I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

I've noticed that many of the American WW2 movies dealing with the Filipino theatre of war feel very cheap and occasionally amateurish in nature. I don't know what it is about the subject matter that lends it to poor quality material but BACK TO BATAAN is no different. Perhaps it's a B-movie compared to the A-list features dealing with the European theatre of battle. This one is slightly different in that it wasn't actually filmed in the Philippines but rather in California, understandable as the war was still raging when this was shot in 1945.The film is a stock gung-ho war effort featuring the likable John Wayne. He's not at his best here - I preferred him in period fare - although it's quite unusual to see him unshaven. He plays a single US soldier who stays on the island when the rest of the American forces flee in the wake of a massive Japanese invasion force. Wayne's goal is to persuade the Filipino villagers to rise up and begin a guerrilla war. What follows is plenty of stock action and incident and the odd sight of Anthony Quinn playing a Filipino character. It's not bad, quite watchable in fact, but not one of the Duke's best.

Is it churlish to complain about overt flag waving in war movies? Or to decry propaganda prose in the same? Back to Bataan is guilty as charged, yet such is the composition of Edward Dmytryk's film, and its focus on a part of the war we rarely have seen on film, it matters not.We are in 1942, and after the fall of the Philippines to the Japanese, U.S. Army Col. Joseph Madden (John Wayne) stays behind to lead the local guerrilla resistance against the Japanese army. With that synopsis it isn't hard to figure out what sort of pic we are going to get, yet to purely consider this as a macho beefcake movie is a little unfair.Sure it's bookended by blistering action, as Duke Wayne (very restrained turn actually) and Anthony Quinn cut a swathe through the RKO sound stages, but there's lots of intelligent human interactions here to mark it as being in the least knowing of the campaign.It often grasps for the sentimental branch, while the racist barbs and portrayal of the Japanese does sting at times. But this is exciting and thoughtful stuff, boosted no end by Dmytryk's sturdy direction and Nicholas Musuraca's monochrome photography (a film noir lovers dream pairing!). Better than routine war movie. 7/10

Basically an unofficial sequel to the Pre-Bruckheimerish 'Bataan' from '43(Lloyd Nolan/Rod Taylor/Desi Arnez), this time showing John Wayne and Anthony Quinn leading an insurgency against the occupying Japanese forces 'til MacArthur could, indeed, return in '45. You have familiar faces ala Paul Fix, Lawrence Tierney and Buelah Bondy along for the ride, real POW's shown marching in front of the camera, and (of course) the usual studio gimmickry, bushes and oddly stagey handling of the combat scenes.In short, a typical WWII era lower-budgeted war-movie. Wayne, Quinn, Bondi and co. are all fine, it's routinely handled but involving. You can certainly put 'They were expendable' w/ Duke and Robert Montgomery as a bookend for this, also in '45-set in the same time/place but bigger budgeted and frankly more believable.You'll also see Phillip Ahn here, from 'Kung Fu' and whatever else, I should add.*** outta ****, pretty decent.

The only thing that distinguishes "Back to Bataan" from scores of other routine war films is its historical theme, which remains an uncommon and important one. Few young Americans today have even heard of the Filipino and American disaster at Corregidor and the Bataan Death March that followed, during which numerous sick and hungry prisoners of war were beaten and killed by their Japanese guards. Although the movie accurately portrays the spirit of Filipino resistance to the Japanese, the individual characters from John Wayne down are cut from the usual Hollywood cardboard. Even the real American survivors of Japanese imprisonment, filmed here some months after their liberation during the invasion of the Philippines, are shown, supposedly right after they got out of the Japanese prison camp, freshly shaved and with neatly trimmed hair. Similarly, the guerrilla force led by John Wayne looks little the worse for wear even after two and half years of jungle warfare (whixh seem like about a week in this movie).The Japanese lynching of the school principal is well handled. The man has not set out to be a hero, but put under the gun, literally, he is simply unable to haul down the American flag. The invaders hang him as an example.Despite its weaknesses, "Back to Bataan" is still watchable and even enjoyable as a different view of World War II, especially if you're a high-schooler who hasn't yet become too cynical about Hollywood war movies. John Wayne and Anthony Quinn are their usual solid selves, and Beulah Bondi (as a naive but tough American matron)is an unusual asset in this kind of action film.