Diagonaldi Very well executed

Micitype Pretty Good

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

MartinHafer When "First to Fight" began, I was surprised to see Chad Everett playing a career Marine! But despite my feelings, he was actually pretty good and the film well worth seeing.The story begins at the Battle of Guadalcanal...one of the longest and bloodiest battles of WWII. During this fight, Sgt. Jack Connell (Everett) rises to the occasion and single-handedly fights off a Japanese attack. For this heroism, he's awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and is taken for an extended State-side publicity tour. Along the way, he gets married and then is given a nice assignment training recruits. But he feels survivor guilt and eventually gets himself sent back into action...but that's not the end of the story.The film is interesting and deals with one aspect of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Everett handles it well and the story never disappoints.

garfield0824 After seeing this and being familiar with the series, The Pacific, it seems this is a fictional and weaker version of the real story of Sgt. John Basilone.Nevertheless, this is a decent film and does convey some of the hell our men went through in the early stage of the war over there.The Pacific portrayed it all much better.

Ralph I watched this on TCM, they played it for Memorial Day 2012, I had never heard of it but when I saw Chad Everett it seemed different so was interested. The beginning battle scene is straight out of many films before, it would seem, but especially reminded me of the battle scene in Pride of the Marines with John Garfield. Not that it was bad, it just seemed like a verbatim copy of it to a point. The movie then goes into a love affair part which I always hated before but this one had some realism to it and reminded me of questions in my own life and with todays never ending wars I have had the option as a reservist to go back to a war zone and these issues are address in this film with Chad's fiancé and then wife. I thought that was pretty interesting and I normally hate the domestic relationship parts in these war films. Which brings me to what I now started thinking of this film, it was made in 1967 but sure did seem that it was made in 1957 or 55 or even 52. I'm guessing like others have said that this was made solely to be a B movie/ drive in fare. It's target audience being the Marine Corps, and the South. I believe Gomer Pyle USMC was the number one TV show that year so this was made to cash in on that audience somewhat, IMHO. The final battle scenes seemed rushed and unrealistic in Chad's sudden change of heart but I guess they thought the film needed something, it really didn't they should have just left the good chance of death be enough tension for the audience and then when it gets all solved it really reveled itself as just a B movie action flick. Chad did a good job and showed a wide range of emotions I liked him, Gene Hackman was wasted here especially with the drama of having a coward officer above him, he was not the Gene Hackman you and I know. Claude Akins has major billing but has a very bit part as a Major at the CP, no drama went on there. Dean Jagger does a convincing Marine Colonel, and William Conrad adds his distinctive voice as a narrator. The combat hardware seemed real enough for the period. It was probably post WW2 hardware but unlike a film like Battle Of The Bulge where the Germans are using Pershing tanks as Tigers and it's distracting, since I am not familiar with Pacific WW2 hardware it looks realistic enough and the stock footage was in color and blended in OK. All in all, I was entertained enough but this wont go down as any Sands Of Iwo Jima best of film. I give it a 6 of 10 as far as B movie war dramas go.

claude_butler I saw this movie as a kid when it first came out in 1967. My father let me use his automobile to go to the local drive in theater to see this movie. I was quite impressed with it as a young lad and join the Marine Corps six months later. This movie has a lot of sentimental value for me. But, I'm a little confused as to why it cost so much at $49.00 and change on VHS. Can anyone give me some insight as to why this movie is so valuable? I want to purchase this movie but not at the current asking price.ThanksClaude W. Butler