Thu 23 Jun 2016
Reviewed by Jonathan Lewis: SKI TROOP ATTACK (1960).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , War Films[4] Comments
SKI TROOP ATTACK. The Filmgroup, 1960. Michael Forest, Frank Wolff, Wally Campo, Richard Sinatra, James Hoffman. Screenwriter: Charles B. Griffith. Director: Roger Corman.
What’s better: a bloated high budget war film that reaches for aesthetic and narrative greatness, but completely misses the mark or a decidedly downscale production that doesn’t aspire for greatness, but provides the viewer with a decent enough story and some well choreographed combat sequences?
I ask because the latter is how I’d describe Roger Corman’s Ski Troop Attack, a movie that is by no means an outstanding combat film, but one, thanks to screenwriter Charles B. Griffith, with just enough realistic sounding dialogue to make it a perfectly watchable low budget charmer.
Filmed in South Dakota over the course of ten days, Ski Troop Attack follows the exploits of a group of American soldiers behind enemy lines in snowbound Nazi Germany.
On skis, the men scout out the area and eventually make their way to a railroad bridge that they intend to destroy. Leading the group is the by the book (of course!) Lt. Factor (Michael Forest) who repeatedly clashes with the hot headed Sgt. Potter (a nearly perfectly cast Frank Wolff).
Joining them for the mission are the Southern good old boy Pvt. Herman Grammelsbacher (Richard Sinatra) and the ethnic Yankee Pvt. Ed Ciccola (Wally Campo). There’s tension among the men, of course, but none of it rises to the level of actual deep animosity. It’s more of a friendly sort, exacerbated by wartime. In some sense, what makes Ski Troop Attack watchable is that it is at its core a buddy film.
That said, the film is unmistakably low budget, with no big special effects or gigantic set pieces. But at a running time just shy of 70 minutes, the film nevertheless sort of works as it was surely intended: as temporary escapism. Look for scene in which a completely incongruous jazz score by Fred Katz plays in the background as three of the American soldiers line the railway bridge with explosives. It’s so creatively bizarre that it actually makes this quirky film more valuable to posterity than it naturally had any right to be.
June 23rd, 2016 at 1:49 pm
Corman was filming a second film at virtually the same time he did this one with many of the same cast including in leading man. He would later do some fun and interesting films but at this time the film making by the skin of your teeth showed.
Granted it is no worse than some big budget war films with much better cast, but it’s a pretty hard slog either way.
These early films fulfilled their mission though. They provided fare for drive-ins and small movie houses, filled seats, and let Corman get established as one of the more successful independents in terms of money and art.
Jim Wynoski said Corman was personally offended by the idea of it costing a million to make any movie, and that approach to film making shows in his early films.
June 23rd, 2016 at 2:33 pm
Seems like all the low-budget War Movies were about small units, usually cut off (or working from) behind enemy lines. The best of them, MEN IN WAR, HELL IS FOR HEROES, FEAR AND DESIRE… used the isolation to good effects. The rest just looked cheap.
June 23rd, 2016 at 3:26 pm
The “behind enemy lines” genre also includes John Brahm’s TONIGHT WE RAID CALAIS (1943) which I will be posting soon
June 24th, 2016 at 12:50 pm
Sam Fuller’s low budget isolated small group war films and this are pretty far apart. There are no Gene Evans or Richard Basehart’s in Corman’s films, and many war films featuring small groups spent the money on star power, script, and acting talent rather than spectacle to good effect.
In France Robert Hossein made some effective films that basically took place in a single room between two people.
Some of the best war movies ever made were about small isolated groups — BATTLEGROUND, BATAAN, WAKE ISLAND, SAHARA, THE LOST PATROL, AIR FORCE …
What hurts here is the writing is at best serviceable (pun intended), the scope of the action often exceeds the production budget, and it’s hurried up and get the take look shows. The same is true of the interesting but also failed horror film Corman filmed at the same time as this.
His work improved immensely when he began to attract name writers like Matheson and Beaumont and young talent like Ron Howard and Martin Scorcese.
This isn’t bad for what it is and shows Corman had it in him to do better. I’m not quite as enthusiastic as Jonathan about it, but it isn’t a wash either. In a forgiving mood it is an interesting little film.