Based on some of the other reviews on this board, I'd have to say it's a good thing there's a Turner Classics Movie Channel out there. I had never heard of this Paul Newman starring vehicle before either. Once under way, the story of Captain Edward Hall Jr. becomes a compelling drama, as the courtroom scenes reveal the nuanced complexity in determining what constitutes 'collaboration with the enemy'. In an even handed way, the film allows the prosecuting and defense attorneys both build convincing arguments that make it difficult for the viewer to determine how the story will end. I have to say, I felt exactly the same as Lt. Col Wasnick (Edmond O'Brien) did when Captain Hall admitted that he may not have reached the breaking point while prisoner. Suddenly, the tension is drained from Hall's ordeal, and there's an acknowledgment and acceptance of a guilty verdict even before the decision is announced.Though others find Newman's scene in the car with the father (Walter Pidgeon) of his character to be emotionally charged, my own favorite scene was the brilliant opening argument by Edmond O'Brien in defense of his client. Now that I think about it, I'm intrigued by how highly competent both opposing attorneys were in their respective arguments, leading me to consider how successful they might have been if O'Brien and Wendell Corey were cast in each other's role. Would Wasnick have used the same argument to determine Hall's 'breaking point' if he were on the other side? Quite interesting to consider.One odd observation, and I don't know why this bothers me but it does. Remember the scene when Captain Hall asks for a glass of water while on the stand? Prosecuting attorney Sam Moulton (Corey) hands him the glass, and when Hall is finished taking a sip, hands it back to Moulton. Moulton then refills it and drinks from the same glass! Why?And finally, getting back to my original point about TMC. If I didn't watch Turner Classics so regularly, I would never have known the name of the movie the rehabilitating soldiers were watching in the military hospital. That was Debbie Reynolds on screen in a scene from 1953's "The Affairs of Dobie Gillis".

Paul Newman's second film (but released after "Somebody Up There Likes Me") demonstrates that, even then, he was the truly finest screen performer around. But the very nature of his style has always placed him behind –or to the side of– more "bravura" actors of the time. Unlike Brando and Clift and Dean- he is much less self-centered; in other words he is a sharing actor. This puts the SCENE in focus more than the performance, and in this extremely underrated (and almost forgotten) courtroom drama you have one of the best scenes I have ever come across - a simple dialogue between Newman and his father, played by Walter Pidgeon (who gives one of HIS best performances here). The short scene takes place towards the end of the film and is pivotal to the story. It is a miniature master-class in technique, communication (or lack of it) and truth. There are clear parallels to "East of Eden" but somehow the shading here is less stark, which makes the confrontation so much more -real. Courtroom dramas, especially American ones, almost always work as on screen. The inbuilt tension and clear pattern of procedure, with gradual unraveling of facts and insights, is compelling, no matter what the case or period. This one is no exception. There are many cadences and moral issues are raised that one sometimes wishes could have gone even further. Otherwise the screenplay (based on a tele-play) is taut, careful and intriguing. So are the characters: Wendell Corey and Edmond O Brien as defense and prosecuting counsel respectively are particularly noteworthy, and utterly believable in parts that could easily have been stereotypes. If one must criticize, I would have to say that the first part of the film, before the court case begins, could have been curtailed slightly. Not because it is in any way uninteresting, but because it seems somehow rather unnecessary -as if just placed in to flesh out the film. But this is a minor criticism of a film that really deserves to be better known.

Never viewed this film until I noticed it was going to be shown on TCM and was very surprised to see that Paul Newman starred in this film. This story is about the treatment of American Soldiers during the Korean War and how their captives tortured our men with mental punishments in order to brainwash their thinking and find their weakness in order to take complete control over their mental thinking. Paul Newman, (Capt. Edward Worthington Hall Jr.,) played the role of an Army Officer under investigation and also a trial to determine what actually happened in the prisoner of war camp. Wendell Corey, (Maj. Sam Moulton), is the Army Prosecuting Attorney and Edmond O'Brien, (Lt. Col. Frank Wasnick) the Army Defense Attorney who both did outstanding acting defending their clients. Walter Pidgeon,(Col. Edward W. Hall,Sr.,) was the father to Capt. Edward Worthington Hall, Jr. who gave a great supporting role along with Anne Frances (Aggie Hall) who lost her husband in the Korean War. This is a great film to view and it clearly showed how many people who are tortured have breaking points when in captivity and questions everyone how they would be able to endure such treatment and whether they would be able to hold up.

This movie is well worth watching. It concerns a Korean war POW who returns home and is subject to a court-martial on charges of collaborating with the enemy. Paul Newman, as war veteran Capt. Edward Worthington Hall Jr., shows signs of the powerful actor he would later become, and the supporting cast is excellent. I particularly liked Wendell Corey as the somewhat reluctant but duty-bound prosecutor. The Korean War seems to have been a particularly grizzly affair where torture was common and the Geneva Convention flouted. In post Abu Ghraib 2006, torture is of current interest and gives "The Rack" added relevance. In showing that a strong and decorated officer like Captain Worthington can be broken, the unfortunate message is that torture does work on occasion. We all know that each of us has a breaking point, but the concept explored here is what makes some people, Captain Worthington in this case, succumb before that point is reached. The emphasis is on mental torture - trying to figure out just what the crucial vulnerability is in a personality and exploiting that. For Worthington it was loneliness, his mother having died young and his father being a martinet. The thing that pushed him over the edge was losing his brother in the war. But, by his own admission, he never felt that he had reached his breaking point. The message is that most of us are stronger than we think and we rarely get pushed, or push ourselves, to our limits and beyond. The issues are argued in detail in the court-martial and one conclusion posited by the defense is that maybe the country was in some part responsible for what happened to Captain Worthington - the soldiers were never trained for what they encountered in the war and the populace was pretty much ignorant about who we were fighting and the reason for it. As the Iraq war grinds on Santayana's quote comes to mind, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."With such strong themes and excellent performances, why is this only a good and not a great movie? For me it was a lot of little things. Like when Lee Marvin comes into a room in the hospital where the patients are watching a movie and he comes up behind Newman and hangs a noose around his neck with a "Traitor" sign attached. When Newman pursues Marvin to talk with him, Marvin flees down the hallway. Some bothersome things here. How did Marvin make this item? Being on crutches it seems unlikely he was carrying this thing around with him at all times just waiting for the right moment. And Marvin was presented as an aggressive macho man, so his flight in the face of potential confrontation was out of character. This scene could have been much more effective. A pivotal point Newman makes in his defense is "My father never kissed me." To single that out as a way a saying that his father was remote and unaffectionate seemed odd to me. There are a lot of loving and affectionate fathers who never kissed their sons. That line just seemed in there to set up the scene in the car where Newman's father does kiss him, but that awkward out-of-character part of the scene in the car seemed forced to me. Just as actors should never seem to be acting, screenplays should never have such obvious plot devices.All told, this is an admirable film coming so soon after the Korean war and forcing consideration of issues that I'm sure the country was eager to forget.