Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Motompa Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

alexanderdavies-99382 This film deserves a much higher rating than what it has as it portrays war on a much more realistic footing. The soldier characters aren't depicted as being "he-man" types or as being more brave than the average person. They are simply put into a grave situation where they have to learn to kill the enemy and to endure all kinds of horrors along the way. "The Fighting 69th" is such a film and more. James Cagney plays an Irish street brawler who joins the war during 1917, along with many other men. They all form the 69th legion which has a reputation for producing some of the finest soldiers in the American army. Cagney proves to be a less than ideal soldier, via being insubordinate, arrogant and also a coward. Pat O' Brien as the priest who is posted with the 69th, offers Cagney some much needed guidance so that he may find his courage. We are spared nothing when it comes to the horrors of war as young men scream in agonising pain before their lives are snuffed out and others who bravely fight regardless. The writing is of a high calibre, so is the acting. Cagney is a bit different here as it wasn't often that he would retreat from a fight or convict of any sort. In the above film, he makes it apparent how much of a coward he is and tries more than once to run away from the German enemy. "The Fighting 69th" is a masterpiece from "Warner Bros."

John T. Ryan ONCE ONE REMEMBERS that this story, based on the career of Army Chaplain, Father Duffy, is very Hollywood, it can be properly evaluated and absorbed into the intellect. Although the story is highly fabricated and fictionalized, it nonetheless brings us in contact with a proud old Regiment and its tough, but saintly Catholic Priest Chaplain.THE STORY PRESENTS a stark contrast in characterization by pitting the "lost sheep", draftee/PFC Jerry Plunkett (James Cagney) against Father Duffy (Pat O'Brien), the Officers and the entire U.S. Army. Various characters are depicted in between the two extremes. The best character of this classification is "Crepe Hanger" Burke* (Frank McHugh); who also is a sort agent of comic relief.COURAGE UNDER FIRE is a central theme of the story. The behaviour of ordinary 'Citizen Soldiers', called "Doughboys" in World War I, is dramatized throughout the picture. The very action of taking a bunch of raw recruits from their lives in the 5 Bourroughs of NYC's Irish neighborhoods and transforming them post-haste into soldiers is an interesting subject in itself and one that provides so much of the interaction of the film.ONE VERY INTERESTING aspect of the film is the inclusion of the story of well known poet, Alfred Joyce Kilmer (18861918), who was portrayed by Warner Brothers' star, Jeffrey Lynn. Corporal Joyce Kilmer was killed in action with the NY 69th on July 30, 1918.AS A SORT of historical footnote to this story, those who visit NYC's Times Square should stop and take a look at the memorial to the Priest.ALONG WITH THE two other pictures of this period, Warner Brothers gave us a sort of World War I Trilogy. THE FIGHTING 69th is joined by SERGEANT YORK and THE ROARING 20's in giving us a cinematic picture of WWI and its effect on our way of life in the USA and the whole World.NOTE * The term "Crepe Hanger" is one of those vanishing terms that is largely unknown today. The meaning is one who is always a downer and displays a chronic pessimistic attitude toward everything. The origin of this comes from the old custom of draping the home of the recently deceased with Black Crepe Paper as a symbol of mourning.

bobsluckycat When I first viewed "The Fighting 69th", I was probably 8 years old, around 1948 I'd say. It literally scared me out into the lobby more than once. At that age you're not ready for trench warfare that up close and personal. Being Irish, Catholic and a kinship with people named O'Brien, I have always liked this movie on many levels for a variety of reasons. I have watched this film many times over the years, including a "colorized" version, when they were in vogue. Now comes the definitive DVD copy of the film. I watched it again in all it's 42 inch LCD, near "Hi-Def", glory again recently. I was affected by it again but in an entirely different way. Basically the story is about bright, mostly full of pluck and good humor, young men who want to get this war over with and get home again. Now it could be viewed an "anti-war" movie in some ways. It also very much is like the young men,today, shedding blood in hell holes named Iraq and Afganistan. Quite a comparison. It hit home. I'm an older man and I cried and sniffled through the entire film, and I know the film! I didn't have any lobby to run out into. Bobsluckycat, in all his reviews, has tried to give you some out of the box appreciation for whatever film he reviews and this is no exception. Yes, the stars are all fine, but look to the mostly young supporting cast, many of whom would go off to WWII and come back having served proudly and heroically, and you'll see the meat of this film. William Lundigan, George Reeves, and many many others with a line or two here and there just outstanding and would go on to long acting careers post war. Gwinn "Big Boy" Williams, Frank McHugh, Dick Foran, Sammy Cohen among many of the "pros" doing superior work. Not one casting note rings false throughout. World War I does not play well in color, with the exception of John Fords' "What Price Glory" also starring Cagney, maybe. It's meant to be in black and white. Today, it's not the "rah,rah" picture it was made to be, but a stark reminder that war kills our youngest and brightest before they mature to fullness, just as today. In that light, It's one of the best war movies EVER made, period.

Boba_Fett1138 This movie is just like most of the other movies from the '40's. It isn't too expensive or impressive looking but the movie serves its purpose.Calling this movie a masterpiece would be an offense to other- true brilliant war movies. The movie remains way too simple and predictable for that. It doesn't make this movie as powerful as it perhaps could had been with a better story-flow and storytelling in general.The movie its story is pretty simple and it mostly relies on themes such as comradeship and courage during a war situation. It provides the movie as a whole with a sort of patriotic undertone that however never really fully distracts from the movie. The movie still works well and at times also effective but it isn't all too impressive or memorable. Probably the only thing that makes this movie still a true recommendable and above average one, is the presence of James Cagney, in the main lead.The rest of the acting is a bit bland and typically '40's over-the-top at certain points. Basically the James Cagney character is the only interesting one because of this but he honestly is not powerful or likable enough in his role, to carry the entire movie on his own.It's sort of nice to see a movie focusing on WW I for a change. There really aren't that many WW I movies around, even though it was a really interesting time period with more than enough great and powerful stories to tell. The movie is certainly not bad looking but it uses a bit too much stock-footage with as a result that the movie looks a bit cheap and perhaps even a bit silly. Further more the movie is also filled with a couple of odd and misplaced sequences (mostly patriotic and moralistic ones) that don't help to make this movie the easiest or most pleasant one to watch.Good enough to watch it and effective at some points but for most part the movie remains nothing more than a distant and simple WW I movie.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/