Rating: 
Summary: IT WAS GREAT AT THE TIME
Review: All I can say is that when I saw this movie in 1968 I had no idea what to expect and, taken by surprise, we laughed our socks off from beginning to end. I'm tempted to get the DVD but it's a possibility that I'll be disappointed all these years later. Remember that this was before Monty Python, and though that kind of surrealistic comedy had been around since the Goons, this apparently mainstream movie (it wasn't) came as a brilliant and hilarious ambush. I can imagine that many moviegoers would have been completely mystified. I think I was also discovering that I like my humour to be dark, and you don't get much darker than a war comedy. The combination of the surrealism and the black, black comedy was very potent at the time, and made the anti-war message very tellingly. The cast is great - some of Britain's best actors of the day, including a Beckett favourite JacK MacGowran - and Lennon doesn't do a lot but is Lennon and that's enough. It would be very poignant to see his demise in the film post 1980: "I knew this would happen - you knew it too, didn't you?"
Rating: 
Summary: a must-see for students of war and the human experience
Review: anyone who sees this film will never be able to watch a war movie again without remembering the questions posed by richard lester in this film. lester holds accountable the military traditions of all countries, and in no way spares his own england. this movie is a must see for any serious student of warfare and its part in the human experience....this is a great film!
Rating: 
Summary: Dick Lester Went a Little too far with this Film
Review: Bizarre is too kind a word for this film. Director and Producer Richard Lester made a significant jump from the Beatles "HELP" to this over ambitious and dark military satire that makes "Catch 22" appear sane. Michael Crawford shares billing with John Lennon, but Lennon offers little more than an extended cameo appearance with a few glib remarks. There are appearances by a few other Lester "Regulars" including Roy Kinear in this film. The picture is loaded with flash-forwards, flashbacks, and often intercut with black and white footage from unrelated military movies. Even the soundtrack from "Lawrence of Arabia" finds its way into two scenes. You have to listen carefully to catch the fast-paced irreverent dialogue. There is a short B&W battle scene toward the end of the movie that would have had potential for a decent war film. As an oddity from the second half of the 1960's the film is worth watching, but you are better off renting it first. If you are a Beatles fan, then this video will probably find its way into your ownership. Otherwise stick with Dick Lester favorites such as "The Three Musketeers."
Rating:
Summary: Dick Lester Went a Little too far with this Film
Review: Bizarre is too kind a word for this film. Director and Producer Richard Lester made a significant jump from the Beatles "HELP" to this over ambitious and dark military satire that makes "Catch 22" appear sane. Michael Crawford shares billing with John Lennon, but Lennon offers little more than an extended cameo appearance with a few glib remarks. There are appearances by a few other Lester "Regulars" including Roy Kinear in this film. The picture is loaded with flash-forwards, flashbacks, and often intercut with black and white footage from unrelated military movies. Even the soundtrack from "Lawrence of Arabia" finds its way into two scenes. You have to listen carefully to catch the fast-paced irreverent dialogue. There is a short B&W battle scene toward the end of the movie that would have had potential for a decent war film. As an oddity from the second half of the 1960's the film is worth watching, but you are better off renting it first. If you are a Beatles fan, then this video will probably find its way into your ownership. Otherwise stick with Dick Lester favorites such as "The Three Musketeers."
Rating:
Summary: Another disappointed Lester/Beatles fan
Review: First of all, I have to say that my review is colored by the fact that I read the book (which is apparently and unfortunately not in print) first. The book is a hilarious story of a bumbling, Clouseau-esque British military commander (I forget his rank) and his misadventures in World War II, told in a series of episodes. The book's humor derives from the absurd situations (in one chapter, the British and Germans fight "The Battle of the Booze," attempting to loot high-quality wine from an Italian village) as well as the commander's inability to perceive his troops' contempt for him, not to mention his failure to perceive his own idiocy. There is nothing specifically anti-war in the book, it's just a funny book set in war-time. Given the time and circumstances of the movie version (Vietnam war, hip young director, and participating Beatle), it's not surprising that Lester tried to inject a strong anti-war sentiment. In a daring move, amidst the (attempted) comedy, there are graphic scenes of wounded, as in M.A.S.H. However, unlike M.A.S.H., there's nothing really funny in the movie. Almost every humorous episode from the book is cut out. Instead, in Lester's attempt to make a statement about the nonsense of war, you get a lot of nonsense on the screen. Lester's attempts to be cutting-edge in his direction seem way too self-conscious and smugly sardonic. At one point, you see two old ladies watching the movie in a theater and commenting on it, like a bad Monty Python skit. Also, if you're American, the dialogue is so thickly British, it's incomprehensible at times. I guess you could, as one reviewer suggested, use headphones, but I suspect that it would hardly be worth it, as this movie is so disappointing otherwise. I have a strong suspicion that the people who give this movie high ratings just want it to be good, since it's a Lester movie with John Lennon in it. I frankly cannot recommend it to a fan of either Lester or the Beatles. However, I highly recommend Lester's "The Knack and how to get it," which is only available on VHS at the present, so far as I know.
Rating:
Summary: Another disappointed Lester/Beatles fan
Review: First of all, I have to say that my review is colored by the fact that I read the book (which is apparently and unfortunately not in print) first. The book is a hilarious story of a bumbling, Clouseau-esque British military commander (I forget his rank) and his misadventures in World War II, told in a series of episodes. The book's humor derives from the absurd situations (in one chapter, the British and Germans fight "The Battle of the Booze," attempting to loot high-quality wine from an Italian village) as well as the commander's inability to perceive his troops' contempt for him, not to mention his failure to perceive his own idiocy. There is nothing specifically anti-war in the book, it's just a funny book set in war-time. Given the time and circumstances of the movie version (Vietnam war, hip young director, and participating Beatle), it's not surprising that Lester tried to inject a strong anti-war sentiment. In a daring move, amidst the (attempted) comedy, there are graphic scenes of wounded, as in M.A.S.H. However, unlike M.A.S.H., there's nothing really funny in the movie. Almost every humorous episode from the book is cut out. Instead, in Lester's attempt to make a statement about the nonsense of war, you get a lot of nonsense on the screen. Lester's attempts to be cutting-edge in his direction seem way too self-conscious and smugly sardonic. At one point, you see two old ladies watching the movie in a theater and commenting on it, like a bad Monty Python skit. Also, if you're American, the dialogue is so thickly British, it's incomprehensible at times. I guess you could, as one reviewer suggested, use headphones, but I suspect that it would hardly be worth it, as this movie is so disappointing otherwise. I have a strong suspicion that the people who give this movie high ratings just want it to be good, since it's a Lester movie with John Lennon in it. I frankly cannot recommend it to a fan of either Lester or the Beatles. However, I highly recommend Lester's "The Knack and how to get it," which is only available on VHS at the present, so far as I know.
Rating:
Summary: Don't expect to be laughing the whole movie
Review: First off, don't expect a fun M*A*S*H or Hard Day's Night romp. this is a dark movie, and it's supposed to be. but you can't judge it because you want to see a lighthearted Lennon. it's dark and sad and very well filmed. as a war movie, this is one of the best (in my opinion). the last scene with lennon is almost otherworldly, guaranteed to depress. True, the cover is really rather irritating, lennon is only on for a bit. But the cast is top-notch, the writing crisp, and the overall feeling one of amazement. which is, after all, the point of a movie to begin with.
Rating: 
Summary: Surrealistic Anti-War Movie
Review: HOW I WON THE WAR was filmed in Spain in late 1966. The movie features John Lennon and Michael Crawford of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA fame. Richard Lester is the director. The movie is a surrealistic anti-war movie.The surrealism will turn off many viewers. There is no standard plot structure. This movie can almost be seen as experimental and avante-garde. These qualities drew Lennon to the project. But they are bound to draw viewers away. HOW I WON THE WAR is akin to REVOLUTION 9 on THE WHITE ALBUM or WHAT'S THE NEW MARY JANE from ANTHOLOGY 3. This movie is cutting edge and pushes the envelope. It is unconventional and approaches psychedelia. Not surprisingly, Lennon composed STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER while making this movie. The movie suffers from not having songs or compositions by Lennon on the soundtrack. Both Lennon and Crawford are singers, but there are no songs in the movie. John Lennon's character Gripweed is a supporting character in the movie. The movie, moreover, has an anti-war theme by showing the absurdity, banality, and hollowness of all war. There is no good war. The movie shows how "winning" a war really occurs. The movie, thus, lacks a feelgood perspective. It leaves the viewer disgusted with war by showing that war is not glorious and noble, but the opposite. Viewers should realize that this movie is surrealistic and experimental. In other words, it is not a commercial movie. It is a satirical look at war. It is a unique movie unlike any other Beatles movie. It is closest to MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR in that it is not a traditional movie. It is a very different war movie. Obviously such a surrealistic movie will not appeal to many. Nevertheless, it is a unique movie experience, not the usual formula movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Nowarman
Review: I am a huge Beatles, Movies, John Lennon, Richard Lester and British humor fan, however, this 'film' is a real disappointment. Yes, I did own it for a while but gave it away after watching it three times. It is not funny! The dialogue is extremely hard to hear and there is no such thing as a plot of even the hint of one. It's fine to be anti-war but you need more then that to make a decent movie. I think this one is given high marks because of the talent involved, but the results are very poor indeed. If it's one of your favorites I apologize, well ... maybe.
Rating:
Summary: Nowarman
Review: I am a huge Beatles, Movies, John Lennon, Richard Lester and British humor fan, however, this 'film' is a real disappointment. Yes, I did own it for a while but gave it away after watching it three times. It is not funny! The dialogue is extremely hard to hear and there is no such thing as a plot of even the hint of one. It's fine to be anti-war but you need more then that to make a decent movie. I think this one is given high marks because of the talent involved, but the results are very poor indeed. If it's one of your favorites I apologize, well ... maybe.
|
