Men in War (1957)Take a small group of survivors in a hardscrabble part of Korea during that neglected war and watch them squabble and worry and scramble to stay alive. This is an admired war movie for the simple reason that it is shorn of romanticism or heroism. Not that there aren't heroic acts, and true intelligence in expert soldiering. But the acting is vivid and honest, not pandering to our need for greatness in ordinary men. And the result is that these ordinary men are great. Robert Ryan is the star here, and he earns his keep. A smart, stubborn, hardened officer who knows the chips are down and isn't going to give in to excess or despair. The dry, open landscape with a few trees and some distant hills is almost a symbol for the movie, plain and unadorned, nothing unnecessary. The other actors are sharply seen, as well, some desperate and losing their grip, others just scared and watching, others subtle and observant. Anthony Mann is best known in the 1950s for his Westerns, and this isn't so far from that kind of landscape and battle to survive. His earlier film noir experience must have also taught him about storytelling and character. This is sharply seen and directed. The Pentagon hated it (because it shows a disorderly military unit, according to Wiki), and wouldn't help in the production, so the only real equipment in use here is a Jeep and some guns. And this helps in the end, since it forces the movie to focus on character and the ensemble acting.

As I say in the summary, this film compares very well with Sam Fuller's "Steel Helmet", though this Fuller film was actually made during the Korean War and it was made with an even smaller budget. They both are exceptional films--stories of foot soldiers stranded behind enemy lines during this war. Because both have rather modest stories, the films manage to work because of taut direction, excellent writing and terrific acting. It just goes to show you that you don't need a ton of cash or the biggest name actors to make a very good war film.The film starts with Robert Ryan playing a lieutenant in charge of a dozen and a half men who have been cut off during an American retreat early in the Korean War. Their goal is to go 17 miles to a hill PROBABLY still held by their forces. But it is very slow-going--particularly when their truck is knocked out and they have to carry their supplies. Things seem to be looking up when a jeep arrives. But the driver is a gung-ho sergeant (Aldo Ray) and his colonel (Robert Keith). This is a problem because Keith obviously has cracked up and is catatonic and Ray has no interest in doing anything but get his commanding officer back to a hospital--and he could care less about the other men. But, when Ryan forces Ray at gunpoint to relinquish the jeep, you know this is NOT your typical war film! There's a lot more to the film than this--as this all occurs in the first ten minutes or so, but I'll leave it to you to see where all this leads. The bottom line is that this is an amazingly tense and well-constructed film--one you can't help but admire because of its efficient use of actors, props and sets.

I recall seeing the film on first release and being much impressed. It compared well to other war films of the 40's and 50's in terms of what I understood to be combat realism. Besides, the great Robert Ryan could make a one-man invasion appear believable. Now, it looks like an extension of the war films of that pre-Vietnam era, cut basically from the same triumphant cloth. Yes, there are the casualties, the guys we see and the guys we like. They die in a variety of inglorious ways—knife, gunshot, explosion. But they die cleanly, no screaming, weeping, or fetal positions. And, of course, the star survives, the guy we most identify with. Sure, the medal ceremony suggests certain ironies, but the sacrifices are not in vain—the objective is gained and the enemy annihilated.My point is that in terms of combat realism and resolutions, the movie is very much a creature of its time. That's not to say the production lacks in dramatic values or entertainment. Running the artillery gantlet is genuinely nerve-wracking (though no one seems concerned with shrapnel spray) and so is the treacherous minefield (though that trails off inexplicably). However, I'm with the reviewers who find the assault on the hill poorly done, lacking in basic military intelligence on the enemy's part. And I agree that director Mann is much better at staging noir than at staging battle. Nonetheless, it's an excellent cast. Ray and Ryan play off one another very effectively, and there's none of that cutesy WWII banter that was so Hollywood. Other good touches for the time include the depiction of racial harmony (Morrow & Edwards) and passing glimpses of a fully human enemy.However, fifty years have passed and I now better understand the gap between what's on the movie screen and what isn't, and, most importantly, why. Director Mann and the screenwriters worked as best they could within the constraints of budget and Cold War requirements. After all, too much realism or futility and people would be less ready to march off to war. Anyway, as a whole and within those limitations, the movie remains an entertaining artifact of its time.

After viewing this movie and reading some of the reviews i couldn't keep myself from making a few comments.......when i was a boy i saw this film and thought it was great and scary........after actually having been in a war i realized how foolish it really is.......NCO's who act like children, soldiers who act as if they have no idea where they are and seem incapable of carrying out direct and simple orders, unbelievable behavior while attacking a fixed position....of course everyone is scared....that is common knowledge by now but it is not an excuse for failure.........as far as i could tell the technical director, john Dickson, may actually have been a 64 year old female war correspondent named Sigrid Schultz....what was that all about?.......I would have to come to the conclusion that Anthony Mann had very little to do with WWII and clearly never had a clue what soldiering was all about.Clearly, Anthony Mann was adept at character development but there are some genres of film where factual believability is just as important.......he could get away with over characterization in a western maybe........even though a bit too much for my taste......but not in a modern war film.......this movie was a lot more like a twilight zone episode than a war film......even the music was rod serlingish if you ask me.