Une minute avant l'heure H

In 1999 there was a big to-do about a supposed atrocity during the Korean War, the strafing of civilians fleeing fighting during the initial push by the North Koreans down the Korean peninsula at No Gun Ri. It turned out that the main eyewitness for the story was a liar who was not even in in-country in 1950. The fuss would have been no surprise to viewers of this movie. Here it was artillery fire rather than air attack that caused civilian casualties, but the situation was basically the same. The film depicts the sad necessity of firing on a column of refugees, driven at gunpoint by communist soldiers hidden among them in civilian clothes, who were trying to get past U.N. lines. The blame in the movie is clearly on the commies, but there is no attempt to gloss over the ugly necessities of war. This movie was the first time I ever heard the phrase "Fire for Effect", a phrase I was to utter myself frequently years later as an artillery officer in Vietnam and Cambodia.

Unlike a great many films dealing with the Korean war ONE MINUTE TO ZERO does try to bring a sense of time and place to the proceedings . We see planes from Australia strafing North Korean troops while another scene scene shows British troops marching off to war behind a Scottish pipe band , and the most memorable sequence features North Korean infiltrators using refugees as human shields which did happen fairly often during that exceptionally cruel conflict. Compare this to most other films about the Korean war which could have been set in Asia or Europe during the second world war .

It does have a few flaws , for example there`s some painfully obvious real life film footage used and some of the battle scenes , especially the sequence with a soldier being killed by a flame thrower , could have been more graphic but I suppose that`s down to what you could show on screen in 1952 so perhaps that`s not a valid criticism . What is however is the inclusion of a love story which drags the story down some what . Women won`t want to watch ONE MINUTE TO ZERO because of the large number of combat scenes while fans of war films ( Who I guess are exclusively male ) will find the love story intrusive . But it`s a lot better than PEARL HARBOR

Personally overseen by Howard Hughes, and thus long in gestation (originally under the title 'The Korean Story') and full of aerial action.

South Korea is portrayed as David taking on Goliath in the form of Moscow arming the North to the teeth, thus necessitating killing civilians being used by the commies as cover. Between taking such tough decisions Col. Bob Mitchum finds time to romance UN bleeding heart Ann Blyth, to whom he sings at one point in Japanese; while an instrumental version of Victor Young's hit 'When I Fall in Love' is constantly on the soundtrack.

Mitchum is the U.S. forces colonel, trying to train the Korean army in warfare, while Ann Blyth is the interpreter "Linda". Of course, they disagree on everything, but naturally they fall in love, in spite of themselves. Even back then, they make the comment that "Nato will just pass some more strongly worded resolutions." This is extra interesting, since the war was still going on when this film was released. Viewers will also spot William Talman, in an early role here, who would go on to be the DA on Perry Mason. He died young at 53. Great flick, overall. They toss in joking one-liners, although they sometimes feel out of place, since there's so much death and dying all around them. Directed by Tay Garnett. He had a great track record, making some of the great films of Hollywood. Showing on Turner Classics.

Rather dreary Korean War drama where everybody appears to be performing "by the numbers". There's none of the intensity expected of those life-and-death situations that distinguish the era's better war films (Bridges of Toko-Ri; Pork Chop Hill; Retreat, Hell!). The action never really gels, which I suppose is the fault of director Garnett who appears disengaged from what's on screen. It doesn't help that the screenplay also appears stitched together from a host of war movie clichés, few of which stick around long enough to establish themselves--- the wives, the ethnic grunts, the lonely orphan. It's like a runner in baseball thinking he has to touch all 100 bases before he can score.

Of course, the film does contain one dramatic highlight that caused considerable controversy at the time, but has since proved revealing--- the intentional shelling of civilian refugees by American forces. The screenplay tries to soften the impact with North Korean infiltrators holding refugees at gunpoint, but the destruction occurs anyway. Now, that was really a pretty gutsy move on somebody's part since the war was still going on when the movie was released in 1952.

Though not publicized at the time, we now know from proved incidents such as No Gun-Ri (There was more than one eye-witness, and the only dispute is over the number killed) that such atrocities did occur on our side as well as the enemy's. And though not included in highschool history texts, there was considerable sympathy for the North from the peasantry of the South because of the landlord-dominated government of the South, many of which had collaborated with hated Japanese occupiers during WWII. As a result, considerable guerilla activity occurred in the South both before and during the war itself. Details such as these cast light on the basic accuracy of the movie's depiction. Ironically, the problem for GI's was the same here as in Vietnam--- how to distinguish friendly civilians from the enemy, while too often the solution was to kill them all. But when your own life is on the line, what do you do? That's why Mitchum's Col. Janowski is so torn.

Apparently studio honcho Howard Hughes had high hopes for the production since his name appears above the title. And even though the seams from stock footage are pretty obvious, the film is well produced with locations at Fort Carson, Colorado, where the terrain was said to resemble that of Korea. But background and special effects can hardly compensate for the general listlessness of the results or the ill-conceived Ann Blyth role. Nonetheless, the movie does remain memorable for its one revealing episode.