Rating: 
Summary: Beware the purple heart of boredom
Review: Audie Murphy is the protagonist in this 69-minute, B/W adaptation of the famous Stephen Crane novel. Gets rave reviews from critics, but I'm not inspired to award it as many medals as a PLATOON or a SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. I realize the Crane novel is Literature and the two contemporary war movies I've just mentioned aren't...but we're comparing films here.
Rating: 
Summary: Did they get it?
Review: Is this a post-WWII patriotic vehicle or is it a true adaptation of Crane's powerful and ground-breaking story?The story is NOT about heroism. Frankly, I was surprised to see this film was made so soon after WWII and right at the beginning of the Korean War. Crane's novel is one of the great anti-war pieces ever written, ranking with "All Quiet on the Western Front." So is this film to be likened to "Apocalypse Now" or more like "The Green Berets"? Sadly, I fear the latter, if the spin on the trailer is accurate. Comparing it to "Birth of a Nation" would suggest that it is thought of as a patriotic vehicle rather than a message film. I thought maybe John Huston himself had the courage to film this story the way Crane intended it, but of course it is up to the viewer to "get it" or not. Crane's work is a naturalistic rendering of the inhumanity of war. It is not about becoming a hero -- it is about a soldier who begins as an isolated and fear-filled boy but through the horrors of war becomes part of the "war machine." It is not about the glory of war; it is about the loss of humanity that war demands of its participants. In the end, even after acts of "bravery" the soldier wants to go home and flee warfare altogether. It is ironic that Audie Murphy, one of the highest decorated soliders of WWII, is playing the young soldier. I wonder how many WWII veterans watching this film related to the fear and the sense of inhumanity presented at the core of the story. But of course, the Civl War is held in a different context than WWII, perhaps rightly so. The enemy here is quite different than Nazi troops, or is it? Read or watch "All Quiet on the Western Front" if you want to explore that question further. The film itself is well-made. Huston's direction is quite good, with some interesting camera angles and great cinematography. The censored language is quaint now, but the overall feel is still one of comeraderie and some realism. Newcomers Murphy and Mauldin both hold their own quite well. It is great to see Andy Devine and even William Schallert in supporting roles. As for the DVD, I would like to have seen more extras and more notes on the production itself -- were the actors just that or were they early re-enactors? Overall it works as a war movie, I just wonder which side of war this movie really is supporting.
Rating:
Summary: Did they get it?
Review: Is this a post-WWII patriotic vehicle or is it a true adaptation of Crane's powerful and ground-breaking story? The story is NOT about heroism. Frankly, I was surprised to see this film was made so soon after WWII and right at the beginning of the Korean War. Crane's novel is one of the great anti-war pieces ever written, ranking with "All Quiet on the Western Front." So is this film to be likened to "Apocalypse Now" or more like "The Green Berets"? Sadly, I fear the latter, if the spin on the trailer is accurate. Comparing it to "Birth of a Nation" would suggest that it is thought of as a patriotic vehicle rather than a message film. I thought maybe John Huston himself had the courage to film this story the way Crane intended it, but of course it is up to the viewer to "get it" or not. Crane's work is a naturalistic rendering of the inhumanity of war. It is not about becoming a hero -- it is about a soldier who begins as an isolated and fear-filled boy but through the horrors of war becomes part of the "war machine." It is not about the glory of war; it is about the loss of humanity that war demands of its participants. In the end, even after acts of "bravery" the soldier wants to go home and flee warfare altogether. It is ironic that Audie Murphy, one of the highest decorated soliders of WWII, is playing the young soldier. I wonder how many WWII veterans watching this film related to the fear and the sense of inhumanity presented at the core of the story. But of course, the Civl War is held in a different context than WWII, perhaps rightly so. The enemy here is quite different than Nazi troops, or is it? Read or watch "All Quiet on the Western Front" if you want to explore that question further. The film itself is well-made. Huston's direction is quite good, with some interesting camera angles and great cinematography. The censored language is quaint now, but the overall feel is still one of comeraderie and some realism. Newcomers Murphy and Mauldin both hold their own quite well. It is great to see Andy Devine and even William Schallert in supporting roles. As for the DVD, I would like to have seen more extras and more notes on the production itself -- were the actors just that or were they early re-enactors? Overall it works as a war movie, I just wonder which side of war this movie really is supporting.
Rating:
Summary: mutilated classic
Review: It is said that the executives at MGM took away this film from director John Huston, since the issue of anti-heroism in war was unpopular, particularly at the time of McCarthyism and the action in Korea. Based on Stephen Crane's novel set in the Civil War, this tale of a Union Army youth who's fear makes him flee from the battleline, actually gets a patriotic rejuvination when the youth overcomes his understandable state of being a "mental outcast" and rejoins his unit. Some may see his subsequent bravery as overcompensation, since one wonders just how important it is to have the flag ahead of the troops in an advance. The youth's genuine sensitivity is juxtaposed with the phony crowing of the other soldiers, some naive, most expressed to conceal their own fear. It's remarkable that as the youth, Audie Murphy conveys an emotionalism that is lacking in his later Western career. One senses that the music by Bronislau Kaper is studio imposed, but the narration with excerpts from the book may well be Huston's contribution, considering he did the same thing with The Bible. Whoever decided on the readings, they are a mistake since Crane's writing is embarassingly awful. Huston stages the battle scenes with a formal elegance that also captures the general stupidity of the activity. He reduces the Rebels into howling Indians from a stock Western, but the enveloping smoke and the images of sunlight coming through treetops at dusk are strikingly beautiful.
Rating: 
Summary: Awful
Review: It's a toss up as to which version of Crane's Civil War story is the worst adaptation, this one or the one with Richard "John Boy" Thomas. Both have all the appeal of moldy hardtack and rocks in your brogans.The basic story is intact, but it tumbled down hill from there. Sticking Audie Murphy in films just because he was a war hero didn't always work. He was only a fair to middling actor and trundling Bill Mauldin out was a major mistake. Mauldin should have stayed at the drawing board. Historical accuracy doesn't exist in either version. Uniforms, weapons, etc are all typical Hollywood, and while this doesn't entirely detract from the story, it does dampen the effect.Maybe a director will re-make this one. It certainly seems like re-makes are all the rage, but when you run out of ideas, fall back on what works.
Rating:
Summary: Awful
Review: It's a toss up as to which version of Crane's Civil War story is the worst adaptation, this one or the one with Richard "John Boy" Thomas. Both have all the appeal of moldy hardtack and rocks in your brogans.The basic story is intact, but it tumbled down hill from there. Sticking Audie Murphy in films just because he was a war hero didn't always work. He was only a fair to middling actor and trundling Bill Mauldin out was a major mistake. Mauldin should have stayed at the drawing board. Historical accuracy doesn't exist in either version. Uniforms, weapons, etc are all typical Hollywood, and while this doesn't entirely detract from the story, it does dampen the effect.Maybe a director will re-make this one. It certainly seems like re-makes are all the rage, but when you run out of ideas, fall back on what works.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie that could have been even better
Review: John Houston's story of a young Union soldier who overcomes his fear of battle is wonderful. Audie Murphy's portrayal is stirring and quite lifelike, the movie doesn't portray any super human motives, but a simple soldier who is quite naturally scared going into battle and overcomes his fear. However, Houston doesn't allow Murphy's character to get into excessive machoism either, as he finds out that many of his comrades did the same thing he did, turn and run. Had the movie execs not chopped this movie up, it could have been even better. As it is, it's a bit too short and lacking in details such as the battles portrayed in the movie patterned after a real battle. The unit portrayed isn't even mentioned until the end of the movie. It would have been fun to follow Murphy's character's unit through the war.
Rating: 
Summary: Fine film about war and courage and human nature
Review: John Huston directed this film adaptation of the famous Steven Crane
novel. As soon as it was finished, he left to work on The African
Queen, leaving the editing in the hands of the studio. But it was
1951, the height of the McCarthy era. There was a movement in this
country against anti-war films. And so the film was cut to a mere 69
minutes, which put it into the category of a "B" movie to be
shown only as a second feature. That was a full fifty years ago, and
in spite of the supposed butchering job on the cutting room floor, the
film definitely has stood the test of time. Of course I will never
know what the original was supposed to be. And I haven't even read the
novel. But I sure am glad I saw this video. I understand that Steven
Crane wrote the book in 1894, which was a full thirty years after the
Civil War. He was 22 years old at the time and had never actually been
in a battle himself. He was trying to say something about war and
courage and human nature rather than about the specific war. And so
his work is unique among the vast body of writings about that awful
period of history that tore at the heart and soul of our
country. Audie Murphy stars as The Youth and, with the exception of
Andy Devine who has a small role lasting no more than a minute, the
rest of the cast are unknowns. They all portray Union soldiers and we
first see them bored and anxious to fight a battle. They brag about
their courage and how they all intend to stand firm in the heat of
battle. The Youth has his doubts and the tension mounts as the
inevitable battle tests them all. Frightened, The Youth flees. Later
though, he returns and proves his manhood. The story is as simple as
that. There is also a narrator in the story, reading excerpts from the
pen of Steven Crane. The language is beautiful and adds depth to the
simple conversations of the soldiers. The black and white photography
is grainy and much of it is shot in shadow, adding to the intimacy and
the authenticity of the film. There was a literary rhythm to it all
and it added intensity. The role called for excellent acting and Audie
Murphy was perfect. I understand that in real life he won national
fame as the most decorated GI in WW2, winning 45 medals. He led a
turbulent life, plagued by what is now known as post traumatic stress
syndrome. A compulsive gambler, he won and lost fortunes, was addicted
to prescription sleeping pills and was once acquitted of attempted
murder charges stemming from a fistfight. But all that came later. In
1951, he was perfect for the role of The Youth. Recommended
Rating:
Summary: Fine film about war and courage and human nature
Review: John Huston directed this film adaptation of the famous Steven Cranenovel. As soon as it was finished, he left to work on The AfricanQueen, leaving the editing in the hands of the studio. But it was1951, the height of the McCarthy era. There was a movement in thiscountry against anti-war films. And so the film was cut to a mere 69minutes, which put it into the category of a "B" movie to beshown only as a second feature. That was a full fifty years ago, andin spite of the supposed butchering job on the cutting room floor, thefilm definitely has stood the test of time. Of course I will neverknow what the original was supposed to be. And I haven't even read thenovel. But I sure am glad I saw this video. I understand that StevenCrane wrote the book in 1894, which was a full thirty years after theCivil War. He was 22 years old at the time and had never actually beenin a battle himself. He was trying to say something about war andcourage and human nature rather than about the specific war. And sohis work is unique among the vast body of writings about that awfulperiod of history that tore at the heart and soul of ourcountry. Audie Murphy stars as The Youth and, with the exception ofAndy Devine who has a small role lasting no more than a minute, therest of the cast are unknowns. They all portray Union soldiers and wefirst see them bored and anxious to fight a battle. They brag abouttheir courage and how they all intend to stand firm in the heat ofbattle. The Youth has his doubts and the tension mounts as theinevitable battle tests them all. Frightened, The Youth flees. Laterthough, he returns and proves his manhood. The story is as simple asthat. There is also a narrator in the story, reading excerpts from thepen of Steven Crane. The language is beautiful and adds depth to thesimple conversations of the soldiers. The black and white photographyis grainy and much of it is shot in shadow, adding to the intimacy andthe authenticity of the film. There was a literary rhythm to it alland it added intensity. The role called for excellent acting and AudieMurphy was perfect. I understand that in real life he won nationalfame as the most decorated GI in WW2, winning 45 medals. He led aturbulent life, plagued by what is now known as post traumatic stresssyndrome. A compulsive gambler, he won and lost fortunes, was addictedto prescription sleeping pills and was once acquitted of attemptedmurder charges stemming from a fistfight. But all that came later. In1951, he was perfect for the role of The Youth. Recommended
Rating:
Summary: A Remarkable Film
Review: Red Badge is an example of a great film that the Hollywood studio system almost destroyed, and did chop to pieces. Huston's masterpiece was originally longer. Studio bosses opposed his casting and script; they rearranged scenes and, yet, could not ruin the overall quality that Audie Murphy and John Huston created. Two books tell the story of Audie's best movies: PICTURE by Lillian Ross, and A THINKER'S DAMN by William Russo. Each recounts in extraordinary detail how great movies are made--and then unmade. Read them to understand Audie's movies better.
| 
