LtDuke75

Here's a highly unsung western classic. It is marked by exemplary writing, acting, camera work, and direction. Great western wisdom, a la Louis L'amour enriches a well-crafted profile of good and bad guys. Of particular enjoyment for me was the homage to Howard Hawks' incomparable Western Trilogy (Rio Bravo, El Dorado, and Rio Lobo). Those films were Hawks' answer to the message of "High Noon" about good and evil in the west. Like Hawks' movies this is about sheriffs, autocratic cattle barons, victimized townspeople, hired guns, and righteous, Don't-Tread-On-Me loners. Western picture enthusiasts will not be disappointed.

The view is not "Love/Hate." It's more like "Appreciate some of it/ Censure the mass of it." I have shown clips of this film to college and high school classes. Selected thumbnail clips are poignant and on point. For instance--Episode One, just after Pearl, Bob Leckie--a sincere Catholic-- lights a votive candle after enlisting in the USMC--or--John Basilone's family have a farewell Christmas dinner with Manila John and his fellow marines just before embarkation for the PTO--or Chesty gives a great rousing Mac Marine speech to his NCOs ("You are the backbone of the Marine Corps!"). Another useful scene is Episode Two--WATCHTOWER is successful and the dazed but relieved Marines leave Guadalcanal with barely enough strength to climb the cargo net onto a debarking USN ship. They are stymied to learn that a messmate knows about what they've been through: "Everybodies heard about Guadalcanal. " he says. "At home you guys are heroes..."

There are more of these wonderful vignettes sprinkled across the otherwise thematic wasteland of this profound letdown. The same guys that did Band of Brothers? Should be great right? Did Marine Sid Phillips know more than he should when he titled his memoirs "You'll Be Sorrrry?" Band of Brothers it is not. (Props out to reviewer Crazylegs2919 whose title "Spearssss get over here!!! Get in their and take over the Pacific!!!" A true LOL for me. Guess that makes Hanks or Hugh Ambrose Lt Dyke, right, Crazylegs?) My feeling is that Dad Stephen Ambrose would have kept his son Hugh more tractable and we would not have had the primal "Woke" scream that we get in the Pacific. But alas, he passed before it went into production. Speaking of that hyper-PC quality of the series I want to give credit to another excellent one-star review written by a fellow marine (Jeff Cole) who wrote an exceptional philippic on the series entitled "Disgusting ahistorical race-baiting swill ." That title as they say, says it all. Read the rest of his review for an informed and trenchant assessment. I looked forward anxiously to the premiere of the Pacific but saw ominous pieces in the papers about the hard-left tilt plaguing it. Cole quotes some of the lame damage control Hanks tried to conduct that only tended to confirm the growing apprehension. Conservative patriots have learned to adjust for bias in most mainstream media. I get it if this is just beyond the capacity of your crap filter. But with proper annotation there are diamonds to be mined in this treacherous landscape.

I purchased this series because it was clearance priced and because it was narrated by Charlton Heston. The 50+ shows cover intriguing topics. Heston's participation suggested solid production value and perhaps an even-handed analysis. The episodes are treatments of intelligence and psychological warfare stories from varied historic events from World War II through the Cold War. A history teacher and former Marine Corps Officer, I find the average episode to be informative and worth the time. I learn a few tidbits of back story history with each episode. However, contrary to another reviewer who scolded the series for an excessive pro-American posture, I found it to be more ambivalent in its treatments, particularly in Cold War matters. Other times it appeared to come from a leftist perspective to such a degree that I wondered if the self-described conservative Heston was less conservative than advertised or was simply uncritically reading copy. For instance, he voices narration that gives free passes to Che Guevara in one episode and, in another paints South Vietnam's Diem as a ruthless dictator without equivalent characterization of Ho Chi Minh's leadership. The same pattern is observable during the review of the Korean Conflict when harsh words are used for South Korean Syngman Rhee but not so for Kim Il Sung. This series can be useful if one comes to it with his bias filter engaged. If you so proceed, you will find it a worthwhile documentary. Listen for the factual anecdotes and the neat sidelights. But don't go here for bottom-line verdicts on the good guys and bad guys of the Cold War. If you do, you might find the familiar bias instead.