The Young Warriors

Pretty interesting war film despite the well-grooved plot involving an experienced sergeant leading a squad of young, inexperienced infantry soldiers into battle. Presumably set in Italy (some combat sequences were lifted from the Audie Murphy flick "To Hell and Back") the story centers upon the relationship that develops between the squad leader, Cooley (James Dury) and one of his charges, Hacker (played by Steve Carlson).

Square-jawed and rugged, Drury was born for his role. Best known for the TV western "The Virginian," it's a shame Drury wasn't in more combat films. Carlson is fine as a surly private but he is overshadowed by the wise-cracking (and sometimes irritating) Jon Daly who plays the unit comedian.

Norman Fell has a tiny role in this film and a young Robert Pine is interesting as sensitive trooper. Look closely for Kent "Adam 12" McCord (billed under his real name, Kent McWhirter) who pops up here and there as a lieutenant. It might have been more interesting to cast McCord in the role of Hacker.

I gave up three-quarters of the way through the film after getting fed up with the characters supporting James Drury, several of whom I found annoying. Curiously only Sergeant Cooley showed any beard stubble, with everyone else remaining perfectly clean-shaven - they weren't that young!

Early on, when the patrol gets ambushed and one recumbent soldier appears to be hit, two or three of his colleagues withdraw barely crouching. And when the three men down by the pond are told they're in a minefield, they work their way back huddled together so that were a mine to explode it would kill or injure them all.

I gather that towards the end there's a good action scene, but I couldn't be bothered to wait for that.

It's hard to believe this screenplay was adapted by Richard Matheson from his own novel. True, the characters are endowed with a bit of individuality, but none of them are interesting or particularly likable or sympathetic. And the fact they are played by such an ordinary lot of performers, doesn't help. But even worse, however, is the dreary, TV-style direction imposed on the film by John Peyser. This director was reputed to be something of a war drama specialist on the small screen. Here he's given a huge CinemaScope screen to work with, and what does he do with it? He puts a close-up right smack in the center and lets the rest of the frame have nothing. Even the action scenes are no more than adequately staged at best and their power is further lessened not only by the obvious use of stock footage and the familiar Universal back-lot scenery, but by an extremely limited "B"-movie budget. The film lacks both atmosphere and style and can only be described as irredeemably mediocre in all respects.

Saw this movie once about 30 years ago. Been trying to find it in some sort of print since. Good sustained fight scenes in this movie. Pretty graphic for the time. Very young soldiers played by a cast of nobody's. Lead guy, Hakar freezes in battle but becomes hero, if memory serves me right. I can remember a scene where a soldier is screaming for Hakar to help him while being bayoneted repeatedly. Pretty intense for 1967. Pretty sure the action takes place around the Battle Of The Bulge. Maybe the least shown war movie ever made next to Castle Keep & None but the Brave. I think that's right Any info on this film would be appreciated!!!

This movie is more about male bonding than about war, but it's got all the right ingredients. Surviving on the battlefield is about teamwork, learning from mistakes, and sharing your knowledge, and that's what this story is all about. The movie starts with the "old man" platoon sergeant taking all the new troops under his wing and shows them how to be a team and how to survive...the movie ends when one of the young troops is now the "old man" taking the young newbies under his wing. The story is kinda cliché, but nonetheless inspiring and satisfying. Highly recommended for anyone into stories about male bonding and growth.