historian63 Reviews

1883 (2021–2022)

Overdone Soap

[4/10 · 24 October 2023]

First, I will admit I watched this out of curiosity, having never seen Yellowstone or 1923. I can now skip those with an easy conscience.

It is hard to dislike this series. The casting was tremendous, with Elliot, Hill, and McGraw giving great performances (admittedly, Elliot is just playing his usual character at this point.) I thought LaMonica Garrett stole the show and may have had the best performance. The settings and realism of the props were also top notch. What is there not to love?

Well, it's a soap opera. Many of the 'relationships' and attitudes seem way too modern and I am guessing this is in line with the two other series. A lot of the interactions, especially for young Elsa, are more 2023 than 1883. Additionally, the apparent goal of the series was two-fold: to show how really difficult the actual Western movement really was, and to set up the Duttons as some super exceptional family for having made it to Montana and continuing to fight to the present day. I think they overdid it.

In the first episodes you are introduced to a darker, more dangerous West than in most of the older series, like Wagon Train. At first this seems very realistic. However, it gets overdone. After a few episodes this seems more like a teen horror movie as the attrition is more brutal than the Donner Party. Although 1883 was somewhat later in the western settlement period than earlier migrations, the series represents a hyper-dangerous and violent environment that seems extreme by almost any era. It seems like every week requires some new burst of violence by omnipresent 'bandits,' even though by this period law was rapidly taking over and, history shows, the West was probably far less violent than the 19th Century East. Likewise, there are still wild Indians involved, even though the actual Indian Wars had all but subsided by this time, especially on the High Plains. Unfortunately, in showing a darker West then the sanitized versions of past decades, and to make the Duttons see that much more legendary, the producers go way too far in the opposite direction.

I really wanted to like 1883. It was entertaining once, but nothing I would buy to re-watch in the future. And I have lost my desire to bother with the rest of the series. All the style in the world cannot paper over the fact that this is all, at root, a soap opera.

Rogue Heroes (2022–2024)

Good, but too Brief

[6/10 · 30 December 2022]

It's not surprising that it has taken so long to see the original story of the SAS in WWII told on screen. Aside from a random documentary, no movies about the force, which was largely kept secret, appeared until 1982 (The Final Option), and these were about the modern regiment. So, the story of David Stirling and his merry men has long been overlooked. "Rouge Heroes" addresses this oversight. Well, sort of.

The series follows the annoying pattern established in the "Britannia" series of mixing history with loud, modern rock music that is totally inappropriate and distracting from a period story. This mixture of history and modern is jarring, especially when we suspect that Stirling's exploits are not entirely historical (something acknowledged in the series opening.) In fact, Rogue Heroes is a loose amalgamation of some underlying facts (the equipment reproductions are first rate) and a lot of invention and myth. Just as an example, we meet Col. Dudley Clarke for this first time in drag, when he meets his French counterpart. It is true that Clarke did at one time dress up as a woman, for reasons that are still debated, but this was in Lisbon, long before he was posted to Cairo.

Unfortunately, and maybe due to the production costs, Rogue Heroes falls short of Britannia in one key regard: It is too brief. Given the legend the SAS created in North Africa, we would have expected more missions and action than we get. Worse, there is very little character development beyond the leading three officers. The series tempts you that there are interesting stories here involving many of the soldiers we get good introductions to, but they are left under-developed by the mere six episodes in the first season. It feels more like an abbreviated version of the SAS story than the epic it should be. So, with an average of nine episodes over three seasons, so far, Britannia gives us a full story with rich, well-established characters, Rogue Heroes seems altogether too quick for the subject matter, of which, historically, there is a lot!

Don't misunderstand me. Despite the loose history and modern overtones, I liked it. I just wish there had been more of it to like. Even with a second season on the way, the course of season one indicates this will also be a short, and very different, story.

The Pacific War in Color (2018)

Good for What it is

[8/10 · 18 August 2022]

I just saw this for the first time a few weeks ago on Smithsonian and I was mesmerized by the color cinematography in this series. I have read the other comments and they are not wrong. This is not a 'documentary' to learn about the Pacific War (of course, most viewers do not need to learn about the war from TV, I hope. And most probably know more than the producers of this series.)

It is true that the series is riddled with historical errors. But I see similar mistakes on the news often enough. (Anything with tracks and armor is a tank?) Also, some video clearly does not match up with the event being discussed. Maybe most noticeable is that the film dictates the episodes. Major events like Midway and Guadalcanal get short shrift, mainly because there is a lack of color footage. However battles like Tarawa get oversized coverage precisely because there is ample color film. The air war is mostly ignored for the same reason, until the B-29 when they apparently carried a lot of color cameras.

But that is the point here. This is not WWII in Color, with its colorized history. This is an attempt by the Smithsonian, which is more archive even than museum, to present rare footage that has mostly never been seen. Pre-war home movies of the US and the Pacific Islands. Raw battle footage, often from the aftermath of an event. This is what makes this such an effective series. If you watch a lot of documentaries, you already know the story. What this series does is give you a lot of new visuals that help bring those events to life. The narration may not be robust, but the film is maybe as close as future generations will ever get to feeling what it was like.

Bitter Victory (1957)

Tries Hard, but Very Uneven

[5/10 · 12 June 2022]

With Richard Burton, plus up and coming Nigel Green and Christopher Lee, this should have been an upper-echelon war movie. It also tries hard to be a personal drama with the conflicts between Burton and Jurgens over everything from a wife to courage under fire. And then there is the issue of survival in a harsh desert when everything goes wrong. It certainly has all the elements. Perhaps too many.

Unfortunately, it all just fails to completely come together. Jurgens was a late addition to the cast and the effort to pass his accent off as South African is feeble. He also does not really match up well with Burton and his more emotive scenes come up flat. The combat scenes, and there are less than you would expect, are poorly staged. Even the higher drama seems overdone. Well before the end the whole movie becomes quite predictable.

However, there are some bright spots. The high point is Nigel Green who plays a criminal-turned-soldier who really comes off the best as a safe-cracker and cagey all-around character. His malingering is first rate.

However, most of the elements of Bitter Victory are covered better in other films. Tobruk, Raid on Rommel, and Play Dirty cover much of the same territory far better. And there are numerous WWII films that handle romantic rivalries much more deeply and well-developed. This makes what should have been a great film only average.

The Tanks Are Coming (1951)

A Necessary Film About US Tanks in WWII

[8/10 · 11 June 2022]

Hollywood has produced hundreds, perhaps thousands, of films about the US Infantry in World War II and other conflicts. Partially this may be cultural, with the lowly dogface rifleman as the everyman hero. Partially it might be logistics, since it is fairly easy to dress and rehearse an infantry squad, even on a sound-stage. (Although this limitation did not seem to prevent large numbers of aviation and naval films using planes and ships.) Off the top of my head, only Battle of the Bulge, Sahara, and Fury have focused at all on tanks and their crews. In all other movies they appear just as nameless support for the infantry.

The drama focuses on Staff Sgt. Sullivan, who replaces a popular platoon sergeant and his conflict with the crew. Sullivan is a hard-driving glory seeker, which causes conflict with subordinates and superiors. There are also several side-plots, the most notable involving a German-born crewman with a special purpose in returning home.

But the real point and beauty of the film is the armored combat. With clear (and somewhat anachronistic) support from the US Army, there is finally a film showing widescale tank maneuvers, using a mixture of combat footage and contemporary scenes courtesy of the Army. This is a desperately needed niche in WWII films.

A few quibbles. I don't complain about the anachronistic supporting vehicles, since very few 1944 standard ones would be available in 1951. But there are a few things that don't quite work. Although Sullivan is almost suicidally brave, some of the maneuvers are too aggressive and would likely get him relieved, and demoted, even when he succeeds. I can't imagine any tank commander deliberately getting hung up on dragon's teeth. Also, Sullivan is assigned as the platoon sergeant, but we never see him doing any leadership beyond his own crew. Finally, there is a short interlude between Sullivan and a female war correspondent that seems to indicate some history is there, but this is never followed up. It is unusual to have a female character in a combat movie that does not develop into someone's romantic interest.

Juggernaut (1974)

Legendary Cast, Average Thriller

[5/10 · 7 June 2022]

I have never even heard of Juggernaut until catching it recently on Screenpix. That is surprising because I would have been 12 when it came out and would think to have seen it at a theater or the movie of the week been then. It appears to have almost disappeared for decades. Perhaps, given the cast, it was more popular in the UK.

The premise of the film is certainly promising. A cruise ship is crossing the North Atlantic in gale conditions that are ruining the social activities and making everyone miserable. There is, of course, an affair between the married socialite and the captain, some comic relief, and a variety of passengers with their own issues. Oh, yes, and a number of powerful bombs just to add to the misery. Think the Love Boat meets Shock Wave.

Clearly this was meant to be a blockbuster. The cast is all-star, albeit mostly British. Here you have Richard Harris, Anthony Hopkins, Ian Holm, David Hemmings, Jack Watson, the legendary Freddie Jones, along with Omar Sharif (as a British ship captain!) and Shirley Knight. Roy Kinnear and Clifton James add some lighter humor. All of this is thrown into some great visuals of the North Atlantic. The insertion of the bomb disposal team by air is especially worth watching.

Unfortunately, the overall film is rather slow and predictable. There are the overdone scenes of tension as the RN goes to work on the bombs while back in the UK Scotland Yard is looking for the rather obvious bomber. There are a few twists, but not enough. And all along we get loads of personal drama and soliloquies on the meaning of life. The suspense could have been a lot tighter and tauter. The ending is a let down. In the end you have an A movie cast and picture quality, but only a B movie plot.

Dune (2021)

Epically Flawed

[3/10 · 3 June 2022]

I waited eagerly for this movie for years after I heard of its filming. I had to wait for cable due to covid. I won't have the same anticipation for Part Two.

There is so much wrong with this version, I will start with what's right. Visually, it is gorgeous. True, the desert scenes are not too far off the 1984 David Lynch version (how many ways can you shoot desert?) But the sets, the vessels, Caladan, and especially the sandworms are impressive. There are also some good performances. Rebecca Ferguson's Lady Jessica is great, as is Josh Brolin and Gurney Halleck. Jason Momoa plays to his usual type as Duncan Idaho and Charlotte Rampling plays the Reverend Mother well. (How is she old enough?) Also, nice attention to book details like Orinthopters, which were missing in 1984. A lot of effort was made here.

Unfortunately, that is about all there is. Plot-wise, it manages to be dense and inchoate at the same time. If you had not read the book or seen the earlier version, I don't know how you could follow it. Enormous time and budget is wasted on pointless scenes. For example, there is a long, involved ceremony where Leto is given control of Arrakis by some functionary. A lot of time to sign some documents. And we get an extended view of some cult-like ceremony preparing the Sardukar for war. But no emperor, no guild navigators, no folding space, etc. The weirding modules don't exist. Many characters are either missing or never really introduced. Who is Pieter DeVries, and why do we care?

Then there is the rest of the wasted cast. Harkonnens are all bald and in togas, making them hard to distinguish. I love Stellan Skarsgard, but this may be his worst role in ages. And where is Feyd? Liet Kynes is now female, although she does get a lot more lines and a good end. But much of the cast seems as confused as the audience as they just walk through this affair.

The fatal blow to the film are the two nominal "leads." Zendaya's Chani is completely negligible so far, showing little character or interest. But this pales next to Timothee Chalamet who seems to miss that he is playing the Muadib, and instead is channeling the sensitive boyfriend from any generic teen movie. Compared to him, Kyle McLachlan is George C. Scott. If there wasn't a script here, there is no way the Fremen could have a chance. I half expect the Harkonnens to win Part Two.

There are good moments, but overall the film is extremely muddled, slow, and lifeless. Good news is that both the 1984 version (including the extended edition, which I am watching now) and the 2000 mini-series are available and, if nothing else, have a full cast of characters and a more comprehendible plot. Check them out!

The Final Option (1982)

There's this Great Band Playing!

[8/10 · 8 August 2021]

Right on Time!

So, this will be a somewhat whimsical review, as the title indicates.

I first saw this as "The Final Option" on HBO back in the good old days when they would show anything they could afford (which ruled out most hit films.) And I loved it! It has remained a cable favorite ever since, and I can't resist watching it over again. However, I now appreciate the film for some other reasons than most positive reviewers do, and recognize more of its faults too.

First of all, my favorite part of the film is actually the concert scene where "Metamorphosis" (a.k.a., the Donohue brothers and band) perform a rock numbers called "Right on Time." I love the song, the part you can hear, and the whole scene (skinheads, fans, Skellen, even the Vicar.) And, overall, the film is a great trip back to London in the '80s. Soho was so great then with the music, the clubs, and the fashion. Oh yeah, and the terrorists too, I suppose.

As to the actual film?: Some good and some bad. For me, the bad is a plot thinner than leak soup, including the worst espionage fieldcraft ever (short-term undercover agent must visit his wife? Really?) And also Lewis Collins, whom I know many love. Collins was a pretty decent action guy and signed up for what was originally an actioner. According to the trivia, apparently Euan Lloyd then changed to more of a cloak and dagger format, more MI5 than SAS. Collins comes off as totally wooden and unbelievable as a spy, and his cover is thinner than onion skin. As a result, the plot is a lot slower and less exciting than, say, the "The Wild Geese."

What redeems the film are some other great performances. Australian Judy Davis is the clear stand-out as spoiled American rich girl turned terrorist. Her red-rimmed eyes and demeanor that seems always just on the edge of madness is incredible. You also get some nice supporting roles from veteran actors like Richard Widmark and Edward Woodward. You even have a later career appearance by Ingrid Pitt. And Collins also shines once he is allowed to fight instead of talk. Of course the involvement of the SAS is a highpoint. And, then there is Roy Budd's soundtrack.

What can I say about this in the end? It's a great trip back to the UK of the 80s. Just remember,

"It's only life, after all, So burn it up and have a ball."

McQ (1974)

Not Your Father's John Wayne

[9/10 · 30 June 2021]

I have to admit, McQ is a guilty pleasure. Growing up I watched a lot of movies on weekends at my grandparents' house. I call them "10 O'Clock" movies because that's when everyone usually had to go to bed, even though the Movie of the Week was only half over. When McQ appeared we were just old enough to convince my Grandfather to let us stay up late. It helped that it was also John Wayne. That said, and I am not sure what age I was then and I do know I did not fully understand the plot (like Colleen Dewhurst's role!)

This is a controversial movie in a lot of ways, and I am not sure how popular it is with old school John Wayne fans. In this movie Big John breaks laws, he bribes pimps with cash, he bribes a prostitute with heroin, he gets beat up by a drug dealer, after breaking and entering! He even detects heroin by taste. This is not exactly tall in the saddle stuff.

Wayne made the film because the western was dying (he still made two more) and the popular movies were things like Bullitt, Dirty Harry, and the Seven-Ups. Wayne only made two real cop films (this and Brannigan in the same year). This one is much more dark and serious. As films of this era goes, there is not much new here (Wayne has a special edition TransAm, I love that car, that seems an awful lot like a certain Shelby GT.) You have police corruption, drugs, murder, and two (not one) great car chases, although only one involves his "Green Hornet." But just because it was not exactly original for the era does not mean it is not a great film?

What sets it apart, for me, are the great locations. Most films of this genre at the time were filmed in San Francisco for some reason. Or New York. This is one of the few films of that era filmed in Seattle. From the gritty Seattle waterfront (Skid Row, literally) to the state hospital to the Pacific Coast, the scenery and the setting is both original and gorgeous. The main chase is at least as good as Bullitt (and borrows its sound effects), and even shares its tendency to re-use chase footage from different angles to make it look bigger than it was. Also, unlike its peers, instead of good cops going cowboy to serve justice, McQ goes completely rogue and fights the system, something Harry and Bullitt never did. It deserves respect on its own merits and not just as an imitator. The violence and drugs are accordingly much more extreme in McQ.

One last note. Much is made of Wayne's age in these later films. I myself have commented on how unbelievable he was as a 60 year-old Green Beret (a film I rated much lower than this one.) But growing up around city detectives, I have seen plenty in their 40s and 50s who looked no better, or younger, that Big John did in this film. If you love the Duke in his true blue roles in westerns and war movies, this may not be the film for you. But if you love cop action fims of the 70s, this one is an underrated gem. I still love it!

Hell in Korea (1956)

A Unique Korean War Film

[6/10 · 30 June 2021]

It is said that the Korean War is the "Forgotten War." Most movies about it were made in the decade or so after the war, with the notable exception of M*A*S*H. Spielberg, Hanks, and Stone seem to be in no hurry to commemorate this conflict like the endless modern World War II and Vietnam movies. And if America's role in the war is mostly forgotten, almost no one remembers the UN allies, including Great Britain.

"A Hill in Korea," or "Hell in Korea," was made in 1956, about 5 years after the end of active combat. It portrays the travails of a patrol of mostly national servicemen (draftees) led by an inexperienced lieutenant and a pair of career NCOs. Naturally, they end up confronting an overwhelming Chinese force and are eventually besieged in a Buddhist monastery on a steep hill. A desperate battle ensues, reminding one much of the stand in "Sahara" or the very similar "The Steel Helmet," which was filmed 5 years earlier.

The film is mostly cliché, similar to a lot of US Korean War films. Only about three characters have any development about their home lives and dreams, usually just before they exit the scene for good. There is a very minor sub-plot with the radio operator who is ostracized after throwing away the unit radio. And there is a lot of good action. Unfortunately, this is one of those almost forgotten films that appears to have been poorly preserved and the version I saw was really low quality.

Other than action, what makes this film stand-out is the cast. You see stalwarts like Harry Andrews and Stanley Baker, rising stars like George Baker and Stephen Boyd, and the future 'M,' Robert Brown. It also featured some very young future superstars named Michael Caine and Robert Shaw. Altogether it features two future knighthoods and no less than 4 MBE/OBE/CBE holders. The cast alone makes this film worth a look.

As a side note, the film makes some points about the plight of the National Service men who were drafted to a war virtually unknown in the UK. Four years later the UK ended National Service for good and returned to a professional army. It is not overdone, but the film clearly was intended to raise questions about the post-WWII continuation of conscription.

Mythica: A Quest for Heroes (2014)

I Can Hear the Dice Rolling

[6/10 · 26 June 2021]

So your first impression of Mythica is that a group of D&D players got tired of playing on a tabletop in the basement and decided to go live action. Certainly it looks a lot like Cosplay. When a player,... um, I mean, a character swings a sword or takes a bow shot I can hear a 20-sided die rattle.

There is not much original in this first outing. Female mage runs away and heads for that cliché tavern where literally everyone whose job title is "Adventurer" hangs out waiting for work. Naturally she meets the cleric, who needs to find a McGuffin of some sort (and her missing sister), so our young heroine rounds up a fighter and a thief and off they go, as all the "real" adventurers were too busy doing,... what we don't know? I won't spoil the storyline. Suffice it to say, everyone gets to level up along the way.

My first impression is that this was a college film class project, or a post-grad effort by those trying to break into Hollywood. The sets and props, where they exist, are pretty barebones. Good thing all the action is outdoors. The plot is straight-forward. The acting is, well, variable. Kevin Sorbo may be the only recognizable name, and he appears mostly as a cameo. Most of the main cast have acted, although you may never have heard of their pre-Mythica roles. But Melanie Stone really shines as the lead, Marek. Mythica is worth it for her (and it appears to have jump-started her career.)

You have to give Mythica a break. This is an independent film, shot in Southern Utah, with a budget of, well, maybe less than 1/100,000th of what Peter Jackson spent on The Hobbit. This is not Conan or LOTR. But it does have a certain sincerity and innocence that if you are open-minded will charm you. And it is certainly no worse than the plethora of Conan clones that followed that movie. This first effort is really worth a look if you enjoy fantasy films and don't expect too much.

Red Rose of Normandy (2011 Video)

Mythica in Normandy

[4/10 · 14 January 2021]

Some of the reviews of this movie are just way over the top. Is this "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Longest Day?" No, of course not. The story is both thin and improbable, the acting is mostly amateur (the Gestapo men are especially awful), and there are loads of inconsistencies and anachronisms (I swear I saw a Tokarev semi-auto rifle at Normandy!) But this film has its good points and has to be regarded for what it is: this is an independent film made by and with WWII re-enactors. It's not a Hollywood production and was never meant to be. Comparing this film to other war films is like comparing indie authors who self-publish on Amazon to J.K. Rowling and John Grisham. Is it a great film? No, it's not. But the worst WWII film (or any film) ever? Let's be fair. If you say that, you obviously have not seen many films, least of all the so-called "Macaroni Combat" films made in Italy in the 60s to 90s. Allow me to offer at least two rebuttals set in the same time and place:

Breakthrough (1979) had major stars like Richard Burton (knighted for his acting, though not this film), Rod Steiger, and Robert Mitchum. It also featured a ridiculous plot (the war weary sergeant of "Cross of Iron") is now involved in intrigue between the Hitler Bomb Plotters and an American colonel after D-Day. None of the US tanks are WWII-era vehicles and German soldiers carry M-1 Garand rifles! And this mess has a famous director and was produced by a real studio.

Churchill's Leopards (1979) has a ridiculous plot, twins on opposite sides of the war behind the lines before D-Day. It starred a C-actor (Richard Harrison, 133 films you never heard of) and Klaus Kinski, plus a few hundred Italian extras. Bad uniforms, loads of anachronisms (vermillion post-war wet-suits for a commando raid!), and a muddled plot. And the "romance" in this scene (Allied brother must convince Nazi brother's mistress that he is her boyfriend, in bed!) is much, much sillier. And this is only the worst (so far) of the Italian-made war movies during a 30 year period I have seen so far. Check a few out before concluding that Red Rose was the worst ever.

What is good about this film? These are re-enactors. The uniforms, if inconsistent, are generally authentic, as is the equipment. Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, and even magnetic anti-tank mines (never seen these in any other movie). And the vehicles! Even great films like "Patton" and "Battle of the Bulge" often substituted US and even post-war tanks and half-tracks (M3) for German equipment. M46, M47, and M48 tanks are the common stand-ins (M60s for Tiger IIs!) Here we have Sd Kfz 251 halftracks, Stug III, Sd Kfz 222 armored cars, even a Jagdpanzer! And so what that AT6 Texans are used as stand-in aircraft? That has been done in dozens of war films like "Midway" and "Tora! Tora! Tora!" Why not use real P-51s and P-47s? Let's see, because there aren't that many flying and this film had no budget. And so the re-enactors are not all "kids?" Did not hear anyone complaining about "Glory" and "Gettysburg." And, as a side note: On the German side the "static" divisions were often composed of older reservists and wounded veterans from other fronts, so many of the Germans were not of "military age" at Normandy.

Does any of this make Red Rose of Normandy a great, or even good, movie? No. But it is hardly the worst. I liken it to the "Mythica" series of crowd-funded movies made by enthusiastic amateurs with really low special effects and production values. But the movies are fun if you take them for what they are and appreciate the efforts of producers, directors, actors, and crew who are more film school students than corporate studios backed by big money. (Which frequently make bigger bombs than this for a lot more money and ruined careers.) Watch the movie, or don't, but give it credit for what it is. After all, can you even make a good WWII movie in the 21st Century without Tom Hanks?

Taiheiyô kiseki no sakusen: Kisuka (1965)

Dunkirk: Japanese Style

[7/10 · 5 March 2020]

I found this rather rare film recently on the Internet, and even managed to find it with English sub-titles. If you love a good nail-biter, check out "Retreat from Kiska" (US title.) This is the (mostly) true story of an effort in 1943 to rescue a Japanese garrison from the Aleutian island of Kiska following the failure of that campaign.

To start with, the cast is excellent, led by the legendary Toshiro Mifune (Shogun) and So Yamamura. It also represented a legitimate effort by Toho Studios to create a positive Japanese film about World War II without glorifying Japan's conquests, a sensitive topic even 20 years after the war ended. Even realizing that these are the enemy, facing US GI's and Canadians, it is hard not to root for the desperate group of men seeking escape from certain doom. This film is a cross between "Dunkirk" and "The Guns of Navarone."

For 1965 the production values are not bad. Of course the ships are models, but much better than Godzilla. The landscape is impressively real and wintry and the costuming (the garrison were not Army but members of the Special Naval Landing Force, Japan's marines) is highly accurate. The film succeeds in building tension and telling a good story. Some of the characters, especially the fleet commander and some of the stranded troops are actually well-developed. There is even a little humor regarding two dogs adopted by the garrison who were an actual part of the historical story.

There were some negatives. Perhaps some things were lost in translation, but a lot of the dialogue is incredibly stiff and cliche. Junior officers and soldiers bow and scrape in almost school-boy fashion, although there is a great scene with the fleet's weather officer that comes across as very genuine. Also, while attempting to avoid glorifying Japan's wartime military, the film does tend towards jingoism, emphasizing virtues like absolute loyalty, self-sacrifice, and love of homeland (although the Emperor is conspicuously not mentioned, which is clearly a post-war edit.) Nonetheless, it makes a great tale of derring-do, bolstered by its roots in actual history. It even makes one cringe at the approach of those American B-25 bombers as you forget they are the good guys trying to liberate American soil.

If you love a good war movie and can find this, it is well worth your time to check out.