The Way Ahead (1944) User Reviews

Best war movie made in the 2nd World War

[ubercommando · 8/10 · 30 April 2004]

I really can't understand some of the more negative comments from some reviewers from the USA about this movie. For me, it is far superior to equivalent American wartime propaganda movies (including enjoyable but hardly realistic efforts such as 7 Graves To Cairo and Sahara), and made and acted by a British cast who were serving servicemen as well (unlike a certain J. Wayne or H. Bogart). Carol Reed gives us on the surface a cliche ridden movie but his gritty visual style which would become his trademark plus a script that still gives depth to a by now familiar concept lift this way above other movies made at the time.

The soldiers don't look pristine and for most of the time, don't act heroically until the last 5 minutes. They're not an elite unit (as in Sands of Iwo Jima), they grumble, complain and stagger their way to the front lines but nor are they goofballs, pranksters or loveable rogues. They are ordinary men in difficult times, which was what the film makers wanted to show. They are not all broad stereotypes either; some, like the characters Davenport or Brewer, may on the surface seem like the upper class toff and the cheeky cockney but again, the way they interplay with the rest of the cast, they become more than just representatives of their class.

For an old war movie, I was impressed with the action. Early on, when the two old soldiers are talking about how much better it was in the army in their day, we get a juxtaposed montage of David Niven in training, showing how hard it is. A lot of the burning troop ship shots are done hand held, which adds to the tension. The Tunisia scenes look very authentic and see how Reed indulges in rapid cutting, disorienting explosions and run down and dirty art direction. The only film that comes close to achieving this kind of grittiness in the war years is "Guadalcanal Diary".

The Kind of Men Democracies Produce

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 4 April 2006]

The version of The Way Ahead that I have is one that was edited for the American market and has a narration by US war correspondent Quentin Reynolds. It was his narration that sets the stage for a wartime tribute to the civilians who volunteered for king and country at a time of their nation's greatest peril.

When war in Europe was declared David Niven was one of the British stars in America that went back to serve. Since he had been in the army before taking up acting, he was able to secure a commission. For a good deal of the war he was a training officer and really was drilling the men as we see on Salisbury plain. Some of his time was spent in the commandos in missions to Europe. And he was released to make wartime films Spitfire and The Way Ahead.

The script was written by a 21 year old actor/playwright named Peter Ustinov who has a small role in the film. According to a new biography of Niven in order to secure Ustinov's service, enlisted man Ustinov was attached to officer Niven as his orderly.

A whole lot of faces familiar in the British cinema appeared in The Way Ahead, people like Stanley Holloway, Jimmy Hanley, James Donald, Leo Genn, and Trevor Howard. And it was directed in good style by Carol Reed, one of his earliest films.

One big flaw in the film was that the men who trained with officer Niven and sergeant William Hartnell ended up serving with him in North Africa. Not possible in America and not possible in the UK either. But since the idea was to show camaraderie, I guess that Two Cities Films can be forgiven.

The point of the film and of Quentin Reynolds narration is that in time of peril it is the democracies and not those totalitarian countries with a superman philosophy who have the real strength of character. May it ever be so.

Strong cast makes this appealing.

[artroraback · 7/10 · 23 October 2002]

This is a good film that was intended to bolster morale during World War II. The cast is very good and headed by David Niven. This is a story primarily of 8 men of different backgrounds who survive their basic training and end up driving Rommel out of North Africa. The film is primarily about how men develop character when push comes to shove and there isn't a whole lot of action. Good story and worth seeing for the strong cast alone.

An Excellent and Unusual British Wartime Picture

[c15ta · 7 April 2000]

THE WAY AHEAD is to some extent a cliche-driven movie, but given the timeframe of its production, I feel it portrays very well the mindset of the ordinary citizen of a country under extreme duress, as well as the tribulations of the many regiments being reconstituted as the war progressed seemingly forever. While it is difficult for us to imagine what it must have been like to live under the constant spectre of loss and possible defeat, even some understanding of the way things were for the British in 1944 will permit a casual viewer of THE WAY AHEAD to appreciate its positive message and the call-to-duty which it implies.

When compared against many of the similar American WW2 'propaganda' films, THE WAY AHEAD comes across as a down-to-earth story which I'm sure many could identify with at the time. For us, the 21st-century viewer, this movie is a welcome glimpse of the British perspective back then, unique in both plot and characterization compared to the more common U.S. fare of the period. In addition, it provides the enthusiast with dozens of rare snapshots of the use of unique British Commonwealth WW2 equipment.

Jerrie's attacked and broken through our front lines!

[sol-kay · 7/10 · 13 December 2007]

(Minor Spoilers) One of the very best war movies to be made while WWII was still in progress with almost no hint of propaganda and false or movie-like heroism on the part of the good guys a squad,not battalion, of British Tommies in the North African desert. Released in London on June 6, 1944 D-Day, the film was released in the USA a year later as "The Immortal Battalion, "The Way Ahead" couldn't have come at a better time with the Allies and Nazis in a life and death struggle on the beaches of Normandy.

The movie starts off with a number of British recruits well into their 20's or even early 30's getting the hang of military life which at first they greatly, like their first sergeant Ned Fletcher(William Hertwell), dislike. As the trooper are whipped into shape by the though as nails Sgt. Fletcher and their commanding officer the soft spoken Let. Jim Perry, Davd Niven, their slated to sail to French North Africa to participate in the invasion, in Operation Torch, of Vichy France's colonies Algeria and Tunisia. As things turn out the troop ship that their in gets struck by a German U-boat torpedo and sinks, with half the battalion lost, in the Mediterranean Sea.

With Let.Perry's unite now reduced to company size it's sent to Gibraltar for what seems like the remainder of the war. It's not until the battle of El Alamein starts to turn against the British Eight Army that Let. Perry's men are immediately sent to the front lines to stop the German Afrika's Corps advance. We , as well as Perry's men, finally get to see action as Let. Perry's men are outflanked and cut off by the advancing German troops as the battle of El Alamein rages on behind their backs.

Fghting for their very lives and almost out of ammunition the trapped and outnumbered British troops at the end of the movie tack on their bayonets and walk out of the safety of their barricaded and fixed position, the Rispoli Café, to confront the heavily armed Germans. And at the same time walk into the pages of history in both courage and valor under fire.

You just can't keep from holding back your tears in watching the movie knowing that almost all the cast will eventually end up killed or captured. The movie both didn't overemphasize the British Troops as well as downplay Rommell's Africa Corps. Both parties came across equally brave and effective in the fighting that takes pace in the film. Which is very rare in war movies were one side, the one who makes the film, is shown vastly superior morally as well as militarily over the other: The one that the side who made the movie is at war with.

P.S Look for both Actor Peter Ustinov as café owner Rispoli and Trevor Howard as the troop ships, that goes under the waves, officer in the movie.

I'd like to see the British version

[robertguttman · 7/10 · 15 September 2014]

"The Way Ahead" is an interesting film produced in Britain during World War II to support the war effort by drawing on the talents of an outstanding group of noted British personalities, including Erik Ambler, Carol Reed, Peter Ustinov. The actors comprise and ensemble of some of the most recognizable British character actors of the 1940s and 1950s, not least among whom are David Niven and Peter Ustinov, who actually were serving in the British Army at the time.

The plot follows a polyglot assortment of civilians who are drafted into the British Army at the Beginning of World War II, undergo basic training and eventually emerge as an efficient fighting unit. It is not a new story but it is done very well in this case, thanks to excellent writing and direction, and the equally expert ensemble cast.

However, I must admit that I have only seen this film in the United States under it's alternative title, "the Immortal Battalion". I could not help coming away with the suspicion that the original film must have been somewhat cut and reedited before release in the U.S. I don't know for a fact if that was the case, but certain hints here and there in the story line, as well as certain odd gaps in continuity, suggest that may have been the case. I find it difficult to believe that Erik Amber, Peter Ustinov and Carol Reed would have been satisfied with such clumsiness of production, so I can only assume that the film must have been clumsily reedited later by somebody else. For that reason, I find it difficult to judge this film fairly without comparing it with the original UK version, which I strongly suspect differs somewhat from the version shown in the U.S. Nevertheless, I still recommended it highly.

Forward March

[writers_reign · 7/10 · 11 June 2008]

This was one of several freebies in a newspaper with the catch-all title 'War Films' (Tunes Of Glory takes place entirely in peacetime, A Matter Of Life And Death is only peripherally concerned with war) and I put off watching it based on a vague feeling it would turn out to be jingoistic crap. Having watched it at last I've been disabused of that prejudice; formulaic it may be (it follows the tried and true formula of introducing a group of conscripts at a train station and remaining with them through basic training until they wind up in North Africa pitted against Rommel's panzers. In other words it's our old friends the Hollywood bomber crew with English accents. Peter Ustinov had a hand in the script and also takes part as a sort of cut-rate Akim Tamiroff in Five Graves To Cairo and acquits himself as well as any in the fine cast. David Niven fails to steal it as the one 'name' on view and gives basically an unselfish performance allowing the likes of Stanley Holloway and Leslie Dwyer to polish their lovable cockney sparrer images. Carol Reed handles it well and it stands up remarkably well.

Wonderful

[mowens1 · 10/10 · 11 March 2006]

Having lived in England at the time this movie depicts, I can attest to the absolute authenticity of its content. The characters were those I met every day during those awful years of turmoil. I am also advised by my husband, an ex-paratrooper, that this movie was used as a training film for all recruits, because of its strict adherence to actual army conditions in those days. The main joy for me in watching this film is the group of actors who were so familiar to all of us during those years. From Stanley Holloway (later so famous as Eliza Doolittle's father) to Jimmy Hanley, the handsome, easy-going boy-next door, and all the others in that wonderful ensemble cast - they all appeared in many different movies and were always welcomed as old friends whenever we saw them on the screen.

Engrossing and smartly unfolded character piece, covering an array of young British men during War time, which is concise and carefully handled.

[johnnyboyz · 7/10 · 14 June 2011]

The Way Ahead is a really enjoyable and really well disciplined war film covering an array of folk, each with their own separate walks of life, going on to serve not only one another but their country in the process of coming to learn of particular traits to do with responsibility and respect to one's seniors within a field. The nucleus of this 1944 British film is in the depiction of several different people of varying jobs and classes coming together and putting aside differing traits, with one another and their official superiors, to win through but its rawer achievement is when that content is essentially dealt with without necessarily affecting the film's overall quality as such. A lesser film would almost certainly have dropped its guard and settled for routinely seeing things out to a conclusion of some kind, a conclusion of which may not have been as interesting nor as necessary as what had preceded it. It is, therefore, much to the director Carol Reed's credit that they are able to mould what is a fascinating character study, consisting of the many but whose ventures are streamlined into being felt as one, before maintaining those levels of excitement and interest when a distinct shift in both tempo and content arrives and the film finally comes to shipping them out to the front-lines of World War Two. On both of those fronts; as a fascinating slice of wartime filmmaking and as a straight up piece of drama, The Way Ahead is a rigorous success.

The film begins with a slow sweep across a row of veterans from the First World War, disciplined; standing to attention; and wholly focused as they stand in their uniforms with medals on show, they represent a past generation of men encapsulated by bravery and duty whom aided in the maintaining of British life at time of great strife: a sense of the establishment of what "has been" and what "must follow" prominent. Reed blurs the boundaries between reality and non-reality by having one of the troops sneak a glance at the camera as it tracks past, a blurring which works with the film throughout as the following sequence adopts somewhat of a newsreel aesthetic in its presenting of British soldiers going through various training exercises.

These veterans share a tie to a specific Army squadron of varying distinctions throughout history, the new recruits this squadron takes on of whom, in the eyes of the veterans, are not up to standard and unable to carry on the former glories of the platoon. The film is, therefore, one of which that adopts a necessary framework of allowing its leads to prove their ability; the covering of a disparate collection of men from all walks of life going from one extreme to the other, from a working man with little knowledge, or even respect, of the Army and its routines to an all out as-one functioning fighting machine capable of doing what needs to be done in the heightened scenario of a war-zone.

In the beginnings, things are tough in amidst the throngs of war; a war people always thought would come but always hoped it wouldn't. Day-set bombing raids and rationing become the norm, and the rattling around of a local public house as well as those within whom attempt to get some sort of grip on the situation as bombs fall around them neatly amplifies the literal clinging onto the situation Britain finds itself in. At an Army camp a train journey away, some London based locals have been called for basic training and have arrived off of a truck in an unordered and scattered fashion at the barracks; something capturing their current placing in regards to working with one another. They are soon regimented and bullied into a form of conformity, William Hartnell's drill Sergeant Fletcher acting as a more immediate superior to that of local C.O. Jim Perry, played by David Niven, whom, bemusingly, has his presence pasted all over the film's posters despite having very little to do with what it is the film is actually about. The film is rather comedic during these exchanges of the opening third, misleadingly so; the new troops bouncing off of one another in a humorous manner as they come to despise Fletcher and struggle on through together - trips to a local stately home run by an elderly woman peppering proceedings and seeing her speak to them as if children, as if presently devoid of the masculinity the film will eventually come to instill them with at this time.

Despite being produced in 1944, a full year and maybe more before the conclusion of The Second World War, the film does not lean too heavily towards its propagandist undercurrents even if there is an unshakable sense that such undercurrents exist. Certainly, as The War raged on and all the strife that came with it further unravelled, how nice and assuring it would have been to attend a picture house documenting a bunch of rag-tag guys, the likes of whom may even live locally or next door, transcending from such a labelling to people capable of dealing with even the most harrowing of enemy instigated bother on the front-line in an ordered and professional manner. The film's pseudo-documentary characteristics are abound in the continuous updating of the viewer of European situations as the war factually mutated around the film's production, something which runs in sync with the breaking of the fourth wall in the very first scene and apparent 'live' opinions of various folk occupying Britain speaking without advancing anything on what it is should unfold to aid the war effort abroad. The film is wholly dramatic, but on very small scales early on as it depicts the forging of a fighting force, before opening up into war-zone set skirmishes that carry with them significant amounts of peril; the likes of which combine into a highly accomplished piece.

Oh, what a lovely war!

[jandesimpson · 8/10 · 13 August 2002]

Although it may appear simplistic to divide the work of great artists into three distinct periods, there can be no escaping the fact that this tidy and convenient way of classification actually works for the majority. In the case of the most significant British director of the immediate post World War II years, Carol Reed, the chronological view works surprisingly well. There is the fairly anonymous early period up to "The Way Ahead" of 1944, a glorious middle period from "Odd Man Out" to "Outcast of the Islands" - the subsequent "The Man Between" and "A Kid for Two Farthings", although less successful, belong to this period because of their stylistic affinity - and a third period where Reed reverted to anonymity possibly through the pressures of commercialism - how else to explain works as dull as "The Agony and the Ecstasy" and "The Running Man", which do not even look like Reed films. Certainly none of the other films in the first period compare with the sheer enjoyment and confidence of "The Way Ahead". Here the youngish director flexes his muscles, a little parochially perhaps, before taking centre stage with the great directors of that time, De Sica, Rossellini, Welles and Wyler. Technically the film is astonishingly assured. Every shot is lovingly composed with figures always formally balanced within each frame. The editing is nothing short of brilliant. It is only in retrospect and with the advantage of several showings that one realises that the excitement and immediacy of a scene such as the torpedoing of the troopship are entirely achieved by the skill of montage. In every sense "The Way Ahead" is immeasurably superior to the Lean/Coward naval counterpart "In Which We Serve" which parades class distinctions in a way that is positively nauseous. There is nothing patronising in Reed's presentation of a group of men drawn together by the accident of war. Although they come from different social backgrounds, Reed presents them as conditioned by their varied forms of employment rather than being pigeonholed by class. "The Way Ahead" is that very unusual thing, a completely upbeat war film. I suppose it had to be, given its date - 1944. With the scent of victory about to be achieved it had to be an optimistic morale booster. However it goes very much further than any other I know in presenting a completely sanitised war. Not a single character is killed let alone wounded - and this even after the ship carrying the bulk of the cast is blown to smithereens just seconds after the captain leaves. The film ends with the men attaching bayonets to rifles before marching forward into a desert attack. By now we are conditioned into thinking they will all survive although we will never have a way of really knowing. Not that it matters at this stage. So sit back, relax and enjoy as lovely a war as you are ever likely to experience.

You could do a lot worse

[richard-meredith27 · 6/10 · 4 August 2006]

By the time THE WAY AHEAD was released Britain was sinking under American servicemen and hardware. This film excludes the allies to tell how a group of conscripts were moulded into a unit in 1940 and finally go into battle in the western desert a couple of years later.

It's easy to pick holes: yes, it was unlikely that National Servicemen would be trained by the same men who went into battle; and who was that incredibly generous woman offering baths (5 inches of water only) to servicemen? but on the whole it is a lot more realistic (and murky)than some of the US output of the same era.

Having said that, I shall add my own pick: it was unlikely that 1940 conscripts would have been as old as Stanley Holloway. The call up for older men did not happen until later in the war when we began to run out of men.

But this is forgiven by David Niven's performance. He manages to avoid John Wayne-type clichés especially at the end when they are faced with overwhelming odds and he just knuckles down to the job.

His soldiers are also portrayed as human types. Although they hold the usual film world clichéd roles- cockney, middle class shop worker, shouting sergeant and off, they cheat in exercises and whine about their lot.

The moment when their troopship loaded with supplies sinks might also be a first for wartime films. And a reminder to the audience such things happened and they had to replace it all by working harder.

The men then get R & R in Gibralter before ending up somewhere in the Western Desert. It is not a heroic war and the desert town with Peter Ustinov, as a less than happy bar owner, is less picturesque than 'Lawrence of Arabia' or 'Ice Cold in Alex'.

Give it a whirl. You could do a lot worse.

Surprisingly Effective.

[rmax304823 · 8/10 · 27 October 2013]

It's long but it's good. For a British film from 1944 the production values are amazingly high. Whole buildings -- real ones -- collapse. The special effects at sea are convincing. And what a cast!

Actually, the story itself is hardly new. A diverse group of men are drafted into the Duke of Glendons, go through a training camp periods, their transport is torpedoed, and they fight a small-scale defensive battle among the ruins of a village in North Africa. Writers Eric Ambler and Peter Ustinov have whipped it into entertaining shape.

None of the men is regular army except the tough sergeant who has eyes like a lizard but the heart of a Rogerian therapist. David Niven has risen from the ranks and is a lieutenant. The men themselves, with their winsome misapprehensions, are brought into a state of readiness by a combination of strict physical demands and compassion. The leaders are stern but fair. I won't bother describing the draftees because you can already guess their nature from a dozen other war movies -- the grumbler, the show-off, the snob, the Welshman, the earnest patriot.

If you didn't know that it was directed by Carol Reed, you'd still probably notice some unusual directorial touches. A sleepy backwater little town. An old man, half asleep, brushing the flies from his face. A dog sleeping in the street. And then the distant sound of motorcycles and bren carriers growing louder. And soon a stream of British vehicles lumbering loudly through the main street and stirring the dust, with the dog lazily moping away and a disheveled Peter Ustinov emerging from the Cafe Rispoli to stare sullenly at the pageant.

It may or may not sound promising in a synopsis but in fact it's pretty good.

Watch it for the camaraderie

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 25 January 2017]

THE WAY AHEAD is a British WW2 propaganda movie extolling the virtues of the British army and perhaps helping inspire people to sign up. Watching it today, it's a great film purely because it contains an ensemble cast of familiar faces, all of whom give fine performances. Like FULL METAL JACKET, most of the film is about training, training, and more training, with the real battle stuff saved for the final moments, but that doesn't mean that it's a dull movie. It's anything but.

David Niven headlines the film as the officer in charge of a rag-tag group of men. Conflict arises from the stern disciple he extols, but of course it all comes right in the end. What's special here is the effort made to characterise all of the individual soldiers, and the writer does his job very well in this respect. Carol Reed's direction is exemplary too. The cast includes Hugh Burden, William Hartnell, Stanley Holloway, James Donald, John Laurie, Leslie Dwyer, Jimmy Hanley, Raymond Huntley, Peter Ustinov and Leo Genn, and it's fair to say that not one of them puts a foot wrong.

So-so film

[grahamsj3 · 5/10 · 17 October 2003]

I often have to check myself before I rate a film made so long ago. I must remember the technology, the social mores and the wartime atmosphere and societal desperation of the period. Taking all that into account, I can still rate this film no more than so-so. The basic story has been done ad nauseum...that of following a group of soldiers from basic training into their first combat experiences. It's the acting that really hurts this film. There are few known names in this film and even David Niven delivers a poor performance. The soundtrack on the DVD that I purchased was rather muddy, but that may be the result of the age of the master film. I purchased a 3-film DVD and this was one of the films. The first two were pretty good, so the disappointment in this one was tempered by that. Overall, I say it's SO-SO.

Good story and message backed up by a stirring last quarter.

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 29 September 2008]

The threat of World War II hangs heavy and British civilians are called to basic military training in preparation for combat. Here we follow a very mixed bunch of men indeed, coming from all walks of life and divided by the class system, these men refuse to embrace the army way of life. As the training moves on and the men start to learn their craft, it becomes apparent that they are soon to see action, and sure enough these odd assortment of soldiers are called to finally prove their worth, not only as soldiers, but also as men of equal stature.

Essentially a story of how war doesn't discriminate against the classes, Carol Reed's The Way Ahead boasts a fine cast on form and a script of character driven intelligence. Acting as a sort of call to arms to a country under pressure, the picture however now looks incredibly dated unless one can comprehend the time frame the picture deals with. It's well crafted {to be expected with Carol Reed in the directors chair}, and the last quarter, where the walls literally do come tumbling down, is octane effective and closes the film with triumphant might.

Enjoyable picture for sure, but really not one to seek out at regular intervals. 6.5/10

Lightweight but interesting and entertaining WW2 drama

[grantss · 7/10 · 17 March 2024]

When World War 2 breaks out, the British Army is unprepared for it. Undermanned, under-trained, inexperienced and lacking in technology it has much ground to catch up. A typical example of such unpreparedness is the Duke of Glendon's Light Infantry Regiment. Here a young Lieutenant and his hard-nosed Sergeant must shape a platoon of reluctant draftees into a tough, dependable fighting unit.

Directed by Carol Reed (later of The Third Man, Mutiny on the Bounty and Oliver! Fame), starring David Niven as Lieutenant Perry and covering the less glamourous side of war - training - The Way Ahead is fairly original, realistic and entertaining without being overly profound, powerful or memorable. As mentioned, covering the training side does make for a new angle and this shows what goes into making the soldiers that have to fight and win wars.

On the negative side, the film was produced during WW2 so there is a degree of propaganda to it, giving it less weighty feel than it could have had. Some of the scenes towards the end do have a rather jingoistic quality to them.

Overall, it's reasonably good - interesting and entertaining enough.

Not As Good As It Reputation Suggests

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 14 July 2013]

Legend has it that Winston Churchill wanted a morale boosting film doing for the British Army what IN WHICH WE SERVE did for the Royal Navy . In short this is a patriotic flag waving patriotic movie that takes no prisoners as to showing what makes Great Britain great is its sense of humour - take that Adolph . The problem is that in its agenda to entertain the audience while waving the Union Flag it fails to inject much reality in to the proceedings

From the outset everything has a humorous tone from the Chelsea pensioners lamenting the youth of today to the rather unconvincing caricatures of the men conscripted in to the army . Apparently in the early stages of the war you were exempt from conscription if you were under 35 years old . Right away it's very difficult to believe in these characters as being real people with the exception of James Donald as Private Lloyd . The characters are also rather one note . It goes without saying you know where the story is heading where a group of diverse men conscripted in to the army become efficient and battle hardened soldiers and this is probably the point in that if Britain is threatened with tyranny you can expect despite some initial setbacks that Britain's citizen army will kick your backside

One interesting aspect is that it brings up reworking of one of those urban myths we've all heard off such as a man being due up in court the next day having a good booze up , staggering home , physically bumping in to a stranger who he then remonstrates with only to find the next morning that the stranger just happens to be the judge he's sitting in front of . Another one is the bloke who goes in to a chemist to buy a pack of condoms , pops round to his dates house only to find the person answering the door is the person who bought the condoms from . Here with THE WAY AHEAD it involves an army sergeant played by William Hartnell who became very typecast in this role

Well scripted and directed film of the time.

[hedgehog-10 · 8/10 · 27 February 1999]

A film that despite being made in 1944, avoids sterotyping British Characters. A story about a group of people, from various civilian jobs, who receive their call-up papers. It shows them progressing through their training and entering action in North Africa.

Preparing a Nation for War

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 20 December 2020]

This movie essentially begins in England just prior to the beginning of hostilities with the mobilization of young men from all walks of life being called upon to serve in the army. Naturally, having no familiarity with the military, all of these men must first have to endure basic training and this picture showcases a handful of British citizens as they begin this process. As such, an officer by the name of "Lt. Jim Perry" (David Niven) is tasked with getting these men in shape and eventually leading them into combat later on. Helping him in this project is an experience NCO named "Sgt. Ned Fletcher" (William Hartnell) who the men believe has a grudge against them due to a minor altercation prior to their induction into the army. What they don't realize, however, is that both Lt. Perry and Sgt. Fletcher have a very high regard for them and are only doing what is necessary for them to function as an efficient combat team. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film was shot during World War 2 and as a result it was deliberately tamed down to accommodate its intended audience. So rather than portraying the horrors of war it focuses more upon the human aspects of young men doing their duty to the nation instead. In that regard, it features more drama than action and as a result is rather tame in comparison to other films made afterward. That being said, some people may not appreciate the finer aspects of this movie but I recommend it for those who might be so inclined and have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

Really, rather marvellous

[Jumbajookiba · 10/10 · 26 December 2013]

I have a big soft spot for movies like this, they have an authenticity that modern films about this era don't have. As someone who is from several generations who served in the Military it's nice to see something that is contemporary of WW2 that is not gritty, just realistic. Yes, it may have been made at the time as propaganda, but,it doesn't glamourise or glorify, it attempts to tell you as it is. It even hints at the barrack room language without being able to include it (it is the 1940's after all)

David Niven is marvellous in the lead role, he was a serving officer at the time and it shows as you never feel he is acting, the same with the supporting cast of solid British character actors, Stanley Holloway, James Donald, John Laurie (how lovely to see him not playing the dour Scotsman for once) and Leslie Dwyer stand out in particular. And isn't Peter Ustinov terrific in his small role, a taste of things to come with him.

Highly recommended.

Much better second half

[van-83714 · 7/10 · 4 November 2023]

For a film by Carol Reed and with a large collection of seasoned actors, you would think that this movie would amount to something more than just a bunch of selfish whiners being drafted into the army. Instead, you wonder whether they know a war is going on. Maybe, the purpose of approach was to accentuate the positive effects of training. It seemed overlong and exaggerated though. At long last, 48 minutes in, Niven's character gives his pride of the unit speech with a history lesson. Reality and civility finally appear from this point forward. Nice to see Trevor Howard in his first movie role. Ironic that they chose to include comments from old soldiers for a film entitled, "Way Ahead". The second half of the movie was much better with good war scenes and appearances by a French-speaking Ustinov and Carol Reed's daughter and future wife in brief supporting roles. I would have thought much more of this film with the first 50 minutes reduced to 20.

What a Film

[krishkmenon · 10/10 · 13 October 2012]

What a film! It packs a punch even today and one can just imagine what a morale booster it would have been to the war effort for England. Carol Reed as always is top notch in direction and the portrayals by David Niven, Stanley Holloway and in a very small role Peter Ustinov not necessarily in that order is remarkable. Niven I am given to understand was lent out by the army to make this movie which was incidentally scripted by a very young Ustinov. The narrative is simple yet effective. It brings about the story of a collection of men from various parts of British society drafted into the infantry, undergoing training and being bombed out of a troop carrier in the Mediterranean and then being baptised by fire in North Africa after El-Alamein. Top class to say the least. The standouts are the sceptical old-timers who keep following the progress of the war from 1939 to 1942(when the film ends) in the newspapers with their cryptic criticism about the regiment of which they were a part earlier, but in the final scene are obviously impressed by the regiments performance. Reed sees to it that there is no dialogue in this scene but just a close up of the old-timers recording their admiration and approval - Excellent. The final scene where the trainee soldiers fit their bayonets and prepare to attack into the mist is another Reed masterpiece.

lost in a world of cliches

[dexter-10 · 5/10 · 9 March 2000]

Generally, a very poor movie, even by the standard applied to propaganda films during World War Two. Lieutenant Jim Perry (played by David Niven) is the only character to be substantial enough in a dramatic sense to be acceptable. Niven is able to portray a character who makes the transition from a confused and unsure officer to a courageous and respected leader. The other characters are cliche soldiers with cliche women saying cliche goodbyes in cliche settings spouting cliche dialogue. The conclusion of the film is so improbable as to belie the claim made that the infantry is composed of highly skilled men in a modern army. In addition, the movie is constructed of disconnected scenes strung together in a somewhat logical but usually incoherent sequence. Most of the scenes are simply too short to allow for the full development of the central idea of the action of a particular scene. There are exceptions, especially the action aboard ship during transport with the explosion of magazines, a very dramatic movie event. But such scenes are few. It is unfortunate that an idea as crucial as the worth of citizen armies in warfare is treated so badly by filmmakers. Thanks to the acting of David Niven the film is still worth watching, at least once. One final word on what seems to be an amazing coincidence. This movie was released on June 6, 1944, D-Day!

While seemingly mundane, this turns out to be a rather dandy flick

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 30 October 2010]

This is a film about a seemingly run of the mill sort of group. After the Brits were involved in WWII and saw how bad the going would be, the government was forced to draft men who would traditionally have been exempt. Men who were a bit old or involved with careers that might be deemed 'useful' to the effort were suddenly being called to duty, as times were dire. The beginning of the film shows these men being selected for service.

Unfortunately, this is a rather motley group and they tended to complain quite a bit as well (mostly by Stanley Holloway's character). How they could become a productive unit seemed pretty doubtful and I doubt if such an unimpressive group of men would have been used as actors had this propaganda film been made a few years earlier--when things looked really bad for the British. However, now that the war was appearing win-able, I can understand the choices of actors.

There is nothing particularly magical about any of the film--their selection, their training or their combat experience in North Africa. However, all of it was very well handled and excelled because they tried to make it believable--normal, everyday men rising to the occasion. In many ways, it reminded me of a landlocked version of "In Which We Serve"--with fine acting and writing instead of jingoism and super-human exploits. Very well done.

There are a few interesting actors in the film. Peter Ustinov is in his first film and he plays a French-speaking man. While his French isn't 100% fluid, it was decent and a bit of a surprise. Apparently, he was in real life David Niven's assistant in the British Army and somehow ended up in the film--and thus began his career. Also, Dr. Who fans will appreciate that the Sergeant is played by Dr. #1, William Hartnell.

By the way, this is a little explanation for those who are not British or familiar with British history. Early in the film, someone asks Stanley Holloway's character who he liked in Parliament. Holloway indicates the only one he liked was Guy Fawkes! Fawkes was part of a plot to blow up Parliament in 1605, but was caught and executed--and the Brits celebrate this to this day with Guy Fawkes Day--as day of merry-making, bonfires and fireworks! Obviously Holloway's character wasn't exactly fond of the government, eh?!

Stars' war service

[LouisRenault · 8/10 · 8 July 2005]

Ubercommando compares 'J Wayne and H Bogart' unfavourably with the cast of this film who were actually serving in the British forces. Well, what about Clark Gable, James Stewart, Tyrone Power, Alan Ladd, Robert Ryan...there is a long list of top American stars who saw active service. On the other hand many British stars saw fit to stick with the acting. To suggest that, in general, American actors were shirkers while the British were sterling fellows is offensive and untrue. It's also worth pointing out that many actors who wanted to join up were specifically asked not to on the basis their propaganda value was greater than their value as individual servicemen, so we shouldn't rush to judgment (and those of us born after the war have no business making judgments anyway.) As to the film, I found it an engrossing account of how men are turned into soldiers. It has much in common with the early episodes of Band of Brothers, although naturally it did not dwell on the horrors of war; after all, the war was still going on and they didn't want to send potential recruits running for the hills. I recommend it warmly but recognize that it will have little appeal for a lot of people.