A Walk in the Sun (1945) - Drama, War

Hohum Score

98

Hohummer

During WWII, a platoon of American soldiers trudge through the Italian countryside in search of a bridge they have been ordered to blow up, encountering danger and destruction along the way.

IMDB: 7
Director: Lewis Milestone
Stars: Dana Andrews, Richard Conte
Length: 117 Minutes
PG Rating: N/A
Reviews: 24 out of 80 found boring (30%)

One-line Reviews (53)

This movie was part of a transition from the standard WW2 propaganda efforts like Sands of Iwo Jima, Bataan, etc, to a more rational presentation of the horror of war.

Here Milestone has populated a simple story with a predictable mix of archetypes, almost daring himself to tell a familiar story in a new and fresh way with shopworn components.

I found this a rather dry, dreary attempt to insert us into the heart of an American brigade charged with blowing up an Italian Bridge as WWII nears it close.

Life in a combat zone can be intense and terrifying but it is mostly tedious and boring.

While A WALK IN THE SUN is obviously a propaganda piece designed to extol the virtues of the US Army, it nonetheless offers a highly convincing portrait of a platoon at war.

Lewis Milestone directed this one with a real feeling for light and sun; and the Robert Rossen script, though it gets awfully poetic at times, and arguably pretentious, gets the job done.

It seems the soldiers can simply bore the enemy to death with their gabfest.

Thoroughly enjoyable and quite suitable for younger people of high school age, who might learn a great deal if they listen carefully, but who might also find it a bit too slow moving.

Some have said it is slow and boring, well, this ain't Stallone or Schwarzenegger.

Fascinating film depicting the reality of infantry life in the Italian campaign towards the middle and end of the Second World War.

The real problem with the film is there is too much needless boring dialogue.

So freakin boring!!.

John Ireland lyrically and verbally composing letters to his sister at every slow moment (and there were a lot of them).

Combat is often described as long periods of boredom punctuated by short periods of sheer terror.

The first half-hour or so is unbelievably boring.

It's suppose to show the fog of war and the mundane of a soldier's existence.

He simply wanted war as average guys surviving long stretches of boredom and uncertainty punctuated by short bursts of action, adrenaline and unexpected death.

True to Brown's novella, most of the film consists of walking, huddling in the dark, chatting and hiding in bushes, the tale stressing the drudgery, boredom, long hours and mind-numbing banter that epitomises the life of a grunt.

Just off the top of my head, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE and BATTLEGROUND were similar in structure to A WALK IN THE SUN but they managed to be entertaining and inspiring.

But it becomes tedious and extremely boring, with dialogue if you're not outright laughing at for being so poor, you may just be fast forwarding.

The constant badinage does get tiresome, almost mocking the whole idea of serious combat.

Rather than being a propaganda piece like many moves were that were made during the war, an action movie, or following a formula, Walk in the Sun is main a drama focusing on a small unit, the individuals in that unit, and their objectives.

Don't waste your time.

it was an unexpected element coming from milestone.

They just blabber on and on about mundane things.

Some might even be bored with the long introduction to the landing, when the viewer is introduced to each of the main characters by way of their interaction with others; or as whimsical introspection as some, like Pvt.

A contrasting example – but a very similar story line and mise-en-scene – was Attack (1956), a gripping psychological tussle between Jack Palance, Lee Marvin and Eddie Albert, also in a remote farm house.

Presumably I was waiting for something truly exciting to happen, in between all the uninteresting talk carried on by the walking soldiers.

In addition, the dialog was boring.

Qutie realistic, it shows the confusion of war, the reality, and soldiers with mixed emotions about the business.

It was quite different but for a war movie fan like myself, very entertaining.

The first which bought the license was Samuel Bronston but the public was bored of the warlike genre and he wanted the making a super-production and then he gave the rights to Lewis Milestone.

Predictable and dull war film .

Propaganda a year too late .

An outstanding ensemble cast and intense story makes for an interesting look at the realism of war.

The film goes beyond being a bit contrived into the "here we go again" clichés.

We get some situations that are well done, such as the confusion, of not knowing what is going on somewhere else, which two characters experience early in a trench, and which brings too much curiosity out in one of the characters.

We know from the contrived writing which characters bullets will find, and which they won't.

The final drawback is in the rousing band music at the film's end -to my sensibilities, that music was utterly out of place, and clashed badly with the overall sober and serious tone of the piece.

On the boring meter it sits atop with the French film "A Man Escaped" ...

The pace of the movie tends to get slow then speed up quickly.

For war is a dull business, the dullest business on earth.

Save your money.

A WALK IN THE SUN is a traditional American WW2 movie made at the tail-end of the war and playing out as a propaganda piece, although it's not without its darker moments.

The night shoots are also very dark which only adds to the confusion.

Lloyd Bridges seems to stand out by far and even his character is a bore.

The realities of war are uncensored here and it shows the boredom between the combat.

This flick had very little plot ......

This is a common dichotomy in war films; Celebratory vs Tragedy: it is in this fashion that most war films (most notably those which proclaim themselves to be antiwar) veer pathologically between antiwar statement and gung-ho propaganda.

It isn't a slam-bang action film, and because it isn't, it appears to capture the nature of infantry warfare, warfare generally perhaps, as long stretches of boredom punctuated by short intervals of sheer terror.

the only other war film that i can think of as being this slowly paced and thoughtful is another milestone film (all quiet on the western front) which is longer and more of an anti-war film than this one.

What a waste of time!

But the director created a compelling movie none the less.