Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Micitype Pretty Good

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

denis888 No, this is NOT the famous 1951 black and white masterpiece that we all know and saw many times. This is a 1974 TV film, which I never heard of and never saw before. Many people criticized that take fiercely, which laves me totally shocked. Why? This full color take is not bad, this is a very decent try, a nice effort that depicts war as it is - cruel, miserable, sad, bloody, ferocious, wild, wanton, merciless, panicking, awful, bad and horrid. The movie is short, so it doesn't drag or get on your nerves. The plot of the book is depicted very vividly and it does not glorify violence, it shows it as a real terrible and blood-chilling affair. This rare film is certainly worth watching if only for educational sake and also for a fresh view of a classic

Robert J. Maxwell It's not a badly done telling of Stephen Crane's story of a young man being blooded in the Civil War. The performances are up to par. Richard Thomas by this time had outgrown his usual appearance of a recent graduate of Choate, yet still looks innocent enough to be the young soldier. The writer and director have added a few touches of their own to the tale. During the final charge into the Confederate lines, one soldier accidentally impales an oak tree and is stuck there for a moment.It's mainly when this version is compared to John Huston's 1951 version that the weaknesses are apparent, even though the budgets must have been similar. Huston had his improvised moments too -- a general riding from one regiment to the next, telling each to fight like hell and save him a plate of beans for when he joins them for supper that night. The same phony speech over and over, which the soldiers recognize and ridicule.But Huston's version is superior in many other ways. Here, the dying soldier tries to climb a tree before falling flat on the ground. In Huston's film, John Dierkes' death is horrifying rather than sad.There's something else too. In subtle ways, the direction by Huston is more effective than Lee Phillips' is here. Not that Phillips is inept but the way Huston manages the camera, the direction becomes part of the story. It's difficult to pin this down but, if you have a chance, watch the way Huston first introduces us to the young soldier, Audie Murphy, who gives the best performance of his career. As his buddy, Private Conklin, Bill Mauldin, a non-actor who was a famous cartoonist in World War II, is thoroughly believable, with his goofy face, whereas the same character here, Michael Brandon, looks and acts like a Hollywood actor. In Huston's film, the lieutenant in charge is of moderate height and slight build, with a scant but hopeful blond mustache. He's as young, vulnerable, and uncertain as his men. Here, it looks as if someone said, "Get me an infantry lieutenant from Central Casting."Well, it sounds as if I'm being harsh on this movie but obviously a good deal of effort and money were put into it and, as I say, the results aren't bad. It's rather that Huston did so much more.

choctaweagle When a movie is based on a novel, I judge the movie in its accuracy of portraying the intention of the novel's author. By far, this 1974 version was much closer to the events found in the text by Stephen Crane. The 1951 version changed the main focus -- the red badge -- into a yellow one. Also, the portrayal of events and the character depiction I feel were more in the tone that Stephen Crane intended in the 1974 (made for TV) version. I teach the novel on the high school level and have to make many more exceptions to the 1951 version than I do the 1974 version when I use the video versions.I must note that the leads in both versions (Murphy and Thomas) did excellent jobs in their portrayal of the main character Fleming. However, the other characters in the 1951 version did not come close to the ensemble group in the 1974 version. As a whole, the 1974 version did a better job in the creation of the mood and situation these men found themselves in the battlefields of the Civil War.

XRANDY I remember watching this movie on a rainy Saturday afternoon as a kid. It really struck me with its emotive power. Especially notable was one of the battle scenes that was shot adroitly from the young man's point of view, that really made me anxious, as if I were in his place. I would like to see this movie again to see if it is as effective while viewing it as an adult. I always keep an eye out to see if this movie will be shown on late night TV, but it seems as if only the original is ever shown. Does anyone know a way to obtain a copy of this or for that matter any made for TV movies that are not released on video?