When it was released in 1950, "Halls of Montezuma" was one of the most realistic and ambitious war movies yet made. Today its strengths still outweigh its unfortunate flaws. The flaws are an all-too-familiar sentimental streak, an absurd "revelation" about Japanese tactics, an unconvincing psycho in a clumsy explanatory flashback, and the unlikely presence, in Lt. Anderson's platoon, of a replacement who just happened to have been one of his high-school students in civilian life.

Many viewers will find such flaws even more annoying because they detract from the good things about this movie, including some solid performances (Widmark, Palance, Boone, Webb) a realistic plot, an unusually authentic look--including some (mostly) well integrated combat footage--and a spectacular scope. Until "The Longest Day" (1961), the beach landing here(with flame-throwing tanks)and the later assault on the Japanese were more impressive than any other screen depictions of a large military operation. (BTW, the failure of the Japanese to oppose the landing itself isn't a Hollywood howler; the movie accurately reflects the Japanese defense strategy on Okinawa in 1945.) Milestone's directorial masterpiece, "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930), expresses revulsion at the slaughter of World War I. "Halls of Montezuma" affords a more complex view of men in World War II. The hero is a high-school chemistry teacher whose migraines have addicted him to painkillers; he doesn't care because he assumes he's going to be killed. One character is blinded and another killed by accident. By modern standards such incidents may seem relatively mild, but during the war such troubling images were thought to be too disturbing for film-goers. Even in 1950 they were strong stuff for a movie.

Made at a time when the Cold War was heating up dangerously in Korea, "Halls of Montezuma" is still a revealing postwar response to World War II in the Pacific.

Many war movies just following WWII were of the John Wayne tough guy type. However, Halls of Montezuma, is refreshing in that it looks in depth at the psychology of the soldier. Really at how men change when laying there lives on the line. The cinematography was also well done when you consider this movie was made half a century ago. You won't see the blood and guts as in a Saving Private Ryan, but the movie may make you think twice before signing up for active duty.

• Despite it's grand name, Halls of Montezuma is a small war film. What I mean is that the movie focuses more on a small group of men and their fears and problems than it does on a grand plan for Allied victory. It's a very personal movie. We get to see these men up-close and we begin to develop feelings for them. I wouldn't doubt that this is one of the first films to show a U.S. Lieutenant so battle scarred that he resorts to using pain killers just to function. Unlike other war films of this era, not all of these men are going to make it to the end. War is like that. It doesn't pick and chose people to live because we like them. So in that regard, it's also more realistic than some other war movies made in the 50s.

• To succeed as a small, personal war movie as I've described, the cast has to be able to act. This cast does not disappoint. Richard Widmark, Jack Webb, and Karl Malden are all excellent in their respective roles. I was especially impressed with Webb who has an acting style that can grate on the nerves. He's more subdued here and it works. But as good as these three are, Jack Palance is the highlight of the movie for me. He was undoubtedly the most believable. I could really picture him doing the things in real life that were called for in the script.

• I have no difficulty recommending Halls of Montezuma to fans of war films. It's a very welcome addition to my DVD collection.