Rating: 
Summary: Unfocused, but worthwhile.
Review: Kind of messy, with a few things not adding up. How does debonair nightclub singer Dean Martin know this mousy Brooklyn girl he sets up with nerdy Montgomery Clift? How does Martin get to bop around wherever he wants in the Army? What's great here is the acting. Clift and Brando give marvelous, layered performances and Martin does exactly what he should as the cynical, cowardly singer. The criticism below that he seems to be in a different film than the other two seems unwarranted to me. He is playing a less-dimensional character than they, and one for which he is particularly well-suited. His performance wasn't as textured as theirs, but it didn't need to be. And why the complaints about Brando's hair color? Streep dyes her hair for "A Cry in the Dark" and it's part of the performance. Brando does it here and is ridiculed. Why? Because he's a man? His dialect work is strong and his acting, as always, is complicated and sublime. So forget the story, and watch a great charmer and two masters of film acting work.
Rating: 
Summary: World War II: In the eyes of realism
Review: My husband and I are always interested in WWII movies. So when Mom, an ardent Brando fan, recommended this, we watched it.It's a long time since we did - perhaps as long ago as a year - but the impression is still with me that this movie had very little to do with The War - it was more about interpersonal relationships and character development. So in the way of being a War Movie, it was not so good. I think it was a rather long movie, too, which didn't help. We just kept waiting for 'something to happen' - and it never did.
Rating: 
Summary: Slow, boring, disappointing.
Review: My husband and I are always interested in WWII movies. So when Mom, an ardent Brando fan, recommended this, we watched it. It's a long time since we did - perhaps as long ago as a year - but the impression is still with me that this movie had very little to do with The War - it was more about interpersonal relationships and character development. So in the way of being a War Movie, it was not so good. I think it was a rather long movie, too, which didn't help. We just kept waiting for 'something to happen' - and it never did.
Rating:
Summary: One of The Classic War Films
Review: Not the typical war flick, Brando is brilliant as the German who first admires, then is disillusioned, by Hitler. Clift is perfectly cast as an edgy GI, and so is Dean Martin, as the self-centered slick operator who is out to take care of himself. This was a blockbuster when it was released that only gets better with age. A great film.
Rating:
Summary: Brando takes acting honors in 'The Young Lions'
Review: Of the three primary story threads traced in "The Young Lions" --Marlon Brando as a conflicted Nazi soldier, Dean Martin as an American showbiz type who fights to overcome his fear of entering the war, and Montgomery Clift as a Jewish-American soldier who has to overcome the racism of his Army mates -- the Brando storyline emerges as the most compelling. It's certainly the most purely dramatic storyline, and the most complete. Add to that Brando's brilliant performance, and the strong supporting performances of Maximillian Schell, Parley Baer and Mai Britt, all of whom surround the Brando character, and you have enough for a satisfying movie by itself. Further, Hugo Friedhofer's masterful score always seems -- at least to me -- to soar to its greatest heights when we find ourselves in a boiling desert with the Afrika Korps, or in Paris with Brando's Nazi unit during the occupation. Does this nearly three-hour film suffer from this lopsided state of affairs? Not really, and that says a lot for the sheer craftsmanship of "The Young Lions." The cinematography and direction are first rate, and while the Clift and Martin storylines aren't as fascinating as Brando's, they do hold your interest. Clift gets across the fierce determination his character possesses, and Martin makes the most of several nice bon mots the script tosses his way. "The Young Lions" is a fine World War II film, one that definitely rewards repeated viewings.
Rating: 
Summary: Thank God Dmytryk didn't make "Why We Fight"!
Review: Previous consumer-reviewers seemed split on this one, so I took a chance. I would have wasted less money on a lottery ticket! What is wrong with this movie? Well, let's begin with the DVD, which has too few extras to be interesting. A commentary track might have elevated the disk to a "3" rating, but the producers probably realized that would be as wasted an effort as an aging star trying to recapture the image of youth. Brando's performance is actually decent, but hardly exceptional. Maximillian Schell shines doubly in this movie, firstly because of his acting ability, and secondly by comparison to all the others, with the sole exception of Barbara Rush who does well despite lines as vapid as those for the other characters. Dean Martin's death took his fine voice from us, but did nothing to impair his acting. Usually, it is said of a bad actor that, "He looked too much like he was acting." In this movie, Martin does not even seem to be doing that. The lighting is a joke, and the sets look totally false. I get the impression that the set director gained most of his experience in live theater. The sets might have been adequate there, but are substandard for a movie. This is especially true for widescreen, where the panoramic view tends simultaneously to increase our expectations while making this lighting and these sets look even smaller and more artificial. The scene cutting was amateurish and awkward. The music scoring was unbelievably bad, and the plot was predictable and trite. With all this so very wrong with the movie, it hardly seems anything but trifling with details to mention that the historical depictions are inaccurate. In short, this is a terrible movie, and if you have a fondness for war movies generally or for WWII movies specifically, there are many, many finer films available.
Rating:
Summary: A War Epic Told from Both Sides
Review: Released in 1958, this black and white WW2 story traces 3 men - two American, one German - through the trials and tribulations of that war. Stars Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift and Dean Martin. Marlon is a young German watchmaker who always dreamed of being a doctor - but the strict caste system of europe has held him down. While he realizes the Nazis are a bit extreme, he hopes they will help to bring opportunity to all people. Dean is a young Broadway god who loves the wine, women and song. When he's drafted, he tries to get out of it, to maintain his easy going life. He runs into Noah (Clift) at the draft board - a young, poor Jewish man who has no family and only a simple job at Macy's. The two hang out and Noah falls in love with a quiet Vermont girl. The movie is truly an epic as it spans the entire war, from its quiet start to its brutal end. Along the way we realize that there is good and bad on all sides. Marlon's character tries to make a stand for what is right, but is told repeatedly that a good German soldier follows orders. He falls in love with a French widow. Noah is repeatedly beaten on (both emotionally and literally) for being a poor Jew by those whose side he is on. His future father in law only reluctantly accepts him, and his squadron mates steal his money and fight him. Dean refuses to marry his long time sweetheart and does his best to avoid any risks. While some might say the story is a cliche, perhaps this is only because the story is so TRUE. It is always good to be reminded just how rough a war really is, and how there are no real "bad guys" and "good guys". There are only brave men and women who try their best and grow along the awy. Although filmed in black and white, you do get some lovely Bavarian landscapes at the beginning, when Marlon is a ski instructor. Later, Marlon goes to Berlin a few times to meet with the wife of his commanding officer. The rest of the footage is in war-torn Paris, the surrounding countryside, the deserts of Africa, and the cities of London and New York.
Rating:
Summary: Tedious
Review: The entire time I watched this film I felt as if I should be enjoying it more than I was. Instead, I found it long and lacking in focus. Dean Martin seemed to be in a different movie than Brando and Clift.
Rating: 
Summary: the young lions
Review: The film is very enjoyable. The music score is one of the best dramatic pieces ever composed for a war film. My article focuses on the real events of the transition from novel to screenplay. Marlon Brando was active in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's. With THE YOUNG LIONS, he wanted to pursue a "can't we just get along?" approach to a different issue: American/German relations in the wake of WWII. To this end, he changed the character of Christian Diestel from Irwin Shaw's original portrait of a sadistic, sex-crazed thug into an idealistic Tutonic knight, whose purity of action is destroyed by the reality of the Nazi system. Brando was actually apologizing for the average German's participation in Hitler's war. Brando's vision is epic, attempting to rise above petty squabbles. He was trying to see the "larger historical impact" of war in general, and how idealism can be led so tragically astray. Brando met Shaw in France during location shooting and was surprised to find out that Shaw didn't even know his novel was being filmed. Shaw hated the Germans and wanted to keep them down with stern military occupation. Brando disagreed and wanted to debate the topic on television, but this never came about. Shaw's Christian Diestel isn't even an officer, just a sargeant. He possesses no lofty idealism. He probably wouldn't know what the word meant. When we first meet him, before the war, he is arranging for a local man to peep in on Margaret Freemandle, an American tourist, as she changes her clothes in her Alpine hotel room. Hardly the charming ski instructor that Brando represents. The ending of the novel was so drastically changed on screen as to be unrecognizable. In the film, Brando's character is finally demoralized, his ideals shattered. He decides to turn himself in to the Americans and face his own, and his country's, crimes (he has just come from a Nazi concentration camp on the verge of being captured by American troops). He breaks his machine gun on a tree and stoically marches down the hill. He is spoted by Michael (Martin) who shoots him. Brando falls down the hill and eventually falls into a pond and drowns. Noah (Clift) is unharmed and returns to wife and child as the film ends. In the novel, Christian is hiding in a foxhole as Michael and Noah wander through the forest. Christian shoots and kills Noah. He would do the same to Michael, except that his machine gun jams. Michael walks up to him and puts his rifle to Christian's head. All Christian can do is grin and say, "Welcome to Germany." Michael kills him. Which version is better? Shaw's novel is a personal memoir. The Germans were the bad guys - totally evil and without redemption. The film is Brando's vision of tolerance for all races and creeds. Brando was a major star in 1958 and his vision dominated. Take the film story as is or leave it. The DVD is a good, widescreen presentation of the movie. Yes, a commentary track is definately in order.
Rating:
Summary: book to screen adaptation
Review: The film is very enjoyable. The music score is one of the best dramatic pieces ever composed for a war film. My article focuses on the real events of the transition from novel to screenplay. Marlon Brando was active in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's. With THE YOUNG LIONS, he wanted to pursue a "can't we just get along?" approach to a different issue: American/German relations in the wake of WWII. To this end, he changed the character of Christian Diestel from Irwin Shaw's original portrait of a sadistic, sex-crazed thug into an idealistic Tutonic knight, whose purity of action is destroyed by the reality of the Nazi system. Brando was actually apologizing for the average German's participation in Hitler's war. Brando's vision is epic, attempting to rise above petty squabbles. He was trying to see the "larger historical impact" of war in general, and how idealism can be led so tragically astray. Brando met Shaw in France during location shooting and was surprised to find out that Shaw didn't even know his novel was being filmed. Shaw hated the Germans and wanted to keep them down with stern military occupation. Brando disagreed and wanted to debate the topic on television, but this never came about. Shaw's Christian Diestel isn't even an officer, just a sargeant. He possesses no lofty idealism. He probably wouldn't know what the word meant. When we first meet him, before the war, he is arranging for a local man to peep in on Margaret Freemandle, an American tourist, as she changes her clothes in her Alpine hotel room. Hardly the charming ski instructor that Brando represents. The ending of the novel was so drastically changed on screen as to be unrecognizable. In the film, Brando's character is finally demoralized, his ideals shattered. He decides to turn himself in to the Americans and face his own, and his country's, crimes (he has just come from a Nazi concentration camp on the verge of being captured by American troops). He breaks his machine gun on a tree and stoically marches down the hill. He is spoted by Michael (Martin) who shoots him. Brando falls down the hill and eventually falls into a pond and drowns. Noah (Clift) is unharmed and returns to wife and child as the film ends. In the novel, Christian is hiding in a foxhole as Michael and Noah wander through the forest. Christian shoots and kills Noah. He would do the same to Michael, except that his machine gun jams. Michael walks up to him and puts his rifle to Christian's head. All Christian can do is grin and say, "Welcome to Germany." Michael kills him. Which version is better? Shaw's novel is a personal memoir. The Germans were the bad guys - totally evil and without redemption. The film is Brando's vision of tolerance for all races and creeds. Brando was a major star in 1958 and his vision dominated. Take the film story as is or leave it. The DVD is a good, widescreen presentation of the movie. Yes, a commentary track is definately in order.
|
