edwagreen It all comes down to the fact that it had to take the advent of World War 11 to change the thinking of wealthy landowner and share cropper Robert Wagner. He mistreats those who work under him, while marrying the daughter of another wealthy owner, David Keith, who had the foresight to see that war was coming and that the south would change again by war's end.Stationed in the Pacific, Wagner endures the hardship of war and sees incompetent as well as brutal leadership. His newly found friends are killed before his eyes, and is emotional shaking results.Buddy Ebsen co-stars as a fellow soldier and friend to Wagner. Broderick Crawford is memorable as the fast, tough talking unit leader, Waco, who can be brutal to the core, while remembering an army of strong discipline.

dougdoepke I expect this 1956 war movie was passed over by critics because its star, Robert Wagner, was considered just another light-weight pretty boy of the day. Nonetheless, the movie is better than just another celebrity vehicle, while Wagner is a much better actor than his good-looks suggest, and, I think, time has proved.Two features distinguish this film from others of the day. First is the subplot of tenant farmers and the class barrier separating them from the land owners they work for. A number of pre-Vietnam movies dealt with racial differences in the military; this is the only one I know of dealing with white Southern sharecroppers and their difficulties. Wagner's unit is a National Guard battalion which means that the unit is made up of men from the same locale with the same class distinctions of civilian life carried over into the ranks of the unit itself. Thus, Robert Keith a patriarchal rich man in civilian life is in similar command of the battalion as the colonel, while Tod Andrew's land owner heads up a platoon as a lieutenant. In short, land owners make up the ranks of commissioned officers, while share-croppers make up the enlisted ranks.Now, the screenplay departs from this logic in Wagner's case. Though a land owner, he's not an officer; instead he's a sergeant in the enlisted ranks. The reason I think is pretty clear. Officers do not fraternize with enlisted men. But for the plot to deliver its main message, it must break down the social barrier between tenant farmer Buddy Ebsen and land owner Wagner, and that requires that they fraternize. Hence, the screenplay makes Wagner an enlisted man. But this curious departure is for a good cause. Only by getting to know a man (Ebsen) personally can the haughty Wagner overcome the cruelty he has shown his share- croppers in civilian life. The lesson here is similar to that of racially inspired films—it's personal contact that ultimately humanizes and breaks down social barriers. Thus, once the social distance is overcome, the two can become friends and equals and be carried off to the same hospital ship, side-by-side. A humane message, well delivered.The second feature is perceptively pointed out by Kayaker36. There's an unmistakable homosexual subtext to Broderick Crawford's command center scenes. Today, that wouldn't merit much mention, but remember this is 1956 when about the only thing worse than being a gay was being a communist. And to even hint that gays might be in the military—and in a position of command—is really quite remarkable. The screenplay is adapted from a novel, and I suspect the idea comes from the novel and was rather boldly adapted into the screenplay. But, whatever the source or reason, this is the only war film of the post-war era I know of to even hint at that forbidden topic.Anyway, the movie is well produced by TCF, with just enough battle scenes to satisfy war- movie fans. The screenplay is also unusual in its depiction of death by friendly fire, a much more common occurrence among soldiers than movies led us to believe. On the other hand, note how, in passing, the script works in a love interest for Wagner so that Terry Moore's name could go up on the marquee and broaden audience appeal. Note too, how Crawford gets a rather lengthy and unnecessarily histrionic scene to justify, I suppose, his starring credit. Remember, he was only a few years past his Best Actor Oscar, at a time when his name still carried audience weight. Actually, combining this film with Tony Curtis's 1954 war movie Beachhead would make a revealing double-feature, showing again how slick and entertaining films from Hollywood's studio period could be. This may not rank with the best or most suspenseful war films of the period. But it does remain an interesting oddity.

MARIO GAUCI I rented this on DVD in honor of director Fleischer's passing a week ago. While it's not among the best of its kind, this underrated war flick is quite well done in most respects - notably the cinematography, in color and Cinemascope, by Leo Tover. Still, with a title like that - as well as its flashback structure and the inspired use of "Dies Irae" on the soundtrack (given a military arrangement!) - one feels that the film had pretensions above its station, which neither hesitant scripting nor the generous budget of a major studio (Fox) could hope to accommodate!That said, the film features a plethora of gripping action sequences and a solid cast, led by Robert Wagner in a better-than-expected performance as the callous-landowner-turned-jittery-soldier and featuring, among others, Mark Damon (whom I saw in person at the 2004 Venice Film Festival, where he was invited to introduce Vittorio Cottafavi's delightful picaresque epic I CENTO CAVALIERI aka SON OF EL CID [1965]!). Indeed, one might say that BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL only falters whenever the narrative feels the need to return to Wagner's civilian life...which almost turns the film into one of those novelettish upper-crust domestic sagas that were popular Hollywood fixtures around this same time!

TC-4 I just saw this movie on a premium channel. It was an entertaining piece with the popular TV stars of the time. What it did not like was it was a Cinemascope picture shown in the pan and scan mode. This was especially annoying of the widescreen movies of the fifties since they were trying to really give the impression of widescreen by having a lot of scenes on the extreme ends of the film frame. I don't undertand why the channels that show widescreen movies don't show both versions at different times to please everyone.