User Reviews

Movie isn't anything fantastic but it does contain many many scenes of Rory Calhoun standing and walking as if his life depends on it--and given that he's being chased by North Koreans who are ready and eager to kill him at the drop of a hat--it certainly does.

I can't really fault anything that happens in the film--its literally something that came on TCM when i wasn't really paying attention, looked up the synopsis of the film and who was in it and ended up watching it mainly because it looked like it was Rory Calhoun Standing and Walking The Motion Picture--which it kind of was.

Would definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to see Rory Calhoun in all his standing and walking glory. (but to be honest with you i'm positive he's stood and walked in better films then this before..he must have right?)

What can you say about a movie that has a Mexican playing a Korean kid, that looks as if it were shot on somebody's farm somewhere, and that dredges up every cliche out of every mediocre war movie ever made. Amazingly, this cheap junk has a pretty good cast (Rory Calhoun, William Bendix, Richard Jaekal, Richard Arlen and John Agar). However, a movie that has Calhoun yelling, "Our planes are coming in," and diving to the ground, without ever LOOKING at the sky, is pretty bad, by just about anybody's standards.

It's 1951 Korea. Three American soldiers have escaped from a North Korean POW camp. They are assisted by a Korean family until the North Korean soldiers massacre them. The surviving young son befriends a dog and they run into the Americans again.

The Americans don't come off that well. That reunion is very cringe-worthy. If this came out a few years later, the cynicism in the American soldiers would be more fitting. Then the movie becomes a simple escape journey. The Americans redeem themselves and it becomes an all-American type. I don't really buy these actors. The characters are one-dimensional. The story isn't that great. The location looks like California which is fine. It's tiny war movie with limited appeal.

I didn't think this movie was that bad. The Korean War is largely forgotten so the proud vets of that war can have pride in watching this. The set and some of the script is a bit tired and worn looking but it adds to the almost camp like atmosphere, which makes this almost a late night B movie classic. Is it a sanitized version of war? Well yea but what wasn't back then? War is awful and senseless, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay homage to the brave men who fought for us, even in a war as unpopular as this one, or was this a "police action"? Either way 54,000 men, mostly from the US, gave their lives, knowing that and realizing this was made in a simpler time when Presidents had their sexual dalliances covered up, baseball players hit 61 homers, cleanly, and we were all glued to watching a single Astronaut go into space 15 minutes and thought that was incredible ( and it was in 1961)well then that makes this a good ole B rated memory flick to watch.

20 years after Guadalcanal Diary, Bendix and Jaeckel are reunited for one of the most tired and cliched war movie scripts I've ever been unfortunate enough to have to sit through, The pacing is glacial. The cliches are ridiculous and the three main footsoldiers range between about 42 and 55 years in age -- in Korea! Why even make a Korean War movie in 1963 if you have nothing new to say? If this film had anything to say, it would be hard to find it amidst all the cliches. Manuel Padilla Jr. does a decent enough job keeping Han from being too syrupy. And, Bendix, Calhoun, and Jaeckel are all certainly earnest enough. The production values are shoddy, and Jaeckel looks embarrasses in every scene in which he appears.

I nominate this hideous fiasco for the IMDB bottom 100.

A.C. Lyles who is primarily known as a producer of B westerns utilizing players past their prime years decided to go in for B Korean War film which combines escaping GI POWS with a good old fashioned boy and his dog story in The Young And The Brave. The results are less than gratifying.

The trio of escaping GIs are Rory Calhoun, William Bendix and Robert Ivers. Bendix is really looking way too old to be a convincing combat soldier and in fact he was in his middle Fifties. A friendly Korean farmer and wife help them out which causes their deaths, but their son played by Manuel Padilla and his adopted German Shepherd dog escape with the soldiers. The kid and the dog prove most useful like Rusty and Rin Tin Tin.

The location for the film looks a whole lot like many a western was shot there and I suspect A.C. Lyles went to familiar turf to shoot this film. All the players look like they've really got no conviction in this project.

Maybe A.C. should have stuck to westerns.

...says Bendix, giving little Mexican "Han" a cigarette, before putting him to bed with his dog named Lobo...to whom Han gives English attack commands. How did the cast film this with straight faces?

In the "woke" Hollywood of today, a movie showing the communist North Koreans as murderous would not be produced. In fact, it's hard to believe anyone would try in 1963.

But someone did try and did an excellent job.

It begins with a good script and is made excellent because of the cast.

Rory Calhoun beautifully underplays his role as the sergeant trying to lead a small group of escaped prisoners out of North Korea back to their own lines.

Along the way, they pick up an orphaned little boy, played by the youngster who stole all the acting honors, Manuel Padilla, Jr.

He has played other and different foreign kids, most famously "Jai" in the Ron Ely TV series version of Tarzan.

He was still young, only 52, when he died.

William Bendix was one of those great Hollywood fixtures who played so many different roles, from vicious bad guy to lovable and avuncular types.

Perhaps "The Young and the Brave" is not really a "classic," despite being presented on TCM, but it's an awfully good movie, reminding viewers that U. S. soldiers were the good guys more often than not, and that often they had to overcome their own "leaders" to not only win but far too frequently to survive.

Korea was the second of three wars begun because the "leadership" of the northern part of the country wanted to invade and conquer the southern part.

It's another reminder that all governments are rotten but some are worse than others.

And it's a reminder that, no matter that it's the men on the front lines, doing the killing and being killed, innocent women and children are equally, and even more unforgivably, victims of the horror and brutality.

Rory Calhoun has seldom done a better job, and all his co-performers have given us a movie I can easily recommend.

In the 1960s, producer A. C. Lyles had a terrific track record with making westerns. While few had big budgets or made tons of money, they were very successful and filled a niche. They also usually also rehabilitated the image of otherwise forgotten old-time actors he hired for his 'Geezer westerns' (not my term), such as Richard Arlen, Barry Sullivan, Wendell Corey, John Ireland, Dana Andrews, and Pat O'Brian. These guys were all good actors but older as well...and apart from the Lyles films, they often had trouble finding work. Now I am not saying these are great or must-see films for most viewers, but they are great films for up-and-coming filmmakers to watch in order to see how to economically make a fine movie.

"The Young and the Brave" is a bit of a departure for Lyles, as it's not a western but a war picture. It features one of his favorite leading men, Rory Calhoun in the lead. It also features a past his prime William Bendix...in one of his last films.

Three American soldiers become stranded behind enemy lines during the Korean War and they are wandering about...trying to find their way home. They come upon a boy and his dog who are also lost and the five join forces. But they must evade the enemy and keep that dog quiet in order to have any chance.

At the outset, I saw two problems with the movie. First, the Korean kid is obviously a Hispanic kid...and you wonder why they didn't find an Asian child for the role. Second, while I like Lyles hiring older actors past their prime, William Bendix looked way too old to be a G. I.! Rory Calhoun isn't young but is believable in his role as a sergeant.

So despite these problems is the film any good? Well, there are a few more problems I noticed as the film progressed. For example, they are supposed to be behind enemy lines but when they find a baby pig, they have a cookout. Wouldn't they want to NOT light a fire in such a situation?? Also, the dog keeps barking and barking...and you can't help but wonder why they kept this animal with them if they are trying to sneak back undetected. So, logic isn't a strongpoint in this movie!

Overall, if you ignore the logical errors and poor casting in a couple cases, the film isn't bad...more of an inconsequential time-passer for the most part. There are certainly better Korean War movies, such as "The Steel Helmet" or "Pork Chop Hill".

Actually, I didn't find this movie as terrible as you might think. Yes, it has numerous flaws, and moves slow (even for an 84-minute movie). It doesn't compare favorably to other war / action movies of the time. Still, it's one of a comparatively few movies made about the Korean War, and the plot contains several twists to keep it interesting and keep you wondering about the final outcome. I would only suggest that THE YOUNG AND THE BRAVE is more appropriate for children (7-14 years old), who will enjoy and understand the relatively simple and understandable plot, not be confused by too many characters, and possibly identify with the young Han. Adults, on the other hand, will be easily distracted by the movie's flaws and find its "sanitized" story perhaps less enjoyable. Overall, through, it's not a bad movie on the scale of some supposed "classics." A good family movie for a cold Friday night around the VCR. Then put the kids to bed and watch SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

So our heroes are three escaped POWs who as we open are fleeing North Korean troops hot on their trail. Our heroes are helped by a kindly Korean couple who are subsequently brutally murdered in front of their little son while our heroes watch from a hiding place not even making any attempt to distract the North Koreans that are savagely killing the very people who just saved their lives. Not so long after they encounter the orphan and one of the heroes despises the boy, calling him a little brat and trying to convince the others they need to get rid of him. At that point I switched it off because these three cowards, I mean heroes, were just so noble in the first 15 minutes I wasn't sure I could continue cheering them on for the rest of the movie. I believe we were supposed to be rooting for these a-holes, right? Aren't they the good guys?

There are two dogs in this film, the enemy kills both of them with the adults showing zero concern. The canines are the only points of interest. Better to have dropped the war and kept the doggies. Rates a 2/10 unless you`re a devotee of animal films then a 6/10.