The Marines attack a strongly held enemy island in the Pacific. We follow them from the beach to a Japanese rocket site through enemy infested jungle as their ex-school teacher leader is transformed into a battle veteran and his squad becomes a tight fighting unit. A company of Marines races against the clock to find a Japanese rocket base. This is a rather standard WWII film–neither exceptional nor bad in any way. Plus, considering the good acting and decent script, it's certainly worth watching if you like war films but not different enough to merit watching it if you don't.<br/><br/>In many ways, this is highly reminiscent of THE SAND OF IWO JIMA, which was made a year earlier. However, instead of starring the always tough John Wayne, this one was a Richard Widmark vehicle. Wayne's film was more enjoyable to watch, though realism was not all that important (using too much grainy WWII footage and a plot that was pure but enjoyable melodrama). The biggest strength of HALLS OF MONTEZUMA was its realism–without the extensive use of stock footage, actual period airplanes, etc. Plus, this film was without the heroic and bigger than life quality of SANDS.<br/><br/>No problems with this picture–nothing that didn't entertain or enlighten. However, if you've seen the Wayne film, they're so similar you probably don't need to see both. <ul><li>Despite it's grand name, Halls of Montezuma is a small war film. What I mean is that the movie focuses more on a small group of men and their fears and problems than it does on a grand plan for Allied victory. It's a very personal movie. We get to see these men up-close and we begin to develop feelings for them. I wouldn't doubt that this is one of the first films to show a U.S. Lieutenant so battle scarred that he resorts to using pain killers just to function. Unlike other war films of this era, not all of these men are going to make it to the end. War is like that. It doesn't pick and chose people to live because we like them. So in that regard, it's also more realistic than some other war movies made in the 50s.</li></ul><br/><br/><ul><li>To succeed as a small, personal war movie as I've described, the cast has to be able to act. This cast does not disappoint. Richard Widmark, Jack Webb, and Karl Malden are all excellent in their respective roles. I was especially impressed with Webb who has an acting style that can grate on the nerves. He's more subdued here and it works. But as good as these three are, Jack Palance is the highlight of the movie for me. He was undoubtedly the most believable. I could really picture him doing the things in real life that were called for in the script.</li></ul><br/><br/><ul><li>I have no difficulty recommending Halls of Montezuma to fans of war films. It's a very welcome addition to my DVD collection.</li></ul>
Porsalla replied
344 weeks ago