CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Michael_Elliott Steel Helmet, The (1951) *** (out of 4) Fuller's grim Korean War drama follows Sgt. Zack (Gene Evans) and other rugged men as they take shelter in an abandoned Buddhist temple where they have time to reflect on what they're going in the war. Filmed in a reported ten days, this is one of those rare films that takes place during the war which it is showing. The movie doesn't really take a stance on either side of the line, although there's no question that Fuller wants to get his own ideas across. One of the best scenes involves a black man who is asked how he feels about having to fix these men up yet in the real world he wouldn't be able to sit at the same table with them. There's a lot of racial slurs thrown around at various people but this comes off very realistic as does the rest of the dialogue. You can listen to these men and actually feel like you're in the trenches with them as you'd be hearing this type of conversations. Another big plus is that the movie never paints a pretty picture, which was the type of thing we were use to seeing in war pictures from Hollywood. It's clear Fuller is doing things his way and he didn't care about criticism, which eventually came to the film. Evans delivers a fine and realistic performance as does the rest of the cast. The one negative thing was all the stock footage used at the end but the low budget probably required it. This isn't your typical war film but you can watch it and feel as if you're seeing an original. The influence on movies like FULL METAL JACKET, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and Tarantino's recent are pretty obvious.

dougdoepke You've got to hand it to Fuller— by going to low-budget Lippert Pictures he got basically the unglamorous result he wanted. In the process, however, he had to sacrifice certain production values, but what he got in return was an unHollywood Gene Evans, a stunning statue, and an unconventional screenplay—all pretty cutting edge for the time. Now, tough-talking, homely-looking army sergeants were pretty much a staple of the era, (think James Whitmore in Battleground {1949}). However, they usually took orders from a handsome leading man like Van Johnson, and so were clearly secondary, even if important, characters. Not so here. Sgt. Zack (Evans) leads the cast, takes orders only reluctantly, and deploys the patrol in combat situations like an officer. At best, he only tolerates his nominal superior, Lt. Driscoll (Brodie). I take it that Fuller is being as honest as possible about the often hostile relations between officers and enlisted men, especially intense (as I understand it) during WWII, which was Fuller's formative war experience. Driscoll may have the authority to give orders, but he has to earn Zack's respect -- an inspired use of the steel helmet symbolism.Another major theme is Fuller's concern for racial equality, a touchy societal topic also ahead of its time. The concern for mutual help and understanding is obvious in the relationships Zack forms with the Korean boy (Chun) and the black corporal (Edwards). Zack doesn't pander to the black soldier, but he does treat him as just that, a medic and a soldier, no more and no less. Fuller also puts the needed equality in a larger, national context when the North Korean major (Fong) tries to drive a racial wedge between the diverse members of the patrol. In fact, communist propaganda was often successful in Third World countries when pointing out the widespread racial discrimination within American democracy. Thus, Fuller's implicit message was a bold and timely one for Cold War audiences.It's also important, I think, to point out that Sgt. Zack is not particularly likable. He's ornery and unfriendly. Initially he tries to get rid of the kid, probably because he knows relationships in war can be risky. He doesn't want to get close to anyone. In fact, it's because he gets too close to the Korean kid that he makes a big military mistake by shooting the Red major. I like the way Fuller uses that blunder to bring Zack down a few notches. In effect, Driscoll expresses the officer's point of view by saying that because of his blunder, Zack is too dumb to be an officer. Whether true or not, the dressing down prevents Zack's character from being over-idealized, an important concession from a director clearly on the side of enlisted men like Zack.Nonetheless, despite the quality of the story, Lippert productions remains a cut-rate affair. The outdoor action never gets beyond the tell-tale scrublands of greater LA, while the studio fog machine works overtime disguising the rickety exterior set. Still and all, the temple scenes are well mounted, and I don't know where they got that massive centerpiece Buddha, but it's impressive as all-get-out. The frozen smile remains a puzzle throughout the action, a fitting cosmic commentary, I guess, on the passing concerns of mortal men.Speaking of Lippert, I felt a twinge of dread when I saw Sid Melton's name in the cast credits. He was responsible for much of that company's customary low-brow comic relief and I anticipated the worst. My guess is that Fuller okay'ed him for the film, but on condition he not be allowed to speak and risk his usual audience associations. After all, Pvt. Baldy (Monahan) is supposed to provide what chuckles there are. It's also surprising to see WWII's favorite sadistic Japanese officer, Richard Loo, in a sympathetic role for a change. Fortunately, it's one that also shows what a fine actor he was. For all the movie's many merits, it still remains rooted in the cultural climate of WWII. Made at the outset of the Korean conflict, it betrays none of the ambiguities that would later surround America's involvement in that far-off land. The enemy is treated as straightforwardly wicked, and in a revealing piece of combat footage, mowed down in human waves. As a belated tribute to the dog-faces of WWII, Fuller pays his debt of respect and gratitude. However, this is a combat movie, and what politics there are reflect more about social conditions in the US than in Korea. Actual insight into the character of the Korean war only emerges later in such films as The Bridges of Toko-Ri (1954) and the much overlooked I Want You (1951). Nonetheless, Fuller proves himself here to be a doggedly independent filmmaker. More importantly, it also shows he's a filmmaker with something significant to say. And it's that important point on which his cult reputation rests.

pdodig-3 I remember seeing this film when it was first released back in 1951. I am quite sure there was a scene deleted from the versions now being shown. When Sgt Zack and the squad come upon a group of Korean refugee's, he shoots a North Korean soldier, on a hunch, posing as a woman. The Lt. & Zack argue about the shooting.If you recall, earlier in the film, the Lt. (Steve Brodie's character) has a disagreement, with Zack about getting the dog tags of a dead American GI that causes the death of the soldier sent to get the tags. Zack remarked that it would be wise not to touch the body. The Lt. ordered the tags be retrieved, causing resentment between both of them.I could be mistaken but the film's continuity seems to jump ahead during the refugee sequence. I could be wrong, fifty-eight years dulls the memory.

MisterWhiplash Samuel Fuller's first great hard-boiled war movie doesn't seem to strike up the same controversy that it apparently did back in the 1950s. Maybe an extra fifty-five years of the United States becoming more liberal in certain stances, such as where black people can sit on a bus or if the Japanese internment camps were such a good idea, has changed the film in a certain respect. But what hasn't changed is Fuller's immediate sense of danger and drama, of the tough bond between soldiers in combat, and what it means to be patriotic in the face of the grittiest odds. I also found it a fascinating feat, especially this early in Fuller's career, to set up not only a quasi-prototype of the Fuller bad-ass that would continue on in many of his films (one definitely would see a form or two of this in the Big Red One), but criticizing this figure. And meanwhile Fuller pumps up his war film with a staggering showcase of horrific war violence which, up until the climax, is largely off-screen with only the sound effects of bullets streaming fast meant for emphasis, and the camera acting as a real presence in the room during the temple, acting as exclamation pointer and a tool for the suspense.The Fuller figure in the film, which ends up becoming the central one even amid the ensemble, is Sgt. Zack, with his scruffy beard, hard talk, and odd principles ("best in the infantry", Zack says, as you either live or die). But of all things, Fuller uses a little Korean boy, who sings the entire Korean national anthem- also Audl Yange Syne- and has a deep belief in Buddhist traditions. It's not any kind of little gimmick to garner the audience's sympathies, however, and by not calling too much attention to it there's strength in Zack's very subtle change by the end of the film. He's still going to be a bit of a brutish guy who may let his emotions get the better of him, and charges onward even when thinking he's the only real tough guy in the army. But Fuller seems to not be making him a real true-blue hero in the John Wayne sense: he's a lot more of a complicated tough-guy protagonist, who played by Gene Evans plays him convincingly as a man who's principles of strength on the battlefield get mixed up when his conscience enters into things. He remains one of Fuller's coolest and a benchmark in B war movie characters.What's so strange about the Steel Helmet ends up being how it uses so much on a minuscule budget. Shot in ten days, Fuller structured the script mostly as if it was a stage play; 2/3 of the film is set in the temple, as the characters stay low, get a run-in with a North Korean infiltrator, try and fix a radio, and generally have a lot of talks about what it is to fight in war and whatnot. It's never boring for second, even as one might wonder when, like in Night of the Living Dead, the ominous forces of the outside will come in and break up the monotony of suspense. I loved little moments like when the one soldier thinks his grenade is about to explode right on his belt if he stands up, or when Zack describes who he'd let wear his helmet based on an insane D-Day story, or when the radio operator started growing hair. Even dialog that should be dated when the North Korean asks the black soldier about discrimination in America comes off as interesting. And then, suddenly, Fuller will whip up the camera and editing into a sharp frenzy when it comes time for battle, or make it as something to almost keep the soldiers themselves on their toes. And it's something to admit as fearless to have only a hand-full of extras and a handful of special effects to make a battle scene just as great as anything in the Big Red One- which are some of the best war battles in film history.A real 'guy' movie that doesn't kid its own nature about men from varying cultures all plopped together in an insane conflict, with quick flashes of humor and sudden, unexpected violence, and a final message on the title card that will resonate long as men carry big guns and wear those helmets.