The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission

This movie had all the warning signs of a horribly cheesy comical re-make. Based upon "The Dirty Dozen," this almost unbearable 90 minutes of film made me almost rethink such masterpieces as Conspiracy Theory, The Blair Witch Project, and Batman and Robin. The movie itself was a mix between the worst Naked Gun humor, and a mildly serious Police Academy 7. Since it was also a "made-for-TV" movie, and since it was also a "made-for-TV" movie comedy, it is among the very cheesiest of the cheesy. So be warned, and watch out for Sonny Landham who played Billy in Predator.Particular attention should be payed to the German scene, which was one of the cheesy-funny scenes in the movie. But as a rule, avoid most movies with "The Next Mission" in the title, or comedies made for TV.

Hopefully this was the Dirty Dozen's last mission, or rather the "Baker's Dozen's" last mission!

Nearly 20 years after the blockbuster success of "The Dirty Dozen," Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, and Richard Jaeckel re-teamed for a sequel, "The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission." While Borgnine and Jaeckel retain their dignity and acquit themselves reasonably well, Marvin seems bored and tired throughout; "show me the money" is written all over his face. But the lead is not the only casting problem with this lackluster followup. The original dirty dozen were a motley crew of psychopaths and criminals, embodied by such great character actors as John Cassavetes, Telly Savalas, and Donald Sutherland. The dirty dozen in "Next Mission" are well scrubbed, clean cut young guys, who look as though they were former boy scouts recruited from a male escort service. To suggest these choir boys had committed crimes worthy of hanging or life at hard labor is laughable.

Mercifully, "Next Mission" is about an hour shorter than the classic original. The assignment this time is to assassinate a Nazi general, who is intent on killing Hitler. However, the reasoning for saving Der Fuhrer's life is never explained. The mission not only lacks justification, but also seems to lack any logical plan. The team lands at an airport inside Nazi controlled territory, calmly walks from the plane dressed in German uniforms, and boards a waiting bus. One of the team is an African-American, but that only seems to occur to anyone at the last minute, just before they deplane. If that is not howler enough, the team member who has only flown crop dusters suddenly becomes expert at flying a German war plane. Marvin tells the group they will not parachute, because they have not been trained and would be killed; later, the entire group parachutes safely in the dark. Michael Kane is credited with the "writing;" he should have sued to take his name off.

Director Andrew V. McLaglen is a competent director of such TV westerns as "Gunsmoke," Have Gun will Travel," and "Rawhide;" occasionally, he turned out a decent movie as well: "Shenandoah," "McLintock," "The Undefeated." However, the script for "Next Mission" defeated McLaglen and his career was over six years later, not long after another misguided sequel, "Return from the River Kwai." "The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission" should be required viewing in film school, The Pitfalls of Making Sequels to Successful Films, 101. "Mission" is unnecessary, howlingly inept at times, and only tarnishes the image of Lee Marvin. Not surprisingly, none of the new dirty dozen became household names afterward; all involved should have passed on this mission and so should viewers.

Nearly twenty years after the original, Major Reisman again played by Lee Marvin gets assigned a new gang of G.I. convicts for another mission. If this had to be made why did it have to be done with the Reisman character. Lee Marvins age clearly showed which hurt the picture. Then to make matters even worse Ernest Borgnine and Richard Jaeckel reprise their roles from the 1967 film. Unlike the original the convicts are colorless, the mission pointless and the end cartoonish. Watch the original and consider the story ended when Charles Bronsons Joseph Wladislaw says at the conclusion `Killing Generals could get to be a habit with me.'

Dirty Dozen got its sequel, what, 18 years later. I don't know whose idea it was that this is an important movie to make. I mean, watching the sequel it looks like there should be more new ideas invented during all those years. But no, it starts almost like the same movie over again. Lee Marvin plays again the major who is assigned to gather a new team of misfit soldiers. Even the dialogue seems similar to the first film (when Marvin is giving instructions to the new guys). I was a bit disappointed that Charles Bronson is not in this one because his character survived the end battle of the first film. My guess is that he was busy making Death Wish 3 at the time (well, I don't blame him for that choice).

So, Lee Marvin is the main guy who holds this movie on his shoulders. It's actually strange his face hasn't aged much even despite the long gap between the movies. The new actors are not bad but their characters are left paper thin. The training part is very short and straightforward. Instead of character drama we have a short but cool training montage, and then it's time for action. For the merit of this film I must say its length is a lot shorter than the first one. That makes the lack of new ideas a bit easier to digest. It's an action film that doesn't try to accomplish anything deeper.

I happened to find this movie as bonus material on the dvd of the first film. That's pretty much how you should take this film - a bonus feature for fans who can't get enough of the first movie. Just go with low expectations.

Flat and unconvincing follow-up to the original where Major Reisman (Lee Marvin) is ordered to lead another group of convicts into France to take out a German SS general who is planning to eliminate the Fuhrer.

Besides Marvin reprising his role here, Ernest Borgnine and Richard Jaeckel also return "nearly" two decades after the original came out.

It's almost impossible for me to decide which was worse, watching the three cast members (from the first movie) forced to carry the burden on their backs and/or how terrible the story (and the apparent lack of character development and humor if there is any). I bet a college freshman could come up with a far better story that anyone would enjoy.

Stick with the original.