Pride of the Marines (1945) User Reviews

"Mariiiiiines, tonight you die!"

[mik-19 · 8/10 · 24 June 2004]

In the immediate aftermath following World War II, sound minds in Hollywood tried to distance themselves from the mindless flag-waving that is a natural ingredient in a war effort. "Best Years of Our Lives' and even 'Gentleman's Agreement' investigated the way Americans looked at themselves in the wake of the war, but Delmer Daves' "Pride of the Marines" beat them to it.

The film is about Philadelphia smart alec John Garfield who goes to war as a marine and after a nightmarish evening in a foxhole, with Japanese soldiers eerily crying out at him and his buddies "Mariiines, tonight you die!", he is blinded by a hand-grenade, and dumps his girlfriend back home rather than have to depend on her after coming home.

Delmer Daves is uncompromising in his depiction on these men who are brave, as it were, almost by coincidence. They are there, in the foxhole, and when shot at, they react. So much for heroism, but they get the job done. And then comes the self-pity, the dark, gloomy sense of humor. Garfield is in angry denial of his blindness and the film makes no excuses, "There's no free candy for anyone in this world", as his buddy tells him. The same guy, a Jew, played by Dane Clark, reminds him, "In a war somebody gets it, and you're it. Everybody's got problems! When I get back, some guys won't hire me, because my name is Diamond".

Great movies are made with guts like these, and if the first half hour of 'Pride of the Marines' fails to rise to the occasion completely, from then on it evolves into a true work of art. You weep, and you ponder, you ache and you hope against hope. Well, simply: art.

A bit uneven with a very realistic battle scene

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 24 February 2021]

This is a patriotic wartime biopic about Al Schmid (John Garfield) a marine from Philadelphia who comes back from WWII disabled - blind. He was an accidental hero, like so many others. He was placed in a situation and it was fight or die. He thought he'd come home either 100% or dead. But he was wrong. If this sounds a bit like "Best Years of Our Lives", remember that film was made a year after this one.

Eleanor Parker plays Al's love interest and, before seeing it, I didn't think that this would work. John Garfield's all American bad boy/working class hero teamed up with Ms. Parker who, quite frankly, has always seemed to me like a poor man's Deborah Kerr - entirely too school marmish. But the scenes between them are well directed and the dialogue believable so it works.

The movie is a long one with lots of time devoted to before Al goes to war - maybe to get a feel of what he lost when he went blind, hunting and bowling were favorite pastimes for him, for instance. Plus he is fiercely independent.

The battle scene at Guadalcanal is terrific. It is eerie and riveting You can't see the Japanese at first but you can hear them, and there is tension throughout the confrontation. Film historians consider it to be one of the most accurate reenactments of a Pacific war battle scene ever committed to celluloid.

Where this film loses some steam is in the prolonged and talky hospital scenes in San Diego after Al is blinded. Most WWII films made during the war were preachy and overly talky, and this one is no worse than most of them, largely carried by the strength of the performances. Dane Clark is very good as the other survivor of the machine gun nest at the battle at Guadalcanal and Al's friend, as they both ponder their futures post war, and he has a very good monologue on the train home. Rosemary Decamp is playing a good hearted red cross worker, but did they actually insert themselves into romances as matchmakers as intensely as she does? To me, this was just too much.

One scene had me particularly scratching my head. The soldiers in the hospital are having a big conversation about what happens next, thinking they might be forgotten after the war. One guy mentions that his dad was a WWI war hero that ended up selling apples on a street corner in the depression. Another mentions the GI Bill will keep this from happening. But this is a scene taking place in December 1942 and the GI Bill was not passed until 1944. Maybe in 1945 audiences didn't care about that detail. Particularly powerful is Dane Clark asking a self pitying Garfield if he knew he would end up blind not dead for his heroism, would he do it again. Garfield is silent. Times change rapidly and apparently this kind of dialogue, plus the soldiers wondering aloud if they would be treated right by a post War America. was considered red baiting in the age of HUAC just a few years later.

Tough guy Garfield in a role lacking subtlety

[atlasmb · 6/10 · 27 May 2014]

It seems like most of the reviews on this site are glowing, with 8-10 stars awarded. Yet the average score for this film is 7.4. Obviously the reviews are not representative of the general consensus.

"Pride of the Marines" does a good job, in the beginning, of providing stark contrast between life at "home" and the hell that was war for those on the front lines during WWII.

After Al (John Garfield) is injured and shipped back to the states, the film takes a turn for the worse. It was released in 1945, so we have to give it some slack, but it is just so heavy-handed that it is cringe-worthy. No one would talk the way Garfield does; and he talks nonstop. The biggest problem with the film is that the writer(s) have Garfield voice every thought that goes through his head. The script would have been more effective if it were more subtle. I suppose I should provide an example. In "Stalag 17", for example, the protagonist (played by William Holden) is a man who is hated by his fellow prisoners of war, but he doesn't voice (much) his feelings of disappointment, hate and revenge. His mannerisms and his face convey these feelings as clearly as if we had read his diary.

From the beginning of the film, Al is not a very sympathetic character. He is one of those guys who is too proud to express his feelings, like it might make him a sissy. After his injury, his pride gets in the way of his recovery and his relationships. This is a common theme that has been done better in other films. Ironically, the film's title refers to pride, but pride is Al's biggest problem.

Part of what makes the film heavy-handed, besides the overbearing dialogue, is the music. And the way it marries patriotism with religious piety. But Hollywood was good at laying it on thick for the home audiences, using its influence to manipulate the masses. The talk about America being a chosen land is standard wartime content. You can bet that German and Japanese scriptwriters were putting out the same sentiments.

Garfield does a good job with the script he is given. Eleanor Parker, as his girlfriend, is a fitting representation of the sweet, wholesome woman who remains loyal to her man.

Garfield's best!

[EthanEd56 · 13 July 2001]

This former Leatherneck appreciates more and more through the years John Garfield's gut-wrenching performance in the docu-drama PRIDE OF THE MARINES (1945), the true story of war hero Al Schmid who was blinded in combat on Guadalcanal by a Jap grenade. The picture, released a year before BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, was the first movie to deal in depth with the problems faced by returning vets. Scripted by Albert Maltz, who would eventually be jailed as one of the Hollywood 10, the film would catch major flack from Red-baiters at decade's end because of its politically-charged dialogue in one scene set in a veterans hospital, during which embittered soldiers forcefully voice both their hopes in and suspicions of a post-war society.

The three layers of plotline dramatize an accurate microcosm of American life during a pivotal time period. PRIDE explores in its pre-war first part Garfield's lower-class, working-man roots as only he could portray urban struggles and dreams during the Great Depression. The harrowing middle portion, claustrophobically confined to a cramped and stinking Pacific island foxhole (shared with Dane Clark and Anthony Caruso to form a 3-man machine gun team), graphically captures the fears and horrors of war as few films have.

But it is this citizen/soldier's readjustment in the final sequences, aided by compassionate nurse Rosemary deCamp and home-town fiancee Eleanor Parker (in a performance worthy of a Supporting Oscar nomination) that really packs an emotional wallop. Doubting his self-worth, lost in a sightless world (his post-operative cry of "Why don't God strike me dead!" is chilling), and struggling to comprehend the difference between love and pity, Garfield's perfectly modulated performance combines all the elements of his unique persona (rebellious icon, tough guy, romantic leading man, idealistic spokesman).

Given his devotion throughout the war years to the Hollywood Canteen that he and Bette Davis created, the story must have been very close to his heart. This may be his finest screen role in a career filled with meaningful performances.

Pride of the Marines

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 1 May 2019]

Boy and girl fall in love, boy goes to war and comes back blind, boy spends rest of movie trying to convince girl to move on with her life because he doesn't want to be a burden to her.

This is no frills, straight-down-the-middle post-WWII film making here. There's nothing fancy, but it does boast good performances by John Garfield and Eleanor Parker as the couple in love. And, because this was made in 1945 (I'm not sure if it was released before or after the actual end of the war, but no matter), it's allowed to be cynical about the futures of the vets returning home, something films made during the war, which were saddled with the burden of being patriotic propaganda, were not.

Albert Maltz received his first of two career Oscar nominations for writing the film's screenplay, which was adapted from a book by Roger Butterfield.

Grade: B+

I hadn't seen this film in years, so when I noticed that...

[Jim-193 · 10/10 · 9 July 1999]

I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the "Pride of the Marines" were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?

Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, "Al Schmid, Marine" by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical "war movie" where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about "glorifying" war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.

What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a "dream" sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story.

A Great Story, Not Told So Well

[SeamusMacDuff · 6/10 · 12 November 2014]

I concur with a review by AtlasMB on "Pride of the Marines". This is an inspiring true story of Marine Al Schmid who heroically battled the Japanese on Guadalcanal, winning the Navy Cross but losing his eyesight in the process. The film covers his blue collar roots in Philadelphia, his sort-of courtship, the battle itself (a very short part of the film), then his recovery and rehabilitation. As a war film, the real subject is the reintegration of servicemen back into society. The best scene may be in the naval hospital, as Schmid and his fellow injured talk about what they expect from their country and - ultimately - themselves.

The problem? It's just not written or acted very well. Tough guy Garfield plays Schmid as not particularly likable. His chemistry with girlfriend Ruth - well played by Eleanor Parker, as much as the script allows - isn't particularly good even before he enlists. Schmid is pretty much a jerk. Garfield isn't subtle, emotes little, and talks constantly in his clipped, tough guy manner. Dane Clark as his fellow Marine is much more emotive, likable, and believable. The battle scene isn't much of a battle, stagy, with the Marines simply continuing to fire their machine gun until dawn. (That the Japanese soldier held up the grenade in front of Schmid instead of throwing it into their bunker was a little ridiculous.)

A decent wartime film with an important message. I just wish someone other than Garfield had been the lead.

I just found out that my father was the technical adviser of this film. Anyone have a copy I can get?

[Irene-106 · 10/10 · 13 August 2006]

My father, Dr. Gordon Warner (ret. Major, US Marine Corps), was in Guadalcanal and lost his leg to the Japanese, and also received the Navy Cross. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that my father was the technical adviser of this film and I am hoping that he had an impact on the film in making it resemble how it really was back then, as I read in various comments written by the viewers of this film that it seemed like real-life. My father is a fanatic of facts and figures, and always wanted things to be seen as they were so I would like to believe he had something to do with that.

He currently lives in Okinawa, Japan, married to my mother for over 40 years (ironically, she's Japanese), and a few years ago was awarded one of the highest commendations from the Emperor of Japan for his contribution and activities of bringing back Kendo and Iaido to Japan since McArthur banned them after WWII.

My father was once a marine but I know that once you are a marine, you're always a marine. And that is exactly what he is and I love and respect him very much.

I would love to be able to watch this film if anyone will have a copy of it. And I'd love to give it to my father for his 94th birthday this year!

John Garfield and Eleanor Parker star in this "Coming Home" WW II drama

[jacobs-greenwood · 7/10 · 9 December 2016]

John Garfield plays Al Schmid, a single friend of married couple Jim & Ella Merchant (Jim Ridgely and Ann Doran) and their teenage daughter Loretta (Ann Todd). Like happily married people are wont to do, they set Al up on a blind date, against his will, with Ruth Hartley (Eleanor Parker). But, after resisting getting involved with her, they begin dating.

One day at Al's workplace, where he is a welder, he learns of a friend's enlistment into the Marines and decides to sign up himself. Ruth and Al have a last date, with Al insisting that she forget about him, given his unknown future. However, when she goes to meet his departure train, he is overjoyed and gives her an engagement ring.

In the Battle of the Pacific, Al and his squadron find themselves in a foxhole assigned to prevent the Japanese from breaching their line at night. We briefly get to know several of the soldiers, including Lee Diamond (Dane Clark), before the attack. During the attack, many of them are killed but Al ends up single-handedly saving the day. However, he is wounded by a suicide bomber in the final scene of the battle.

Later in a hospital, Al learns that he can't see, a condition that doesn't change even after he has surgery. Feeling sorry for himself, he dictates a letter through a nurse to tell Ruth that he is relieving her of any obligation to marry him. Though his friend Lee, the nurse, the doctors, and others try, he will not be convinced or persuaded to try to return to a "normal" life, given his condition. Instead, he stays in the hospital until they no longer allow him to remain there.

He returns home on a train, with Lee in tow. However, he does not want to see Ruth and, when he does anyway, will not accept her undying love regardless of her encouraging words. He does not feel that he is a real man anymore, and his pride will not allow her to take care of him. But when he is awarded the Navy Cross for his service in the Pacific, and his vision allows him to "see" a fuzzy red-topped taxicab as Ruth escorts him afterwards, we get our happy ending.

This film's Screenplay was nominated for a Best Writing Academy Award.

John Garfield was so good. . .

[Kirasjeri · 9/10 · 27 July 1999]

A wonderful and gritty war film that focuses on the inner torment of blinded marine Al Schmid. Although it is tough and unpleasant it IS in the end heroic - Schmid's triumph over disability and depression. The battle scene was superb. But one bone to pick. No matter how many .50 bullets they fired I never saw any water or dirt being kicked up by the impacts! It hurt the realism, but I can live with it. Fine performance by Eleanor Parker, again, as his girl friend.

melodrama for its time

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 16 February 2020]

Philly guy Al Schmid boards with his friends, the Merchant family. One night, Ruth Hartley arrives looking for co-worker Ella Mae Merchant. The two singles have been surreptitiously set up. Al is taken with her right away and keeps pestering her. The couple eventually plans to marry. With the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Al joins the Marines. He gives her a ring as he departs for the front. He is blinded in the battle of Guadalcanal. He pushes Ruth away as he is unable to regain his eyesight.

There is a section in the middle after the battle where this movie drags a bit. By that point, the audience is waiting for Ruth to meet up with Al once again and that takes a bit too long. The ride home is one of the most compelling section in the entire movie. That moment reminds me of Love Affair and other great romances of the era. Released at the end of the war, this must have hit close to home for many people and that home coming would have been hugely emotionally for everybody. It would remind them of all the losses and give hope for the future. This is a melodrama for its time.

surprisingly good and accurate war flick

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 2 August 2005]

Most war films made in the US during WWII were great fun to watch but suffered from severe gaps in realism because they were being produced more for propaganda value to raise the spirits at home than anything else. I am not knocking these films as many of them are still very watchable. However, because they so often lack realism they are prevented from being truly great films. A perfect example was the John Garfield film Air Force--in which a B-17 nearly single-handedly takes out half the Japanese air force! However, Pride Of The Marines is a welcome departure--scoring high marks for portraying a true story in a reasonably accurate manner. When I first saw this film, I thought it was NOT a true story as it seemed way too improbable to be true. However, after researching further I found that it was in fact rather true to the amazing story of two men who did so much to earn the Medal of Honor. This is one case where real life seemed too incredible to be true!

A thoroughly engrossing post-war trauma flick before The Best Years of Our Lives (1946).

[SAMTHEBESTEST · 7/10 · 18 March 2024]

Pride Of The Marines (1945) : Brief Review -

A thoroughly engrossing post-war trauma flick before The Best Years of Our Lives (1946). William Wyler gave us one of the greatest classics ever made on post-war traumas. The Best Years of Our Lives told the story of multiple soldiers who return home after the war and start finding it difficult to live in the new society. Apparently, Pride Of The Marines was also based on a similar idea of post-war trauma, but instead of multiple soldiers, we have only one soldier here. An ambitious young man joins the Marines after the Pearl Harbour attack and stands tall against Japs. However, he loses his eyesight in that attack and is left blind, with little hope of recovering. He is hopeful about getting his eyes back during the treatment in the hospital, but after a while, he realises that he may not get his eyes back ever again. He starts losing hope of a normal life and starts avoiding his girlfriend, who loves him dearly. With little to live in his life, he hopelessly starts becoming a nuisance and behaves badly towards his loved ones. On the other hand, his girlfriend and other family members are waiting for him to come back-with eyes or without them. The film has a positive ending, as expected, but it seemed rushed. The last monologue could have been longer and more effective. That's where Wyler's classic raced ahead. It provides a lot of time for the characters because there are so many and their troubles also vary. But here, the story had a limited scope due to one character taking charge of the narrative. Nonetheless, the same message would work anytime, with any film, and so it works here too. John Garfield gives a strong performance, and Eleanor Parker is good too. One great line I will always remember from this film is, "I loved him. Not his eyes or his color." That's true love for you, and it's eternal. Delmer Daves does a fine job keeping things under control, except for a rushed climax. A superb film anyway.

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest.

Wow this is....not very good. At all.

[Better_Sith_Than_Sorry · 5/10 · 1 May 2017]

It's never a promising sign when you find yourself checking the time to see how much of the film is left to go. I did that with this one, only 32 minutes in....which means I still had 90 minutes more of this train wreck. And believe me, at times it is a train wreck. Those reviewers on here giving this 8, 9 or 10 stars could use some introspection.

What am I talking about? Well let's see...in the first 30 minutes, we watch the "hero," Al Schmid, kiss a preteen girl on the lips (his best-friend's daughter), then tell her that in 5-6 years he will marry her. If I did that to my best friend's daughter he would punch my lights out (and rightly so) before calling the police and reporting me for being a child predator. Then, Al is set up on a blind date with a woman named Ruth, apparently against his will, so his way of dealing with the situation is to attempt to loudly belittle and disparage his date in a bowling alley for all to hear. Quite mature for our hero, wouldn't you say? The next day he realizes the error of his ways....so he decides to make it up to her. How? By confronting her at a public bus stop and telling everyone present that she has abandoned their boy and is seemingly guilty of child negligence. Never mind the fact that they are not a couple and there is no child, he is making the whole thing up to shame her in front of a group of strangers. What an honorable guy, this Al. But she inexplicably gets in his car, anyway, instead of telling him to get lost, and he proceeds to drive her home. When he learns there is another man waiting at home to take her out on a date, he purposely crashes his car into the other man's in a fit of rage, anger and/or jealousy. And quite laughably, shortly after this incident Ruth decides "wow this is the guy for me!" It was at this point I looked at the time because I was saying to myself "how much more of this nonsense can I take?" Keep in mind you as the viewer are supposed to look upon the actions of Al as commendable - he is the subject of the film - the "Pride of the Marines." So the protagonist - our hero - is an ill-tempered, pompous, creepy, impulsive liar. And you are supposed to be sympathetic towards him...it is that bad.

Not helping matters is the misleading title. Of the two-hour running time, only about 20 minutes concerns Al's active duty in the Marines. The rest is spent either establishing his "courtship" of Ruth (cough cough) or the bitterness he feels after suffering injuries in battle (about an hour and the bulk of the film). In between there is one action sequence set in Guadalcanal from which the film gets its title (I suppose). So dispel the notion that this is a war film or an action film, it is largely neither. It's a rather shoddy attempt to engender pride and rouse patriotic fervor, as this was produced in the latter stages of World War II. However, the callous and indifferent way Al treats other people, especially those close to him, both before and after that battle sequence is actually quite despicable and not worthy of anyone's pride. This film is based on a real person named Al Schmid. I can only hope the real Al wasn't as much of a cad as the one portrayed here. Ouch.

Still Powerful

[finial12 · 5 March 2004]

Having seen this film about 20 years ago, but I was impressed to find it even more moving when viewed today. John Garfield and Dane Clark gave two of their finest performances in this movie about a Marine blinded on Guadacanal. This story of survival is told in a realistic mixture of the brutal, the bitter and the enduring spark of hope that make living, rather than dead heroes. Some would surely disagree, but I can't help but think that some of the guys who find themselves in Walter Reed and other veteran hospitals recovering from their today's war wounds might get a great deal out of this beautifully acted--and seldom shown--"period piece". It's a pity it's not on dvd/vhs. WHY??

WE WILL NEVER FORGET YOU

[tcchelsey · 10/10 · 23 February 2021]

What happened to Schmid in a foxhole, happened to my 19 year old uncle, only he and most of his buds didn't come back. We must never forget the soldiers of WW II, particularly because there are fewer and fewer survivors each year. I remember, growing up in the 1970s, the same exact situation concerning veterans of WORLD WAR I. Today they're all gone, but never forgotten. PRIDE OF THE MARINES is a monumental tribute to every soldier from every war, but particularly those who returned home with battle scars that could never be erased. John Garfield as Schmid brings realism to a role that scores of soldiers could relate to, and to this very day. This is an extremely well crafted and, yet haunting story that you will not forget, special credit going to an exceptional supporting cast. Dane Clark, a great actor in his own right, is superb as Garfield's tell it like it is war buddy, likewise a victim, but without scars on the outside. Same said for Eleanor Parker, in an early role. One war film you have to see at least once, but I guarantee you'll want to see it again for some truly classic scenes. Thank you so much to the producers of this masterpiece who put their heart in their work.

A Workingman Hero

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 4 March 2008]

Definitely at the top five of best John Garfield movies has to be Pride of the Marines. It's the true story of Marine private Al Schmid who at the cost of his own sight, while wounded held off a horde of storming Japanese on Guadalcanal.

The story nicely segments in three parts, Al Schmid's home life where he's a simple working stiff who's just getting serious with a woman and who likes nothing better than his bowling night. Pearl Harbor is bombed and he's off to war as millions of others were.

The second part is at Guadalcanal and we see part of the action where he's in an isolated machine gun nest, holding off Japanese troops. His action prevented Marine positions from being overrun, but a grenade does in his eyesight.

And of course the third part is his painful adjustment to civilian life and to reassure himself that people aren't just caring for him out of pity, most of all that girl he was seeing Eleanor Parker.

This film was broadcast on TCM on John Garfield's 95th birthday and there was a documentary on Garfield hosted by his daughter. One of the people interviewed said that Garfield was the actor most believable in working class roles in having and holding a union card.

In that respect he was lucky in that he did land with Warner Brothers in Hollywood. Though he kept getting typecast in gangster roles in the tradition of that studio, Garfield was terrific in these parts because of his background, because he came from the kind of life Al Schmid had, with the exception of Garfield's Jewish background.

In that respect he was perfect to play the part of a working class hero like Al Schmid who accepted the responsibility of defending his country. No super heroics here, just a guy who'd rather have been back in Philadelphia, but doing a job that had to be done.

It's a great part for Garfield. It's a film one shouldn't miss. I do wonder though whatever happened to the real Al Schmid.

All Wars are Hell!

[whpratt1 · 10/10 · 4 December 2004]

This is a great film Classic from the 40's and well produced. There are very dramatic scenes in this film with John Garfield,(Al Schmid),"Force of Evil",'48 and Dane Clark,(Lee Diamond),"Last Rites",'88, fighting the Japs during WWII being completely surrounded and with only one machine-gun. When Al Schmid was able to go home after being wounded with a horrible injury, his problems just started to begin with his family and engaged girl friend. Dane Clark gave an outstanding supporting role as Lee Diamond, who did everything to help his buddy Al get his life together again. There is never a complete victory to War and lets not forget all the Brave Wounded Military personnel in Veterans Hospitals from All the Wars and our present Iraq Vets!

excellent, gritty film.

[wkozak221 · 10/10 · 6 November 2015]

I have always liked john Garfield and his films. It is a shame he is not better known except for film buffs. He was an excellent actor who always gave a spot on performance. This film is no different. Before he is blinded he is easy going. Once he is blinded you can see a complete change in him. You can see and feel how bad war really is. I found this film to be fairly accurate. My dad was in the pacific in ww2 and told me how it was. I also found that Garfield could transition easily from role to role. I saw the despair in him when he had to figure how to deal with a new way of living with his handicap. I remember Mr. Russell in the other great war film. This film and the other one on par with each other.

Talking About a White Christmas

[jkampion · 3/10 · 6 December 2013]

As I watched, midway into 'Pride of the Marines' about these wounded soldiers back from Guadalcanal, I found myself embarrassed by this film and the bunch of "swell" wounded Marines discussing the difficult times that would be facing them as wounded veterans in their communities and in finding jobs when, in the background, another group of wounded soldiers break out in song:

"In the evening by the moonlight When the darkies work was over We would gather round the fire Till the whole cake it was done

In the evening by the moonlight You could hear those darkies singing In the evening by the moonlight You could hear the banjos ringin'"

It certainly did remind me who we weren't fighting for. And, considering those lyrics, I was surprised that I wasn't able to find any reference to, or explanation of, that particular scene in any of the film's criticism.

Superb technical accuracy

[btillman · 11 November 2000]

Though not central to the story of Al Schmid's difficult rehabilitation, the short segment depicting his combat on Guadalcanal is superbly done. It is so technically accurate that it might serve as an instructional film on use of the Browning M1917 heavy machine gun. This level of authenticity was extremely rare in the 1940s and bespeaks a serious commitment by the director and (presumably) the marine corps. Apart from that, however, the tension and terror of nocturnal combat is extraordinarily well depicted. Such realism was rare in the decades before "Saving Private Ryan."

Why isn't this movie available?

[suvyankee1 · 10/10 · 27 December 2004]

This movie is a fantastic movie. Everything about it in my opinion was top notch from the acting to the directing. I know Mr. Garfield was blacklisted in the 1950's but the majority of his other films are on video if not DVD. That being the case,why isn't this one? A friend recorded it off of TCM for me but to have it on DVD would be great. For special features they could have say a Marine historian talk about the battle and if Mr. Schmid's wife or son are still alive they could be interviewed as well. Anyway this is a great movie and I highly recommend it.If it ever is put out hopefully it won't be colorized. Colorizing it would in my opinion just ruin the whole effect of the film. The battle scene was quite realistic as far as a 1945,film would go. Mr. Garfield did a superb job of portraying Mr. Schmid. Some actors might have been tempted to overact the part of Mr.Schmid's disability but I feel he got it just right. I sincerely hope they come out with this movie on DVD someday as a tribute to the courage of Al Schmid and all the other marines who sacrificed so much for us in World War Two.

A Better War Movie

[rmax304823 · 9/10 · 6 May 2001]

No one would argue that this 1945 war film was a masterpiece. (How could any 1945 war film be a masterpiece?) And yet this is an extremely effective telling of a true story, that of Al Schmidt, blinded on Guadalcanal, as played by John Garfield, who spent days wearing a blindfold to capture the nuances of a blind person's actions. Robert Leckie, in "Helmet for My Pillow",denigrates Schmidt's popularity in favor of his foxhole mate, who was killed, writing that "the country must have needed live heroes."

Well, I suppose the country did. And they had one here. There is a single combat scene in the movie, bound to the studio lot, lasting only ten minutes or so, and occurring less than halfway through the film instead of being saved for the climax, but it is the scariest and most realistic depiction of men under fire that I can remember having seen on screen, including those in "Saving Private Ryan". Men yell with fear, scream at each other and at the enemy, and bleed and die, without the aid of color, stereophonic sound, squibs, or gore.

Simply from a technological point of view, the film is outstanding. It isn't just that we learn how complicated a mechanism a .30 caliber, water-cooled Browning machine gun is, or that it must be fired in bursts of only a few rounds, or that it isn't waved around like a fire hose, as in so many other war movies. The technical precision adds to the scene's riveting quality. The need to stick to short bursts is horrifying when dozens of shrieking enemies are pouring across a creek fifty feet away with the sole aim of exterminating you and your two isolated comrades confined to a small gun emplacement.

The performances are solid, if not bravura, including those of the ubiquitous 1940s support, John Ridgeley, and a radiant, youthful Eleanor Parker. The framing love story is spare, but it works, and ultimately is quite moving. A striking dream sequence is included. It's not Bunuel, but for a routine 1945 film, it stands out as original and effective.

Albert Maltz may have overwritten the script, or it may have been altered by someone else. It could have used the kind of pruning that might have introduced some much needed ambiguity. Still, there are odd verbal punctuations that have a surprising impact on the viewer -- "Why don't God strike me dead?" And, "In the eyes, Lee. Get 'em in the eyes!" Depths of anguish in a few corny words. And a surprising amount of bitterness expressed by wounded veterans in a 1945 war film.

Notes that might seem false to a contemporary viewer but perhaps shouldn't: the dated vernacular which it's difficult to believe many of today's kids could think was actually ever spoken -- "private gab," "dope", "drip," "Gee," "you dumb coot," "dame," "a swell guy," and "feeling sorry for yourself." Let us consider the historical context and be kind in our judgments. At the time, some of this goofy lingo was at the cutting edge.

Real weak points? The wounded veterans get together and argue with each other about how much of a collective future they have and the argument is oversimply resolved with a conclusion along the lines of, "Just because you have a silver plate in your head doesn't mean people will think you're a bad person." There are sometimes voice overs and silent prayers that are both unnecessary and downright unimaginative. "Please, God, let him return to me," and that sort of thing.

Well, the film makers were operating within the constraints of their times. Maybe that's why the final fade is on a shot of Independence Hall and the inspiring strains of "America the Beautiful" swell in the back.

None of this can undo the film's virtues, which are considerable, particularly the impact of that horrifying combat scene. And I should add that there's a marvelous evocation of life in a working-class neighborhood of Philadelphia, despite a bit of corn. And, for what it's worth, this is the earliest film in which a couple have an argument in a public place and when one of them stalks off, the bystanders applaud. It's not on television that often. If you have a chance, by all means catch it.

Not an easy movie to watch

[richard-1787 · 8/10 · 21 October 2018]

This isn't an easy movie to watch for a lot of reasons, but that shouldn't keep you from watching it.

It divides into three parts: life before the main character joins the Marines (the least interesting part of the movie, by far), life for the Marines on Guadalcanal (very well done, if very overacted and, of course, extremely racist), and life back at home for a blinded veteran (the best part of the movie). Garfield was a wonderful actor, particularly good at portraying Joe Average American working guy, and here he plays the part to perfection. He is every bit a traditional guy, wanting to be able to stand on his own two feet and fend for himself. When his blindness makes that difficult, it is very hard for him to adjust, and you really feel for the guy.

The scene in the hospital, where the various Marines express their fears of how they will be treated after they return to civilian life, is preachy, especially at the end with Dane Clark's speech, but no less powerful for all that.

*The Best Years of Our Lives* is a smoother picture of the return to civilian life for veterans after World War II, perhaps, and certainly easier to watch. But this movie raises real issues about what it will be like for soldiers who were injured during the war to return to civilian life, and the acting is first-rate. As I said, it's not easy to watch. But it is definitely worth watching.

Excellent Flick

[jkucharik · 8/10 · 3 August 2007]

Being from the Philadelphia suburbs and extremely interested in local history, this film provides an excellent vintage view of Philadelphia in the 1940s. There are scenes of downtown, a train station that no longer exists, 30th Street Station--which still does exist, as well as scenes from the Northeast part of the city. Good shots of the old row-homes as they appeared then. The movie gets a bit "chatty" at times - causing the viewer to briefly lose interest...but the overall storyline is solid and very moving. Anyone who enjoyed this movie should also try to see the film "Bright Victory", also with local footage of the Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, PA - and scenes from downtown Phoenixville. The Army Hospital has since become a college campus. Neither of these films are out on any format and I can't imagine why. I have them both on VHS from home recording, as shown on TCM in recent years. I highly recommend them to any other history buffs out there from my area!