It's not a badly done telling of Stephen Crane's story of a young man being blooded in the Civil War. The performances are up to par. Richard Thomas by this time had outgrown his usual appearance of a recent graduate of Choate, yet still looks innocent enough to be the young soldier. The writer and director have added a few touches of their own to the tale. During the final charge into the Confederate lines, one soldier accidentally impales an oak tree and is stuck there for a moment.
It's mainly when this version is compared to John Huston's 1951 version that the weaknesses are apparent, even though the budgets must have been similar. Huston had his improvised moments too -- a general riding from one regiment to the next, telling each to fight like hell and save him a plate of beans for when he joins them for supper that night. The same phony speech over and over, which the soldiers recognize and ridicule.
But Huston's version is superior in many other ways. Here, the dying soldier tries to climb a tree before falling flat on the ground. In Huston's film, John Dierkes' death is horrifying rather than sad.
There's something else too. In subtle ways, the direction by Huston is more effective than Lee Phillips' is here. Not that Phillips is inept but the way Huston manages the camera, the direction becomes part of the story. It's difficult to pin this down but, if you have a chance, watch the way Huston first introduces us to the young soldier, Audie Murphy, who gives the best performance of his career. As his buddy, Private Conklin, Bill Mauldin, a non-actor who was a famous cartoonist in World War II, is thoroughly believable, with his goofy face, whereas the same character here, Michael Brandon, looks and acts like a Hollywood actor. In Huston's film, the lieutenant in charge is of moderate height and slight build, with a scant but hopeful blond mustache. He's as young, vulnerable, and uncertain as his men. Here, it looks as if someone said, "Get me an infantry lieutenant from Central Casting."
Well, it sounds as if I'm being harsh on this movie but obviously a good deal of effort and money were put into it and, as I say, the results aren't bad. It's rather that Huston did so much more.
It's mainly when this version is compared to John Huston's 1951 version that the weaknesses are apparent, even though the budgets must have been similar. Huston had his improvised moments too -- a general riding from one regiment to the next, telling each to fight like hell and save him a plate of beans for when he joins them for supper that night. The same phony speech over and over, which the soldiers recognize and ridicule.
But Huston's version is superior in many other ways. Here, the dying soldier tries to climb a tree before falling flat on the ground. In Huston's film, John Dierkes' death is horrifying rather than sad.
There's something else too. In subtle ways, the direction by Huston is more effective than Lee Phillips' is here. Not that Phillips is inept but the way Huston manages the camera, the direction becomes part of the story. It's difficult to pin this down but, if you have a chance, watch the way Huston first introduces us to the young soldier, Audie Murphy, who gives the best performance of his career. As his buddy, Private Conklin, Bill Mauldin, a non-actor who was a famous cartoonist in World War II, is thoroughly believable, with his goofy face, whereas the same character here, Michael Brandon, looks and acts like a Hollywood actor. In Huston's film, the lieutenant in charge is of moderate height and slight build, with a scant but hopeful blond mustache. He's as young, vulnerable, and uncertain as his men. Here, it looks as if someone said, "Get me an infantry lieutenant from Central Casting."
Well, it sounds as if I'm being harsh on this movie but obviously a good deal of effort and money were put into it and, as I say, the results aren't bad. It's rather that Huston did so much more.
