Customer Reviews

Man in the Middle

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Hollywood screen legend Robert Mitchum (1917-1997) heads an all-star cast in this *powerful..provocative* wartime drama , featuring exotic , unexpexted twist and an unforgettable courtroom climax ! . In a remote jungle outpost in the far eastern theatre of WW II , a hottheaded American Soldier murders an alilied British Sergeant in cold blood . Stalwart American Lt. Colonel Barney Adams (Mitchum) is dispatched to defend him in the ensuing court martial . But When Lt. Adams starts encountering roadblocks in his search for evidence , and his key witnesses start disappearing one after another , he soon realize he's merely a pawn in a mysterious conspiracy that could extend to the highest level of military power . High Quality Transfer . Recommended

Some of this movie may have been the basis for the film A Few Good Men. Robert Mitchum is a lieutenant colonel flown from Europe to India to be the defense attorney for an American lieutenant who murdered a British sergeant. He hasn't practiced any law for over 16 years and his primary defense witness, a doctor of phychiatry, has been transferred and his damaging report on the defendent suppressed by his superiors. The defendent is played by Keenan Wynn. The more his attorney speaks with him and others who knew him, the more convinced Mitchum becomes that the trial will not be fair and his defendant will be found guilty instead of insane. The rush to hang him is the excuse used to reduce tension between the British and American armies stationed in India.

The love interest for Mitchum is a nurse at the hospital played by France Nuyen. She becomes attracted to Mitchum and eventually they have a romance. But some of the scenes between them feel contrived. As she hugs him in one scene and when he is about to leave again at the end of the film she has no tears for him even though she tries.

At times the music is a little to melodramatic and does not really fit the scene. It is intended to dramatize a particular scene but is overdone. And of course there is the curstomary marching military band and patriotic music used in the film at some point.

The courtroom drama is pretty good, but the prosecuting attorney allows the defense attorney a lot of leeway to challenge its witnesses without any objections. The courtroom scenes in the Cane Mutiny are far better. The ending to this film leaves the audiance to speculate on whether the defendent is found guilty as the outcome of the trial is not shown or discussed.

Overall this is a pretty good film, but not a great film. The Cane Mutiny and A Few Good Men are still better films about flawed characters and military justice.

Great little movie with some fine acting.

An American officer has shot and killed a British sargeant for no apparent reason. U.S./British relations are already frayed and the brass are concerned that this will impact the success of planned joint operations against the Japanese. They want the American officer tried and hung, promptly.

Recovering ETO Army Air Corps hero LTC Barnie Adams (Robert Mitchum) is pressed into service as defense attorney, as he has a legal background long ago in his past. As an 18-year career officer looking foward to a promotion to full colonel, Barnie is initially planning to just do his job, give a not-too-spirited defense of his client, and get on with his career.

When he is constantly frustrated in his attempts to collect information needed to assess the case, and key defense witnesses are transferred or die, Barnie gradually decides truth and fairness are more important to defend than his chance for career advancement. Fine supporting acting jobs are done by France Nuyen, Keenan Wynn and Treavor Howard.

A couple of minor quibbles, but they are minor. The military score gets at bit over-wrought in parts. In my experience, if an enlisted jeep driver summoned a LTC by repeatedly leaning on the horn, he's find himself an E-1 in the field with a rifle in his hands pretty quick.

A movie well worth seeing. A wartime movie, not a war movie.

20th Century Fox is to be congratulated for at last releasing to DVD this excellent movie. It has remained far too long in the vault and I am glad the studio has finally taken the intiative in releasing it.

The list of the film's virtues would run pretty long, but let me single out just a few. It has a great cast, headed by Robert Mitchum who does his usual fascinating performance, and lovely France Nuyen, who has never looked more beautiful. And just when you think you've been thoroughly entertained by these actors in comes Trevor Howard to steal the show, giving a brilliant performance. The fine script is well-directed by Guy Hamilton, who always did first-class work. He keeps the story moving well with continued points of interest. The music by John Barry is compelling and the cinematography by Wilkie Cooper is nothing short of superb.

It also has one other thing to recommend it: it has, bar none, the most striking opening scene in film history.

This was a very good movie starring Robert Mitchum in a great performance. This drama was very well made with a very good story.

This movie is a little bit different and I found it very enjoyable.

"Man In The Middle" (1964) is arguably Mitchum's best performance (certainly his most nuanced) and one of those situations where you can't imagine anyone else in the role. Although the focus is a "military" court martial in India during the last months of WWII, it is basically a standard courtroom drama with Mitchum's character playing the defense counsel. The actual proceeding is very similar to that shown in "The Caine Mutiny" (1954). With a running length of just 93 minutes and a relatively complex story to tell, Director Guy Hamilton had to utilize a lot of stereotypes and nonverbal clues from Mitchum to assemble a coherent film. He is largely successful although it appears a lot of the romantic side story (between Mitchum and "South Pacific's France Nuyen) was trimmed before release. That is of little importance to the theme, what was left works mainly as a way to go out on Mitchum's closing line "you might not be able to beat them but you don't have to join them".

Out of combat, recovering from his wound, a limping career Army lieutenant colonel with a law degree and limited legal experience finds himself assigned to defend an American officer (Lt. Winston-played by Keenan Wynn) who has already confessed to the murder of a British Staff Sergeant. In fact, the film opens with the murder so the viewer is never in doubt about the "who done it" issue. All that remains is the punishment phase of the proceeding. Winston's brother-in-law is a congressman who has rejected several other potential defense counsels but has agreed to Mitchum's appointment. The area commander (nicely played by Barry Sullivan) wants the proceeding expedited ASAP with a death sentence, the best way to satisfy the British so everyone can go back to pulling together. He is a friend of Mitchum's family and is confident that Mitchum will take one for the team and do what is best for the war effort.

And at first Mitchum seems quite agreeable to the idea of providing no more than a token defense; pointing out to the two hot shot attorneys on his defense team that in a few months they will be back practicing law as civilians while he has found a home in the Army and does not want this to louse up his career. He has only been given a few days to assemble his case anyway.

But as he reviews the circumstances and interviews a few people he becomes convinced that his client is a psychological basket case who was unable to determine right from wrong at the time of the murder. There is no time for the film to explore the origins of Lt. Winstons's mental condition and no time to give any dimensionality to his character. Nor is it actually of any real relevance to the story Director Guy Hamilton is trying to tell, so Winston is simplistically portrayed as a totally unsympathetic character. Unlike in "A Few Good Men" (1992), it is intended that the viewer conclude that just going through the motions would really be in the best interests of everyone except the defendant.

Mitchum is on the screen 90% of the time and is the only character that undergoes any real change during the course of the film. And Mitchum must underplay the change process because the idea is to show that if the Army had not tried to hinder his efforts, he would never have put so much energy into the defense. It is a great nonverbal performance as Mitchum slowly gets his back up about what is happening and decides that personal integrity trumps career aspirations. Somewhat cliché and with the score more appropriate to an overwrought melodrama, it is a nice illustration of the condensed storytelling process of films.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

From the opening credits, "Man in the Middle" had all the appearance of a mojor production. The televized version I saw was even in the full screen mode. The sets, the location and, to a lesser extent, the actors seemed to suggest that this was one of the studio's higher budgetted projects for the year. As it turned out, the direction was far superior to the script and the end result was much ado about nothing. "Man in the Middle" struck me as an unashamed attempt to recreat "The Caine Muitiny". Although I have great respect for Robert Mitchum (his presence in the cast was the sole reason I watched this movie), he was no Jose Ferrer and Keenan Wynn (who would probably be the first to agree) was no Humphrey Bogart.

I recognize that war movies take liberties with romantic entanglements. The concept of "there may be no tomorrow" cuts through a lot of preliminaries. However, the relationship between Robert Mitchum and Frances Ngyuen lacked any kind of structure.

The film tried to create a suspense but, having created it, it made it all unnecessary in the first place in the manner the problem was resolved. This high budget film should have spent more on a better script.

I have always been a fan of Robert Mitchum and have never seen him in a bad picture; until now. "The Enemy Below" and "Heaven Knows Mister Allison" rank amongst my favorite all time movies. When I saw the supporting cast I was sure it must be a very good film. It isn't. The direction is terrible.

In the first part of the film it is difficult to tell whether Mitchum is dedicated to providing the best defense that he can or just protecting his career by "going through the motions". I would guess that it was intended that this be portrayed as an inner conflict for Mitchum's character, but it doesn't come off.

The senior officers are so open about their zeal to get Keenan Wynn convicted that they make very little attempt to conceal it and speak openly before the trial about getting him convicted and hanged in order to mend fences between the Americans and British. It is too transparent to be believable. If the objective was to portray the military as callous and only interested in protecting itself and looking at the "big picture" in favor of justice, then this film went overboard.

The relationship between Mitchum and France Nuyen goes from hot to cold and back so many times, so quickly and with so little motivation as to be laughable. One minute she is chasing after him with school girl eyes and the next she detests him. He shows up at her house and is greeted with all the enthusiasm of a leper and within minutes is being asked to stay the night.

Keenan Wynn's breakdown at the end of the trial, where he cries like a baby, is completely out of character with the rest of his portrayal.

The music is totally inappropriate for the mood of the movie. It sounds as if it were written for a cavalry epic and is noticeably incongruous.

The story had great potential and with a cast including Trevor Howard, Barry Sullivan, and Keenan Wynn only a truly bad director could have ruined it. All-in-all the film was an utter disappointment and I would not recommend it.

It starts out with a fairly interesting premise: even an insane bigot deserves a fair trial. Along the way we're supposed to loathe both the nut-case defendant and the military men who, for some mysterious reason (we never discover it) are trying to hang the guy fast-and-get-it-over-with (something about him embarrassing Our Cause). Whatever. Total bloviation (not a dictionary word, but you get the point). Mitchum looks like he's about to burp up his dinner. He was not at his best here. That wig or whatever thing was sitting on his head, makes him look like a fifty-year old "boy." France Nyen was wasted as an ineffectual, idealistic witness to the injustice going on, and drawn romantically to the bilious, over-the-hill MItchum (why?) The only amusing characters were the two legal flunkies Mitchum keeps telling to "shut up." There's some kind of jokey thing going on to keep them in their place when they seem to be the only ones who truly want justice (aside from Ms. Nyen, of course, but she's so boring it doesn't matter). And then you have the "secondary" racism and sexism, on the part of Mitchum, no less, who is supposed to be a late-blooming champion of civil rights. "Still taking laundry?" he quips, as he drops in on Nuyen, described as "French-Chinese" (get it? Chinese = laundry) and calling her "honey" every time she tries to be anything more than decorative. I mean, this movie doesn't know what it wants to be, and in the VERY, VERY long run is a turgid mish-mash of bloviated bologna. I sat through the whole stupid thing and the only way I can justify the waste of time is to get it out of my hair by writing something funny about it. I'm going to bed. If I dream about Robert Mitchum chasing his hair through a muddy ditch in Far India, I'm suing Twentieth Century Fox.