Good movie but grossly overrated

As Good As It Gets

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

When you take an introspective book like "The Red Badge of Courage" and try to make it an action film, it's going to suffer a bit. This is the story of a boy who is overwhelmed by the responsibilities of war. Henry Fleming (Audie Murphy) is that boy who runs when confronted with Rebel forces. He hide in the woods, where he is struck on the head by another retreating soldier, knocked unconscious. In the book there is great pain and serious guilt on the part of Fleming. This is hard to portray, but Murphy does quite a good job, considering his relative inexperience. Apparently, the studio just didn't give this film a true chance at greatness. They kept cutting and cutting because it didn't fit the Hollywood mode. We need to remember those big time producers weren't in the business for their health. All of this said, there are great scenes of battle and Murphy's portrayal of the young soldier are very good.

Superb war film!A company of soldiers in the fore front of the American civil war are facing head-on combat battles with their enemy. One youthful soldier is terrified of his situation and the question is: how -if at all- will he handle his fears?Excellent atmospheric battle scenes. The viewer can taste and feel the blood and the dirt and the fear. Brilliant direction and camera work with a very intelligent script to match. Great in black and white but I wonder if this picture could be colorized. The cynical viewer might see in this movie lambs being manipulated and sent to the slaughter, but that said:More than 60 years old, why can't they make films like this nowadays???8/10

A young Union soldier in the Civil War is getting tired of endless drilling. Finally he gets his wish, as their regiment is told that they are to be shipped out to battle soon. However, the news troubles him. He is afraid that during the fighting he will become scared and run away. He shares his fears with his cocky comrades, but they do little to quell his ever increasing doubts. Finally the next day comes when they all leave for the battle field.As they march towards their destiny, the young soldier sees multiple bodies. He finally gets to the battle field, and he doesn't lose his cool during their first skirmish, but when the second wave comes he loses it and runs. Feeling guilty and saddened, he wanders throughout the forest aimlessly, witnessing first hand the gruesome truth of war.This film would have been absolutely amazing. If it was it's original length. When I finished the film, I was fuming. Not because I didn't like the film, but because it was a butchered masterpiece. The studio mercilessly slaughtered the film, with no thought to it's creative integrity. The film lost so much continuity, that they had someone read quotes from the book to maintain some kind of balance. It makes it hard to review this film, not for what is there, but for what could have been. Perhaps someday someone will take control of the film and restore it to greatness (ahem, Criterion).As it is, I'll focus on reviewing the film as it is. Simply speaking it is one of the best civil war movies of all time. The battle scenes are taught and suspenseful, the acting is top notch and the direction may be some of Huston's best. For starters, Audie Murphy gives a genius performance as the Young Soldier. Having been a war hero himself, Murphy completely immerses himself in the film, and the result is genius. In the earlier parts of the film, his vulnerability is outstanding, and in the later parts of the film when he rages across a bloody battlefield, the fierce determination in his eyes is stunning.By casting unknowns, Huston allowed his film to be not distracted by star-power, and relying on performance only. As the Loud Soldier, Bill Mauldin displays the same vulnerability as Murphy, only on the outside, rather than in a contained fury like Murphy. All the actors give a great semblance of realism to the film, something quite striking for a film of the period. I wish to bring up one scene at this moment, the scene in which the Young Soldier meets an older comrade, who is wounded and dying. The scene where he dies is so aesthetically different from the rest of Huston's oeuvre that I found it hard to believe this film was made by the same man who would later make something so tonally different as The African Queen.I have not read the novel by Stephen Crane (though I probably should), but from what I've seen I can see why the novel is famous. The screenplay, or what's left of it, is brilliant, and manages to be simplistic while still invigorating. The quality of the version I saw was not the best, but I saw enough of the film to be able to say that the cinematography is amazing. The black and white images contrast the bloodshed in the foreground against the clear gray sky in the background. This sharp, crisp, realistic images are incredibly detailed, especially for the period.The way the film is shot reminds me of some period war films, and as Huston shot three I can see where the inspiration came from. The battle scenes are, as I said above, simply amazing. They show a brutal reality that few war films dare to attempt. The brutal combat, with an enemy that is never fully shown. Men die right next to you, and yet you carry on, oblivious to why you're fighting, and what you're fighting for. All of this against the clear American sky. It's not hard to see why the film bombed at the box office; it cut to close to the bone.Huston obviously cared for this film, and he knew it would be special. His meticulous craftsmanship is most easily noticed during the battle scenes.They resonate with a power no "lazy" director could accomplish. Despite the choppy nature of the 69 minute cut, Huston's calm direction is a constant guiding line throughout. No studio could fumble badly enough to lose the spark that the film contains. This brings me to my problem with the film. It feels incomplete, as if someone took scissors and cut out a bunch of random parts. To make matters worse, the opening narration explaining who Stephen Crane is seems like an attempt to elongate the film.The running narration throughout is exasperating, as at many points the narrator will interrupt the flow of the film to quote Stephen Crane, while saying something that does absolutely nothing to help the viewer. This is distracting, and with the fact that the film is only 69 minutes makes the film end way too early, and you are left feeling shortchanged.Overall, this film could have been amazing. As it is, it is only great. It is my hope that someday a restored version will be released, similar to Metropolis. However, as it stands, this is still one of Huston's best, no matter how many people tamper with it.The Red Badge Of Courage, 1951, Starring: Audie Murphy, Bill Mauldin and Arthur Hunnicutt, Directed by John Huston, 8.5/10 (A-)(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Civil War film based on the famed novel by Stephen Crane. It gets short shrift among John Huston's films because it's well known that Louis B. Mayer cut 26 minutes out of the film while Huston was away filming The African Queen. Still, what's left is hardly incoherent and works beautifully. It may have been a masterpiece in its 95 minute incarnation, but it's still great and one of Huston's best films in its 69 minute form. Audie Murphy stars as a young private facing his first fighting. The real value of this film is how it really feels like it's right there on the front lines of Civil War battles. It's vivid and frightening, and also quite gorgeously directed and shot. I perhaps would have liked to hear no narration, which comes directly from Crane's novel (and may or may not have been wanted by Huston). It's mostly unnecessary. It may have been confusing without it, but only as confusing as it is for the characters on screen.