Cristi_Ciopron A day in the existence of a platoon, shown in _neorealist style, of an inspired, masterful, flawless unity. Like others of Mann's movies, it's eerie, sharp, beautiful, unsentimental and morally nuanced, very unlike other war movies made until then. It has a choice cast: Ryan, Persoff, Morrow (as the platoon), Ray (who got 2nd billing), R. Keith as the oldster. It's an all-male cast.Ray makes a very good role, as a temperamental warrior.Mann took his craft to exquisiteness; it was a task of insight, but also of breaking many Hollywood customs, Mann was an inspired reformer at the zenith of the old Hw., he had something sacerdotal, his movies reveal his affectionate approach. (He was like a sphinx; Hitchcock revealed depths, Mann revealed nothing but his own _unsurpassable masterfulness, sobriety and lucidity. But he had a balanced and sensible approach to the scripts, free of any conscious exaggerations or camp. And this side of his craft, this coherence and sobriety, this unwillingness to abuse the authority a director is given, makes it convincing morally. Mann's austerity means as well his distaste for indulging in a phony creativity and freedom. He's sanely objective. He disbelieves camp and light fun, and he aims for a subtle dignity. His approach to the scripts he shot was affectionate and thoughtful, with the trustworthy insight which comes from sympathy. I do not believe Mann ever filmed a very good script. The scripts he worked with were good, but undeniably ordinary. They had good plots.) One could also remember Mann's sense of cool. His movies were perhaps the coolest made in the '50s at Hw.. He liked cool leading actors, and knew how to showcase their coolness. Now of course this also depends on the sense of cool each has.It befits him to be aware of the templates he uses. When he shot westerns, Mann was aware that idyll and comedy belonged; in a war movie, his style could be approximated as _neorealist, anyway it suggests a kinship. The flowers picked by a warrior, the son-ship, the medals are tropes which the Neorealists would of liked and used themselves. There are sentiments in Mann's movies, the westerns included, not hints, but a palette of nuanced, sometimes subtle feelings; but the audiences wish the already-known, and are unprepared for relishing them. Mann rewards the effort to get to know him fully.Ryan and Stewart were tall, lean man with beautiful hands, Ryan had a far humbler career, while watching 'Men …' I remembered Larcher's short review of a Fuller shocker; Stewart was more arresting, also more subtle.These weeks, I had seen Ryan in a TV show (where he reminded me of Stewart), and a northern by Mann, with Stewart strikingly eerie in the role of an ordinary cowboy from Wyoming; there too, Mann achieves the unity of a supreme work of art, and if the audience doesn't recognize the emotions, the _affectivity, it's because it's unaccustomed with this way of delivering them.

LeonLouisRicci The Director is so at home with this sort of stuff. That is Characters, their faces and their World gone wrong predicaments. This study of Men in the Korean War Conflict is a scathing, gritty, realism counterpointed by a slight Artistic Touch.It has a fine cast with standouts all around, led by one of the Screen's most intense Actors, Robert Ryan. Fans of War Movies may find this a bit too Psychological with its lack of Action made more intense by a claustrophobic feeling of closed quarters in a wide open landscape.The Camera lingers and the perspective is odd giving this a phantasmagorical feel. Things seem real but not really. This becomes, at times, unbearably Suspenseful and that's what its all about. Men in War and that's not a comfortable thing. Neither is this Movie and that's the point.The Korean Conflict, as this Movie illustrates, was an unsettling and confusing inclusion that was a hard fit for America's usual clear and decisive fight for Freedom. It foreshadowed a forever blurring line that would Haunt our Military to this day. From this point on there was no longer a sharp Good vs Evil template that could be embraced by everyone, no matter Ideology or Political leaning.

generalz-1 For me this movie goes back a long way!! I saw it when it was first released in 1957, in "Ann Arbor"!! I was 10 years old! "Ann Arbor", at that time showed only "1st" run movies!! Even back then, I felt that something was wrong with, the scene with "James Edwards" I was 10 years old, and I felt that I would have never done, what "Killian"(the part played by "Edwards"), would have done! I also saw this scene in saving "Private Ryan", with "Ken Vesel", remember?? Even in the "tv" series "combat", you see it again!! What it is,is a "reluctance", "inability" or,"outright refusal" to portray "black" soldiers in a positive, competent light!! But then again, "who was writing the scripts"!! If you know what I mean??!! I enjoyed the movie none the less, then and now!! I saw this movie at the "Michigan" theater, when it was first released in "Ann Arbor"!! Just as an aside!!

dougdoepke I recall seeing the film on first release and being much impressed. It compared well to other war films of the 40's and 50's in terms of what I understood to be combat realism. Besides, the great Robert Ryan could make a one-man invasion appear believable. Now, it looks like an extension of the war films of that pre-Vietnam era, cut basically from the same triumphant cloth. Yes, there are the casualties, the guys we see and the guys we like. They die in a variety of inglorious ways—knife, gunshot, explosion. But they die cleanly, no screaming, weeping, or fetal positions. And, of course, the star survives, the guy we most identify with. Sure, the medal ceremony suggests certain ironies, but the sacrifices are not in vain—the objective is gained and the enemy annihilated.My point is that in terms of combat realism and resolutions, the movie is very much a creature of its time. That's not to say the production lacks in dramatic values or entertainment. Running the artillery gantlet is genuinely nerve-wracking (though no one seems concerned with shrapnel spray) and so is the treacherous minefield (though that trails off inexplicably). However, I'm with the reviewers who find the assault on the hill poorly done, lacking in basic military intelligence on the enemy's part. And I agree that director Mann is much better at staging noir than at staging battle. Nonetheless, it's an excellent cast. Ray and Ryan play off one another very effectively, and there's none of that cutesy WWII banter that was so Hollywood. Other good touches for the time include the depiction of racial harmony (Morrow & Edwards) and passing glimpses of a fully human enemy.However, fifty years have passed and I now better understand the gap between what's on the movie screen and what isn't, and, most importantly, why. Director Mann and the screenwriters worked as best they could within the constraints of budget and Cold War requirements. After all, too much realism or futility and people would be less ready to march off to war. Anyway, as a whole and within those limitations, the movie remains an entertaining artifact of its time.