Cebalord
Very best movie i ever watch
AniInterview
Sorry, this movie sucks
Candida
It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.
jjsemple
People keep comparing this film with "A Fairwell To Arms" (1932). If that is true, then it can also be seen as a stepping stone to "The Americanization of Emily" (1964) — highlighting how changing American attitudes toward war have become gradually more cynical.Seems like the "Emily" team — writers and director — might have been influenced by Sgt. Joe 'Pete' Peterson (Holden character), transposing Garner's Charlie Madison to be an updated version of same. 1932 > 1951 > 1964.All three successfully integrate Romance and War, ably supporting the theme that Love is the stronger force. So why do we keep on making war?
wkling-1
Directed by Michael Curtiz (Casablanca) with music by the great Max Steiner (King Kong, Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Treasure of the Sierra Madre) The script crackles with great dialogue, William Holden is the best I've ever seen him, Nancy Olson is able to deliver the most romantic lines with real emotional honesty--not an easy thing to do. The idea here is a kind of bleak existential gallows humor mixed with a deeply felt love story. It also brings up PTSD. All the actors are at their best and believable. The photography mixes real combat footage well.The war attitude is soldiers wanting to do a job because they feel a responsibility to their brothers-in-arms and their loved ones back home. It's a real gem and I'll never forget it.
swojtak
I really liked this movie. I fast forwarded through the love scenes though. I am a Holden fan and I seem to like his snide comments he always seems to make. His comments are usually like "gallows humor". In times of stress everything seems to take on a different view or meaning. I also liked where Holden seems to exhibit PTSD. He talks about the horror of the battlefield and his men dying for no reason. I liked this because I thought the US Government did not want anything but us the good guys and the enemy the bad. Most war movies show us never getting hurt and the enemy all dying, What tipped me off was the word "San Pietro". John Huston made a movie called that and it was banned by the Government and not shown because it showed people actually getting killed. Lastly, all the equipment looked real and used in the real manner even down to the mail room! Usually I can find many errors in guns and ammo. Another good movie to watch is, "Pork Chop Hill" with Gregory Peck. You actually see men using body armor and guns and ammo used in the proper manner.
dinky-4
Some have called this an updated version of "A Farewell to Arms," but if the time has been moved forward from World War I Italy to World War II Italy, the quality has also been moved down from "memorable" to "routine." There's really nothing much wrong with this production but there's little to distinguish it, either, and one sometimes gets the uncomfortable feeling that the death and destruction of the greatest war in human history is simply being used as the background for yet another boy-meets-girl story.William Holden has a shower scene which shows he was still, at this point in his career, in his "hairy-chested" mode. Just a few years later, beginning with "Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing," he entered his "shaved chest" period.Dick Wesson supplies some "comic relief" which is just as grating as his work in "Destination Moon."
