Cry 'Havoc'
Cry 'Havoc'
NR | 23 November 1943 (USA)
Cry 'Havoc' Trailers

The Army nurses on Bataan need help badly, but when it arrives, it sure isn't what they expected. A motley crew, including a Southern belle, a waitress, and a stripper, show up. Many conflicts arise among these women who are thrown together in what is a desperate and ultimately hopeless situation.

Reviews
Odelecol

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

... View More
ChanFamous

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

... View More
KnotStronger

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

... View More
Roxie

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

... View More
DKosty123

What a pleasure it is to see such an amazing cast of women put together in one film. Today we are lucky to get more than 2 women in a film unless we get a comic book movie. This cast has almost as diverse a cast of good women actresses as any movie I have seen.This is a stage play made into a movie about army nurses dealing with the Japanese invasion of Bataan. Thank goodness it does not go to the conquest as I can not imagine a group of women and what would have happened to them if an invader got to plunder them.This film deals with the desperate and the more desperate situation as the invader gets closer and closer.There are a few men, most notably a dying sequence by an uncredited Robert Mitchum but for the most part the ladies coping with the war and with each other are the subject here. There is very little love interest and more concern about the demands being put on the nurses in the situation. Sometimes even their faces get grim and dirt.The reason this ensemble is only together for this one film is the war effort. Margaret Sullivan only had 21 acting roles in her career and one of these ladies only had 4 roles in her career. Others like Blondell had lots more screen time. The screen play base makes this one solid. The war propaganda effort made it possible to put this cast together. A real one of a kind film from the MGM studios.

... View More
jjnxn-1

As a patriotic exercise in morale rising this film does a good job even though it is downbeat but as an opportunity to see an amazing group of actresses gathered together it can't be beat.With its almost totally female cast, a very young Robert Mitchum just starting out is in and out of the picture in about a minute, this is a rare bird indeed. It's closest match would be The Women but unlike that high comedy cat fest this is a grim examination of the bravery of a group of dedicated nurses and volunteers during the seize of Bataan.All the women are terrific but a few stand out. The great Margaret Sullavan in her second to last feature is fantastic as the outwardly tough nurse Smitty who is hiding many secrets. Ann Sothern and Joan Blondell are wisecracking experts and even under these tough conditions manage to brighten their scenes with plenty of snap. Two of the best character actresses the movies ever had, Fay Bainter and Connie Gilchrist, don't have much too do but inject their special touch into their scenes. Each actress gets some type of spotlight moment and that makes this a memorable exercise. While surely actual field hospitals are much tougher than the one shown here the film still doesn't scrimp and try to make this seem glamorous in any way. These women are going through hell and the ending leaves little doubt that their struggles are far from over but that their courage helped to win the war. A fine piece of entertainment.

... View More
dougdoepke

WWII curiosity—an all female cast, and those men that do briefly appear are wounded servicemen dependent on the women. The girls are nurses in a field hospital in the Phillipines just as the islands are falling to the Japanese. They're volunteers recruited at the last minute as the bombs are falling. So we wonder how well these comely civilians in their mascara and lipstick will perform under extreme battlefield conditions.Good cast. But somehow the movie doesn't live up to the material's potential. As I see it, the problem lies with director Thorpe who films the dramatics from an impersonal distance as if it were still the stage play from which the movie was adapted. With the basically single set where the girls live, there's not much room to move about. So when the bombs fall or one of the girls freaks out, close-ups of personal reactions are needed, not a continuing group scene that disperses the emotion. There's a ton of dramatic material to engage with here, but too much is allowed to impersonally slip by.Nonetheless, it is an entertaining cast, especially the two dames, Blondell and Sothern. They're natural rivals with their sassy wisecracking that keep the audience amused amid the grimness. Sullavan with her husky voice and domineering demeanor makes an unusual screen presence, as does the rail-thin, sharply intelligent Marsha Hunt. I just wish the Japanese planes had let Blondell finish her mock striptease.The play was put together in 1942, the war's darkest period. This 1943 movie reflects many of these somber prospects, and is thus of some historical interest. Clearly, the purpose is to show that the girls can rise to wartime challenge as well as the boys, and by focusing on the women, we know the spirit comes from them and not from some male overseer. This is one of the few WWII films that really had me guessing about the ending. As it turns out, I failed. Nonetheless, there's enough suspense and good acting to make up for the parts that now (perhaps thankfully) seem dated and distant.

... View More
Fisher L. Forrest

Like I said, any film with Margaret in it is going to give some viewer satisfaction, but this otherwise potentially great film has an insurmountable flaw for me. I refer to the ridiculous "eternal triangle" romantic sub plot involving "Lt. Mary Smith", her non-regulation husband, and one of the volunteer women. If you haven't seen the film, I won't tell you which, despite checking the spoiler box. Probably this silly business was in the original play, but if it wasn't, then Hollywood owes an apology to the movie going public for spoiling this tribute to the nurses and volunteers who served on Bataan in the early days of the Pacific Theatre of War, circa 1941-1942. If you could edit out the foolishness, this would no doubt be a very accurate picture of conditions facing the wounded soldiers and the women and doctors who tried to care for them. I don't know whether the Japanese deliberately bombed hospitals and aid stations, but there is plenty of evidence that such bombings occurred, accidentally or otherwise. Indeed, our own pilots were not completely innocent of such mistakes in various wars. Sometimes non-combatant establishments are poorly identified, but it is pointless to argue these points. War really is Hell, you know.Well, for the good part of the film, we have 13 fine actresses (14 if you include uncredited Anna Q. Nilsson; it might be fun trying to spot her among the "nurses") of various ages from young to middle-aged. Emphasis is on Margaret Sullavan, Marsha Hunt and Fay Bainter for the serious aspects, and on Ann Sothern and Joan Blondell for what Hollywood no doubt regarded as humorous and "romantic" relief. None of them disappoint. You could look on the basic story as "Greek Tragedy", for the fate of Bataan is fore-ordained from the outset. The Japanese are going to win this one for the time being, and the nurses are headed for imprisonment. I hope what another commentator has said about their receiving good treatment is true. It would be one bright spot in the record of treatment of POW personnel by the Japanese in World War II.

... View More