Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

cbobcant This is one of my favor war movies. The story of Darby and his Rangers has a special place for me. This movie shows a man, who is driven to see his idea for a special fighting force come to life. Now there are some things that people see as goofs or problems with this movie. I mean the tanks are not real Panzers, but come on it is the late 50's and making every detail as real as possible is not going to happen because movie budgets are not that big. There are no summer blockbusters and if they are they are few and far between. As to some of the scenes being done on a sound stage in Hollywood again that magic word budget. If you want to enjoy a tale of men in war then this is enjoyment. True James Garner is not on camera all that much well he was in command and you don't see the commander that often in the field. It was nice to see what you would call an ensemble cast in this movie. I know that Edd Byrnes and Peter Brown were the heartthrobs of the movie. Stuart Whitman and Murray Hamilton were the cynic tough guys. Jack Warden was the hard-bitten old veteran from earlier wars. There is the comic relief guys. Of course you have to have the sleazy guy that everybody hates in Corey Allen's character. The Brits, who are old hands at a dirty business. So clichéd it may be but who cares it is a good if not great little war film.

frankfob Routine, by-the-numbers war film made on an off-day by the great William A. Wellman. It's no better, and somewhat worse, than other WW II films of that era, with some sappy and contrived love stories thrown in. Although Wellman hadn't made "B" pictures for years, that's just what this one comes across as--far too much of it is shot on sound stages (apparently to save money on location shooting) which makes it look cheap, as does the surfeit of poorly integrated newsreel stock footage, and what little action there is isn't particularly well done. The script is, to be honest, awful, and the acting--other than Garner, whose first major role this was and who's quite good and Edd "Kookie" Byrnes, who plays an arrogant young West Point officer on his first combat assignment--is for the most part pedestrian, with the tired stereotypes you see in pretty much every war picture: the slow-witted hillbilly, the fast-talking city slicker, the weary veteran sergeant, etc.Overall, it's slow and boring, with some unnecessary comedy relief thrown in and too much attention paid to the GIs' love interests. Not one of Wellman's better films, by a long shot.

bill-790 He was not impressed! And the guy I talked to was a U.S. Ranger who took part in assault landings in North Africa, Sicily, the main Italian landing, and finally at Anzio. (He was captured by the Germans at Anzio and ultimately escaped, making his way eastward to the Russian lines. But that is another story.) My friend was fairly critical of the action portrayed in the movie, despite the fact that another Ranger was the technical adviser.As for the movie itself, it is only slightly above mediocre. Although I am a big fan of older black and white movies, I must say that the lack of color here is a negative. Also, based on memory, too many scenes were shot on a sound stage. A film noir is fine shot that way, but an A level war movie should have more impressive production values. After all, WWII was not fought in a blimp hanger.

lorenellroy Darby's Rangers -or The Young Invaders ,to give it the title under which it was shown in Great Britain - is a lengthy world war two movie about the formation of the US Rangers ,its initial training at the hands of the British in Scotland and its success in battle both in Africa and Europe .It also devotes some considerable time to the private lives of the troops especially there involvement with women On neither level is it particularly engrossing with the battle scenes clearly being staged on a studio set which renders them somewhat artificial looking and unconvincing while the platoon members are just not interesting enough to make me care greatly what happens to them The acting is routine Garner is under used and such young performers as Peter Brown and Ed Byrne lack the experience and charisma to hold the screenGood to see the British accorded some respect in a US war movie but otherwise this is routine fare indeed