best movie i've ever seen.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

No, this is NOT the famous 1951 black and white masterpiece that we all know and saw many times. This is a 1974 TV film, which I never heard of and never saw before. Many people criticized that take fiercely, which laves me totally shocked. Why? This full color take is not bad, this is a very decent try, a nice effort that depicts war as it is - cruel, miserable, sad, bloody, ferocious, wild, wanton, merciless, panicking, awful, bad and horrid. The movie is short, so it doesn't drag or get on your nerves. The plot of the book is depicted very vividly and it does not glorify violence, it shows it as a real terrible and blood-chilling affair. This rare film is certainly worth watching if only for educational sake and also for a fresh view of a classic

Stephen Crane's classic American novel concerning fictional Yankee private Henry Fleming of the 304th New York Regiment--who loses his courage to fight after seeing the random insanity of life and death on the battlefield--is not a natural for the screen. In 1951, writer-director John Huston had tried for a thorough adaptation of the story, but that theatrical feature left audiences unmoved and was drastically altered by its studio. This faithful television version has been smartly thought-out by writer John Gay and director Lee Philips and, despite some overwrought performances and distinct 1970s haircuts, contains many powerful sequences. Richard Thomas is perhaps a bit too old to be convincing as the teenage Henry (age 18 in the book), yet his character's confusion--and guilt over his cowardice--is overpowering and intensely felt. Injured by stampeding soldiers, Henry finds strength and personal redemption in being 'wounded', returning to his fellow recruits to carry the flag into battle. This psychological tale of wartime is demanding and dramatic, yet is laid-out for us cleanly, without any creeping pretensions. The locations are disappointing (most likely due to budget restraints), however the power of Crane's storytelling is palpably realized.

When a movie is based on a novel, I judge the movie in its accuracy of portraying the intention of the novel's author. By far, this 1974 version was much closer to the events found in the text by Stephen Crane. The 1951 version changed the main focus -- the red badge -- into a yellow one. Also, the portrayal of events and the character depiction I feel were more in the tone that Stephen Crane intended in the 1974 (made for TV) version. I teach the novel on the high school level and have to make many more exceptions to the 1951 version than I do the 1974 version when I use the video versions.I must note that the leads in both versions (Murphy and Thomas) did excellent jobs in their portrayal of the main character Fleming. However, the other characters in the 1951 version did not come close to the ensemble group in the 1974 version. As a whole, the 1974 version did a better job in the creation of the mood and situation these men found themselves in the battlefields of the Civil War.

This was a great movie and it's the second time Richard Thomas starred in a remake that was better than the original. The other film was All Quiet on the Western Front and is available on DVD unlike this film which I have not been able to find anywhere.