ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

JLRVancouver The film follows war-time correspondent Ernie Pyle (Burgess Meredith) as he follows a U.S. infantry company from their bloody initiation at the Kasserine Pass debacle in North Africa to the liberation of Rome. Although Meredith and Robert Mitchum (Lt. Walker) are the film's nominal stars, they film is really about the soldiers, reflecting Pyle's journalistic focus on the men, not the war. Considered a very realistic depiction of war, much of the time the soldiers are walking though, or sitting in, rain and mud, griping about the army, dreaming about girls, and trying to stay as comfortable as possible under sometimes extremely ardous circumstances. The infrequent combat they see (mostly off-screen) is depicted as necessary but not heroic, and men just die, with no apparent greater reason or meaning to justify their individual sacrifice. Some of the events seem a bit implausible (the little dog, the wedding) but as the film is based on Pyle's experiences, they may have actually occurred (I have never read any of his writings). Considering that the film was made while the war in Europe was still being fought, it is surprisingly honest and downbeat. "The Story of G.I. Joe" is a must see for fans of the genre and there are a number of interesting observations made about its realistic portrayal of military life that are worth reading. Sadly, some of the 'extras' were U.S. military personal who lost their lives in the last months of the war.

Alex da Silva I wanted to like this film but it fails to ignite. It started badly for me, I'm afraid with two mega No-No's for wartime. The first is the introduction of a pet – absolutely should not be allowed. So what we get is a bit of sappy sentimentalism for the animal. We also get the introduction of a journalist coming along for the ride – absolutely should not be allowed. Another hindrance to the troops who are fighting in life or death situations. I wish warfare wasn't conducted in this manner, ie, thoroughly stupidly with journalists given responsibility. Surviving soldiers can report their tales if you want to hear about what happened. To make things worse, we also get another sentimental scene where soldiers turn on the radio and listen to a sentimental song which is being used as propaganda. Absolutely not. Turn the radio off – this is not the right frame of mind for soldiers who are fighting a war.That's already three pieces of irritating nonsense associated with this film. Add to this some irritating characters and some non-entity characters such as Mitchum. The film drags.

grantss The US North African and Italian campaigns of World War 2, as seen through the eyes of a company of infantrymen. More particularly, this is the story of Ernie Pyle, famed war correspondent. His writings brought the war home to America and told the story of the war from the perspective of the average US soldier.Good depiction of the US North African and Italian campaigns of WW2, as seen from the perspective of average infantry soldiers, and a distinguished journalist. Initially not that engaging, it gets better as it goes along. Very gritty by the end.Solid performances from Robert Mitchum and Burgess Meredith. Good supporting performances too.

Havan_IronOak This film is an odd mix. In spots the dialog and situations are cornier than Capra. But it is the first real attempt to depict (at least in part) some of the day to day hardships of the regular GI.Since the war was still on when this picture was made (released in 1945), the message had to be at least somewhat hopeful and yet it struck a mix not unlike some of Pyle's dispatches from the front. It certainly feels much more realistic than some earlier efforts like In Which We Serve (1942) The idea of filming on location hadn't been adopted yet, and the North Africa scenes filmed in California have a "wrongness" about the feel that hurts the early scenes in the picture. Also, some anachronisms in the equipping of the GI's will stand out as well to anyone familiar with newsreel footage or some of the better made documentaries that have been made since. The later footage that is supposed to be in Italy doesn't suffer as much from the lack of actual locations.Much of the picture revolves around an effort to get past a mountain guarded by an ancient monastery. The film somewhat rewrites history at this point in an attempt to exorcise some of the errors in judgment that later came to be associated with the bombing of Monte Cassino.Several filmic techniques are used a bit heavy handedly as well. Care is taken to keep the Germans a faceless, inscrutable foe. There is one scene where the lighting is very dramatically (and somewhat obviously)arranged so that a dark shadow is cast by a captured German's helmet. We don't have to see much of his face and certainly not his eyes.The use of the puppy is a bit overdone. Using a puppy to whine when we should be feeling sad is a bit heavy handed. Conversely the filmic trick of using the noise of nearby explosions to cover/censor one soldier's lewd comments is done with a wink and a nod to the audience. It's clear that film makers knew we'd get the joke. Since it was wartime, no American soldiers were shown too terribly mangled or with graphic / disturbing injuries. Rapid jump cuts were used very effectively in several key battle scenes to heighten the tension without having to overdo the special effects.One plot element was a bit weird though. A GI receives a record containing his son's first recorded words. The GI has never heard his kid speak and tries repeatedly to get the record to play on a phonograph that he "liberates" For some inexplicable reason the recording seems to have been recorded backwards so that all the GI can hear is garbled. Yet at one crucial moment he tries again and the recording this time seems to play fine despite it being obvious that he's done nothing differently. A bit more care in staging this could have made it actually work.Another thought that occurred to me several times while watching this picture was that while regular GI's were overseas actually fighting and dying for their country. The actors and crew involved in this film were safe at home. I've seen many other pictures made during war-time but somehow the confluence of this picture's message and the facts that I now know in retrospect made that somewhat jarring.Overall, I found this film to be WORTH watching but it didn't engage me the way that more well made films have. Still, releasing this shortly after Ernie Pyle's death in combat must have helped make it as successful as it was.