User Reviews

It's a dubbed Italian production in lurid color dealing with the Axis defeat by the British and colonials in North Africa. Now, I hate to call it "operatic." But at the very opening, an Italian unit is motoring towards the front, singing a jolly song, the feathers on their caps pluming, when they're fired upon by a British machine gun. You should see them die as they bravely attack the enemy position in mass waves. They're mowed down. But as each soldato is shot, the director (Calvin Jackson Padgett, aka Giorgio Ferroni) has him throw up his arms, execute a few pirouettes, and fling himself dramatically to the sand.

Maybe it's not a cinematic trope. Maybe Italian soldiers actually DO die in a distinctly regional way. Wait, I think I can see it. The British soldier clasps a hand to the wound, looks puzzles, and sinks uncomplainingly. The French die with a xenophobic curse on their lips. The Americans shout out capitalistic slogans as they stagger about, unwilling to yield to the "sure-enwinding arms of cool-enfolding death." Germans fall face-first at attention, Russians with a few last kicks from the hopak. I know I shouldn't be joking about deaths in combat. There's nothing funny about the reality, but the movie is sometimes a joke in itself and more or less invites such treatment.

The movie takes us to the upper echelons and introduces us to Michael Rennie (dubbed) as Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, now taking charge of the British forces and kicking some butt. Once that's established, we visit Rommel drawing lines on a map, complaining that he has barely enough forces to contain the British, and explaining the situation to the real historical figure of General Bastico, whom Rommel in real historical life referred to as "Bombastico." It's a tense situation all right. The Brits have been forced back to the Egyptian border and Alexandria and the Suez Canal are threatened.

At the same time, Rommel's supply pipeline has been practically severed by British air and submarine attacks, so he can't advance any farther -- no men, no tanks, no fuel, not even enough water. His men urinated into water-cooled machines. The film correctly states that he was losing 60 percent of his supplies, but it doesn't mention that the Italian naval code had been broken, so the Brits knew when his supply ships would leave Italy for Tripoli. At the battle, Rommel was outnumbered two to one in troops, in tanks, and in the air.

It's not a bad film once you're able to get past the accidental qualities -- the dubbing, the often sluggish direction. The story sticks pretty close to actuality in depicting the overall military arrangements. I don't know about the details. All three sides -- Italian, German, and British -- are shown to have human qualities. No one is a sneering villain. Everyone makes a misjudgment from time to time. The location shooting is adequate. It's a desert all right. The special effects are of the period, and the musical score points us in the direction it invites our emotions to take. The repulse of the British patrol by the Italian Folgore (Lightning) Division of paratroopers is accurately described (except for the absence of tanks). Rommel commended the division for its bravery. The uniforms and helmets of the Italian troops are historically accurate.

Yet there's an element of clumsiness throughout. A British scouting party advances. The pipers are playing their bagpipes. But the sound isn't that of bagpipes but of some sort of electronic horns and the tune sounds more Italian than Scottish. Who chose the voices that were dubbed later? Why are so many of them baritones and so often gravelly? Who decided that a lone man with a submachine gun, trying to hold off an armored car, should kneel out in the open instead of taking cover. And when a man is extremely thirsty and is given half a cupful to drink, why does he try to gulp it down and spill half of the precious water down his chin? What was Calvin Jackson Padgett thinking? Generally the Italians are portrayed as more humane than the Germans.

The Germans aren't exactly cruel but an Italian soldier criticizes them for their willingness to leave a wounded man in front of them on the battlefield. "No sense risking more lives to save one," says the German officer. "How -- logical," sneers the Italian. (When John Wayne made the same decision in "Sands of Iwo Jima," the film gave him plaudits for his heroic self-discipline.)

We -- the Brits, French, and colonial troops -- won the battle of El Alamein, but not because of any weaknesses in the Folgore Division. Vastly outnumbered and out gunned, they fought with everything at hand. The use of Molotov cocktails shown in the movie was not made up. Out of ammunition, some of the survivors retreated to Tunisia, where they fought again, while others surrendered at El Alamein.

The battle, in fact all the battles of North Africa, were slugging matches, with both sides hemmed in by the Mediterranean on one side and the Qatarra depression, impassable to armor, on the south. It's not a bad movie. It's just that some of the elements -- the direction, the sound effect and so forth -- make it seem worse than it is.

I purchased this as part of a package deal - you know the type, 4 WW 2 films in one box for under $15. Half of the films in this set were good and this is the best of the lot. It's the story of the British victory at El Alamein as told mainly from the Italian perspective. The acting isn't the film's strong suit, but it's adequate. The story is excellent and the execution of the screenplay is superlative. There are some really good battle sequences as well. Look for a decent performance from Michael Rennie as the British General Bernard Law Montgomery. He isn't a Field Marshal yet. In fact, it was this victory that earned him his Baton. Overall, a fine flick. His is the best acting job of the lot, acting NOT being the strong point of the film. I don't know how factual it is, although the overall story seems accurate enough.

'El Alamein' is a WW 2 movie, sensationalist and exploitative, unassuming and episodic; British, Germans and Italians fight unsparingly in the African desert, and we recognize the dunes, the hills of gray sand, from the westerns of the '60s, the envy and intrigues cause the temporary removal of Rommel, meanwhile the Germans loose most of their tanks due to the British's perfidy but also abnegation and determination, Rommel is sent back, only to assure the retreat, against the leader's order …. We will also think about the difference between a movie as a popular show, and a movie as a work.

We look at war from the headquarters, and from an Italian stronghold. The main ideas are toughness and courage, both amply provided by all the military involved; 'El Alamein' also shows strategies, the British duping the Germans with a phony map of the minefield, the Germans using the Italians to back their retreat. Characteristically, the movie isn't good-natured, but amoral, indifferent to ethics, which makes the plot plausible; the credits boast the support, and possible the approval of the Italian army. The protagonist is lieutenant Giorgio, from one of Folgere division's companies; goodish cast (Hilton, M. Rennie, Ira Furstenberg, Hossein, Salerno). The known commanders, Rommel, Montgomery, Canaris, have supporting roles or cameos. Rommel's military genius is undermined by intrigue and the leader's insanity.

The battle scenes seem a bit shapeless (except those of the heroic resistance of the company against the British tanks, while the Germans retreat), as the real aim of the movie are some generic effects: like hell-raising, etc.. This is the main idea of a popular show: not as a work, but as providing a set of generic emotions. It doesn't need a director, but a hack.

I enjoyed 'El Alamein'. Loosely structured, accomplished for what it was meant to be, cynical, rhetorical, episodic, sometimes with the sense of hopelessness and despair known from the Italian genre movies, and also the familiar sloppiness, it doesn't relish in filming landscapes, or people. In an American war movie, there's the effect on the audience, and also the scene as thought in itself, as depiction, as insight, as shaped; the Italian genre movies seem to undercut this idea of a scene, right to the effects themselves. So they care less about shape, about work, and more about the popular show. Even very humble American genre movies have this objective structure, this dramatic shape, which the Italian movies don't care for. 'El Alamein' has a plot, but not a dramatic storyline; the Italians didn't rip off a structure, but some topics. Further, the American genre movies also resort to an essentially English lyricism, which is wholly alien to the Italians. The Italian rhetoric may be sentimentalist, but dry, without lyrical depth.

(This is a typology; these are ideal types. The European genre movies aren't the only to belong to the 'Judy and Punch' type; not all of them belong to it. Once acknowledged this _ideality of the types, the national criterion will lead one to a further understanding: e. g., the Italian genre movies lack a dramatic structure, but have charm, appeal, zest.)

Maybe not one of the best films made about a real life World War II battle, but the conflict between the British and Italians at Algiers leads to a very direct story getting to know the major players on both sides, mainly the Italians whose perspective it is told from. The film opens very bluntly with a battle, simply letting the viewer know that war is already in progress, and there's no time to waste with frivolous introductions of the real life historical characters who were probably talked about in high school and college history classes. As the film develops though, it becomes a lot more detailed about who these people are, and even though the Italians are taking orders directly from Hitler, the audience manages to find some sympathy with them because they know how the battle is going to turn out, and a good majority of the characters do warrant being felt sorry for.

The international cast features a few well known actors of the time, including George Hilton and Michael Rennie, playing British officers. The battle scenes which encompass a good 75% of the movie are quite good, although a bit more character development could have made this a genuine classic had they cast some other stars in cameos. But it works because the lack of star power prevents the viewer from being distracted, and there's a sense of wonderment between both sides that they have to kill each other to fulfill a goal and don't really seem to want to. This gives the film some poignancy, and that leads to a solemn and touching finale. It does get a little slow since it focuses more on action rather than a strong story, but as an educational piece, it is very well done and I found it very brave in that sense.

Lt. Borri (Frederick Stafford) is not so much a martinet as he is a relatively brave man who is ashamed of the Italian Army's accurate reputation for cowardice. Throughout the film, the Italians are excused for their cowardice by showing them as disillusioned and betrayed by their allies, the Germans. Rommel may be anti-Nazi, but he willingly sacrifices Italian troops to protect his own, which he really did. Borri tries to prove to his British foes and to himself that not all Italians are cowards, and winds up mistaking foolhardiness for courage.

The Italians are shown as the only soldiers thinking about their families back home, like Borri's brother. This another attempt to show that they are not cowards, just peaceful, ordinary men - as if most Britons and Germans weren't. When Lt. Borri is captured by the British, no other Italian POWs will join him in his escape. They are all glad to be out of the war.

In the end, Lt. Borri sacrifices his life in a heroic gesture history shows was ultimately futile. His brother and the others are taken prisoner, proud but no doubt also glad to be out of the war. Borri's brother will live to see his wife and child - if they aren't killed when the Allies invade Italy in 1943. They will spend the next 2 years slowly fighting their way against the Germans to the Alps. Italy will be ravaged in the process. That was the ultimate price Italian families paid for the cowardice of their soldiers, who mostly never expressed any regret.

A well-acted, moving, if cheaply made film. However, like "Brave Gente", it is another apologia for the pathetic performance of the Italian Army. This "army" had to use poison gas to beat the Ethiopians.