In 1952, as the Korean War rages on, American officers land in Kyoto. Among them are Major Ceve Saville, assigned to a fighter squadron, and Lieutenant Carl Abbott. The latter neglects his charming wife Kristina, who is sinking into bitterness. In Korea, Saville meets again Colonel Dutch Imil, a former brother in arms as well as other friends. Back in Japan Saville falls in love with forsaken Kristina, which arouses Abbott's jealousy. The two men turn into implacable rivals. But during a mission against Chinese Migs, Abbott is hurt and Saville decides to rescue him… In 1952, during the Korean War, two American pilots become bitter enemies over the same woman but must shelf their personal feud when confronted by deadly Chinese MIG fighter jets in battle. I never understood why this film got so little respect. I read the book years after I first saw the movie and was very impressed with the adaptation, particularly the inclusion of Robert Wagner as Lt. Ed Pell. The film is exceedingly well done in all aspects. Mitchum, Egan and Wagner all do solid work in the acting and the photography is beautiful. It is one of those rare films with a beginning, a middle AND an end.<br/><br/>I strongly recommend it.<br/><br/>Now, if it can just be made available on DVD and VHS. Apart from "M*A*S*H" (and even that is, to many people, better remembered as a TV series than as a film) there are not too many well-known Korean War films. I had never heard of this one, which details the part played by the US Air Force in that conflict, but I caught it when it was shown on British television last week.<br/><br/>I note that one reviewer entitled his review "A must see for jet air-to-air combat enthusiasts". Whereas his review was, in fact, very helpful in terms of explaining the historical background to the film, that title did make me think "What about the rest of us? What does the film have to offer the average viewer, or even the average film buff, as opposed to the military aviation buff?" I suppose part of the answer to that question is that the film tries to be a character study of men at war. Apart from the military action in which American pilots take on the MiGs of the Chinese air force, the film also charts the relationships between squadron commander Major Cleveland Saville and two of the men under his command, Lieutenant Edward Pell and the depressive, heavy-drinking Lieutenant Carl Abbott. In addition, a romance develops between Saville and Abbott's glamorous Norwegian wife Kristina, who feels neglected by her husband.<br/><br/>There are similarities between this film and "The War Lover" from four years later. That film was about the Second World War, but also starred Robert Wagner (who here plays Pell) as a young Air Force pilot who comes into conflict with his superior officer (played in that film by Steve McQueen). Like "The Hunters", "The War Lover" features a love-triangle involving that superior officer and one of the men under his command. There is, however, a difference. In "The Hunters" Saville, played by Robert Mitchum, is supposed to be cool and unemotional (he has won the nickname "The Iceman"), whereas Pell is a brilliant pilot but hotheaded and impulsive. In "The War Lover" it is exactly the other way round. Wagner's character, Lieutenant Bolland, is the conformist, by-the-book flier, whereas his superior, Captain Rickson, is the unorthodox but brilliant rebel against authority.<br/><br/>Another difference between the two films is in the balance between the combat scenes and the scenes set on the ground. The air combat scenes in "The Hunters" are indeed very well done, far better than anything in "The War Lover" and the best that I have seen in any film of this period. Indeed, they can stand comparison with similar scenes in modern films, even though there were no computer-generated effects available to film-makers in the fifties, and are the main reason why I have given the film an above-average mark.<br/><br/>"The Hunters", however, is a much less impressive film when it leaves the skies and comes down to earth. The scenes at the end when Saville and Pell are trying to rescue Abbott, who has been shot down over enemy-held territory, are no more than routine war heroics. "The War Lover" was, on the human level, a powerful emotional drama, the main interest of which lay in the changing dynamics of the triangular relationship between Rickson, Bolland and their mutual love-interest, Daphne. In "The Hunters", by comparison, the romance between Saville and Kristina is perfunctory and unconvincing. The personality clash between Saville and Pell, moreover, is more apparent than real. Saville's nickname of "The Iceman" is largely undeserved. An officer who seduces a brother-officer's wife and who keeps discipline by punching on the jaw any subordinate who gets out of line (as Saville does to both Abbott and Pell) is hardly icy.<br/><br/>When I reviewed "The War Lover", I stated that it may not be a particularly gripping war adventure but it is certainly gripping when seen as a human drama. "The Hunters", by contrast, has some great action scenes, but as a human drama it is unconvincing. 6/10
Uailaddle replied
293 weeks ago