Entre el cielo y el infierno

Considering that Cinemascope had been introduced only three years earlier, this is one of the outstanding examples from the 50s of a director and cinematographer composing shots for widescreen. I've been teaching film for almost 40 years and would unhesitatingly show excerpts from this in any basic course on movies. Just to sample some, check out Minutes 40-50, especially the quartets of lounging soldiers in medium shot. Sometimes the compositions seem a little self-conscious, but overall this is a remarkable film stylistically. It's wonderful to be able to see it again in widescreen format, as well as other movies that go back to my teenage years. That's why DVD is so great.

Brad Dexter was the only one of "The Magnificent Seven" not to become a major star. When you see his performance in "Between Heaven and Hell," you will wonder why.

He is given a very sympathetic character to play, and gives in return one of his best performances.

Buddy Ebsen started show biz life as a minor, but pleasant, song and dance man, but, as shown here, he became one of the finest dramatic actors of the century (despite such obstacles as "The Beverly Hillbillies").

"Between Heaven and Hell" is a very generic title, and seems to have very little to do with this movie. It has been used dozens of times, and maybe once or twice, somewhere, it was appropriate. Maybe.

Richard Fleischer's directing and Leo Tover's photography, though, overcome the trite title and well complement the excellent acting in presenting a dramatic war story.

From the opening shot, there is fluidity in the camera work that awed me, that left me admiring Mr. Fleischer more than I ever had before. If you don't like war movies -- and I don't -- you will want to watch this one for the photography, including the scenery.

One complaint: The protagonist, played well by Robert Wagner, goes through the mandatory (made so by "the rules of drama") change, but there is no good explanation of his motives, of why he changes.

Perhaps it is plain, right before our eyes, in a manner of speaking only because it is never explicated. But there really should have been some motivational explanations.

Still, it was plausible and reasonable, and, again, the acting and camera work are so good -- no, excellent -- "Between Heaven and Hell" is definitely worth watching.

By the way, do not miss a chance to see this just because the On Demand description is so disgustingly PC. There is no "racism" even though that PC description implies there is.

I found it via the Time Warner Cable system's On Demand. And free!

See it – A vastly underrated and reflective war movie starring Robert Wagner and Buddy Ebsen. This movie has been nearly forgotten over the years, and it's a shame. Much of the story is told in flashbacks. There's very good character development. And best of all, there was much more action than I expected. A bit slow toward the beginning, but there is a really cool action sequence in one of the flashbacks where Wagner and some of his men assault a cliff-side machine gun nest. When the current story picks back up after the flashbacks, there is plenty more action, including an exciting and desperate ending. 3.5 out of 5 action rating

Before he started making huge, bloated, disastrously money-losing films in the '60s (Dr. Doolittle, Che, et al.), director Richard Fleischer was responsible for some good, tight well-made little B pictures. "The Narrow Margin" and "Armored Car Robbery" in the early '50s were outstanding film-noir classics, made for very little money. Fleischer made this in the period between his low-budget black-and-white thrillers and his '60s monstrosities, and it's a good one. Robert Wagner is the callow, spoiled rich son of a Southern landowner whose National Guard unit is suddenly activated during World War II and sent to the Pacific to fight the Japanese. Wagner finds himself in the same company with the sharecroppers and tradespeople he scorned back home, and is sent to a base run by a power-mad, vengeful officer who treats his troops the same way Wagner treated his " 'croppers" back home.

This is one of Wagner's better performances. Unlike many of his earlier films, Wagner doesn't try to get by on his good looks and youthful charm; he turns in a first-rate performance here, as do most of the cast. Broderick Crawford as Wagner's crazed commander doesn't quite fit the part, and Skip Homeier--usually a solid, reliable character actor--goes a bit overboard as one of Crawford's goons, but Buddy Ebsen, as one of Wagner's sharecroppers who turns out to be his best friend, L.Q. Jones and Tod Andrews are fine in pivotal parts, and Fleischer stages some exciting battle scenes. Altogether, a well-made, exciting little B picture from 20th Century Fox--a bit garish in Technicolor (black and white would have been more effective)--but well worth your time to see it. Highly recommended.

I expect this 1956 war movie was passed over by critics because its star, Robert Wagner, was considered just another light-weight pretty boy of the day. Nonetheless, the movie is better than just another celebrity vehicle, while Wagner is a much better actor than his good-looks suggest, and, I think, time has proved.

Two features distinguish this film from others of the day. First is the subplot of tenant farmers and the class barrier separating them from the land owners they work for. A number of pre-Vietnam movies dealt with racial differences in the military; this is the only one I know of dealing with white Southern sharecroppers and their difficulties. Wagner's unit is a National Guard battalion which means that the unit is made up of men from the same locale with the same class distinctions of civilian life carried over into the ranks of the unit itself. Thus, Robert Keith a patriarchal rich man in civilian life is in similar command of the battalion as the colonel, while Tod Andrew's land owner heads up a platoon as a lieutenant. In short, land owners make up the ranks of commissioned officers, while share-croppers make up the enlisted ranks.

Now, the screenplay departs from this logic in Wagner's case. Though a land owner, he's not an officer; instead he's a sergeant in the enlisted ranks. The reason I think is pretty clear. Officers do not fraternize with enlisted men. But for the plot to deliver its main message, it must break down the social barrier between tenant farmer Buddy Ebsen and land owner Wagner, and that requires that they fraternize. Hence, the screenplay makes Wagner an enlisted man. But this curious departure is for a good cause. Only by getting to know a man (Ebsen) personally can the haughty Wagner overcome the cruelty he has shown his share- croppers in civilian life. The lesson here is similar to that of racially inspired films—it's personal contact that ultimately humanizes and breaks down social barriers. Thus, once the social distance is overcome, the two can become friends and equals and be carried off to the same hospital ship, side-by-side. A humane message, well delivered.

The second feature is perceptively pointed out by Kayaker36. There's an unmistakable homosexual subtext to Broderick Crawford's command center scenes. Today, that wouldn't merit much mention, but remember this is 1956 when about the only thing worse than being a gay was being a communist. And to even hint that gays might be in the military—and in a position of command—is really quite remarkable. The screenplay is adapted from a novel, and I suspect the idea comes from the novel and was rather boldly adapted into the screenplay. But, whatever the source or reason, this is the only war film of the post-war era I know of to even hint at that forbidden topic.

Anyway, the movie is well produced by TCF, with just enough battle scenes to satisfy war- movie fans. The screenplay is also unusual in its depiction of death by friendly fire, a much more common occurrence among soldiers than movies led us to believe. On the other hand, note how, in passing, the script works in a love interest for Wagner so that Terry Moore's name could go up on the marquee and broaden audience appeal. Note too, how Crawford gets a rather lengthy and unnecessarily histrionic scene to justify, I suppose, his starring credit. Remember, he was only a few years past his Best Actor Oscar, at a time when his name still carried audience weight. Actually, combining this film with Tony Curtis's 1954 war movie Beachhead would make a revealing double-feature, showing again how slick and entertaining films from Hollywood's studio period could be. This may not rank with the best or most suspenseful war films of the period. But it does remain an interesting oddity.