Darby's Rangers

I'm sorry to say that this film, which is James Garner's first leading role, is a mess. And almost all of the fault is in the writing.

There have been other films about military teams in training. And they have been better than this.

We can thank the writing for some horrible characters. And some terrible plots. They try to mix training scenes with scenes concerning the personal lives of the men, but it's all a mess.

I wish I could list all the times I cringed in response to a particular line, but that is not possible. They follow one another like lemmings.

Some visual effects were also off-putting, like when they trainees are rappelling up a cliff and one man's line comes loose and he plummets to the ground. The entire scene was contrived, amateurish and poorly done.

Obviously there are some people who liked this film, but I cannot recommend it.

He was not impressed! And the guy I talked to was a U.S. Ranger who took part in assault landings in North Africa, Sicily, the main Italian landing, and finally at Anzio. (He was captured by the Germans at Anzio and ultimately escaped, making his way eastward to the Russian lines. But that is another story.) My friend was fairly critical of the action portrayed in the movie, despite the fact that another Ranger was the technical adviser.

As for the movie itself, it is only slightly above mediocre. Although I am a big fan of older black and white movies, I must say that the lack of color here is a negative. Also, based on memory, too many scenes were shot on a sound stage. A film noir is fine shot that way, but an A level war movie should have more impressive production values. After all, WWII was not fought in a blimp hanger.

At the United States War Department, artillery officer and future colonel James Garner (as William Orlando Darby) persuades superiors he is the man to lead a new World War II combat unit in Europe. Consequently, "Darby's Rangers" are trained. They face tough action, have relationships with beautiful women abroad, and face the inevitable tragedies you've see in many other war movies. Based on reality, this was the penultimate film from director William A. Wellman. He still has a knack for battle scenes, light interludes (like the "dusting" bit) and can punctuate blitzkriegs with the sound of a tea kettle...

"Darby's Rangers" is well produced, freshly cast, but hardly ever less than obvious. Believable on the big screen, in his first "starring role," Mr. Garner is absent much of the running time, as this is really an "ensemble" war drama. An unsubtle Jack Warden (as Saul Rosen) provides narration. The other soldiers' stories are more interesting, with nicely styled Edward "Edd" Byrnes (as Arnold Dittman) essaying arguably the best-written role, handsome young Peter Brown (as Rollo Burns) making the greatest emotional impression, and card shark Stuart Whitman (as Hank Bishop) leading the rest of the pack.

****** Darby's Rangers (2/12/58) William A. Wellman ~ James Garner, Edd Byrnes, Peter Brown, Stuart Whitman

William Orlando Darby (James Garner) pushes to form the US Rangers modelled after the British commandos. Various soldiers are recruited to train in Scotland for the new formation led by Darby. Initially, the group is sent to fight in North Africa and then Italy.

I only recognize James Garner and he's the only compelling actor for me. The first half concentrates too much on the men's love lives although the bus meet-cute is plenty cute. None of the relationships matter that much. They are being too cute and trying too hard to be funny. The pratfalls and jokes fall flat. Some of the actors are a bit too stiff. The comedic tone rings old fashion. The material would be better served as a more serious darker drama. The new Lieutenant comes in too late and the girl is too melodramatic. I can do with less melodrama and more war action. It's surprising that Garner isn't given more to do. The fighting is mostly studio interior or backlot sets. There are some archival footages and bigger exterior sets. There is some dangerous running in front of tanks.

Routine, by-the-numbers war film made on an off-day by the great William A. Wellman. It's no better, and somewhat worse, than other WW II films of that era, with some sappy and contrived love stories thrown in. Although Wellman hadn't made "B" pictures for years, that's just what this one comes across as--far too much of it is shot on sound stages (apparently to save money on location shooting) which makes it look cheap, as does the surfeit of poorly integrated newsreel stock footage, and what little action there is isn't particularly well done. The script is, to be honest, awful, and the acting--other than Garner, whose first major role this was and who's quite good and Edd "Kookie" Byrnes, who plays an arrogant young West Point officer on his first combat assignment--is for the most part pedestrian, with the tired stereotypes you see in pretty much every war picture: the slow-witted hillbilly, the fast-talking city slicker, the weary veteran sergeant, etc.

Overall, it's slow and boring, with some unnecessary comedy relief thrown in and too much attention paid to the GIs' love interests. Not one of Wellman's better films, by a long shot.