Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

My comments on Peary’s reviews in Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986).

Greed (1924)

Greed (1924)

“You won’t touch my money, I tell you!”

Synopsis:
When a miner-turned-dentist (Gibson Gowland) is introduced to the cousin and girlfriend (ZaSu Pitts) of his friend Marcus (Jean Hersholt), he falls instantly in love and is granted permission by Marcus to woo her. Shortly before their marriage, Trina (Pitts) wins $5,000 in a lottery ticket purchased from a neighbor (Dale Fuller), and becomes increasingly unhinged about spending money; meanwhile, Marcus regrets his decision to “give away” Trina and harbors deep resentment towards McTeague.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Dentists
  • Erich von Stroheim Films
  • Gold Seekers
  • Greed
  • Marital Problems
  • Mental Breakdown
  • Rivalry
  • Silent Films
  • Zasu Pitts Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of “Erich von Stroheim’s original, extremely faithful version of McTeague, Frank Norris’s well-known naturalist novel” by noting that it “was nearly 10 hours long” and then “drastically cut,” with “all excised footage… destroyed.” (Since Peary’s GFTFF was published, a fascinating four-hour restoration was completed by Turner Entertainment, which is the version I watched; you can read a lot more about it here.) Peary writes that in the butchered version, the “three most prominent characters” remain, and “despite being trimmed to about a fourth of it original length” it “is still a masterpiece, one of the greatest of silent films and a picture that still has impact today.” He notes that “surely no character has better displayed avarice than Pitts, whose brow rises automatically and eyes look cunning any time she can even smell money”:

(I’m actually not sure “avarice” is the best word to describe her pitiful character, who seems to suffer from an extreme form of OCD.) Peary adds that “the film also benefits from Von Stroheim’s typical array of unusual supporting characters”:

… “the intensity of his directing and the acting”:

… “his attention to set design”:

… “and his decision to film on location in San Francisco and even Death Valley for the classic finale.”


Peary writes that “the worst result of the extreme studio-imposed editing is that the changes in the characters’ personalities once money enters their lives are too rushed… For the naturalism of Norris to be conveyed propertly, the deterioration of their marriage and their descent from nice people to ‘animals’ must have a more natural progression.” Thankfully, this concern is addressed and fixed in the restored version, which is recommended. Indeed, the entire storyline remains remarkably compelling and relevant; I’m hard-pressed to think of a better film about the consequences of money-driven psychosis, greed, and envy.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • William Daniels’ cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a classic of the silent era.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

October / Ten Days That Shook the World (1927)

October / Ten Days That Shook the World (1927)

“Bread — peace — land — brotherhood!”

Synopsis:
After the February Revolution and the establishment of a Provisional Government helmed by Alexander Kerensky (Nikolay Popov), Lenin (Vasili Nikandrov) leads a group of Bolshevik revolutionaries in storming the Winter Palace during October of 1917.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Revolutionaries
  • Russian Films
  • Sergei Eisenstein Films
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of Sergei Eisenstein’s “visually dynamic version of Russia’s October Revolution of 1917” — the 67 minute cut, about half-an-hour shorter than the restored version now in circulation — Peary refers to the film as “a great propaganda piece,” with interim ruler “Kerensky portrayed as a power-hungry neurotic who is no different from Napoleon or Czar Nicholas”:


… and “the bourgeoisie who thrive under Kerensky [shown as] decadent types… who treat the Bolsheviks contemptuously and… brutally”:

Peary points out that the “film has several amazing sequences,” including “a dead horse (symbol of the Russian laborer)… lifted high into the air by the rising drawbridge it’s roped to”:

… and “the lengthy, exciting storming of the Winter Palace by the Bolsheviks”:

However, he notes that the film is “most known for Eisenstein’s startling use of montage to create rhythm, build tension, and express ideas.”

Indeed, those interested in Soviet-era cinematic montage won’t want to miss this classic outing by a master of the craft — though it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Powerful imagery, cinematography, and montage

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a look for its historical relevance.

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Cesar (1936)

Cesar (1936)

“Sure, they had devoted fathers — but I don’t think any could compare to mine.”

Synopsis:
When his adoptive father (Fernand Charpin) dies, grown Cesar (Andre Fouche) learns from his mother (Orane Demazis) that his biological father (Pierre Fresnay) — son of his godfather (Raimu) — was a sailor who may still be alive, and sets out to meet him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Death and Dying
  • Father and Child
  • French Films
  • Grown Children
  • Waterfront

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Marcel Pagnol directed as well as wrote the final chapter of his Marseilles Trilogy,” which takes “place about 17 years after Fanny (1932)” and presents “a lovely, deeply moving film with the usual rich characterizations and passionate performances.”

He notes that “highlights include Cesar’s discourse on Death and God, all scenes in which one character reveals love for another (which happens throughout the trilogy), and when Panisse’s friends gather around his deathbed.”

He concludes his review by writing that this “fine example of Pagnol’s ‘human’ cinema” can “be enjoyed without having seen Marius or Fanny” — though I actually find it to be the least satisfying of the three, primarily given the dull character played by Fouche:

… and the silly miscommunication that ensues when he sets off to find Fresnay. Even the humor among the elderly townsfolk feels less fresh this time around, especially with Charpin gone:

However, fans of the series will of course find this film indispensable, simply in order to learn what happens to the characters.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Atmospheric sets and cinematography

Must See?
No, though fans of the trilogy will naturally be eager to check it out.

Links:

Fanny (1932)

Fanny (1932)

“You can’t buy a girl — especially not one like Fanny.”

Synopsis:
After her boyfriend Marius (Pierre Fresnay) goes away to sea, Fanny (Orane Demazis) discovers she’s pregnant. With support from her mother (Alida Rouffe) and Marius’s father, Cesar (Raimu), Fanny agrees to marry her older suitor, Honore (Fernand Charpin), and allow him to be the father of her child — but what will happen when Marius learns about the baby?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Father and Child
  • French Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Pregnancy
  • Waterfront
  • Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “second part of Marcel Pagnol’s Marseilles Trilogy” — “falling between Marius (1931) and Cesar (1936)” — “picks up exactly where Marius left off”; indeed, it’s a true sequel without any gap. He notes that once “again the film succeeds because of the believable, lovable characters rather than the direction [by Marc Allegret], which is theatrical,” and points out that “Raimu is splendid, and Charpin, Demazis, and Fresnay make strong impessions.”

Peary also reminds us that “Jacques Demy borrowed the basic plot (eliminating the Cesar character and making the boy a wartime soldier rather than a sailor) for his 1964 musical The Umbrellas of Cherbourg” and that “the 1961 film Fanny” — starring Leslie Caron and Maurice Chevalier — “was derived from the entire trilogy.”

I’m a fan of these gently humorous stories (though I’ll admit to watching them at a slightly sped up pace). This second entry is particularly poignant, given the candid discussions taking place between all parties, and how excited Charpin is to finally be a father after so many years. I appreciate that seafaring Fresnay is gone for most of the movie, allowing this portion of the narrative to focus on Demazis’s decisions on behalf of her child. While there is — of course — heartbreak and compromise to be had, we also see plenty of collaboration and joy, making this film more uplifting than one would expect.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fernand Charpin as Honore Panisse
  • Raimu as Cesar Olivier
  • Orane Demazis as Fanny
  • Atmospheric sets and cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a compelling second entry in Pagnol’s trilogy.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem

Links:

Marius (1931)

Marius (1931)

“I long for distance places.”

Synopsis:
The son (Pierre Fresnay) of a cafe owner (Raimu) in Marseilles loves a young woman named Fanny (Orane Demazis) whose mother (Alida Rouffe) runs a seafood stall, and who is being pursued by an older widow (Fernand Charpin) — but Marius (Fresnay) can’t stop dreaming about running away to sea…

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • French Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Play Adaptations
  • Romance
  • Waterfront

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “first of Marcel Pagnol’s Marseilles Trilogy, to be followed by Fanny (1932) and Cesar (1936),” has “slow pacing due to [the] static, unimaginative direction of Alexander Korda, but Pagnol’s characters are a wonderful lots, particularly bar owner Cesar (Raimu, one of the greatest French actors)”:

… “and his middle-aged friends, with their hats, pot bellies, and funny philosophizing and quibbling.”


In his review, Peary shares more about the plot, which inevitably leads to spoilers — but he also simply notes that the “picture has warmth, humor, [and] marvelous acting by Raimu” in addition to being “one of the first films not only to deal with premarital sex but to make it seem natural.” He points out that “highlights include an affectionate scene between Cesar and his son (parental love is vital to the trilogy)”:

… “and a card game between Cesar and his pals.”

While it is slowly paced (and arguably needs to be seen with its trilogy counterparts for full appreciation), Marius remains a cornerstone of early French cinema, and should be seen once by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine performances

  • Atmospheric sets and cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a classic of early French cinema.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem

Links:

On the Beach (1959)

On the Beach (1959)

“We’re not machines; we’re not going to fall over in rows, you know.”

Synopsis:
In a post-apocalyptic world with the global north completely ravaged by nuclear fallout, the captain (Gregory Peck) of an American submarine — accompanied by a depressed scientist (Fred Astaire) — lands in Australia, where his lieutenant (Anthony Perkins) tries to warn his wife (Donna Anderson) about their imminent deaths, and a beautiful woman (Ava Gardner) is eager to begin an affair with Peck.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anthony Perkins Films
  • Ava Gardner Films
  • Fred Astaire Films
  • Gregory Peck Films
  • Nuclear Holocaust
  • Scientists
  • Stanley Kramer Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Stanley Kramer’s adaptation of Nevil Shute’s novel about the end of the world” — a “well-made film [that] doesn’t oversensationalize its subject” — has held up well” and, along with Testament (1983), remains “our most pessimistic anti-Bomb film because it allows no survivors.” He points out how weird is it “seeing deserted streets in Melbourne and San Francisco”:

… and how “heartbreaking” it is “watching Anthony Perkins, an officer in the Australian navy, tell [his] wife Donna Anderson, who never worried much about anything, that they’ll soon be dead.”

Peary adds that “Fred Astaire does fine in his first dramatic role, playing a disillusioned scientist who expresses the film’s themes: if we have nuclear weapons, they will be used, intentionally or by accident.”

Taking up quite a bit of initial screentime is the potential affair between boozy Gardner and stoic Peck, who (at least at first) acts as though his wife and children are still alive.

Eventually, however, all characters find their own way to make sense of their inevitable deaths — and, other than a critical mission to determine whether random morse code signals coming from San Francisco might be signs of life, it’s these various subplots which make up the heart of the film. One is definitely forced to wonder: what would you do if you knew you only had a few days or weeks left to live? Would you have an affair, drink, party, attempt to return to your place of birth, plot your death peacefully in advance, engage in your favorite (albeit highly risky) sport:

… and/or simply despair? All are possibilities covered here. While the film feels overly somber and slow-paced at times, I suppose there’s no way around this; unlike in (for instance) Five (1951) and The World, the Flesh, and the Devil (1959), there is no cautious optimism offered up to viewers here.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Highly atmospheric cinematography

  • Numerous effectively bleak moments

  • A fine score by Ernest Gold (though not all agree)

Must See?
No, though it’s definitely worth a one-time look.

Links:

Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)

Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)

“Let the other guy die for his country; you’ll live for yours.”

Synopsis:
No-nonsense, hard-drinking Marine Sergeant Stryker (John Wayne) is despised by a PFC (Forrest Tucker), who blames him for his demotion, and butts heads with a new recruit (John Agar) — son of his former commanding officer — who ends up marrying a beautiful young woman (Adele Mara) he meets in New Zealand. Once Stryker’s squad members participate in the invasion of Tarawa, however, they begin to understand and respect Stryker’s harsh approach — and by the time they arrive in Iwo Jima, they are prepared for full-on aggression.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Allan Dwan Films
  • John Agar Films
  • John Wayne Films
  • Richard Jaeckel Films
  • World War II

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “excellent war movie” — helmed by veteran director Allan Dwan — features “John Wayne giving an Oscar-nominated performance” as a tough sergeant who “is detested by his green troops until they learn that he is strict for their own good and truly feels love and responsibility for his platoon.”

Peary points out that while “there are several trite non-combat scenes,” “others are quite special,” including “Wayne teaching a recruit how to use his bayonet by dancing with him”:

… and “Wayne visiting a prostitute and helping feed her baby”:

However, he points out that “the battles of Tarawa and fire-ravaged Iwo Jima are definitely the picture’s highlights”:

… and he notes that “they are spectacularly directed by Dwan, who adds to the authenticity by using actual war footage with his fiction”:

He adds, “Significantly, being a soldier in battle is shown to be terrifying,” and “the film shows that for men to move forward, others must sacrifice their lives: nothing in war is accomplished without casualties.”

I’m not a fan of the tense “father-son” dynamics present between Wayne and Agar, which feels like simply a narrative convenience:

… and Agar’s rapid-fire romance with Mara is (necessarily) under-developed:

However, I agree with Peary that this remains a well-made war film with brutally realistic battle sequences, and should be seen once by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Reggie Lanning’s cinematography


  • Impressive recreations of Tarawa and Iwo Jima

  • Near-seamless editing of historic footage with fictional footage

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical importance and, specifically, the fighting sequences.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Battleground (1949)

Battleground (1949)

“I know why I ran. I was scared to death.”

Synopsis:
Members of an airborne infantry regiment during WWII — including PFC Holley (Van Johnson), newspaperman Jarvess (John Hodiak), newcomer Layton (Marshall Thompson), chaw-chewing Kinnie (James Whitmore), ‘Pop’ Stazak (George Murphy), southerner Abner (Jerome Courtland), Los Angeleno Roderigues (Ricardo Montalban), and fearful Bettis (Richard Jaeckel) — become stranded in the snow while spending the night in Bastogne, surrounded by German troops.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • James Whitmore Films
  • Ricardo Montalban Films
  • Richard Jaeckel Films
  • Soldiers
  • Van Johnson Films
  • William Wellman Films
  • World War II

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “this WWII film” concentrating “on the 101st Airborne Division” — “a melting-pot platoon” that earned “the sobriquet ‘The Battered Bastards of Bastogne‘” — “de-emphasizes the action and tries to provide insight into the individual soldiers,” meaning “we hear them talk a lot about everyday things, and see how they respond to women, fighting, fear, [and] hardships.” But Peary argues (I disagree) that “it all seems forced,” and asserts “these guys are so boring that you’ll want them to start firing their guns” (!). He states that the “best scenes deal with [the] platoon in [a] cat-and-mouse game with Germans dressed as American soldiers”:

… and notes that he likes how director William “Wellman never lets us forget that the men are feeling the effects of the cold and deep snow.”

However, he complains that “the guys are so wrapped up you can’t tell them apart” (not true).

I’m more in agreement with a review by DVD Savant, who argues that “Battleground is the best of the generic ‘GIs in the Mud’ genre of war film.” He writes:

Robert Pirosh’s script avoids most wartime clichés that dogged movies like Guadalcanal Diary. Free of the need to boost morale, soldiers no longer gather like happy campers to sing songs, and nobody talks about their girl or dog back home. Talking about food is discouraged — the subject is too depressing. The soldiers complain bitterly and are understandably selfish. ‘Nobody cares’ is the first thing heard when they feel they’ve been abandoned… The film captures the obstinate stubbornness of the American fighter to the nth degree, and is a respectful portrait of a generation of citizen-soldiers.

Indeed, this sobering film shows us exactly how miserable it was for these men, who would — just for instance — spend hours digging fox holes only to be told the next minute they were moving on.

The screenplay hones in on specific (sometimes humorous) stories to ground us in the arc of the men’s experiences while demonstrating both their unity (they rely deeply on one another) and their individual challenges. Newcomer Thompson, for instance, can’t catch a break when he first arrives on the scene, trying in vain to secure a bunk for himself in their crowded quarters:

He eventually realizes he needs to speak up and make himself known in order to be a visible part of the group.

Fun-loving Johnson primarily wants to dally with a local French girl (Denise Darcel):

… and, once that opportunity is lost, to cook the eggs he’s grabbed from her hens (a laughably futile task which gets postponed time and again):

Meanwhile, Murphy eagerly awaits paperwork that will allow him to head home to care for his sick wife and young children:

… and fearful Jaeckel insists on heading to the aid station, clearly as a way to avoid combat (though he’s not demonized):

Indeed, the film does not shy away from the fact that these men were not only weary but often flat-out scared. In a particularly poignant scene, Johnson flees a battle only to find himself flanked by young Thompson, causing him to make a split-second decision that turns out to be heroic — but didn’t originate that way:

Meanwhile, we see the authentic giddiness experienced by a Latino from Los Angeles (Montalban) who’s never seen snow before, and begins playing baseball with snowballs:

… though the relentless snow is ultimately shown to be oppressive and fatal:

Wellman and DP Paul Vogel frame each sequence for maximum interest, making this movie a visual treat even as we’re watching such a brutal storyline. It helps to know that assistance will ultimately be on its way:

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine performances by the ensemble cast


  • Paul Vogel’s cinematography

  • Convincing indoor sound stages

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful wartime film by a master director.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director

Links:

Lost Patrol, The (1934)

Lost Patrol, The (1934)

“I’ll tell you what I know: nothing. I don’t know where we are, I don’t know where we’re going.”

Synopsis:
During World War I, a sergeant (Victor McLaglen) takes leadership of his patrol — including Morelli (Wallace Brown), Pearson (Douglas Walton), Brown (Reginald Denny), McKay (Paul Hanson), Cook (Alan Hale), and religious fanatic Sanders (Boris Karloff) — when their lead officer is shot by an unseen Arab; meanwhile, more bullets continue to kill off members of their group one by one.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alan Hale Films
  • Boris Karloff Films
  • Deserts
  • John Ford Films
  • Survival
  • Victor McLaglen Films
  • World War One

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “exciting John Ford adventure-character study about a British military regiment that gets lost in the Mesopotamian desert during WWI” and suffers “from heat and lack of water” as they’re “picked off one at a time by Arabs” is a “prototypical Ford film in that it vividly depicts men in relationship to a hostile environment and in conflict with one another as to how to combat their circumstances,” and allows us to see “how the various men react to their hopeless situation.”

He notes that “these themes are most evident in [Ford’s] westerns” and that this film is “very similar to Stagecoach in that it also intermingles dialogue scenes with sequences that rely strictly on visuals and music (Max Steiner won an Oscar) and recall the silent cinema.”

He calls out the “strong characterizations, especially by Victor McLaglen as the sergeant” (McLaglen has never been sexier):

… “and Boris Karloff as a skinny religious fanatic who goes insane in the intense heat” (though Karloff overplays his role):

Ford builds tremendous tension by not showing the shooters until the very end; bullets seem to come literally out of nowhere, ensuring we understand that this group is trapped between a rock and a hard place. A particularly heart-wrenching moment comes when a bi-plane lands nearby and the cheery British pilot is about to rescue them but barely makes it a few steps from his plane before being shot dead, despite vain attempts by the soldiers to prevent him from moving forth.

Steiner’s score is used to particularly jarring effect in this sequence. Despite its utterly bleak setting and narrative, this film remains surprisingly engaging and is well worth a look. It would make a good double bill with Zoltan Korda’s WWII-era desert survival flick, Sahara (1943).

Note: Peary points out that “in some ways [this film] predates Aguirre: The Wrath of God,” which is an intriguing if not entirely apt comparison.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Victor McLaglen as the Sergeant
  • Fine location shooting in Yuma, Arizona
  • Harold Wenstrom’s cinematography
  • Max Steiner’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a tight little survival flick.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director

Links:

Air Force (1943)

Air Force (1943)

“It takes all of us to make this ship function.”

Synopsis:
The crew of a B-17 named “Mary Ann” — including a veteran fighter (Harry Carey) hoping for news of his fighter-pilot son, a pilot (John Ridgely) and co-pilot (Gig Young), a navigator (Charles Drake), a bombardier (Arthur Kennedy), a wise-cracking Corporal from Brooklyn (George Tobias), and a disgruntled gunner (John Garfield) — arrive in Hawaii just as the Pearl Harbor attacks occur, and are forced to do an emergency landing in Maui, where they visit Kennedy’s sick sister (Faye Emerson) and pick up another fighter pilot (James Brown) before heading to Wake Island and then the Philippines.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Airplanes and Pilots
  • Arthur Kennedy Films
  • Gig Young Films
  • Howard Hawks Films
  • John Garfield Films
  • World War II

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “first-rate WWII action drama was the last of Howard Hawks’s films about his favorite action heroes: fliers, whom he’d featured in The Air Circus [a silent film not listed in GFTFF], The Dawn Patrol, Ceiling Zero, and Only Angels Have Wings.” He adds that “like many of Hawks’s films, it’s about how a group of men (professionals all) work together to perform a difficult mission”:

… and he notes that “the solid, exciting script was provided by Dudley Nichols, with an assist from Hawks’s buddy William Faulkner” — but “contemporary viewers may have trouble stomaching [the] finale in which our vengeful heroes mow down helpless Japanese soldiers who are stranded in the ocean” (especially given that “in other Hollywood movies our GIs always showed amazing compassion”).

What’s perhaps most impressive about this fighting-heavy, fast-talking, “macho” film is how many scenes of bonding and levity there are — as, for instance, when the group adopts a dog named Tripoli who barks furiously at the name Mr. Moto:

… or moments taken to honor the gravity of loss:

Viewers should definitely be forewarned that not only is this a propaganda film made at the height of the war effort, but there are numerous blatant historical falsehoods. As DVD Savant describes in his review:

The movie’s first half presents a version of Pearl Harbor tweaked to achieve twin political ends. With the actual details of the attack kept secret, Americans couldn’t understand how the sneak attack could have succeeded. Where were our airplanes? Air Force has a dishonest explanation: sabotage by Japanese-American infiltrators. We’re told that Japanese fifth columnists drove trucks onto the airfields to smash the planes, and blocked roads with shotguns to prevent flying personnel from getting to them. On the ground in Maui, our crew is attacked by groups of Japanese snipers. This outright fabrication of events exonerates the Army’s poor performance in keeping its squadrons on alert. The lies also serve a double duty, to justify the internment of Japanese-Americans back on the mainland. After seeing Air Force, the public could be expected to attack “Japs” on sight. I doubt that very many Japanese-Americans appreciated this poetic license in the name of wartime expediency.

[Meanwhile, the film ends with] an outrageously elaborate fantasy battle in which the Mary Ann locates an enemy task force and leads the attack to destroy it. This is supposed to be only a couple of days after Pearl Harbor, but the Army Air Corps suddenly has all the planes and personnel it needs to launch an assault so staggering that you’d think that the war in the Pacific would be won on the spot.

With these important caveats in mind, Hawks fans will certainly want to check out this tautly scripted adventure flick that represents the height of wartime enthusiasm and camaraderie.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • James Wong Howe’s cinematography

  • Impressive footage of aerial fighting

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look for its value as a prime propaganda film by a master director.

Links: