Surprisingly incoherent and boring

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

......................otherwise "The Young Lions" is in danger of being the cinematic equivalent of "Hamlet",a film,if you like,full of quotations. It is certainly full of scenes that have become over - familiar with the passing of sixty years and being the victim of innumerable "hommages" or blatant plagiarism in many cases. Mr M.Brando's archetypal blond S.S. officer is still being parodied today as is Mr M.Clift's turn as a peace - loving Jew facing prejudice from his own countrymen. Mr D.Martin sadly became a parody of himself a few years down the line but had a hell of a good time doing it. Mr Brando loved an accent all his career and has a glorious opportunity for conveying that rara avis a sensitive and decent German officer who abhors the more appalling excesses of his fellows. I sat in "The Essoldo" Brighton and was nearly blown out of my seat in the scene where Brando escapes in the desert on a motor - cycle and the full sounds of battle erupted all around me.It may not have been stereophonic - but it was amazing for the time and is my abiding memory of a film that set the pace for a hundred lesser productions.

"The Young Lions" was one those big Hollywood war movies I remember seeing with my family at the local cinema during the late 1950s.I saw many of those films and actually read most of the slab-like novels they were based on: "Battle Cry", "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit", "From Here to Eternity" and Irwin Shaw's "The Young Lions" - there just weren't that many competing devices back then.I usually read the books after seeing the films and then became acutely aware of how the movies suffered under the censorship of the day. The novels often filled in some serious gaps in my sex education, but the films never did.The story is about three soldiers: a German, Christian Diestl (Marlon Brando), and two Americans: Noah Ackerman (Montgomery Clift) and Michael Whiteacre (Dean Martin). The film follows their fortunes through WW2 until they cross paths at the end.The film has a number of authentic, well-executed sequences shot on location. However these are mixed with flat, over-lit scenes shot on the blandest of backlots and soundstages - the interiors are particularly artless. Documentary footage also added to the lack of a definitive style. Fortunately the action scenes open the film out. The most arresting of them was the ambush of a British convoy in North Africa. It would have touched a nerve with many in that audience in 1958 as our guys had been part of the British Eighth army and the war had only been over for 13 years.One of the surprises in the movie was the anti-Semitism Noah Ackerman encounters in the U.S. Army. Monty Clift faced a tough enlistment in "From Here to Eternity", but it was even tougher here. He looked worn (this was after his accident in 1956) and seemed a bit too old, but his performance is the most affecting in the film. No wonder Brando was wary of his talent.Dean Martin without Jerry Lewis was another surprise, but he was good as the soldier with better motives than he thought.Brando's blonde, broad shouldered Diestl starts out as a fine example of the master race, but his journey through the rise and fall of the Third Reich makes him thoughtful. He is treated rather sympathetically in the movie, although he was more of a nasty Nazi in the novel. However they may have overdone Diestl's disgust at every turn.I can see why Irwin Shaw was disappointed. However the film has its moments, and is still one I have no trouble watching every now and then.

The best movies are ones that have a message that cannot be conveyed easily in a few words. Such is The Young Lions. And the core of the message is found in the ending, which I do not want to disclose. But it is a relatively quiet scene that is actually a kick to the solar plexus, intellectually.Yes, Brando delivers the more interesting and even sympathetic performance, once he warms up. But Clift's performance is perhaps finer acting, displaying great emotional vulnerability.The message of this movie was daring for 1958. It treats the enemy - the Germans - with objectivity, compassion and even some sympathy, while being critical of American faults and anti-Semitism. I think it is saying that we are all human, regardless of side, and we are all capable of committing evil acts if put in the wrong situation, up to a point. If your inner character is good and strong, you will not participate, though, as we see with Brando's character, Diestl. This is a message that is as important today as it was half a century ago, if not more so, as we see with atrocities such as those committed by American servicemen in Abu Ghraib prison, acts that we might have seen from Nazis. A key difference is that in America such acts are illegal and punished in courts. Yes, the anti-Semitic root of the harassment of Ackerman in the barracks is implied, rather than spelled out, unlike in the book. Why? Hollywood, which was largely controlled by Jewish moguls at the time, was reluctant to make anti-Semitism an issue, fearing a backlash. (The only movie to tackle anti-Semitism was a Gentleman's Agreement, made in 1947, just before Congressional HUAC hearings on Hollywood, and the blacklisting of writers, actors and directors.) I, for one, being Jewish, don't miss the anti-Semitic expletives. And the movie turns Ackerman into a representative of any American minority in the Army who is harassed but eventually accepted. But what has been largely forgotten is that there once was virulent anti-Semitism in America, and active, organized support for the Nazis in areas such as the Midwest during the 1930s run-up to Pearl Harbor. We're talking pro-Nazi meetings in middle class homes. This is the real subtext of Irwin Shaw's story. However, America was not Nazi Germany, in ideals or actions. And one of the key differences is America's objectivity and ultimate honesty. That is what makes The Young Lions great. I am proud that it treats the Germans objectively. Another movie along these lines is "The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel," made, remarkably, in 1951. What many viewers do not understand is that it was illegal for members of the German military to enlist in the Nazi Party or engage in politics, even during the war. So officers such as Diestl were not Nazis, at least technically. They did swear an oath to support Hitler early on. It was the SS, the Schutzstaffel, a paramilitary organization, that was the arm of the Nazis. Nevertheless, plenty of regular German soldiers engaged in war crimes. But The Young Lions is saying do not judge each soldier or citizen by the acts of the group or nation. It is as wrong to engage in such prejudice toward Germans as it is against Jews or any group or nationality. The German people, to their credit, have largely faced up to the wrongs of WWII objectively. I think the tradition of intellectual honesty at the heart of Germany and Europe helped. The result is the modern world of reconciliation of former European enemies, something that is at least partially absent in Asia.The movie Stalingrad - 1993 is a stunning, raw German mea culpa that provides additional background for understanding movies such as this and Rommel. Watching The Young Lions lacks the drama and intensity found in many war movies. But it is a story that makes you think, and that lingers in your memory long after the movie is through. That is what gives it greatness. It is a movie more people should watch.

The destiny of three soldiers during World War II. The German officer Christian Diestl approves less and less of the war. Jewish-American Noah Ackerman deals with antisemitism at home and in the army while entertainer Michael Whitacre transforms from playboy to hero.There is not much to say about this film other than the following three things: One, it is a great war epic. War films can be told in shorter forms and longer forms, but I feel like this length (just under three hours) is a fair amount of time to develop characters and show how they have adapted to their changing surroundings (particularly Diestl and Whitacre).Two, it is forgotten. At least, largely forgotten. I am sure film historians and critics know it well, but I have a strong knowledge of film history and criticism, and it is not one I had come across until now (2013). With all the other better-known war films out there i have to wonder how this got lost in the mix...And three, although it was criticized for having a sympathetic Nazi, that should be where the film gets its most praise. Whether we like it or not, not everyone in Germany or who served in the German army was evil to the core. Most were regular citizens who were caught up in the situation. Had America tried to take over Canada or Mexico, they would have had just as many soldiers willingly going along for the ride -- the leaders and policies are to blame, and to show that these were questioned is this film's strongest statement.