Showing posts with label Richard Loo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Loo. Show all posts

July 28, 2024

The Steel Helmet.

Review #2234: The Steel Helmet.

Cast: 
Gene Evans (Sergeant Zack), Robert Hutton (Private Bronte), Steve Brodie (Lieutenant Driscoll), James Edwards (Corporal Thompson), Richard Loo (Sergeant Tanaka), Sid Melton (Joe), Richard Monahan (Private Baldy), William Chun ("Short Round"), Harold Fong (The Red), Neyle Morrow (First GI), and Lynn Stalmaster (Second Lieutenant) Written, Produced, and Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row)

Review: 
"I hate violence. That has never prevented me from using it in my films. It's part of human nature." - Samuel Fuller

It isn't too surprising that there were a few films made about the war effort in Korea while the war there was occurring, particularly one made by a veteran of the last World War. Samuel Fuller had served in the United States Army within the infantry. He went from working on screenplays to offering his services to direct with I Shot Jesse James (1949), which worked well enough to get him to continue as a director, which led to The Baron of Arizona (1950). With this film, he added producer to his line of credits (each of these first films were produced in some way by Robert L. Lippert). In his autobiography, he stated that he wanted to make a movie different from the usual stuff seen involving war, such as seeing the "genuine hardship of soldiers" to go with the fact that war in its confusion and brutality needed to be shown more so than straight heroism. Fuller cast Evans (an actor who had done only bit parts after returning from U.S. Army after having served as an engineer) on the strength of his actions when he approached for the role: when Fuller tossed an M1 rifle at him, he grabbed it, complete with racking it back when asked to by Fuller. He was kept even when suggestions were made to cast Larry Parks (of course, bigger studios earlier had thought of making it with John Wayne as the lead). Fuller shot exteriors for the film at Griffith Park in Los Angeles. His attempts to show the "organized insanity" that comes in war managed to ruffle feathers on each side (lefty or not), particularly with a visit with Army officials because of certain actions depicted in the film that, well, matched with actual events seen by Fuller, such as the shooting of a prisoner of war. The resulting film was a general hit (incidentally, the war would enter a period of stalemates that lasted until the 1953 ceasefire) that saw Fuller get a contract with 20th Century Fox for a time, for which his next film in Fixed Bayonets! (1951) also was a war film.

What we have is a straight-to-the-point story that manages to achieve the brilliance of looking like a thoughtful movie about the madness that arises in war that struck differently from the angle of the time within budgetary limitations that do more than if it had been a multimillion-dollar film. One gets an honest movie for 85 minutes with a worthwhile ensemble that shows the worry that arises from being packed in such a rough situation without turning it into a mark for eventual ra-ra heroism. In fact, the end of the film merely has a card saying, "There is no end to this story", which one doesn't usually get from their war films. It stokes curiosity for seeing strangers in a strange land rather than just being a mark for patriotism. Of course, they also don't usually see people asked about why they maintained their service even in the face of racism back home (such as the prior internment of Japanese Americans less than ten years prior). Fuller acts on his instincts to make a pulpy war film (dedicated to the U.S. infantry, as seen in the intro) that likely will leave a cutting impression on its viewer after it is finished. It doesn't take long to see the wisdom of having casted Evans (who would feature in a few more Fuller films) when it comes to his naturalistic performance that we follow along with in great interest in its gruff glory from the word go. The melting pot within the people around Evans is a curious one (one even is a conscientious objector) that consisted of actors who either didn't get many chances to get their due that do pretty well, such as the weariness played by Loo (a Hawaiian-born actor with Chinese ancestry that did plenty of stock roles) and Edwards. The bond of Evans and Chun is a curious one because of how each fit in the loosest of senses with the others, particularly since most of it is spent in a Buddhist temple with tension bubbling among these strangers that probably match the quote stated best in the film involving two kinds of soldiers, "those who are dead and those who are going to die." Aside from its partial time with Fong, one is mostly here with these shaky band of brothers before that fateful climax (as skillfully done with a handful of extras in a park) that drifts to a sobering conclusion for those who survive as opposed to the ones that did not get killed that day. As such, this is a worthwhile hard-nosed war film that rises above expectations with a useful cast and director all working in stride that results in an honest winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

November 21, 2012

Movie Night: The Man with the Golden Gun.


Review #289: The Man with the Golden Gun.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Christopher Lee (Francisco Scaramanga), Britt Ekland (Mary Goodnight), Maud Adams (Andrea Anders), Hervé Villechaize (Nick Nack), Richard Loo (Hai Fat), Soon-Tek Oh (Lieutenant Hip), Clifton James (J.W. Pepper), Bernard Lee (M), Marc Lawrence (Rodney), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Marne Maitland (Lazar), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever)

Review
The Man with the Golden Gun was the ninth film in the James Bond series based off the 13th novel of the book series by Ian Fleming, though the film doesn't have much to do with the novel (This doesn't hurt the film though as the films usually don't have that much accuracy anyway). And I finally get to talk about Roger Moore as James Bond. How is he? Well....Let me get to that later. Christopher Lee (I should make a game of how many times I review him in a film with him either being there or being the villain) is decent (He's been Dracula, a Baskerville, a Wonka, Dooku, The Creature, and a voice of the Jabberwocky in his career. Impressive.), probably more interesting then the plot. What's the plot? Something about solar power and a man with the golden gun (title drop), almost as thin as Diamonds Are Forever. The dialogue is meh, but the attempts at comedy are even more mediocre, which doesn't mesh well with the action. Ekland is...surprisingly clumsy (One scene I can't believe involves her not being able to see a button that is bright red), again almost as "eh" as Jill St. John in (again) Diamonds Are Forever. So how is Roger Moore? Well...He's relatively okay. He's not a suave type of Bond, but a more "roll with it" Bond. Roger Moore would be James Bond for 12 years (The longest run for a Bond, with 7 movies from 1973-1985), with this film being a slight misfire for the Bond franchise.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.