ClassyWas Excellent, smart action film.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

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

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

SimonJack No one can doubt that "The Americanization of Emily" is an anti-war film. But to think that this is a very good anti-war film knocks some tremendous films that show the sacrifice, carnage, death and losses from war. For this film has none of that. Instead, it has a lot of anti-war talk and philosophizing by the lead character. And, it is anti-war talk that seems to embrace a propaganda message of the Axis powers in World War II. Some may describe it as defeatist. It was a powerful psychological tool, especially used by Germany and Japan in WW II. The message was, "Quit fighting, Yanks. Go home to your wife and family."In this movie, James Garner does a good job in that role as Lt. Cdr. Charles Madison. But that's not the way that William Huie (1910-1986) wrote the character in the novel of the same title in 1959. The American author and journalist wrote the book as a serious satire (with some humor) of the Navy brass at the time and place. It was London in 1944, just before the June 6 Allied invasion. Huie was a lieutenant in the Navy and serving in England. He had been on the staff of Vice Admiral Ben Moreell of the Seabees, and took part in the D-Day landings. Huie wrote about the system and the extravagance of the top Navy brass over the common troops - sailors and soldiers. During his life, he reported and wrote serious books about controversial issues of WW II, and later of the Civil Rights struggle in the U.S. He was a strong proponent of civil rights. The writer for the screenplay of the movie was Paddy Chayefsky. He himself was a noted writer, especially of satirical works. Chayefsky also served during World War II. He was an enlisted man in the 104th Infantry and received a Purple Heart for being wounded by a land mine in Germany. Chayefsky said he read Huie's book and saw it as a funny satire. He must not have thought many others would see it that way without significant changes. So, he wrote the screenplay to make the satire less serious and more comical. While the screenplay for the movie retains the main plot, and most of the characters and incidents of the book, it alters them considerably. The book hero (Lt. Cdr. James "Jimmy" Madison) was a trained, working PR professional before the war, and knew how to make movies. TV didn't exist as we know it today. There were no camera crews covering WWII. So the Army and Navy had professional film crews to record the war. Many Hollywood directors, cameramen and other technicians who joined the military were put into units to film the war. The hero in the book was serious about filming the D-Day landings. But it wasn't to show a sailor as the first to land - or the first to die, on Omaha Beach.In the book, the hero wasn't a coward, nor did he say that he was. The term isn't even in the book. Nor does he accuse the good folks back home of being the cause of war. Finally, the women were portrayed in the book a little more openly. Americanized women were those who gave sexual favors during wartime in exchange for scarce food items and gifts. Emily was one of them. The high living of the admiral and Navy brass was one part of the satire. The film makes the movie project of Admiral William Jessup the second satire. This is a dark piece of comedy that had no source at all in the book. Melvyn Douglas plays Jessup superbly. He has gone out of his mind and ordered his men to make a movie to glorify the first dead man on Omaha Beach as a sailor. The romance between Charlie and Emily Barham is a third part of the plot. Julie Andrews is very good as Barham. The romance is the vehicle for Charlie to pronounce his pride at cowardice and disdain for war. But rather than scenes or visuals that show the ugliness and horror of war, the audience instead gets large speeches of Charlie's philosophy. He says that the blame for war rests on the good people who build statues and monuments to honor their dead and heroes. It's the good people who start the wars and are the cause of wars. So Charlie says. The film focuses on that to the point of ideology. Charlie says that good people should not go to war. So, when Hitler invaded Poland, Norway, France and other countries, apparently the good people of those countries should not have fought back. Nor should the Chinese have fought the Japanese who invaded and wrought the rape of Nanking. And, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the U.S. should have acceded the islands to Japan. In a way, Charlie was saying the same thing that the Axis propaganda machine was cranking out. Tokyo Rose over the radio urged American GIs to lay down their arms and not resist the Imperial Japanese. If England and France and the U.S. hadn't gone to war over Europe, there wouldn't have been all that death and destruction - except, of course, for the extermination of the Jews. And everyone would be able to live safely under the tyranny of Nazism. Well, maybe most. Maybe a little bit. By 1964, when this film came out, the world had a good example of the Western nations not going to war with communism and the Soviet Union. Instead, we let the Soviets occupy and suppress the peoples of Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Balkan states, the Baltic states, and East Germany). This movie is anti-war, but in its fervor to avoid war at all costs, it seems also to be anti-freedom and anti-human rights.

Joseph Kearny Though just under 2 hours, this tedious talk-fest seems considerably longer due in part to lack of pace and focus. The film is of 2 minds as it attempts to blend contemporary satire with old fashioned romance which doesn't work because the romance is a wet blanket and the satire is weak. Written by Paddy Chayefsy (Marty, Network),the film is heavy on the speechifying, and Arthur Hiller's direction is devoid of any cinematic savvy. Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, released the same year, is far more daring and accomplished and in comparison makes The Americanization of Emily feel like a film from the 1940s. Andrews and Garner are a dull pair and were considerably better in the more entertaining Blake Edwards' film Victor, Victoria.

AaronCapenBanner Arthur Hiller directed this Paddy Chayefsky script that stars James Garner(Charles Madison) and James Coburn(Paul Cummings) as two Naval Lt. Commanders in WWII who like to live the good life(despite the grim war). Things get complicated when Madison falls in love with local English nurse Emily Barnham(played by Julie Andrews) and his Admiral boss(played by Melvyn Douglas) has a nervous breakdown, forcing the pacifistic Madison on a dangerous mission he doesn't believe in... Absolutely insufferable, self-righteous, and sanctimonious film with like-minded characters that I could not stand. Good cast can't mask glaring moral flaws of story. The one cinema turkey from usually brilliant Chayefsky.

teepee12 My husband and I count this in our top 10 favorite movies.I would put it there for the brilliant Paddy Chayevsky script alone. Charlie Madison's monologue on war is as apt today as it was when the movie first came out.The direction is wonderful, with flawless timing ... always a critical component in a comedy and the casting is perfect. I loved it when it was first released and I love it today on DVD. This is a comedy, but it's not only a comedy. It is an intelligent, thoughtful movie about war ... an anti-war movie for the thinking adult, as it were. If you haven't seen it, rent it, buy it, find it online. Absolutely worth the effort.