The Young Warriors (1967) User Reviews

Accurate portrayal.

[lrcdmnhd72 · 6/10 · 19 June 2007]

Its been years, maybe decades since I've seen this movie. I've never been in combat, but have talked to those who have. From what I've been told, this movie is a pretty accurate portrayal of soldiers' reactions in combat. This movie was portrayed by a bunch of young actors, which seem to add to the realism.

I had an Army Sgt tell me back in 1967 that there were some people in combat who would freeze one time and not another. This reaction seemed to rotate among different people. But this same Sgt also told me that there were those with whom you could always count on.

But the one thing I did notice was these soldiers were, more or less, working together as a unit.

BUT in the movie, PLATOON, there was a lot of fighting among within the ranks. No real teamwork. Insubordination, sleeping on guard, not trying to break in a new guy.

I was in an outfit like this one when I was in the Army back in 1967. This same outfit I was in was a carbon copy of Platoon. I think the only reason I'm still alive is that I was in training and only blanks were fired. Nobody seemed to give a damn. More of Dr. Spock's dirty work!!!

Average war picture lifted by a very strong climax

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 9 December 2016]

THE YOUNG WARRIORS is a bit of an obscure American WW2 film; it suffers from having a lack of big name stars to boost its popularity (having never watched THE VIRGINIAN I have no idea who James Drury is) and a very ordinary storyline which has been done to death in the genre over the years. In addition, a ton of the action scenes have been borrowed from an earlier film, TO HELL AND BACK, which is always an annoyance in cinema.

Saying that, I found this film oddly enjoyable. Sometimes it's the smaller films which do their thing with a brisk kind of efficiency and that's the case here. THE YOUNG WARRIORS does what it sets out to do, which is to entertain the viewer and draw him into a story involving carefully-drawn characters thrown into a life-or-death situation. Drury is fine as the square-jawed hero, although it's amusing to see this young actor cast as the 'elder' type role, but the real standout is Steve Carlson as the novice Hacker.

Carlson's character starts off as one you'll hate: he's portrayed as something of a coward, afraid to fight and causing problems all around him. I won't spoil the plot, but the last twenty minutes gets very interesting; it's full of the action and suspense you'd hope for, but something else besides; it becomes moving and almost profound. Certainly I didn't expect it, and the climax as a whole turns THE YOUNG WARRIORS into something decent. No classic, that's for sure, but a solid enough film regardless.

Routine war film

[Marlburian · 5/10 · 5 April 2023]

I gave up three-quarters of the way through the film after getting fed up with the characters supporting James Drury, several of whom I found annoying. Curiously only Sergeant Cooley showed any beard stubble, with everyone else remaining perfectly clean-shaven - they weren't that young!

Early on, when the patrol gets ambushed and one recumbent soldier appears to be hit, two or three of his colleagues withdraw barely crouching. And when the three men down by the pond are told they're in a minefield, they work their way back huddled together so that were a mine to explode it would kill or injure them all.

I gather that towards the end there's a good action scene, but I couldn't be bothered to wait for that.

Worth watching despite the familiar plot

[taggerez · 25 March 2009]

Pretty interesting war film despite the well-grooved plot involving an experienced sergeant leading a squad of young, inexperienced infantry soldiers into battle. Presumably set in Italy (some combat sequences were lifted from the Audie Murphy flick "To Hell and Back") the story centers upon the relationship that develops between the squad leader, Cooley (James Dury) and one of his charges, Hacker (played by Steve Carlson).

Square-jawed and rugged, Drury was born for his role. Best known for the TV western "The Virginian," it's a shame Drury wasn't in more combat films. Carlson is fine as a surly private but he is overshadowed by the wise-cracking (and sometimes irritating) Jon Daly who plays the unit comedian.

Norman Fell has a tiny role in this film and a young Robert Pine is interesting as sensitive trooper. Look closely for Kent "Adam 12" McCord (billed under his real name, Kent McWhirter) who pops up here and there as a lieutenant. It might have been more interesting to cast McCord in the role of Hacker.

An incredibly tepid war picture

[JohnHowardReid · 4/10 · 20 July 2009]

It's hard to believe this screenplay was adapted by Richard Matheson from his own novel. True, the characters are endowed with a bit of individuality, but none of them are interesting or particularly likable or sympathetic. And the fact they are played by such an ordinary lot of performers, doesn't help. But even worse, however, is the dreary, TV-style direction imposed on the film by John Peyser. This director was reputed to be something of a war drama specialist on the small screen. Here he's given a huge CinemaScope screen to work with, and what does he do with it? He puts a close-up right smack in the center and lets the rest of the frame have nothing. Even the action scenes are no more than adequately staged at best and their power is further lessened not only by the obvious use of stock footage and the familiar Universal back-lot scenery, but by an extremely limited "B"-movie budget. The film lacks both atmosphere and style and can only be described as irredeemably mediocre in all respects.

Good WWII Action Flick

[simplybaseball · 8/10 · 9 February 2007]

Saw this movie once about 30 years ago. Been trying to find it in some sort of print since. Good sustained fight scenes in this movie. Pretty graphic for the time. Very young soldiers played by a cast of nobody's. Lead guy, Hakar freezes in battle but becomes hero, if memory serves me right. I can remember a scene where a soldier is screaming for Hakar to help him while being bayoneted repeatedly. Pretty intense for 1967. Pretty sure the action takes place around the Battle Of The Bulge. Maybe the least shown war movie ever made next to Castle Keep & None but the Brave. I think that's right Any info on this film would be appreciated!!!

Great male bonding war flick

[JohansenRJ · 8/10 · 8 February 2006]

This movie is more about male bonding than about war, but it's got all the right ingredients. Surviving on the battlefield is about teamwork, learning from mistakes, and sharing your knowledge, and that's what this story is all about. The movie starts with the "old man" platoon sergeant taking all the new troops under his wing and shows them how to be a team and how to survive...the movie ends when one of the young troops is now the "old man" taking the young newbies under his wing. The story is kinda cliché, but nonetheless inspiring and satisfying. Highly recommended for anyone into stories about male bonding and growth.