Dr_FIcta

The First Motion Picture Unit of the US Army Air Force cranked out hundreds of instructional films in the 3-plus years of WW II. These movies were produced by Hollywood professionals who had joined up for the duration, and their average quality is quite high. This one, dated 1944, is a lot more than just didactic, however. It's pretty realistic, and even dramatic in a disciplined sort of way. Along with other such films depicting survival conditions in the arctic and the jungle, "Land & Live in the Desert" must have been meaningful to the thousands of flyers whose very lives might end up depending on what they learned here. Look out for some familiar Warner Brothers talent from the era: John Beal, Craig Stevens, Wally Cassell, Wm T. Orr. IMDB "Cast" says that Van Heflin is the narrator here. That's not true though (he does narrate the "Land and Live in the Jungle" short). The narrator's voice sounds a little like Wendell Corey. Effective little film score, too. Very watchable.

Having tried over the years three or four times to get into (or even get through) this film, I tried yet again when it showed on TCM today. And even though I was making a conscious effort this time, I STILL couldn't make it all the way through this snooze-fest. I'm basically in agreement with evanston_dad that it's "one of the dullest films" ever, even though I too am a fan of both its main stars. One star for the period ambiance, one star for the color (albeit a little faded, it seems to me), and one star for what I suppose was an honest effort. It's not in contention for worst-film-ever, but it's sure not one of the "essentials."

As other reviewers have observed, this is a difficult movie to rate with a single number. In some ways it is quite effective in its atmospheric period depiction. Yet in other ways it suffers considerably, especially in its plotting, editing, and scriptwriting.

We'll start with the negatives, most particularly the spectacularly ineffective performance by Cecile Aubry (in the title role, no less!). Not only is her speech at times practically unintelligible, but she has absolutely no emotional chemistry with her supposed love-interest--Power. The utter failure of this relationship to develop convincingly is the film's single biggest weakness (although that is not entirely the fault of Aubry). With regard to cinematic verisimilitude, many previous reviewers have emphasized Tyrone Power's miscasting in terms of age, and to a lesser extent, his thoroughly anachronistic American accent. To me, however, those failings are less severe than the complete lack of credibility as to language in general. Amazing how many people along the silk roads of the Middle East (and even all the way to Cathay) spoke idiomatic English! Yes, it's true that such a problem is difficult to solve (indeed, even such an acknowledged master-epic as "Lawrence of Arabia" suffers from it), but some films (e.g., "The Third Man") confront this problem a lot more successfully than others. I suppose it's an aspect of cinematic suspension of disbelief that we'll just have to accept-but one doesn't have to like it. Another serious problem results from scripting and editing, which, among other things, cuts out the protagonists' entire trip from their departure out of England to somewhere around Arabia. Both continuity and opportunity for dramatic development are lost thereby.

On the other hand, certain aspects of this film render it a worthwhile viewing experience. First, the location scenery and Cardiff's color cinematography are first-rate, contributing to the film's overall atmosphere. Second, with the exception of Aubry, the characterizations are generally well drawn (e.g., Lom, Rennie, Welles). Power is his usual likable self, and Hawkins, as always, adds value to the film through his mere presence. Third--and notwithstanding the criticisms of a couple of previous reviewers--Addinsell's film score is actually pretty effective. I am especially struck by the plaintive, haunting scoring for double-reeds toward the beginning of the film, evoking (along with the accompanying visuals) a long-past time.

In sum: the first half of the movie is both engaging and entertaining (albeit a bit talky), but the plot becomes increasingly implausible and unarresting in its latter stages, such that long before the end one might be tempted to abandon it entirely.