Force of Arms (1951)

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

People keep comparing this film with "A Fairwell To Arms" (1932). If that is true, then it can also be seen as a stepping stone to "The Americanization of Emily" (1964) — highlighting how changing American attitudes toward war have become gradually more cynical.Seems like the "Emily" team — writers and director — might have been influenced by Sgt. Joe 'Pete' Peterson (Holden character), transposing Garner's Charlie Madison to be an updated version of same. 1932 > 1951 > 1964.All three successfully integrate Romance and War, ably supporting the theme that Love is the stronger force. So why do we keep on making war?

I wasn't sure what to make of this at first since I had never heard of the movie before I saw it on Turner recently, but almost right off the bat this earnest war/romance drama shows it's mettle.William Holden is a GI on a short leave in Naples during the Allied advance up Italy. He meets WAC Nancy Olson , and after a short resistance on her part they fall in love , more or less at first sight. I liked the dialog between the two of them during this 'courtship' , it is well written and though Holden plays the wisecracker he so often did in his roles, it seems natural in these scenes.The rest of the film tracks their time in Italy, together and apart, as Holden returns to the front and faces the need to prove his courage and cool under fire. The thing that made this movie stand out is the treatment of a war time in service romance that is neither played for laughs or pathos. It is slightly melodramatic at times, but appropriately so for the material.One of the better films of this type I have seen.

this film was written about, but not about wwII. the location of the ridges of italy was no accident. it was picked to more replicate the terrain of the war being fought at the time of filming--and that was the almost brand new, ugly war in Korea.so what we have is a prior war standing in for an all too real non-declared war in Korea. the administration called it a police action. and this one was treated as a fart in a tea bag. despite how warlike it felt to the men who were fighting it.so instead of the us making korean war films, during what they called a conflict, they made wwII films--what a rip-off. no wonder the korean vets call this the forgotten war.all you can say is: anything that comes out of hollywoods mandated ignorance of non-reality has to be crap.the true reality being: you can't make a decent war movie without several years passing after the conflict--especially when the war you're filming is not the one you're filming.

It's hard to say if FORCE OF ARMS is a romantic love story with a war background or if it is a war film with a romantic background! Either way it comes across as an enjoyable 100 minute motion picture. Very loosely based on Hemingway's WW1 epic romance "A Farewell To Arms" it was produced by Anthony Veiller for Warner Bros. in 1951 and the usual workmanlike direction came from the legendary Michael Curtiz.Beautifully photographed by genius cinematographer Ted McCord in glorious black & white and from a splendid screenplay by Orin Jannings it starred William Holden as a battle weary, hard bitten GI who during the German occupation of Italy in 1943 and the Battle Of San Pietro falls in love with a reluctant WAC (Nancy Olson).Holden delivers one of his very best performances but he's left really to carry the movie almost on his own. This is a fault with the picture! He is surrounded by what is essentially a cast of minor players! Third billed is Frank Lovejoy who is as unimpressive as ever! Then we have what are called the supporting players (in this case Holden's GI buddies) such as the bland Gene Evens (who seemed to be in everything during this period), the irritating Dick Wesson (trying as usual to be humorous and not being very successful) and Paul Picerni who never did anything worthwhile with his career. But for me the most disappointing piece of casting is that of the pivotal female lead! Although she won an Oscar nomination for her performance in Billy Wilder's brilliant "Sunset Boulevard" I always found Nancy Olson to be an unremarkable actress and most wanting in the looks/glamour department. She always gave me the impression of looking more like a favourite aunt rather than a lover or even a leading lady! However, she must have held some fascination for Holden as she was his leading lady in three other films - "Sunset Boulevard"(1950), "Union Station" (1950) and "Submarine Command"(1951). Who knows - perhaps she was HIS aunt too! HUH?Besides Holden's winning performance, a literate screenplay, the atmospheric art direction (the Italian mock-ups are splendidly realised) there is also a wonderful score by the great Max Steiner. For the battle sequences he brings into play some military cues he wrote for other Warner war pictures he scored such as "Sergeant York" (1941). But the main central theme is an inspired and memorable bit of writing! First heard under the titles it is at once a sumptuous sweeping melody that is hauntingly used in the love scenes making them both meaningful and heartfelt.FORCE OF ARMS despite some iffy aspects is an enjoyable enough drama set in wartime with Holden as always making it watchable. A few years after its initial release in 1951 it was reissued with the unfortunate and unforgivable title "A Girl For Joe"!