The Enemy General

I'll always give a war movie a try no matter the story. There are too many interesting stories to shake your head at any because you never know what you're going to get (Yeah, Forrest Gump reference!). One sub-genre of war movies I've always thought was under utilized is the story of resistance movements, especially the French Resistance during WWII. The ones that are available? Not always that good. Where does 1960's The Enemy General stand?

As the German army sweeps across Europe in the early 1940s, a resistance movement pops up and develops in France, men, women and children fighting back against the Germans in any way they can. Among one of the groups is an American O.S.S. officer, Allan Lemaire (Van Johnson), who helps train the recruits and coordinate the attacks on German positions and convoys. During one particularly costly attack, Lemaire's group believes they've accomplished their objective, killing a high-ranking German general (John Van Dreelen) held in high regard by Hitler. General Bruger survives though, organizing reprisals against a local French village. Months later as the Allies invade Europe on D-Day, Lemaire receives orders to rescue a German general sentenced to death by Hitler. The man they're supposed to save? General Bruger himself.

From director George Sherman, 'Enemy' kept popping up on a movie channel on cable so give me enough chances, and I'll do something about it. It isn't a well-known war movie in the least and features a cast without much in the star power. That's not a deal-breaker though, far from it actually. The biggest issue is that at 75 minutes 'Enemy' plays like an extended TV episode. The short running time gives the impression the story is always in a rush, but even with that said, not much is accomplished. Several sequences liberally use wartime footage of combat, of ships landing at D-Day, of soldiers hitting the beaches, of Nazi forces entering Paris. Wasn't there enough story? Wasn't there anything that could be done to flesh things out even a little bit? Apparently not, a short movie at 75 minutes that never really hits a stride in the old entertainment department.

A huge star in Hollywood in the 1940s and early half of the 1950s, Van Johnson wasn't at the height of his popularity by 1960. I often think of him as an actor who could play big, fun parts, Johnson's smile filling up the screen. And for this movie.....yeah, it's the polar opposite, his Lemaire a dark, brooding and revenge-seeking O.S.S. officer. There's potential with the character, but like so much else, it doesn't click. We never get much in the way of background other than that his fellow Resistance fighters highly respect him. His reason for revenge is as good as movie revenge gets, Bruger killing Lemaire's beautiful French fiance, Lisette (Dany Carrel), as part of a reprisal for a resistance attack. The chance for a good character is there, but Johnson doesn't bring much energy to the part, hamstringing things throughout the short running time.

Have you seen Von Ryan's Express? If you haven't, shame on you. It's one of my all-time favorites. Playing the easily despicable German general, Van Dreelen is a solid villain. Now it's good and bad all things considered. The story provides a little bit of a twist near the halfway point, but it doesn't really come as much of a surprise if you're even remotely paying attention. Still, Van Dreelen does a good job playing that oily, sinister German officer. Playing Lemaire's French sidekick, Jean-Pierre Aumont isn't given much to do other than look worried and play off Johnson's resistance leader. Also look for Jacques Marin and Hubert Noel as two resistance fighters.

Just a blah movie in the end. There's no urgency, no excitement as the story builds. Toward the end when the back and forth cat and mouse game should be wrapping up in exciting fashion, it just sorta ends. Things are wrapped up and then 'THE END' flashes across the screen. This is a flick not meant to be a classic, but I would have settled for mildly entertaining. Instead, it is a movie that's just there and nothing else. A disappointing result in the end.

The Enemy General (1960): **/****

John Paul Jones

Is it possible that over the last 200 years the American Revolution has gotten lost in the shuffle of all of the United States' history? The story of the 13 colonies working together and fighting for their freedom is as incredible now as it was in the last quarter of the 18th Century. Thousands of individuals put everything on the line -- their lives, their families, their rights -- in their fight for freedom. As I've mentioned in other American Revolution reviews, Hollywood hasn't fully embraced the time period, resulting in a lack of movies...much less too many good ones.

A war that lasted eight years and took countless thousands of lives is going to produce its fair share of heroes. Names like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and many more are synonymous with the war, but most of the well-known names are remembered for their work in helping bring America its freedom from the government side. One of the biggest American military heroes was John Paul Jones, an American naval officer who helped make our country's navy what it is today. His story is told in the factually correctly if somewhat dull to watch epic, 1959's John Paul Jones -- appropriately titled, huh?

A young man growing up on the high seas, Scotsman John Paul (Robert Stack) gains years of experience doing everything he can on different ships. He rises through the ranks, eventually gaining command of a ship, only to see a suppressed mutiny derail his career path. He is forced to take refuge in 1770s Virginia, taking the name 'Jones' to throw off any pursuers. John Paul Jones arrives in Virginia at the right time as the colonists continue to push their British rulers.  Looking for experienced naval officers, the Continental forces turn to Jones, offering him a command position in the fledgling Navy.  Playing a key role in the Revolution as the colonists earn their freedom, Jones gains notoriety around the world, setting up a post-war life that could even earn him more fame.

Released in 1958 at the height of the historical epic's popularity among audiences, 'Paul Jones' certainly has a lot of potential to be a memorable movie.  In the translation from historical facts and details to on-screen adaptation though, something gets lost. At 126 minutes, one would think there was plenty of time to develop a well-told story, but one would think a lot of things.  Money and budget were clearly spent on the look and feel of the movie with its lavish costumes and extravagant sets which even a pan-n-scan cut of the movie couldn't ruin. Max Steiner's score is appropriately epic and booming, but not that good. Most of the issues can be traced back to an issue many epics have. Director John Farrow is more interested in the spectacle than the story or characters, and the final product keeps you at arm's length, never really letting you in.

Is it Farrow's fault, or a less than impressive script? I was surprised not that the movie isn't very good, but for another reason. It is very historically accurate to Jones' real life exploits -- kudos to a movie for accuracy -- but it is beyond dull, blasting into boring territory with ease. For starters, too much time is spent on pre-Revolution JP Jones, including a crush on Virginia belle Dorothea (Erin O'Brien). His involvement with the Revolution (the thing people know him best for) feels rushed as we never get a sense of how the war is going until America has won its freedom. Then, after England gives the colonies to America, the story doesn't know how to end, rushing through the final years of his life in hopes of providing some closure. It is a movie that tries too accomplish too much, and in the process, accomplishes nothing. Just a badly paced, dull attempt at an epic.

The more I see of Stack, the less I'm drawn to him as an actor.  My biggest question is whether he's got the star quality to play such a heroic character, and to be fair, it isn't entirely Stack's fault.  This should be an interesting character, but Jones as presented is pretty one-note.  Stack doesn't have a ton of range as an actor, producing little differences in anger, in love, and in combat.  Like the story he was in, I was bored watching him develop his reputation (for the good) and in the process become a hero.  Some other members of the cast include Charles Coburn as Benjamin Franklin, Marisa Pavan as Aimee, a love interest, Bette Davis in an out of place cameo as Catherine the Great, Macdonald Carey as Patrick Henry, and Jean-Pierre Aumont as King Louis XVI. With a story that covers 20-plus years, a ton of characters/individuals are introduced, but very few leave much of an impression, positive or negative.

The saving grace of the movie are the segments in the Revolution, including Jones' daring, heroic raid on England in 1778.  Some of his crew include Tom Brannum, Bruce Cabot, and Archie Duncan among some others.  These scenes show Jones for what he was -- a heroic leader who inspired his crew and a country through his actions.  Unfortunately there is too little of that and too much of a soap opera-esque background.  I struggled to get through this snail-paced movie, continuing to wait for it to get better.  It didn't though, the few bright spots overshadowed by the low points.

John Paul Jones (1958): * 1/2 /****