verbusen I'm nostalgic for a good war drama pre 1970. I thought I had seen them all, being middle aged, but I had never watched this one before (it's on TCM). At first I was dismissive, Robert Redford? Oh boy this is going to suck. But no, I was wrong, this is a great war film. It's totally unpredictable, I honestly did not know where this was going. I would suggest to not read any reviews past this point and just watch it first as a spoiler would probably ruin the film. John Saxon puts on an awesome performance and the dialog of everyone involved was real enough for me to become involved. It's not over the top, it's very, very character driven and very engrossing. If you liked low budget war films such as Attack!, Men In War, and Hell Is For Heroes, you will enjoy this. 10 out of 10. It probably deserves it's mid 6 rating technically but as a character driven war drama I don't think you can do any better. I don't want to give away spoilers but every character involved in this was plausible and real. The less you know before watching the better your experience will be.

Claudio Carvalho In Korea, in May 1953, the rookie G.I. Roy Loomis (Robert Redford) joins the Jaguars in the front. He befriends the soldiers and discovers that the psychotic Private Raymond Endore (John Saxon) sneaks out of the base every night to slice the throats of their enemies with his dagger. Further, the Korean orphan Charlie (Tommy Matsuda) idolizes Endore. When the governments sign the cease-fire, Endore once again leaves the base bringing the boy with him.The dramatic "War Hunt" is a film with a wonderful cinematography in black and white, excellent acting but the story is only reasonable. The characters are not well-developed specially the psychotic Raymond Endore that is a rich character but the motives for his death wish and his affection for Charlie are poorly explained along the screenplay. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): "Obsessão de Matar" ("Obsession of Killing")

CineTigers TCM included War Hunt in their Memorial Day festival (maybe a little inappropriate for a tribute to our servicemen?). I found the subject, as a screen play, intriguing, but not the delivery. To me, it would have been better to read, hear it as a reading, or see it in community theater.The movie resembled an episode of "Combat!", for props and scenery, film quality, and acting. And frankly, the "before they were famous" actors shown here had a reason for their anonymity, they still lacked confidence and training and delivered what was at best a TV movie quality product, in my opinion.Contrast this to the realistic acting and tight cutting in "Hell is for Heroes". Again, to me a great concept, a good screenplay, but "movie of the week" product.

Robert J. Maxwell This has got to be one of the least expensive movies ever made outside the Roger Corman organization, shot on a bare lot in a few weeks. Redford (not yet a heart throb) plays Loomis, newly assigned to an infantry company under the command of a curiously unassertive captain who shows an especially protective attitude toward John Saxon's enlisted man. No homosexuality is implied on the part of the captain. He seems more fearful of Saxon than attracted to him, and he depends on the information Saxon brings back from his nightly solo patrols behind the Chinese lines. The reason for the diffidence shown Saxon by the captain, and by all other members of the company, becomes clear when we see him in action at night, his face painted a ghastly black, slitting throats and doing a little war dance around the bodies. Killing is what Saxon does. It's practically ALL he does. He sleeps while the other grunts work, and whistles loudly and heedlessly while others sleep and he cleans his weapons. Except when murdering or teaching his young Korean orphan friend how to play the game, he maintains a vacant expression, doesn't remember to call officers "Sir," and is convinced with absolute certainty that he's doing what he does flawlessly. While being debriefed after a night patrol in which he discovered a heretofor unknown Chinese listening post ("One of them was asleep," he comments smoothly) the captain asks him if, you know, well, this is kinda important and, does he think he maybe should go back and make sure his information is accurate. And Saxon looks up from his coffee blankly and asks, "What for?" Saxon is quite good, actually. Redford hadn't yet got control of his minimalist style. The two of them represent sets of entirely different values: Saxon, who is driven by the same demons that move any ordinary serial killer; and Redford, whose convictions are bourgeoise. The focus of their conflict is the Korean orphan. Redford wants to put him into an orphanage where they will at least feed and clothe him and teach him how to play baseball instead of how to murder people. He tells Saxon this and threatens to take the matter to higher authority, generating from Saxon a withering stare filled with hellish and unfathomable emotions because, aside from serial killing, the Korean boy is the only meaningful thing in Saxon's life. It ends as you'd expect. Saxon would never have made it in civvy street anway. This is the trouble not only with efficient and committed killers like Saxon (and like Steve McQueen in "Hell is for Heroes," as another commentor pointed out) but with many military heroes, alas. So many of them seem prompted to extraordinary things without being too clear about whether their circumstances are extraordinary or otherwise. Francis Ford Coppola was a driver on one of the army trucks in this movie.