MovieChat Forums > The Winds of War (1983) Discussion > Mitchum resembles an old bug; the show w...

Mitchum resembles an old bug; the show was HORRIBLE

posted 17 years ago by HoBopkins
7 replies | jump to latest

this show is so bad. i netflixed it and wasted time and money, and sent it back halfway through the first one. the acting was horrendous, all the actors miscast, especially ali magraw who was only in films long ago because she was pretty, and she dated a producer. well, she's no longer pretty, and she's no longer dating a producer, how on earth did she land this role? jan michael vincent, who is great as a california surfer or a laidback seventies/eighties guy, but as a 20 something guy from the thirties, he doesnt fit. the lady who plays mitchum's wife is a major overactor. john houseman's cadence, which sounds like he's taking a *beep* every four beats, grinds my nerves. victoria tennant is gorgeous, and would never, ever fall in love with a 1000 year old locust faced corpse like Mitchem. the show is so bad, so very bad.

[–] mjkbncb 16 years ago

Well, I enjoyed it, but agree with you that it was miscast. Ali Magraw, for instance, was only semi-attractive, yet Natalie Jastro is frequently referred to throughout the piece as a stunning, breathtaking beauty. Even the normally tight-lipped Pug can't refrain from mentioning how gorgeous she is. Meanwhile, I'm watching it and saying to myself: She isn't that pretty. The casting of Jane Seymour as Natalie in the sequel, War and Remembraance, was far more appropriate.

And Jan Michael Vincent was also horribly miscast. For one thing, Byron Henry is often described as "very young and immature" by Natalie, by Pug, by Rhoda, etc. Yet Jan Michael Vincent was 39 and, though still in good physical shape, had crow's feet and maturing lines on his face. I couldn't see him as the 25 year old that Byron was supposed to be. But again, here is where War and Remembrance got it right, casting the much younger Hart Bochner in the role of Byron.

As for Pam Tudsbury (Victoria Tennant) falling for Pug, yeah, it does seem unrealistic, but I think the character of Pug was supposed to be much younger than Mitchem really was. Mitchem was in his 70s (I believe) playing a man in his 50s.

[–] steve-2500 15 years ago

Mitchum was in his mid sixties at this time

[–] canon-stufff 16 years ago

wasn't a show, was a movie. a made for tv movie.

[–] dvafp 16 years ago

go watch big brother

[–] lucymachado 16 years ago

Not that I think this deserves a reply, but I'd just like to add my 2 cents. I agree that Ali and Jan Michael were miscast, althought I think they did a decent job. I don't see Polly Bergen (Rhoda Henry) overacting, I think she was spot on. John Houseman, if I'm not mistaken, got ill at the very beginning of shooting and apparently died soon after, so his "cadence" might have been affected by that.

As for Mitchum, yes, he was too old considering Pug Henry was in his late 40's in the book and Mitchum was 65, but I don't think anyone would have played that role better. He had the kind of presence and strength that the role demanded and it fit him perfectly. I would ask Victoria Tennant if she'd ever fall in love with Mitchum even at 65. I'm sure she, unlike you, knows it's not how young or good looking one is that makes him/her attractive.

[–] TorontoJediMaster 15 years ago

I think that Mitchum's acting was fine, although ITA that he was badly miscast. In the book, Pug is said to be around 50 years old (He marks his 50th birthday, in the book, early in 1941.) and in good shape -Rhoda comments that his suit size hasn't changed since they were married. Mitchum was 65 at the time and looked that old, if not older and clearly was not in anything close to good shape.

Jan-Michael Vincent was almost 40, but was playing a character who was 23 at the start of the narrative and 25 at the end. He did a good job with his scenes, but couldn't escape the fact he was too old for the part.

Ali MacGraw was terrible. She dragged down every scene she was in.

Polly Bergen was very good, but was playing a character not meant to be too likeable. She played it just like it was written in the book.

I thought John Houseman was fine as Aaron Jastrow. His delivery was simply how he delivered almost all his performances.

Ralph Bellamy was alright as Roosevelt, although I would have preferred Edward Hermann in the part.

So, overall I thought the cast did a good job -MacGraw aside- but were in many cases hampered by either being a poorly written character (Polly Bergen's Rhoda) or simply far, FAR too old for the character (Mitchum).

[–] cardinal_biggles 15 years ago

Mitchum's age was certainly a factor, and only became even more obvious in "War and Remembrance," where they literally pick up a few days after "Winds of War," but he now looks 71 instead of 66. But Mitchum carried a lot of gravitas in the role, and I have a hard time imagining an appropriately-aged actor of the time period who could have played Pug as well.

Agreed on Ali MacGraw -- Jane Seymour was a huge improvement.

John Houseman may have been ill at the time he filmed "Winds of War," but his illness didn't become a bar to his ability to act until about the time they were filming "War and Remembrance." Houseman died of cancer shortly before W&R aired in 1988. John Gielgud was so much better as Aaron, though, that I wish he'd been cast from the get-go in '83.

Jan-Michael Vincent was too old to play Byron (though I didn't realize he was 37 when they filmed, and 39 by the time it aired!), but Hart Bochner was such a zero in "War and Remembrance" that I wish they'd found someone else altogether.

Polly Bergen and Ralph Bellamy were both fantastic in their roles. It's not that Rhoda was poorly written; I think she was a well-written character who reflected the frustrations of the navy wives of that time. But Bergen played her the way she was supposed to be played, so if anything, she's to blame for being the right actress for the right part.