Ski Troop Attack

And not only drama, but also action flick. Yes it is very short, one hour and three minutes, and character study very effective for such a short length time. I spent a good time. Roger Corman will do it again in the war film genre, several years later, with SECRET INVASION, with a bigger budget - because Corman did not make only small budgets features - so this one could be seen as a kind of first draw for SECRET INVASION; though the plot is not the same. The woman character is surprisingly good, with an unexpected sequence with her. I guess this film should be more shown to audiences. Corman fans or not...

A central paradox of the Battle of the Bulge was that with all that snow it was the most photogenic but probably the most miserable to actually participate in. It's characteristic of the sardonic tone of Corman's war movies that the obligatory female turns out not to be a sweet young fraulein but a fervant Nazi who still believes the war was started by the Poles.

In a snowy German forest, stranded GI's observe stock WWII footage and evade the enemy. Aside from some testy exchanges with a frosty fraulein, the stick-figure characters bark war-comic banalities (though the script's feverish dialogue and structure might have made a swell comic!). The troop's captain is constantly baited by his smug, war-happy sargeant. One assumes a showdown will ensue, but the budget must not have allowed for even modestly choreographed fistcuffs. The equally anticlimactic finale has the soldiers destroying a bridge that's "an impossible target from the air." (??!) Bereft of stuntwork or even a passable master shot, the lucky viewer is left with a jumble of grimacing-face close-ups and mismatched model train footage that even Al Adamson would disown. Roger Corman always blames this dog's shortcomings on production snafus...yet a rookie director employed most of the same cast,crew, and locations for BEAST FROM HAUNTED CAVE (shot back-to-back with SKI TROOP), and that schlocker turned out OK. Corman's apparent strategy was to grab as much footage in as little time possible and hope to cobble together something watchable in post. As a result, many scenes look interchangeable, and there's little dramatic flow. You can make a good cheap war flick with a tiny cast (BATTLE OF BLOOD ISLAND, '60) and scant action (UNDER FIRE, '57), but this sucker should be avoided like a cloud of mustard gas.

In the Battle of the Bulge, four American ski troopers try to avoid the Germans and win the war.

It's a typical cheap Roger Corman picture from the period. The sound is bad, the music for the score screams it's the 1960s, and cinematographer Andrew Costikyan struggles in vain to get some interesting shots of men in white ski outfits against the snowy lands of the Dakotas. It was a trouble-plagued shoot; one snowbank that was supposed to collapse on cue did so prematurely, leading Corman to order his crew to stop it.

War movies had certainly changed since the 1940s, with their Willie-and-Joe attitudes of "Let's get it done so we can get home alive" to bickering with the Military Academy lieutenant, and shooting the German fräulein in her Midwestern kitchen. Film-making for Corman in this period was a matter of looking under sofa cushions to find money for film stock, and his ability to hold his crew together was predicated on the hope that if they got through this shoot, somewhere down the road someone would see they had worked on a movie before, and ask no further questions. the only thing sustaining Corman was that the big studios had eliminated the programmer, so teenagers could either stay home with their parents and watch TV or go to a Corman picture and make out with their girlfriends.

Roger Corman has a track record that no other filmmaker can match. While he's produced and directed well over 500 films, mostly VERY cheap ones, only one of his movies ever lost money*...so he is an expert at economical filmmaking as well judging the taste of the viewing public.

This is a WWII action picture filmed, of all places, around Deadwood, South Dakota in the Black Hills. It looks good in the movie but is an odd choice that's awfully far from Hollywood. Corman chose this place because he was offered financial incentives by the local government to film there. It stars Michael Forest, a guy who is still making pictures into his 90s, as he recently appeared in a Star Trek fan fiction film that is surprisingly watchable ("Pilgrim of Eternity") as well as a film released in 2020...though I have to admit that "Unbelievable" is total garbage and Forest must have needed the money!

As for the film, it's just okay...at best. While Forest is pretty good, the rest of the cast is pretty forgettable and the story never is all that interesting. I see it as a time-passer or film Corman-lovers should see...all others...you could do better.

*Amazingly, the only film Corman made that lost money was "The Intruder"....one of his BEST films. I strongly recommend you see it!