Del infierno a la victoria

Not that George Peppard and George Hamilton were any kind of buddy duo in the way Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas were, but they did do two well received films together, The Victors and Home from the Hill. But for a reunion film it would have been nice if they had gotten something better than this.

In fact this is a reunion film of a bunch of players who seem to hit the heights of their careers around the beginning of the Kennedy years. Peppard, Hamilton, Capucine. Horst Bucholtz all were at their respective peaks around 1961. None of them ever really reached any kind of screen immortality and with only Hamilton left among them were not likely to see another reunion film.

Thankfully not another one like Contro 4 Bandiere. It's a cobbled together film of action sequences from other products and newsreels. The plot has six friends of varying background in Paris having good times a week before the start of World War II. They pledge to see each other at that Paris cafe every year, but war does intervene and they're all not on the same side.

Some make it, some don't and if you're interested to see who shows up then watch Contro 4 Bandiere.

There is something deeply anachronistic and oddly revealing about this 1979 film, one of those late attempts at cinematic patchwork that stumbles under the weight of its own ambitions and yet, paradoxically, exposes much about the mechanics of European co-productions in the waning years of the Cold War. Ostensibly a sweeping WWII saga, it aims for grandeur while relying heavily on recycled narrative devices, cross-national casting, and even the direct reuse of visuals-giving it the appearance of scale while it operates within the economic constraints and aesthetic formulas of spaghetti war cinema.

This film's core weaknesses can be summarized in four major flaws that severely undermine its potential: cinematography, casting, narrative, and props.

Technically, the cinematography is notably uneven and disjointed. While there are moments of genuine visual tension-such as the well-staged shootout atop the Eiffel Tower-these stand out precisely because much of the rest of the film is plagued by incoherent and patchy visual storytelling. The narrative flow is balbuceante, or stammering, with incoherent scene transitions and a lack of consistent visual language. Much of the battle footage is actually stolen from earlier productions, awkwardly inserted into the film, creating an inconsistent texture and tone. This lack of homogeneity in the cinematography prevents the film from establishing a solid atmosphere or emotional rhythm, robbing it of immersive power.

Casting, although filled with familiar faces from the previous generation of European and American cinema, is a case of miscasting and underutilization. The director apparently relied on name recognition rather than suitability for the roles. George Peppard, who delivers one of the more controlled performances, still does not elevate a character that is thinly written. George Hamilton's portrayal, by contrast, veers towards caricature, hinting at a performance more interested in charm than complexity. Horst Buchholz's character arc, involving a sudden and poorly motivated ideological transformation, is especially difficult to swallow and suggests that the casting choice did not fully match the psychological depth required. This misalignment between actor and role leaves the ensemble looking disconnected rather than cohesive, detracting from any emotional engagement.

Narrative is perhaps the film's greatest shortcoming. It attempts to juggle too many subplots and emotional registers simultaneously, resulting in a disjointed story that never coheres into a meaningful whole. The film tries to explore the multifaceted impact of WWII through six friends from different nations, but these attempts feel superficial. There is no real psychological depth, either at the individual character level or within the broader thematic framework. Instead, the narrative flits from one vignette to another without fully committing to character development or moral complexity. This scattering of focus results in a story that is both cluttered and shallow-ambitious yet ultimately hollow.

Props and historical details constitute the fourth glaring flaw. Throughout the film, anachronisms and inaccuracies abound: tanks and aircraft that never coexisted, uniforms that do not correspond to the correct units or time periods, and military roles that shift inexplicably. The American character, for example, inexplicably shifts from OSS officer to commando to airborne trooper without logical narrative justification. Similarly, the German character oscillates from colonel to tank commander during battle sequences with no sense of military hierarchy or coherence. These inconsistencies not only break the illusion of historical authenticity but also disrupt the viewer's suspension of disbelief, highlighting the film's patchwork nature.

Musically, the score by Riz Ortolani provides a functional but uninspired accompaniment. While not detrimental, it lacks memorable themes or emotional weight, merely underscoring the on-screen events in a generic manner. The music annotates rather than enriches.

Placed in the context of late 1970s European war cinema, this film illustrates the transitional phase where spaghetti war films, once more visceral and ideologically charged, had become increasingly formulaic and market-driven. It borrows heavily from successful Hollywood epics like Midway (1976) and ensemble war dramas such as A Bridge Too Far (1977), yet it lacks their narrative coherence and production values. The film's multinational cast and sprawling narrative reflect a desire to appeal internationally, but this ambition is undercut by the four major flaws outlined above, resulting in a product that feels neither fully European nor Hollywood-an uneasy hybrid that ultimately fails to satisfy.

Interestingly, when compared with the director's previous work, this film shows a degree of restraint in direction, perhaps an attempt to disguise its spaghetti war roots. Yet, beneath this surface lies the familiar formula: recycled storylines, repeated action set pieces, and patchwork visuals lifted from earlier productions. The film's structural and technical shortcomings are a revealing testament to the economic and aesthetic pressures shaping European genre cinema at the time.

Though it stumbles at every turn, the film retains a nostalgic watchability. It moves like an epic, sounds like an epic, and acts like an epic, without ever becoming one. The uneven cinematography, miscast ensemble, fractured narrative, and glaring prop errors together form a series of fundamental flaws that prevent the film from rising beyond a middling, forgettable entry in the WWII war subgenre.

I agree with all of the other comments about this sorry movie. But I was watching it with an eye to accuracy. There were a couple of very outstanding goofs! There is a scene during the early occupation of France by Germany where a German soldier is telling an American woman that she cannot leave France. Why? Because today is December the 8th, and we are at war with America, he told her.

Wrong! Germany did not declare war on America until December 11. (Historical footnote: Germany never declared war on any country it invaded. The one nation it declared war against, the US, it never invaded!)

Later in the film during the sabotage raid on the munitions factory in Holland, a bomber was supposed to keep the Germans busy by dropping bombs all around the area. Funny thing, though, the plane never had a bomb bay door open, but the bombs kept falling anyway. I'm no expert on types of planes, but was there a two engine bomber with only a two man crew?

The late '70s saw a change in fortune for cult director Umberto Lenzi. Suddenly, he was the man chosen to make some epic war movies with a decent budget. At last a chance to leave his native Italy and travel through Europe, shooting abroad for many scenes. And at last a chance to work with an internationally famous cast of all-stars. Sadly, Lenzi's worldwide fame was never to be, and instead he found himself back in Italy a few years later churning out schlock cannibal classics such as CANNIBAL FEROX for which he has become somewhat infamous in cult film circles. Although his late '70s war films are flawed and sometimes feel bloated and overlong, they're certainly a lot better than the subsequent mid '80s war features he made and technically superior to those he did in the late '60s. FROM HELL TO VICTORY is also probably the only Umberto Lenzi film to have been granted a terrestrial television broadcast here in the UK, albeit in the middle of the night on Channel 5!

The film itself is a straightforward war adventure, chronicling and cutting between the adventures of a small group of friends who find themselves facing death during the Second World War. The action is generally good but not great, although the final battle is quite spectacular, with the budget only being evident in the aerial combat scenes which substitute silly miniature planes in place of real ones, mixed together with stock footage in a bid to fool the casual viewer. Sad to say the scheme didn't work, although the result is somewhat amusing. Generally the pacing is solid enough and - whilst hardly a classic action film like the cop thrillers Lenzi made with actor Maurizio Merli - the film delivers the goods with some style and excitement.

The casting mixes together a number of old and new faces, with some Euro-regulars thrown into the mix for good measure. Veteran support comes from George Peppard as the grizzled war general, whilst the role of his fresh-faced son goes to the ever-present Ray Lovelock. George Hamilton is somewhat camp as a caricatured, beret-wearing Frenchman, although heavyweight acting comes from Sam Wanamaker as an ally. Meanwhile, Anny Duperey and Capucine liven up the glamour front, Franco regular Howard Vernon fits the role of an evil Nazi like a glove, and Horst Buchholz struggles with his conscience and his duty as a German fighter. Not a classic film, but a pretty entertaining one for war lovers.

Apart from the German and Allied uniforms in this film, there's not much else to it. I mean, come on, they painted German markings on British spitfires and funnily enough the Brits looked like they were flying Curtis fighters (US-made). And the whole sequencing of the air battles looked so fake, as if from a 1930s film. And some of the air shots looked like they were done in a studio with arm-sized aircraft models!! Did anyone remember the tank battle as well at the end. The 'German' Panzers were actually American Patton tanks, built around the late 40s. It just looked so amateurish and cheap when you compare it to a film like a Bridge too Far, made ten years earlier (and which I concede had a much bigger budget). I mean, why bother with air and tank battles when you can't even make them look half realistic? The other thing i noticed was that all the explosions that were supposed to be stopping the 'Panzers' actually exploded beside or in front of the tanks, and yet the tank would come to a grinding halt!! Ridiculous.

But I'll admit the military action not involving tanks and aircraft looked decent enough (such as when Peppard infiltrates enemy installations to plant explosives, etc.) But overall the acting was wooden, mainly from the main actors. The only good performance was from George Hamilton who played 'Maurice', a French commando. Peppard himself was ok, but he did have a better acting scope than this which was not utilised.

Overall, 3/10.