This magnificent group choreography brought to life on the giant screen remains fresh in my memory.
Led by the eccentric Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall), a fleet of U.S. Army helicopters assaults a Vietcong-controlled coastal village. To induce psychological terror and boost his men's morale, Kilgore blasts Richard Wagner’s "Ride of the Valkyries" through giant speakers mounted on the choppers as they rain fire down on the village. Although I was disappointed when I saw it in theaters because the lead actor was underwhelming and Marlon Brando barely had any screen time, this scene and the other combat sequences were more than enough to convey the futility of war.
This is a scene where a captured Japanese pilot, holding a woman hostage, becomes stunned upon hearing the history of the Pearl Harbor attack from an American officer, right before he is shot dead. The Japanese pilot was played by late Soon-Tek Oh, a Korean-American actor. Being a fellow Korean, I feel a special connection to him. I also read somewhere that Kirk Douglas once asked to reshoot a scene because he felt Oh’s performance was even more intense and powerful than his own.
I used to believe going back in time was the ultimate way to set things right and make everything better. But in this movie, an officer aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier which gets trapped in a mysterious light and travels back in time to right before the attack on Pearl Harbor completely broke that fantasy. He said that if you alter the past, you might not even exist in the present, and honestly, the more I think about it, the more he has a point.
I still can't forget the sense of wonder and awe I felt watching it in the theater. I was too young to fully understand the dialogue, but seeing the inside of the human body was so exciting.
This is the most brutal and unforgettable battle scene in the movie.
Seeing the general send his men to their deaths just to hold the bridge, I wonder if he would have faced a court-martial if the bridge had been blown up and caused massive American casualties. What I’m trying to say is, if the German army had blown up the bridge and caused massive American casualties, and the general had fully foreseen that outcome, would the American public and government still have accepted the general's decision under those circumstances? I asked gemini and the answer is below.
If the bridge had been blown up and resulted in heavy American casualties, public and official evaluation of the general's decision would have been drastically different, largely dictated by the ultimate outcome and its overall utility.
While a successful operation gets praised as "decisive leadership that sacrificed the few for the greater good," a failure resulting in a blown bridge and massive loss of life would have met a cold, harsh reception.
Collapse of the Cost-Benefit Justification: The sole justification for the general's decision lies in the premise that the strategic gain outweighs the risk of sacrificed lives. If the bridge were destroyed and many soldiers died, it would mean the operation yielded zero benefit while maximizing tragic losses.
Public Outrage and Political Accountability: The public and the media react far more to the final casualty count and outcome than to initial intentions. Driving soldiers into deadly danger without securing a strategic advantage would have sparked fierce criticism, placing immense pressure on both politicians and military leadership.
Military Sanctions and Moral Condemnation: To maintain morale and accountability within the force, the U.S. government and military leadership would likely have held him responsible. Because the decision ultimately compromised overall safety and strategic interests, the general would have faced severe scrutiny or even a court-martial.
Ultimately, whether a commander’s decision is remembered as a "brilliant gamble" or a "reckless tragedy" depends not on duty or intent, but on whether the outcome yielded a net positive for the broader cause. Faced with a disastrous explosion, the general's reasoning would have quickly lost all standing.
I share a similar view. What about you?
This scene reminds me of feeling great watching it in the theater as a student; 'Smile', which Julie Andrews sang to reassure the audience panicking at the sound of the air raid siren, was a song I often listened to as a kid
I was fooled into believing Montgomery really cared for her. Once it became clear he was only after her fortune, her cold demeanor toward him made total sense. Regardless, Montgomery is definitely a good-looking guy and William Wyler's directing was really top-notch, too.
Watching the thrilling action of the triplanes I loved so much in childhood brought back fond memories and I was also captivated by the cool main character George Peppard. On top of that, the massive, CGI-free battle scenes really stuck with me—raw, real, and full of that classic analog charm.
While such unresolved endings are cliché today, the villain evading justice to kidnap yet another victim left a deep mark on my younger self, accustomed as I was to standard poetic justice. Naturally, it made me realize just how far ahead of his time the great master William Wyler really was.
To me, Cleopatra was just excessively long and not as entertaining as other historical films, so it hardly left a lasting memory. In comparison, Von Ryan's Express was a masterfully made war movie that delivered peak entertainment and thrills. From a box-office standpoint, while the one plunged 20th Century Fox into one of the worst financial crises in history and brought it to the brink of bankruptcy, the other, before the big success of The Sound of Music, served as a reliable, cost-effective hit that gave the studio much-needed financial breathing room to restore its normal movie production system.
As a Korean living in America, I was shocked and profoundly touched to discover that 'Arirang', the iconic Korean folk song, was used for the opening and main theme of this war movie starring Kirk Douglas, albeit slightly modified.
There's a humorous touch to a woman intervening in the middle of the fight.
The conversation between the father and the doctor as he was removing the two glass shards from William Holden's buttocks reminded me once again of Billy Wilder's brilliant sense of humor.
This movie gives a sense of emotional triumph, allowing us to at least offset the devastating defeat against Rommel in real history.
In this movie, young Liz Taylor plays an angelic friend who genuinely cares about young Jane Eyre (Peggy Ann Garner)
Although it failed at the box office, the film itself was meticulously crafted and well-made.
It's one of the grandest war movies I've ever seen. Although the story is fictional, it’s thoroughly entertaining—and George Peppard’s masculine charisma really shines through.