Xerxes' Immortals, with hundreds of extras playing both the Spartans and the Persian army. The last stand is handled nicely, historically accurate too, but it doesn't have the emotional punch of the ending to 300. The costuming, the sets, all those things work, but other than that, the movie never comes to life.

The DVD at under $10 at Amazon is a safe buy with a cleaned-up widescreen presentation, a trailer in English and Spanish, and trailers for Cleopatra, The Robe, and Demetrius and the Gladiators. The DVD is cheap so you won't be spending a ton to buy it, but I'd recommend renting it first or at least trying to see it before buying. For me, I'll stick with the more recent and much more enjoyable 300.

The 300 Spartans (1962): **/****