Reb Brown plays American GI Leonski in WWII Australia. He and over 40,000 other Americans are there ready to ship out to fight the Japanese. James Coburn is Major Dannenberg, who oversees the relations between the Americans and the Australians. Leonski, who drinks too much, begins strangling women to death so he can "hear their voices." The local Australian cops are frustrated as the American Army brass try to keep a lid on the killings, hampering the civilian investigation. Leonski's tent mate, who does the worst Curly impression of all time, eventually turns Leonski in. Dannenberg goes from investigating Leonski to defending him as a lawyer. Thanks to the film's title, we know Leonski will be found guilty and hanged and Dannenberg fights for his insane client's life right up to the very end.
James Coburn, the Oscar winner from "Affliction," and my nominee for crabbiest Academy Award acceptance speech, is very good in this for the first forty-five minutes. His military police liaison role is showy, and he has an air about him that demands respect. My biggest problem here is the completely biased and left-leaning slant the film has. It brazenly announces that this was based on a true story, yet Coburn's character was "inspired" by a different character altogether. How much of this plot was "inspired" as well? Reb Brown's role is one note. He drinks a lot, charms his way into these women's lives, then kills them. An excuse is thrown up that he is insane because his entire family is a bunch of alcoholics. Here, we get classic victimization. He is not guilty because he is clearly drunk and insane. If we released every murderer who was "drunk and insane," I would never leave the house. The film portrays Leonski's evil, then does a 180, trying to get the audience to get the poor man some mental help, forget about the three murdered women, and the two who got away. The plot point where Coburn goes from investigating officer to Brown's defense attorney smacks of screenwriter's convenience. It is not believable for one second, as is the Australian detectives' about face from hardened cops to trying to help Coburn get "the poor lad" off. Coburn's performance also suffers here, again as his character completely changes for no other reason than the screenwriter thought he should. After Leonski is convicted, but before the hanging, Dannenberg tries to get the case heard by the U. S. Supreme Court. He runs into obstacles at every turn, and the film makers will have us believe everybody on the island of Australia was against saving this man's life. Even General Douglas MacArthur was trying to stop Dannenberg from fighting the good fight. The actor who plays MacArthur has exactly one line, other than that, he hangs around offices and smokes that signature pipe while others talk. He is The X-Files' Cigarette Smoking Man set in World War II. Revisionist history like this makes me sick. There is a staged gun battle between Americans and Australians that seemingly leaves dozens killed, and does nothing more than show what jerks Americans were- the only motivation for the scene's inclusion. Apparently, to our country, World War II was just an excuse to party. At one point, Dannenberg compares the United States to Hitler, since we want to execute Leonski. I almost shut the film off right there. According to this film, we are a bunch of partying hicks. With a dumb little romantic subplot worked in about Coburn and a local woman, this film fails on so many levels. With the world climate of the last century, do we need someone telling us our victory in World War II was a horrible mistake? Forget the Japanese and German atrocities, this film is compelled to remind us that serial killers are people, too, even during wartime? I think I will remember historical fact, not Hollywood fiction. I completely dismiss this film.
James Coburn, the Oscar winner from "Affliction," and my nominee for crabbiest Academy Award acceptance speech, is very good in this for the first forty-five minutes. His military police liaison role is showy, and he has an air about him that demands respect. My biggest problem here is the completely biased and left-leaning slant the film has. It brazenly announces that this was based on a true story, yet Coburn's character was "inspired" by a different character altogether. How much of this plot was "inspired" as well? Reb Brown's role is one note. He drinks a lot, charms his way into these women's lives, then kills them. An excuse is thrown up that he is insane because his entire family is a bunch of alcoholics. Here, we get classic victimization. He is not guilty because he is clearly drunk and insane. If we released every murderer who was "drunk and insane," I would never leave the house. The film portrays Leonski's evil, then does a 180, trying to get the audience to get the poor man some mental help, forget about the three murdered women, and the two who got away. The plot point where Coburn goes from investigating officer to Brown's defense attorney smacks of screenwriter's convenience. It is not believable for one second, as is the Australian detectives' about face from hardened cops to trying to help Coburn get "the poor lad" off. Coburn's performance also suffers here, again as his character completely changes for no other reason than the screenwriter thought he should. After Leonski is convicted, but before the hanging, Dannenberg tries to get the case heard by the U. S. Supreme Court. He runs into obstacles at every turn, and the film makers will have us believe everybody on the island of Australia was against saving this man's life. Even General Douglas MacArthur was trying to stop Dannenberg from fighting the good fight. The actor who plays MacArthur has exactly one line, other than that, he hangs around offices and smokes that signature pipe while others talk. He is The X-Files' Cigarette Smoking Man set in World War II. Revisionist history like this makes me sick. There is a staged gun battle between Americans and Australians that seemingly leaves dozens killed, and does nothing more than show what jerks Americans were- the only motivation for the scene's inclusion. Apparently, to our country, World War II was just an excuse to party. At one point, Dannenberg compares the United States to Hitler, since we want to execute Leonski. I almost shut the film off right there. According to this film, we are a bunch of partying hicks. With a dumb little romantic subplot worked in about Coburn and a local woman, this film fails on so many levels. With the world climate of the last century, do we need someone telling us our victory in World War II was a horrible mistake? Forget the Japanese and German atrocities, this film is compelled to remind us that serial killers are people, too, even during wartime? I think I will remember historical fact, not Hollywood fiction. I completely dismiss this film.