There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Gregory Peck as usual is great. The movie was too kind to MacArthur in his dealing with President Truman
on September 4, 2013
There is no question that MacArthur was brilliant in many ways, both positive and negative but the real grit was missing from this movie. Some of his military decisions were amazing but the holes in how he dealt with the Korean situation were dark and deep that only his personality quirks could explain. Truman, as President, was also the right man in the right place at the right time. However, the personalities couldn't have been more poorly matched.
on September 12, 2016
A little slow for a war movie, however, Gregory Peck did a very good job in the movie.
on June 26, 2016
"B" movie, but really OK piece of history.
on September 4, 2010
This movie, in short, is very inconsistent as far as movie quality goes. The 1970s production values are clear, but I don't hold that against the film; it's the overall "B-movie" feeling inherent in the production. I've seen older films that were beautifully done. This wasn't. In some respects it was excellent; in others, downright awful. Let me elaborate.
First, the acting. Some of the actors are just too affected. Gregory Peck as MacArthur, Marj Dusay as the general's wife, and Sandy Kenyon as Jonathan Wainwright (in a limited role) were among the few strong performances that were genuine, powerful and believable. Many of the other acting performances, such as those that portrayed President Roosevelt, and President Truman (the actor spoke much faster than Truman ever did) are affected and over the top so much as to be laughable and produced a cringe or seven. Other acting segments were horrendous as well. Time after time, I noticed scenes where I thought to myself "people just don't talk like that. Only actors trying too hard do."
But that wasn't always the case. It tended to be more prevalent in the camraderie scenes, with average troops. To be fair, those roles weren't filled by great thespians--they were just bit players. But the director didn't step in and prevent these abominations of film. And anytime a viewer gets that feeling, as I did, it's just bad moviemaking.
On to the positive. As mentioned earlier, Peck and a few others were excellent. But where I thought the film shines was in some of the more intimate, serious scenes. One example was the scene where, after MacArthur returns to the Philippines ("I have returned"), and visits the survivors of the Bataan Death March. It was a powerful, well done scene. So was the escape from Corregidor to Australia early in the movie, and the Korean War scenes near the end were quite good.
While bad acting does sometimes stick out like a sore thumb, it's not the only thing I judge a film by. So what else was good? Well, the photography was first rate. It's difficult to view a period piece and get the real feeling of actually being there. This film allows for that feeling. Overall the DVD quality was good, too.
Back to criticism. There were factual errors I noticed immediately. When Truman and MacArthur meet on Wake Island to discuss Korean War strategy, MacArthur is shown saluting Truman as the president descends the stairs. The problem? It never happened. It's actually one of the more blatant examples of MacArthur's real life hubris and a relatively well known incident. So why did the filmmakers put it in? Creative license? I think not--it was a glaring omission. Another major error was when the MacArthur character (Peck) was briefing the President (FDR) in Hawaii, in an otherwise good scene portraying his effort to convince FDR not to not bypass the Philippines prior to an invasion in Japan, points to a spot on the map that is actually closer to Manila or Subic in the West, but says "Leyte," a place that is actually on the complete opposite side of that country's territory--on the east. Splitting hairs? Possibly, but imagine seeing a movie where someone says "here in New York City" but points to San Fransisco! So I think this just illustrates my point about the carelessness of the filmmakers and therefore, the B-movie like feeling one often gets.
All in all however, I enjoyed the movie, distractions for poor quality notwithstanding. I've recently developed an interest in the Pacific War and MacArthur himself, and for that reason and that reason only, I found it a worthwhile two hours spent watching the movie. I may even watch it again. In other words, I recommend this only for people genuinely interested in the subject matter and who want to watch a dramatic re-enactment of the events. For others, however, perhaps people who want to be entertained by a WWII film, it's difficult to recommend.
The bottom line to me is, this is a good but flawed film about a great but flawed man in a very fascinating time in history.
First, the acting. Some of the actors are just too affected. Gregory Peck as MacArthur, Marj Dusay as the general's wife, and Sandy Kenyon as Jonathan Wainwright (in a limited role) were among the few strong performances that were genuine, powerful and believable. Many of the other acting performances, such as those that portrayed President Roosevelt, and President Truman (the actor spoke much faster than Truman ever did) are affected and over the top so much as to be laughable and produced a cringe or seven. Other acting segments were horrendous as well. Time after time, I noticed scenes where I thought to myself "people just don't talk like that. Only actors trying too hard do."
But that wasn't always the case. It tended to be more prevalent in the camraderie scenes, with average troops. To be fair, those roles weren't filled by great thespians--they were just bit players. But the director didn't step in and prevent these abominations of film. And anytime a viewer gets that feeling, as I did, it's just bad moviemaking.
On to the positive. As mentioned earlier, Peck and a few others were excellent. But where I thought the film shines was in some of the more intimate, serious scenes. One example was the scene where, after MacArthur returns to the Philippines ("I have returned"), and visits the survivors of the Bataan Death March. It was a powerful, well done scene. So was the escape from Corregidor to Australia early in the movie, and the Korean War scenes near the end were quite good.
While bad acting does sometimes stick out like a sore thumb, it's not the only thing I judge a film by. So what else was good? Well, the photography was first rate. It's difficult to view a period piece and get the real feeling of actually being there. This film allows for that feeling. Overall the DVD quality was good, too.
Back to criticism. There were factual errors I noticed immediately. When Truman and MacArthur meet on Wake Island to discuss Korean War strategy, MacArthur is shown saluting Truman as the president descends the stairs. The problem? It never happened. It's actually one of the more blatant examples of MacArthur's real life hubris and a relatively well known incident. So why did the filmmakers put it in? Creative license? I think not--it was a glaring omission. Another major error was when the MacArthur character (Peck) was briefing the President (FDR) in Hawaii, in an otherwise good scene portraying his effort to convince FDR not to not bypass the Philippines prior to an invasion in Japan, points to a spot on the map that is actually closer to Manila or Subic in the West, but says "Leyte," a place that is actually on the complete opposite side of that country's territory--on the east. Splitting hairs? Possibly, but imagine seeing a movie where someone says "here in New York City" but points to San Fransisco! So I think this just illustrates my point about the carelessness of the filmmakers and therefore, the B-movie like feeling one often gets.
All in all however, I enjoyed the movie, distractions for poor quality notwithstanding. I've recently developed an interest in the Pacific War and MacArthur himself, and for that reason and that reason only, I found it a worthwhile two hours spent watching the movie. I may even watch it again. In other words, I recommend this only for people genuinely interested in the subject matter and who want to watch a dramatic re-enactment of the events. For others, however, perhaps people who want to be entertained by a WWII film, it's difficult to recommend.
The bottom line to me is, this is a good but flawed film about a great but flawed man in a very fascinating time in history.
on November 9, 2015
Don't let 3 stars throw you. It's a good movie. But if your rating good movies to good movies 3 is average, not bad. Although I liked it and will watch it again later, I have better. A good buy
on March 1, 2013
Movie is a hollywood version of the facts. The major events were accurate but the facts about the man were less then accurate. His true contributions to history were the post war establishment of a government in Japan and the Inchan landing. He was caught unprepared in the Philappines and Korea but unlike other high ranking personnel was never held accountable.
on December 8, 2013
It was ok. Not one of my favorite WWII movies. Mac is a hard character to get warm to, even though Peck does a good job of portraying him.
