The Americanization of Emily (1964)

The lively but somehow slightly distasteful The Americanization of Emily stars James Garner as a WWII naval officer who happens to be a craven coward. While his comrades sail off to their deaths, Garner makes himself scarce, generally hiding out in the London flat of his lothario navy buddy James Coburn. Garner falls in love with virtuous war widow Julie Andrews (the "Emily" of the title), but she can't abide his yellow streak. Meanwhile, crack-brained admiral Melvyn Douglas decides that he needs a hero--the first man to die on Omaha Beach during the D-Day Invasion. Coburn is at first elected for this sacrifice, but it is the quivering Garner who ends up hitting the beach. He survives to become a hero in spite of himself, winning Andrews in the process. Paddy Chayefsky's script, based on the novel by William Bradford Huie, attempts to extract humor out of the horrors of war by using broad, vulgar comedy instead of the light satirical touch that would seem to be called for. Americanization of Emily was Julie Andrews' second film; it should have led to a steady stream of adult-oriented roles, but the box-office clout of Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music consigned her to "wholesome family entertainment". ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide

Theatrical Feature Running Time: 115 mins
The Americanization of Emily (1964)

Quite an excellent film. I enjoyed it immensely and one of James Garner's best performances. I disagree with it being vulgar-at least by today's standards. But was surprised by the nudity-although only the backs of young women it still has the two men in the room unashamedly looking at them in the nude from their angle. The only part that might be over the top for distasteful dialogue was when Garner's character explained his opinions of war to Andrews' mother with the three of them there.

I liked to see the character development and the back and forth of the romance. Garner's character changed very little but Andrews' showed quite a bit of change in opinion of wars.

While this was portrayed as anti-war and anti-American, it clearly does not meet either criteria from my perspective. First the director even admitted as such on the director's cut commentary. He said that it was not meant as anti-war but over glorification of war, and clearly most good war movies have been that way including most versions of "All Quiet on the Western Front". And even thought the Americans are brass and pompous they still have admirable qualities including generosity. One aspect that might be considered distasteful is the idea of sacrificing individual soldiers for an idea that has no real value. In this case it was to have a Navy soldier be the first to die. I am sure that many died before even hitting the beach as the Germans used mortars, long-range artillery and long barrel riffles that could easily hit and kill soldiers in the open air transports. In real wars many men died as soon as the door of the transport opened up.

This film does a good job in showing the inherent problems of direct authoritarian hierarchical structures when one man decides the fate of an individual or any group of men. If that man is unfit for command because of mental and emotional problems then his/her decisions could be against the welfare of his/her troops.

My wife was right that Garner's character could not die off. I know that most films during that time period could never have a hero die off, I just could not help but think that the anti-war elements would see him die as both the witnesses said he died in battle.

Buffalo Soldiers (2001)

Australian director Gregor Jordan makes his sophomore effort with this tale about crooked U.S. soldiers based in Germany during the waning days of the cold war. Special Fourth Class soldier Elwood (Joaquin Phoenix) guards against the Soviets while on duty, and rips off the U.S. military while off duty. Handsome, calculating, and thoroughly amoral, Elwood runs a profitable black-market business that operates just below the official radar. He and his associates make drugs to sell to his fellow GIs; steal Army supplies, selling them to a German connection; and a host of other dirty deeds. One day, he and his gang uncover some loot that will land them some real money -- high-tech military weaponry. As they try to quietly offload the stuff, the new sergeant, Robert K. Lee (Scott Glenn), catches on to Elwood's nefarious deeds and sets out to put him out of businesses. Elwood, in turn, catches on to the fact that Lee has a very attractive daughter (Anna Paquin) and sets out to bed her. This film was screened at the 2001 Toronto Film Festival. ~ Jonathan Crow, All Movie Guide
See All Buffalo Soldiers Trailers and Clips

Theatrical Feature Running Time: 99 mins
Buffalo Soldiers (2001)

Watched this with a close relative and she asked if I thought it was anything close to reality. Truly a fictional account but still has elements that appear in any bureaucracy especially government run. Some of the same elements are shown on a more benign level in films like "M*A*S*H" with Radar being similar to efficient Elwood. For example Radar in the last Mash episode I watched he got his CO to sign off a discharge for a sheep that the Greeks has donated to the unit for a party. Radar may have not been doing it for malicious reasons but still he was doing it for personal and not to the betterment of his unit. Stripes also comes to mind about this sentiment of the US military but more with regards to peace time operations.

Before watching the film I came across this: An Interview With Gregor Jordan.

MOVIE CITY NEWS: I imagine that one of the complaints you'll hear about Buffalo Soldiers is that it's just another attempt by Hollywood liberals to slander our proud fighting men and women. Guilty or not guilty?

GREGOR JORDAN: I grew up on an Air Force base in Australia, where my father was a pilot. He fought in Vietnam, so I grew up on war stories and around soldiers.

I don't see this film as anti-American or anti-military. It poses some interesting philosophical questions about warfare, aggression and the need for violence by certain people ... I think that idea really translates well in these characters.

MCN: Obviously, then, you don't see Buffalo Soldiers as being hopelessly dated by the swirl of events in Iraq and Afghanistan?

GJ: It's of its time, yes, but I think the film actually is way more topical now, than it was before. It says that war and warfare are things certain human beings really like and want.

There are warlike people out there who are aggressive and expansionist. Those ideals of the '60s and '70s - you know, "give peace a chance" - seem to be overly romantic.

MCN: That's a fairly extreme notion, especially for a Hollywood movie.

GJ: Warfare is something quite innate in humans ... war was invented way before diplomacy. Today, it is seen as this weird aberration, which only happens when diplomacy breaks down ... and no one really wants war.

This movie suggests that there are people out there who do. This may be a pessimistic viewpoint, but I think it's a fact.

I would say this is anti-military in the least. Mainly for the basic fact that it paints the military as not capable of being just a standing army and has to resort to self destruction. But I put that aside since it does have an important message about failure to value the standing army in peace times as well as war times.

Still worth watching it overall. Rating: 3.5 (/5)

Paths of Glory (1957)

Adapting Humphrey Cobb's novel to the screen, director Stanley Kubrick and his collaborators Calder Willingham and Jim Thompson set out to make a devastating anti-war statement, and they succeeded above and beyond the call of duty. In the third year of World War I, the erudite but morally bankrupt French general Broulard (Adolphe Menjou) orders his troops to seize the heavily fortified "Ant Hill" from the Germans. General Mireau (George MacReady) knows that this action will be suicidal, but he will sacrfice his men to enhance his own reputation. Against his better judgment, Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) leads the charge, and the results are appalling. When, after witnessing the slaughter of their comrades, a handful of the French troops refuse to leave the trenches, Mireau very nearly orders the artillery to fire on his own men. Still smarting from the defeat, Mireau cannot admit to himself that the attack was a bad idea from the outset: he convinces himself that loss of Ant Hill was due to the cowardice of his men. Mireau demands that three soldiers be selected by lot to be executed as an example to rest of the troops. Acting as defense attorney, Colonel Dax pleads eloquently for the lives of the unfortunate three, but their fate is a done deal. Even an eleventh-hour piece of evidence proving Mireau's incompetence is ignored by the smirking Broulard, who is only interested in putting on a show of bravado. A failure when first released (it was banned outright in France for several years), Paths of Glory has since taken its place in the pantheon of classic war movies, its message growing only more pertinent and potent with each passing year (it was especially popular during the Vietnam era). ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide

Theatrical Feature Running Time: 87 mins
Paths of Glory (1957)

Although this film was highly recommend by a friend, and deserves accolades for the film's outstanding portrayal of war {WWI}, it was not the anti-war film from my self appraisal. There is no denying the similarities with the film and book "All Quiet on the Western Front". As such, Paths of Glory was more along the lines of an anti-WWI movie. One that showed the horror of war with a set of strategic paradigms when the weapons of war had changed but the general's approach had not.

Throwing good men after a hill worth nothing proved the war was not worth the costs in young men's lives. When the Americans arrived, they set out to not be boxed by the paradigms currently employed. According to my history class. some strategists had assumed that when their side lost so many that they could calculate the amount lost on the opposing side without a complete assessment.

Ultimately in the end, the authoritarian hierarchical organization only wanted to preserve order and individual lives of the soldiers meant nothing. As the three executed were all innocent compared to what was expected of them and the truly guilty got free. One squad commander had killed one of his men and as such he selected the man that knew it to the court marshal hearings. And lastly, Colonel Dax was sent to the front again. Life expectancy was not long in the front lines and was a punishment for not accepting the field promotion.

PS: I know that I am a little thick but my review is more along that it was an anti-WWI type war. Every war has its own unique circumstances so much of that was specific to WWI, especially the fact that everything was so "civilized" and civil just a few miles away from the battle lines. War was glorious as long as you were a civilian or someone not in the trenches. Much as "All Quiet on the Western Front" portrayed.

The Dogs of War (1981)

Christopher Walken stars in John Irvin's graphic adaptation of Frederick Forsythe's novel about a mercenary sent to overthrow the government of an African country. Walken is Shannon, an American soldier of fortune who has staged incidents in Central America and Africa that helped topple governments. Shannon decides to take on one more mission when American businessman Endean (Hugh Millais), working for a large mining company wanting to move into an African country, hires Shannon to scout out the terrain of the country and see if the government is weak enough to be overthrown. Shannon assumes the guise of a photographer for a nature magazine and travels through the country, meeting a wide-array of people. But the government becomes suspicious of Shannon and throws him in jail, where, between torture sessions, he meets an imprisoned dissident leader. Through his imprisonment, Shannon comes to understand more fully the struggles of the African country. ~ Paul Brenner, All Movie Guide

Theatrical Feature Running Time: 119 mins
The Dogs of War (1981)

More of the cheesy variety of films produced in 1981 and along with Stripes. Christopher Walken does a good job on his part even if not much to work with. In the end Christopher's character does the right thing, so not sure if it was meant as anti-war or in fact glorified war or was even anti-imperialist. But in the end there was a heavy cost for the war and interventions.

After Endean gives Shannon $1 million for expenses, Shannon contacts his mercenary cohorts from Central America (3 of whom join him; 1 does not). They meet up at Liverpool Street Station to plan the coup, when all the options have been decided Michel proposes a toast followed by Shannon's reciting his motto "Everyone Comes Home". The group illegally procures Uzi submachine guns, ammunition, rocket launchers, mines, and other weapons from arms dealers.
The Dogs of War (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately, I forgot what actor did not join him but was famous enough that I assumed he would come back into the script-which he does not. A film technique that I see often is a minor character will go off in a different direction and when the time is right, they are brought back in to either keep the plot moving along or to "save the day". That is what I expected all along in this film, but either that plot never developed or the writer just wanted to show that someone decided to finally hang up their guns.