Reviews

Hitchcock was increasingly erratic. His enviable record of undisputed classics such as Rebecca, Rear Window, and Vertigo was marred by uneven, sometimes downright uninteresting fare such as Topaz (whose beginning borders on the unwatchable) and The Wrong Man.

Possible spoiler follows

Not even Henry Fonda and Vera Miles could retrieve this yawner--nearly two hours of waiting for the inevitable Right Man to turn up. It's as if Hitchcock could not decide whether to make a psychological thriller or a police/law procedural, and produced unsatisfactory aspects of both. Other aspects also are unsatisfactory, including the unexplained cause of Miles' mental problems. We're only told in scrolling text at the end that Rose Balestrero spent 2 years recovering and then lived a normal life. No hint of how her husband supported 2 children and her institution fees working as a night-club musician.

There are some good performances in Wrong Man, but not even Fonda's star power is enough to boost the rating over the 50% mark.

This is an exceptionally well made film on nearly all counts: dramatically, historically, and technically. The script is excellent, the cast well chosen, the visuals and CGI frequently stunning. There is very little to dislike.

But there is some.

For reasons not remotely clear, the depiction of USMC Commandant Archer Vandegrift is appallingly bad. In casting Chris Bauer as the general who received the Medal of Honor for his leadership on Guadalcanal, Eastwood commits as egregious an error as selection of prettyboy Alec Baldwin to play short, balding Jimmy Doolittle in the egregious "Pearl Harbor." Bauer, who resembles Dick Butkus more than Archer Vandegrift, comes across as a snarling bigot--not remotely like the courtly Virginian described by those who knew him. The book makes it clear that the film's incident at Soldier Field in Chicago did not occur.

Another example of playing with the facts is the marine who falls overboard en route to Iwo. The poignancy of the scene is too graphic to require much dialogue--a column of ships bypassing the youngster, left to his fate. As I recall, the book relates a similar incident that occurred at night, when a man could be lost to darkness rather than indifference. WW II sailors insist that in daytime there were several measures, including casting life preservers, dropping dye marker, and detaching small vessels for the pickup.

Additionally, the background of the flag raisers' bond-selling tour is vastly exaggerated. We are told that in 1945 the US Government was within weeks of running out of money and therefore reaching an accommodation with Japan. That's absurd. With an economy 15 to 20 times Japan's, how did America run out of money first? C'mon Clint: it's a wonderful story on its own merits and does not require such hype.

Those problems aside, "Flags" is a terrific accomplishment. The not-quite-a-sequel, "Letters from Iwo Jima", represents an exciting, innovative concept that will only further mark Eastwood as a significant director.

Granted, this abomination was filmed nearly 40 years ago but it lacks most of the style and energy of Flynn's 1941 Custer epic. The technical aspects alone are enough to consign "Custer of the West" to the Dust Bin of Hollywood, let alone of History.

Just a few gripes among many: The topography of the climax in no way resembles Montana. Maybe that's to be expected of filming abroad, but there must be ONE grass covered hill somewhere in Spain.

The troopers and Indians are armed with Winchester repeaters. If the 7th Cavalry had been so equipped, the battle might have gone the other way.

One suspects that the portrayal of mounted Indians riding down the soldiers is inspired by Hollywood convention. In truth, the battle was fought on foot with the Indians making use of cover and terrain to approach the cavalrymen.

SPOILER FOLLOWS The ending is just plain stupid: hundreds of Indians simultaneously halting in their tracks to spare Yellow Hair so he could be humiliated at the end of his life. That segments strains credulity to the breaking point.

This pony's leg is so broken that the only thing to do would be put it out of its misery--and the audience as well.

I just saw the film again on TV for the first time in many years, and several avoidable errors were apparent.

Factual error: When Harry finds the empty cartridge case atop the building, it's a .308 but later he says it's a (much longer) .30-06.

Factual error: In the bank shootout when Harry's leg is struck by several shotgun pellets in his leg he's a good 35 yards from the shooter (he walks about 40 paces beyond the car) yet the hit pattern is extremely tight--impossible at that distance.

More importantly, he fired four rounds from his revolver yet he's empty when he asks "Do you feel lucky?" If that's in the original version, it's a serious story/continuity error.