Change Your Image
joekwiatkowski
Reviews
Midway (1976)
What about a re-edit...?
I tend to lose patience with reviews of movies like this and 'Battle of the Bulge' where equipment used or depicted isn't historically authentic. Back in the day, you used what was available or you blew your budget out of the water. After 'Tora! Tora! Tora! didn't do so well at the box office, I'm sure the bean counters became leery of that idea. (A full-scale mock-up of the 'Nagato'?) Still, it might be high time to take this one back into the studio, have the CDI folks massage the offending sequences, replace the F4Us and F6Fs and what-have-yous with the proper types of aircraft and ships for the time and situation, and re-release it, even if it goes directly to cable TV.
I'm pretty satisfied with most of the film. They did a good job of staying historically accurate given the time constraints involved. Two key items that were glossed over were the interception of both Japanese strikes against 'Yorktown' by that ship's defending fighters (out of Koboyashi's eighteen dive bombers, ten were shot down by fighters and one by flak before they released. The seven remaining dive bombers scored three hits. Three of the escorting Zeros were also shot down.) and the submarine attack that finished off 'Yorktown'. The effort to save 'Yorktown' after Tomonaga's torpedo bomber attack would have been another movie in itself.
The part I was most dis-satisfied with was the sequence dealing with the launch of the 108-plane Japanese initial strike on Midway which started the battle. Poorly executed, in my opinion, compared to the same sequence in 'Tora! Tora! Tora!'.
This is one where you want to watch the movie, then read a good book about the battle. I recommend 'Incredible Victory' by Walter Lord.
Kelly's Heroes (1970)
Perfect casting...
I haven't read the other reviews, so I don't know if anybody else has touched on this point, BUT...have you ever seen a movie where it seemed that the parts were written specifically for the actors that played them? This movie seems that way to me. I get the idea, right or wrong, that the screenwriter had Telly Savalas in mind, for instance, for the role of 'Big Joe' before he inserted the first sheet of paper into his typewriter. Ditto for Don Rickles, Clint Eastwood, Donald Sutherland, and all the rest. Personality-wise, they all fit into their roles perfectly.
With regard to the idea of making a comedy movie set in the midst of war, I suspect that soldiers involved in combat develop their own bitter sense of humor in their attempts to cope with the tragedy all around them.
I would have been more offended with the early sub-plot involving 'Big Joe' (Sevalas) and his concern with securing willing French girls for his men to have sex with. What do feminists have to say about that? I'm no expert, but I suspect that soldiers are even more concerned with sex than the 'average man' since they don't know if they'll have the opportunity for one more intimate encounter before they get killed in action.
One minor aspect I was very pleased to see was the selection of which unit the characters came from. The script placed them in an outfit that was actually in that part of France in the late summer of 1944. I would have to suspect that the movie was set in September of 1944, since the Americans hadn't yet taken Nancy and there was one sequence where the men are siting around in their t-shorts, apparently quite comfortable.
All in all always a lot of fun to watch, whenever it's on TV.
From Here to Eternity (1953)
A few questions
Whereas the film is fun to watch on its own merits, it begs going back and reading the book if it can be got hold of nowadays. (December 2016 is when I type this review.) I have a number of questions, not the least of which is, where are the other officers in captain Holmes' company? A company was (and still is) composed of a number of platoons (three in those days; I thin that still holds true today) each led by a second lieutenant. Whether or not a fourth, 'heavy weapons' platoon (with mortars and machine guns) was also included, I don't know. I have it on good information that by July 1943 an infantry rifle company n the U.S. Army had six officers and one hundred and eighty-seven enlisted men; I'm not sure about the order-of-battle strength as of the 1941 Table of Organization. I also know that the 1943 company did in fact have a heavy weapons platoon, but that's really neither here nor there; the point is, there should have been a number of lieutenants in the company, one or more of which might not have approved of what the non-coms were doing in order to get Prewitt to box. That might have generated more conflict between Holmes, these officers, and the non-coms in question. It would become a conflict of the captain and the non-coms against Prewitt and the Lieutenants, with Warden caught in the middle. How's that sound? Other than that, the movies is always a good watch, but like I said above, it makes yo want to go back and read the book. The same holds true for the Harry Potter films and any other film based on a book. That way, you're never in the dark about what characters might be thinking. You also get to see what was left out of the film and, in this case, what all the fuss was about.
Every character has his 'character merits', but Warden, the consummate professional staff enlisted man, is my favorite. It's guys like that who make the army run smoothly from day to day. I also like the way he takes charge as the Japanese air strike unfolds. Prewitt was right; he would have made a good officer.
36 Hours (1964)
What about...
Generally, a pretty interesting story, well acted by all concerned. (My assessments of acting, special effects, etcetera, often revolve around the question 'did they make the story believable?' Good special effects helped me suspend my belief systems when I watched any of the films of the 'Star Wars' or 'Harry Potter' franchises, but that's another argument.) One thing caught my attention, though. When Schact and Gerber are arguing about whether Pike's information on Overlord is genuine, there is no mention of George Patton. In the critical first weeks following the invasion, it was the German's fascination with and fear of Patton that made 'Fortitude', the fake alternate plan for an attack on the Pas De Calais, work. The Allies very much feared that following the initial landings, the forces from the pas De Calais could be shifted to Normandy faster than additional Allied forces could be brought over to Normandy from England. That would enable them to push the invasion forces back into the sea, Dunkirk-style. It was essential that the Germans be convinced that the Fifteenth Army should remain where it was, and Patton was key to that. That's touched on in 'Patton'.
They could have had Schact say 'A diversionary attack in Normandy, led by Montgomery, followed by the main attack at Calais, led by Patton? That does make sense' and then built a conversation around that line of thought. Having read a little about the topic, that's apparently what the Germans thought. And it worked to the Allies' advantage.