Reviews

This film popped up on cable this week. It stars a bunch of my favourite actors, including Michael Caine and Nigel Green, so I was surprised that I had never heard of it before or seen it on mainstream TV. Having watched it, I can understand why it lurks at the bottom of the cable channels cupboards, where they keep the films to screen in the quiet and off-peak hours, when the audience is at its smallest.

It started well. The first hour or so, establishing the characters and the situation they are in, was handled satisfactorily - although nothing that has not been seen in other films of this genre (Dirty Dozen etc).

The rest of the movie then moved to the action phase which was loud, graphic, and a lot of it. All of which sounds as if this would make it into a good film. However this is where the reviewers on here seem to be divided. Some seem to be delighted with the action, but sadly I fall into the other group who found the level of flash/bang/wallop too much. I also felt that the plot had become tedious and repetitive.

I guess it has not aged well because it was made at the end of the swinging sixties when film makers were exploring the freedom of more explicit violent and sexual content?

In conclusion I did not think it compared well with other films set in the desert campaigns of WW2. Sea of Sand, made in 1958, in my opinion is a far superior film in this category and a better use of a couple of hours viewing time.

I recently came across this tv series on Youtube. I am just too young to have watched it as a kid although I remember it being on. I think my parents probably thought that I was too young to understand the subtleties of the characters and situations. They were probably correct as the series seemed to cover most of the deadly sins somewhere within the 26 episodes. For the 1960's it was an astonishingly realistic and gritty production.

John Thaw is at his best in his first starring role, and it makes interesting viewing to see which of the many other, now famous, actors can be spotted in each episode.

Another curious and rare thing which makes watching Redcap worthwhile is that of the 26 episodes that were made, no less than 25 actors, other than Thaw, appear in 2 episodes. They can be spotted playing characters of completely different rank and class, sometimes as goodies, sometimes as baddies. It gave the actors a great opportunity to display the range of their acting ability.

I caught this film on a cable channel specialising in older films from the 'Golden Age of Hollywood'. It shows a wide range films from famous classics to well made but dated "B" features and, frankly, some weird and eccentric efforts ("Fire Maidens From Outer Space" being an example!). There is however an advantage in this policy for we film buffs as a wider range of films can be seen than are to be found on the regular mainstream entertainment channels. So it was that I decided to watch Chuka on the strength of the big names in the cast.

It is worth seeing this film to just experience how strange it is. As others have said it is a Western version of Beau Geste, which I did not mind.

The first oddity of this film for me was some contrived and intense scenes squeezed in between longer periods of boredom. The cast are excellent and the acting is on form but I could not help but be reminded of some of the actors past performance successes. I am thinking here of John Mills as the highly strung Colonel in "Tunes of Glory", and Ernest Borgnine reprising his fighting menace as in "From Here to Eternity".

However the biggest problem with this film is that this it is almost entirely studio bound. For modern eyes, used to CGI and subtle and realistic lighting, it is glaringly obvious. Whether it is day or night, the characters all walk around with four shadows and implausible up-lighting. Sadly the matte effects even look amateurish and cheap. There are only a couple of outdoor scenes that appear to be realistic and are probably actually second unit work.

In conclusion, its not bad - just odd. The last gasp of Hollywood Westerns let down by its pervading TV movie atmosphere.

Like a lot of other reviewers I was looking forward to this drama and was mainly disappointed.

Historically it's wrong on so many levels and the use of modern music and attitudes makes it impossible to believe that one is watching people living in the 1940's as they were in reality. To give just one example Paddy Mayne returns to his billet after a drunken rampage, lolls about on his bed, and casually announces to his companion that he is bored with Egypt and will try soldiering in the far east, inviting his friend to join him. I felt that I was not watching a WW2 officer of the British army on service in the field, with duties and responsibilities and somewhere a platoon of men depending on him, but a yob on holiday in modern day Spain choosing his next holiday destination to jet off to. (In reality Mayne was a solicitor so I am sure he was on top of the daily burden of paperwork, and daily orders yet alone training and inspections that are the reality of army life).

However, it is this "style", if one chooses to call it that, that the BBC has clearly aimed for. I presume that the series is intended to appeal to younger viewers and people with little or no interest in military history or accuracy.

There comes a point in these docu-drama productions where the 'drama' and associated fiction, outweigh the 'documentary' element and I feel that the BBC should not have emphasised the historical nature of this series. If they had been honest that it is more drama than documentary they may have had more positive reviews.

I am afraid that although the story is passable as a thriller, and the actors do their best, I found that the show was let down by the poor portrayal of naval/military etiquette and procedures. Examples of which were the casual backchatting and apparent scant regard for the chain of command. The scene where I finally realised the show was not up to scratch was where the coxswain was lounging about in the captain's cabin during a conference with the C. O. and the Executive officer. Made worse when after the XO left the cabin the captain bad-mouthed the XO behind his back to the coxswain! Really?

And what is going on with the uniforms? Some TV and films by necessity, use uniform and equipment of the wrong type or from the wrong era. However this show appears to have made for purpose badges and insignia - but they are nearly all wrong. Why go to the trouble and expense of manufacturing this stuff, and making it wrongly, rather than pop down to your local surplus store? The "white ensign" badges are not even a proper white ensign. Its a mystery to me (and spoils the show).

I lost the will to live watching this movie. English is a rich and nuanced language, capable of expressing the subtlety and emotional force of all manner of artistic works. However, I cannot find words to express how awful this effort is. The actors did their best, but they were let down by everything else to do with this movie, the script, the special effects, continuity, wardrobe - all awful, awful, awful.

I am so pleased that (in the UK) the Talking Pictures channel is running the whole of this series. Like some of the other contributors I haven't seen them since I was a nipper but they must have made a big impression on my young mind as the music and sets are so familiar.

Its also fascinating to spot guest stars in early roles - Michael Anderson Jnr, Michael Crawford, Nanette Newman, David McCallum, Howard Lang, and of all people the bloke from 'Play School' Brian Cant who played a small part in one episode, to name but a few.

They don't make them like this anymore . . .

I have to agree with most of the detractors. However, it's always nice to first of all say something positive, as after all, people have spent time and money in making the film. So I would highlight Bates Wilder's performance as sincere and competent and probably the best thing about this film, but he and the rest of the cast really deserved a better script.

What did not please me? I've tried to keep this post to a manageable length!

Etiquette. The interaction between all the characters is totally unrealistic particularly considering that it is meant to be a history film. No way would a Sergeant have a conversation with a Captain on equal terms, or dictate to the officer what was going to happen, as is acted out when the rescue party reach the stranded platoon. Under this same heading, can we really believe that General Pershing, a four star General in charge of the entire AEF (at that time around 2 million men in the field) sits at a desk in a tiny office with apparently no work to do and no staff other than an over-friendly Colonel who pops in from time to time. And, what do they fret about with the imminent collapse of the German forces - a lost platoon on a tiny hill. It's just unbelievable.

Logistics. The rescue party set out with just their respirators and small arms. This is what would have been worn at the time for a "trench raid" when you would expect to be out of your trench and return again within hours after completing a task. For any expedition they would have needed to carry rations and the basic survival gear of the time.

Nurses. Can anyone explain to me the purpose of the scene with the red cross post other than to give screen time to a pretty actress?

Tactics. A German sniper would have been far better concealed than the hapless one depicted in the film. The battle scenes hark back to Hollywood films of the 40's and 50's where the Americans have an endless supply of ammunition, matched only by an endless supply of stupid Germans. The Huns charge in droves in open countryside to be mowed down.

Plagiarism? Many commentators have highlighted the similarity to Saving Private Ryan but I was also struck by the bayonet charge scene which is virtually word for word a copy of Chamberlain's charge in the "Gettysburg" movie.

Continuity. I feel mean bringing this up because it's probably a sign of a low budget. However it is really noticeable that the many scenes are mirrored to fit the direction of the action. Rifles have bolts which change from right to left of the weapon and collar dog badges become "S.U". It gives the feeling of a lazy and amateur approach to film making.

Sorry I can't be more positive.