Excellent adaptation.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

This probably was not Sam Fuller's lowest budget movie. In fact, if the information here on IMDb is correct, it had a fairly decent budget. But I suspect that makes no difference at all to his style or the movie that he made. There is no CGI, no jump cuts and no shaky-cam. He got his actors to act and made effective use of pyrotechnics and extras to put realistic and horrifying battle on film.I am not a prolific reviewer, in fact I probably average 2 or 3 reviews a year. That's because I normally only bother when a movie makes me feel something (or it really makes me mad). It might be laughter or it might be horror but to me a worthwhile movie has to make you react. And this movie certainly does that. The story is worth telling but like most of Fuller's work the focus is really on the people and not on glory. The acting is superb and supremely believable. The actors in this movie aren't really known for award quality work but they really impress here. Samuel Fuller ignores the usual formulaic tropes and tells the story his way. There's an unneeded intro and a bombastic outro that I suspect were added by the studio but it starts where it starts and ends where it ends. No attempts to make a neat little package.The story is gripping and Fuller makes you feel like you have a personal interest in the outcome. His writing is top notch and tight with no filler. There is no obligatory love interest in this movie and no cheesy flashbacks either. It's relentless and often grim but always effective. I'm not a historian but I feel that it captures the essence of the real life battles.His direction is masterful. From the claustrophobic to the panoramic he makes the land itself an important character in the film. And he gets amazingly good performances from his actors. You can feel their pain and exhaustion.Jeff Chandler is more believable than in any other role that I can think of him playing. Most people have likely forgotten that he was nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal of Cochise in Broken Arrow. That was over-shadowed by the the fact that most of his roles were in B and C-grade pictures. Personally I would rate most of his work as competent but not impressive. However I was very impressed by his portrayal of General Merrill. Sadly this was his last film. He died of complications from back surgery before it was released.One other stand out was Claude Akins. A very competent character actor who really shines in his role as Sergeant Kolowicz. There is a scene with him and a young native boy and an old woman that blew me away. Not a word of dialogue but he makes you feel his pain and it made me tear up in sympathy.The only bad part about this movie is the knowledge that we will never see it's like again. Give one of today's hotshot directors 500 times the budget and he will probably spend 200 million on CGI that will be impressive as heck but won't really make you feel anything at a visceral level. I suspect that it's a difference in life experience. Sam Fuller and most of the actors in this movie actually lived and fought through the Second World War.

Based on the true story of a brigadier general who led his troops through Burma during World War II despite fatigue and starvation, 'Merrill's Marauders' might sound like a simple slice of history, but with Samuel Fuller at the helm it is more than that. Fuller apparently did not have full control over the film, and the flag-waving, sentimental ending and heavy exposition early on ensure that the film starts and ends on a weak note. The bulk of the movie is very well done though, and as per 'Verboeten!' and 'Fixed Bayonets!', the film benefits from Fuller's penchant for dialogue over action scenes in his war movies. The battle scenes are in fact quite dull with lots of explosive noises but limited bloodshed or carnage - something that actually helps the dialogue scenes stand out. Memorable bits include the soldiers discussing lost time (they can't work out whether it is 'a.m.' or 'p.m.', let alone the day of the week), the soldiers debating how much Merrill really cares about them over his objective, and Merrill reluctantly accepting orders to keep his men fighting on for longer than they had agreed without food (there is a haunting part when one soldier rushes to some parachuted supplies). The film's best asset though is probably Jeff Chandler's commanding lead performance, having to hide his character's health problems and show a strong face to his men despite having mixed feelings about the mission himself. Chandler was reportedly quite unwell during filming, which no doubt helped him carve such a realistic performance; sadly he passed away before the film was even released.

Sam Fuller had combat experience and always wanted a more gritty portrayal of war which had little to do with jingoism but plenty to do with the human toll of fighting a battle.Merrill's Marauders has no big stars but several character actors such as Claude Akins. It also uses stock footage from other war films to keep it economical even though location filming took place in the Philippines.The film is based on a non fiction book, The Marauders written by a soldier who served on the missions in Burma. To help the British troops who themselves are exhausted after many years fighting the Japanese in Burma. General Merrill and his soldiers first objective is to take the town of Walawbum. Tired from jungle warfare, some of the soldiers suffering from fatigue or disease Merrill and his men are ordered in no uncertain terms on another objective, to take the strategic airstrip at Myitkyina. Even though the men seem to be in no fit condition to march further up the jungle and take part in more combat, General Merrill has to reluctantly get them to follow orders.Although Fuller was a war veteran because of a low budget and censorship the combat scenes are rather uninteresting and bloodless. In fact some of the acting of the soldiers falling down is rather flaky and should had been better staged.Where the film is good at are the smaller scenes that make more of an impression. Weary soldiers collapsing as other watch and continue to march or climb. The man who refuses to let his donkey get shot. At a Burmese village a boy gives Claude Akins some food who breaks down from such an act of kindness.Fuller would continue with the theme of warfare many years later in 'The Big Red One.' This is a mixed bag, lacking in tension, poor battle sequences but has it some fine character moments.

"This is not the best war movie I've ever seen, but it is certainly not the worst. (I prefer Sam Fuller's The Big Red One myself.) It certainly uses most of the movie clichés of the day.For me, the film is a sentimental favorite more than anything else. My father served with the Marauders in Company "L" and we always enjoyed watching it together.Probably the best thing which I could say about it is how Fuller sets the emotional tone of the life of the soldiers. Watch this movie if you want to see what it was like to fight in the jungles of Burma without enough food or rest."