SparkMore
n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.
Robert Joyner
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
Rio Hayward
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
tomsview
When the worst thing the drill instructor can call the new recruits at boot camp is "Meatheads", you know that the movie is pulling its punches. Not that I thought that about "Battle Cry" when I saw it at the age of nine in 1956 at the movies, then I lapped up every minute of this film devoted to those most cinematic of warriors - the US Marines.The years have not been kind to "Battle Cry". It has dated in a way that "From Here to Eternity" has not. However it seems that many WW2 veterans like this film. They seem less critical of it than younger reviewers, and it's hard to argue with people who actually lived it rather than viewed it. To be honest, "Battle Cry" seems more truthful to the spirit of the marines of WW2 than a movie such as "Windtalkers" with all its gore and false heroics.Leon Uris wrote the novel based on his experiences with the marines during the war. It contained passages that were thrilling, funny and outrageous. The book's description of boot camp and the lustiness of the marines pulled no punches at all. But 1950's censorship made the movie a different matter.The story follows a group of marines from the time they head to boot camp until their return from battle in the Pacific. So many characters are introduced that some of them emerge as overly familiar stereotypes, but Tab Hunter and Aldo Ray hold their own. Although James Whitmore's performance as Mac, the master sergeant, is convincing, his narration often comes across as trite and intrusive.The movie concentrated as much on the encounters in the bedroom as on the battlefield, split evenly between the women the boys leave behind and the ones they find on their way to war with Nancy Olsen giving the strongest performance as the New Zealand widow who falls in love with Aldo Ray's character. The movie becomes more focused when the recruits pass through boot camp and join the battalion that takes them to war. Van Heflin as Major Huxley, the commanding officer, gives the standout performance in this film, providing the right combination of toughness and compassion as the professional given the job of moulding boys into marines. His performance goes a long way towards counteracting the negatives in "Battle Cry".The film's best sequence begins when Huxley pushes his men to outperform another battalion in a gruelling cross-country hike in New Zealand. After reaching their destination, he decides to do the return journey as well, pushing the men to their limits. When it seems they can't continue, the other battalion passes them on their way back mounted on trucks. The sight galvanises Huxley's men and resentment turns to pride as they march on bloodied feet back to camp. "When we hit that camp gate, let's give 'em a look at the best outfit in the Corps", exhorts Huxley as his men swing past to the accompaniment of Max Steiner's rousing score. Unlike music for war films of the last 30 years or so, which invariably play to the pathos and tragedy of war, Steiner went for the glory. Steiner's original marching song, "Honey Babe", provides an enduring memory of the film."Battle Cry" delivers its major battle at the end. The landing on Saipan is well staged if somewhat confusing, but it leads to an emotional ending as the surviving marines return home.The success of "Battle Cry" indicated that audiences of the day needed the reassurance of some core values: honour, duty, patriotism and sacrifice. "Battle Cry" over-delivered on those qualities. Vietnam was still ten years away, and then the generation brought up on movies like this would face some harsh realities of their own.It is difficult to recommend "Battle Cry" to a broad audience today. But with that said, it does boast a number of fine performances and a sequence or two that stays in the memory.
Steffi_P
Sometimes I don't know which is the worse thing to come after a successful movie, the quick cash-in sequel, or the second-rate rip-off by a rival studio. In 1953 Columbia had a huge hit (and Best Picture Oscar winner) with From Here to Eternity, a multi-stranded story about the lives and loves of a group of soldiers in World War Two adapted from a novel by James Jones. In 1955 Warner Brothers produced Battle Cry, a multi-stranded story about the lives and loves of a group of soldiers in World War Two adapted from a novel by Leon Uris. Spot the difference? Oh yes, Battle Cry is in Technicolor, Cinemascope and has a few more explosions. It also happens to be a prime example of bad screen writing.The badness of the Battle Cry script announces itself from the very first line. "My name's Mac. The name's not important". So why did you tell us it then, Mac? Five minutes in and "Mac" is introducing us to as lazily-written a gang of stereotypes ever seen outside of a satire, some of them a bit racist to boot. There's an ignorant and scruffy Hispanic, a Navajo who makes references to scalping and smoke signals, an intellectual who wears glasses (myopia and bookishness presumably having some esoteric medical link), a Texan who strums Home on the Range on an acoustic guitar, etc, etc, etc. Admittedly, a few of these stereotypes get challenged (slightly) later on, but the fact that they are established in the first place leads one to believe Battle Cry is going to be some jolly comedy, and yet it professes to be some deep and insightful drama on military life.Or does it? Battle Cry doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be. At times it has an air of cheerful and nostalgic camaraderie, at other times it studies leadership, and other times still it seems to question the entire institution of the army. It's all very well for a story to tackle its subject from multiple viewpoints, but the trouble with Battle Cry is that none of these is fully explored or even clarified, and the whole thing is just a vague rumination. Similarly, none of the various story arcs interweaves particularly well. In the opening scene we are lead to believe Tab Hunter is the hero, only for him to suddenly dwindle to a bit player half-way through and for Aldo Ray (who, confusingly for viewers less familiar with the cast, looks very similar) to emerge as the main character. Other smaller parts are built up, only to be dropped with loose-ends flapping, and several once-prominent characters are killed off with a single line of dialogue. That "Mac" voice-over functions only to skim over the various undeveloped plot points and make the odd trite comment on the picture's woolly themes.It's a shame the screenplay is so bad, because Battle Cry does have one or two finer things going for it. Director Raoul Walsh, despite clearly being a bit phased by the wider aspect ratio, shows his usual visual flair. At key moments he uses the trick of having someone looking almost-but-not-quite directly into the camera, such as the prostitute at the end of the barroom brawl scene, or (in a very neat moment) Aldo Ray's disappointed face suddenly revealed when Nancy Olsen walks away from him after their first date. You can also spot Walsh's somewhat risqué approach to realism. In the scene where the worn out soldiers are angered at the sight of another regiment in trucks, a couple of them are giving the finger. There are some good, solid performances here too, most notably the naturalistic James Whitmore ("Mac"), and Aldo Ray who gives off real presence in what is one of his best turns. Also check out LQ Jones in the role that gave him his screen name, adding a wild streak of comedy which is good fun even if it is at odds with everything else in the picture, although all things considered that hardly matters.As a whole however it is pretty clear the studio did not lavish a great deal of attention on this production. It looks as if various boxes were ticked to make it marketable (including a rather tepid rehash of the famous From Here to Eternity beach scene) but nothing that would make it really exceptional, and there are some glaring bits of unprofessionalism. For example, anyone who has seen a handful of 50s war movies will be used to being distracted by the odd bit of scratchy stock footage, but Battle Cry even uses black-and-white stock footage, as if someone really thought that would blend seamlessly with the Technicolor. This is the sort of shoddy approach you would expect from a B-flick. And perhaps it actually would have worked a little better if it had been stripped down to some 90-minute quickie, losing a few of those dead-end subplots and getting some kind of well-paced balance between the action and the drama. However, with a runtime of nearly two-and-a-half hours, Battle Cry is pure tedium.
welsa
At least three times during this film there are references to, and actual sequences of, the Navajo Code Talkers in action. They scenes are done very well, in my opinion. But, this movie was made in 1955 and the existence of the code talkers was not declassified until 1968? How could they have made their way into this film at that time? Was there no objection from the Pentagon? I realize that Uris was in WWII but it still seems odd that these scenes got included without some hue and cry. I've tried searching the internet and have not been able to find any reference to a controversy over this. Still, I'm glad the scenes were included as they were much better done than in the later film WINDTALKERS.
merylmatt
Perhaps for 1954 this was OK, but I do not think it stands the test of time at all. Generally faithful to the book, I do not know if this movie or book created the formula of a intellectual, a street wise punk, a country hick, etc, etc in a unit - but this movie sure follows that formula.It's very traditional. Kids who are patriotic enlist in WW2 to fight. They meet women, become Marines and want to fight. The battle scenes are OK for their time, I do not need to see gore to make it real and this movie does not glorify war.I found it interesting the DVD cover - shows scantily clad (for 1954) women, and 1/2 of the movie centers around the men and women who meet, fall in or out of love. There are historical errors which normally do not bother me - one scene shows Black Marines, they were not integrated in 1942, Army units relieved the Marines on Guadalcanel, Tarawa was over in three horrific days.If you fast forward to 1987, you see pretty much the exact same formula in Full Metal Jacket, but with more graphic gore.Maybe I'm too harsh. It's exactly what you would expect of a 1954 war movie made about WW2 - patriotic, sentimental, clichéd.
