Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

TO HELL AND BACK is a WW2 movie of the 1950s with a unique hook: it tells the true story of the army career of western actor Audie Murphy, with Murphy playing himself, no less. I can't think of another film quite like it, and if the execution is purely standard, then that doesn't matter too much. This all-colour production is handsomely mounted and features a big supporting cast studded with familiar faces including Marshall Thompson and David Janssen. There's a little of the old propaganda about it, but the battle sequences are well staged and the best thing is just how much ground this covers, never slowing down for an instant.

Inspired by a true story, this film gives viewers a cinematic snapshot of WWII hero Audie Murphy, from his days as a poor Texas farm boy to his combat in Sicily and Italy. Small of stature with an unassuming personality, Murphy clearly demonstrated bravery and unselfish valor on the battlefield. And, though younger than his fellow soldiers, he demonstrated leadership skills. He also seemed to have an intuitive sense of when to take risks and when not to. But the film does not measure up to the man. Murphy was genuine, authentic. The film seems phony. In essence, Murphy's compelling story was hijacked by 1950s Hollywood, with its mendacious need to present a simplistic good guy, bad guy characterization. There are no shades of gray in this film; there is no thematic depth. Audie Murphy and his men come across as two-dimensional, and unnecessarily sanitized. This all-or-nothing film approach also exists in the script's dialogue, which lacks subtext. Characters say exactly what they think, which renders shallow, superficial conversations. In some battle segments, conversations are casual, even banal. And there's too much dialogue. It's as if the producers didn't want to spend much money on action scenes, so they padded the script with lots of cheesy chitchat. For viewers who know about Audie Murphy's life, the film lacks suspense. And everyone knows the War's outcome. So the plot plods along, with major elements not in doubt. There are no surprises.Color cinematography is barely acceptable. There are few close-up shots. The camera hangs back, detached from the action and characters. The CinemaScope projection doesn't help, reducing the size of human figures. There's nothing up close and personal here.Audie Murphy undeniably deserved every medal he was awarded. That the film doesn't live up to his well-deserved reputation is certainly not his fault. And maybe when the film was released, it satisfied some collective need on the part of Americans. But half a century later, "To Hell And Back" tells us more about movie making in the 1950s than it does about the brave, gallant, and very human Audie Murphy.

Whenever you hear the name of Audie Murphy, it's generally in connection with his being the most decorated soldier of World War II. What you don't hear is the even more amazing part of the story, that he achieved that distinction by the time he was nineteen years old! It seemed to be a paradox that throughout his combat service, Murphy never wanted the responsibility of a promotion, but he took on that responsibility just the same time and time again. "To Hell And Back" generally does a good job of depicting his war time record, but one can't help feeling that there's something lacking in the presentation. Murphy himself doesn't seem to be all that enthused about portraying his exploits, going through the motions with almost a mechanical indifference. It's almost as if he didn't feel comfortable in his own skin, perhaps owing to his own bouts of post traumatic stress disorder.Murphy seemed to be a paradox as an actor as well, owing no doubt to his ever youthful appearance. In the handful of Westerns I've seen him in, he usually doesn't seem to fit the part, whether as the picture's hero ("Gunfight at Comanche Creek"), or as a screen heavy ("No Name On The Bullet", "Gunsmoke"). At best, Murphy's performances were about adequate, so it's not too surprising that he never really became a break out star. For all that though, I find I can enjoy his pictures well enough, even if they're largely forgettable otherwise."To Hell And Back" offers a meaningful insight into war and how a soldier conducts himself with the men he serves with. There's a particular scene where Murphy is gruff with one of his squad, and the guy is taken aback somewhat. After Murphy leaves, another soldier explains - "The buddy's that come with you you're stuck with, but you don't make no new ones". That's something I hadn't considered as a means of insulating one's self against additional trauma, useful advice under battlefield conditions. Audie Murphy's story would be a good one to see made today with a talented script writer and a more professional approach to film making. There's no doubt that Murphy is a genuine American hero, and it would be fitting to see a picture made about him that elevated his stature to match the reputation.

I cannot understand why a man like Audie, certainly a man with character, let it happen that he was misused for this propaganda film. This film is of the same indescribable, ridiculous stupidity as most war films that were produced as long as the Germans and the Japanese were the bad guys. I watched it horrible 60 minutes long, still waiting for something positive. In vain. It is remarkable that - the longer the time runs since WWII - war films are becoming more realistic and "fair" with the former enemies. Compare this Audie film with the last film of Clint Eastwood or even Soldier Ryan (which has still a lot of unbearable patriotism).I am bored to look these films in which the US-boys are always: 1. outnumbered by the red-Indians, Huns, Japanese, Spanish whereas the historical record has it that more often it was vice versa 2. the enemy always has the bigger weapons, the better equipment, the better support etc, whereas in reality it was more often vice versa 3. the US heroes are mostly shot from behind, there is no other way to overcome them! They are always character better. Believe me, if you have two armies with 100 thousand young men between 18 and 30 the percentage of good guys and bad guys is on both side the same, as well as the percentage of mothers who swear an oath that their boys are good boys - right so as well as wrong so! All of these 3 typical Hollywood-war-film-points are displayed in this film. Audie played it like that because the film-makers ordered him to do so. This was his earnings. He died young. Maybe he could not live very long with these lies or he became sick of being a hero that felt to be useless for normal peace-time-life. Maybe his biographical war-time-story was a total fake. America needed a hero like that, because America lacked of true heroes. The American soldiers had hardly any chances to become heroes as it was looked for it that they got as often as possible their exchange at front. Air fighters for example had ten times less service at the front than Germans. The care the Americans took for their men should be hailed, where lives counted much contrary to totalitarian systems where human lives count nothing. So, if the story of Audie was true, it was not a typical story of an American soldier in the last war. Anyway human acts should be hailed as heroism, not exterminating humans which is always a multiplication of human tragedies (think of all the mothers and fathers, wives, children). If You want to know how the war was ask one of those who were really at the front and whom you know as reliable and honest people. If you believe in these propaganda Hollywood movies you fall in the same pit as so many of Your nation. You will have to pay the bill. Trust in God and You will thrive, not in Your own weakness! He can win Your wars for You, if You leave him, no more.... I know that the readers do not like to read this comment, which is so hostile to their liking, but soldiers who fought at the front mostly do not like glorifying films either. There is no room in reality to glorify people for killing others. Following orders might be a necessary act to survive and to fight against evil (which Nazi-terrorism or Stalin-terrorism were) and banish it from the face of Earth. But this is nothing heroistic. Germans or Japanese who fought against the overwhelming powers of the Allies committed also "heroic" acts (and wasteful as well!), but for what good? In our days it is only acceptable to show films which demonstrate the necessity to fight against injustice and evil, but at the same time the barbarism and cruelty of war. I do not understand the reason for that kind of American film-making. It must be an exaggeration of patriotism as I do not believe that Americans have a minority complex, which is often the reason for hubris. This exaggeration is self-deceit and also very dangerous, because it blindens oneself for reality which in the long run has very negative effects.