This is a remake of "The Bridge on the River Kwai" at one-tenth the cost (resulting, not surprisingly, in far less quality).
Ten bullet points:
1. I first saw the picture in about 1970 on "NBC Saturday Night at the Movies" and loved it. I was very young. 'Nuff said about that.
2. It's not available as a DVD on Netflix, for some unknown reason, but is available for streaming there, and is available free on YouTube, somewhat altered (darkened to avoid copyright issues).
3. The music, by Richard LaSalle, sounds very much like "Kwai" except not as good. LaSalle scored many films in his career, all of them destined for second billing at drive-ins.
4. The stars are mediocre. Hugh O'Brian (the poor man's William Holden) is palpably bored and/or wooden to the point of parody. O'Brian had quite a career going for himself in the 1950s but by the time of this production was C List. (He was a good man though; inspired by the great Albert Schweitzer, he founded a charitable foundation that seems to do good things.) James Mitchum, son of Robert, looks just like his old man (as he undoubtedly heard every day of his life) but has very little of daddy's talent (yes, nepotism does get your foot in the door in Hollywood). His role here, as written, is actually somewhat subtle and complex, involving emotions like ambivalence; he just ain't up to putting the stuff on the screen.
5. Two supporting actors do well here: Tisa Chang as Miyazaki and Mickey Rooney as Ernie. Miyazaki is tough, earthy, sexy, real. Ernie is full of vinegar and has a couple of funny lines. The film's director (Ron Winston) should have seen that Rooney brought his A game to this production and was worthy of a lot more screen time.
6. Re James Mitchum - what a burden, to be the not-very-talented son of a really famous father and look just like him. I think of Dhani Harrison (son of George) in this context. Difficult to have one's own life. (I really think Dhani should turn his back on all those millions of dollars coming in every year, and the endless parade of luscious 20-year-old groupies, and strike out totally on his own. Easy for me to say, right.)
7. The heart of the film is the teahouse sequence followed a bit later by the village sequence. These are reasonably interesting - maybe worth six stars.
8. There seems to be a modest Vietnam connection here. My guess is, this is why the film got funded (it was made in 1965-66). Several lines of dialogue suggest Vietnam including "Who's the enemy?" "Anyone." That kind of thing.
9. As various reviews note, these commandos aren't very good at their jobs (thanks to the film's writers). Examples abound. For instance, during their first encounter with the enemy (three Japanese soldiers eating supper) they open fire much too hastily (i.e., they don't wait to see if any enemy soldiers are off in the forest taking a dump or watching birds or whatever). This tactical failure gets the head honcho of the commandos killed. Handy for script purposes but absurd for believability.
10. Watchable for Mickey, for Tisa, for the teahouse and village sequences, and for the Philippines locale, and if, like me, you love war movies and are willing to put up with a lot of mediocrity.
Ten bullet points:
1. I first saw the picture in about 1970 on "NBC Saturday Night at the Movies" and loved it. I was very young. 'Nuff said about that.
2. It's not available as a DVD on Netflix, for some unknown reason, but is available for streaming there, and is available free on YouTube, somewhat altered (darkened to avoid copyright issues).
3. The music, by Richard LaSalle, sounds very much like "Kwai" except not as good. LaSalle scored many films in his career, all of them destined for second billing at drive-ins.
4. The stars are mediocre. Hugh O'Brian (the poor man's William Holden) is palpably bored and/or wooden to the point of parody. O'Brian had quite a career going for himself in the 1950s but by the time of this production was C List. (He was a good man though; inspired by the great Albert Schweitzer, he founded a charitable foundation that seems to do good things.) James Mitchum, son of Robert, looks just like his old man (as he undoubtedly heard every day of his life) but has very little of daddy's talent (yes, nepotism does get your foot in the door in Hollywood). His role here, as written, is actually somewhat subtle and complex, involving emotions like ambivalence; he just ain't up to putting the stuff on the screen.
5. Two supporting actors do well here: Tisa Chang as Miyazaki and Mickey Rooney as Ernie. Miyazaki is tough, earthy, sexy, real. Ernie is full of vinegar and has a couple of funny lines. The film's director (Ron Winston) should have seen that Rooney brought his A game to this production and was worthy of a lot more screen time.
6. Re James Mitchum - what a burden, to be the not-very-talented son of a really famous father and look just like him. I think of Dhani Harrison (son of George) in this context. Difficult to have one's own life. (I really think Dhani should turn his back on all those millions of dollars coming in every year, and the endless parade of luscious 20-year-old groupies, and strike out totally on his own. Easy for me to say, right.)
7. The heart of the film is the teahouse sequence followed a bit later by the village sequence. These are reasonably interesting - maybe worth six stars.
8. There seems to be a modest Vietnam connection here. My guess is, this is why the film got funded (it was made in 1965-66). Several lines of dialogue suggest Vietnam including "Who's the enemy?" "Anyone." That kind of thing.
9. As various reviews note, these commandos aren't very good at their jobs (thanks to the film's writers). Examples abound. For instance, during their first encounter with the enemy (three Japanese soldiers eating supper) they open fire much too hastily (i.e., they don't wait to see if any enemy soldiers are off in the forest taking a dump or watching birds or whatever). This tactical failure gets the head honcho of the commandos killed. Handy for script purposes but absurd for believability.
10. Watchable for Mickey, for Tisa, for the teahouse and village sequences, and for the Philippines locale, and if, like me, you love war movies and are willing to put up with a lot of mediocrity.