Darby's Rangers (1958) User Reviews (28)

Routine by-the-numbers war film

[AlsExGal · 5/10 · 19 May 2021]

The film tells a very fictionalized account of the formation of the U. S. Army's First Ranger Battalion. It's the idea of Major William Darby (James Garner), who envisions an American equivalent to British commandos. After the first batch of recruits undergoes training in Scotland, they head into action throughout the European theater. Many of the men also find time for romance with various local ladies.

This was a mixed bag for me. There are some exciting action scenes, and some funny jokes and visual gags, too. I liked Jack Warden as the narrating sergeant. James Garner is always good, but he's rather wasted here in a flat part. On the other hand, Edd "Kookie" Byrnes is just plain terrible, with awful acting and hair, attitude and dialogue delivery straight from "hip" 1958. The multiple romantic subplots are insipid sketches that are neither convincing or compelling. One unintentional source of amusement is courtesy of the sound effects. There's a particular "person falling down" sound effect that is perhaps best remembered from the Charlie Brown cartoons which is heard whenever Lucy pulls the football away at the last second and Charlie falls backwards and hits the ground. Well, that same sound effect is used for every fall in this movie, and a lot of people fall down. It could make for a good drinking game.

Here's what a Ranger vet said about this movie.

[bill-790 · 6/10 · 25 July 2010]

He was not impressed! And the guy I talked to was a U.S. Ranger who took part in assault landings in North Africa, Sicily, the main Italian landing, and finally at Anzio. (He was captured by the Germans at Anzio and ultimately escaped, making his way eastward to the Russian lines. But that is another story.) My friend was fairly critical of the action portrayed in the movie, despite the fact that another Ranger was the technical adviser.

As for the movie itself, it is only slightly above mediocre. Although I am a big fan of older black and white movies, I must say that the lack of color here is a negative. Also, based on memory, too many scenes were shot on a sound stage. A film noir is fine shot that way, but an A level war movie should have more impressive production values. After all, WWII was not fought in a blimp hanger.

ill-fitting comedy and fictional melodrama

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 20 June 2019]

William Orlando Darby (James Garner) pushes to form the US Rangers modelled after the British commandos. Various soldiers are recruited to train in Scotland for the new formation led by Darby. Initially, the group is sent to fight in North Africa and then Italy.

I only recognize James Garner and he's the only compelling actor for me. The first half concentrates too much on the men's love lives although the bus meet-cute is plenty cute. None of the relationships matter that much. They are being too cute and trying too hard to be funny. The pratfalls and jokes fall flat. Some of the actors are a bit too stiff. The comedic tone rings old fashion. The material would be better served as a more serious darker drama. The new Lieutenant comes in too late and the girl is too melodramatic. I can do with less melodrama and more war action. It's surprising that Garner isn't given more to do. The fighting is mostly studio interior or backlot sets. There are some archival footages and bigger exterior sets. There is some dangerous running in front of tanks.

Sprawling war movie

[lorenellroy · 5 October 2004]

Darby's Rangers -or The Young Invaders ,to give it the title under which it was shown in Great Britain - is a lengthy world war two movie about the formation of the US Rangers ,its initial training at the hands of the British in Scotland and its success in battle both in Africa and Europe .It also devotes some considerable time to the private lives of the troops especially there involvement with women On neither level is it particularly engrossing with the battle scenes clearly being staged on a studio set which renders them somewhat artificial looking and unconvincing while the platoon members are just not interesting enough to make me care greatly what happens to them The acting is routine Garner is under used and such young performers as Peter Brown and Ed Byrne lack the experience and charisma to hold the screen

Good to see the British accorded some respect in a US war movie but otherwise this is routine fare indeed

War's Emotional Strains

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 15 May 2011]

At the United States War Department, artillery officer and future colonel James Garner (as William Orlando Darby) persuades superiors he is the man to lead a new World War II combat unit in Europe. Consequently, "Darby's Rangers" are trained. They face tough action, have relationships with beautiful women abroad, and face the inevitable tragedies you've see in many other war movies. Based on reality, this was the penultimate film from director William A. Wellman. He still has a knack for battle scenes, light interludes (like the "dusting" bit) and can punctuate blitzkriegs with the sound of a tea kettle...

"Darby's Rangers" is well produced, freshly cast, but hardly ever less than obvious. Believable on the big screen, in his first "starring role," Mr. Garner is absent much of the running time, as this is really an "ensemble" war drama. An unsubtle Jack Warden (as Saul Rosen) provides narration. The other soldiers' stories are more interesting, with nicely styled Edward "Edd" Byrnes (as Arnold Dittman) essaying arguably the best-written role, handsome young Peter Brown (as Rollo Burns) making the greatest emotional impression, and card shark Stuart Whitman (as Hank Bishop) leading the rest of the pack.

****** Darby's Rangers (2/12/58) William A. Wellman ~ James Garner, Edd Byrnes, Peter Brown, Stuart Whitman

Routine but well made WWII film

[a_chinn · 6/10 · 4 June 2018]

Recycling the well worn "Sands of Iwo Jima" formula of a disparate group of new recruits getting trained at boot camp, coming together as a team, and then taking to the battlefield, "Darby's Rangers" offers nothing new, but is entertaining for fans of these type of WWII films. It's a durable formula that's can work well (i.e. Clint Eastwood's "Heartbreak Ridge") or can be so bad that it becomes a parody of itself (i.e. John Wayne's "The Green Berets"). With a veteran film director at the helm, William Wellman, and a strong cast (James Garner, Jack Warden, Peter Brown, Stuart Whitman, Murray Hamilton, and David Janssen) you have the makings for solid entertainment, which is exactly what "Darby's Ranger" delivers with Garner leading his squad into North Africa and Italy for exciting WWII action. The downside to the film is that the portions of the story focused on Garner's command level politics and the infantrymen's liberty romances are less than interesting.

Good

[SanteeFats · 7/10 · 28 July 2014]

This may not be that historically accurate but it is still very entertaining. It is at least based on a real person and the actions did take place. James Garner passed away last week so TCM is running his movies. The ranger training by British commandos had some humorous spots and some sad ones. I really detested the hick American lover boy and it didn't bother me at all when he fell to his death. Nor when the husband where he had been staying left his wife because she was in love and had been screwing the lover boy. She goes to the camp only to find out lover boy was dead. I guess that could be called poetic justice, huh? The last action the Rangers go on will be their last as a unit. Two battalions are trying to infiltrate the German lines when they inadvertently run into a German offensive push. Only 7 of 767 men return from the two battalions, most of the others are captured. The movie ends with Darby going back to Washington. Darby returns to Italy and while planning the Trento assault is killed by an 88 shell.

Not Wellman's finest hour

[frankfob · 4/10 · 28 May 2012]

Routine, by-the-numbers war film made on an off-day by the great William A. Wellman. It's no better, and somewhat worse, than other WW II films of that era, with some sappy and contrived love stories thrown in. Although Wellman hadn't made "B" pictures for years, that's just what this one comes across as--far too much of it is shot on sound stages (apparently to save money on location shooting) which makes it look cheap, as does the surfeit of poorly integrated newsreel stock footage, and what little action there is isn't particularly well done. The script is, to be honest, awful, and the acting--other than Garner, whose first major role this was and who's quite good and Edd "Kookie" Byrnes, who plays an arrogant young West Point officer on his first combat assignment--is for the most part pedestrian, with the tired stereotypes you see in pretty much every war picture: the slow-witted hillbilly, the fast-talking city slicker, the weary veteran sergeant, etc.

Overall, it's slow and boring, with some unnecessary comedy relief thrown in and too much attention paid to the GIs' love interests. Not one of Wellman's better films, by a long shot.

The Tip Of The Spear

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 20 October 2008]

Darby's Rangers is the story both of a proud group of the best and brightest the USA sent to war and the commander who sold the idea to the brass and the outfit was unofficially named for him. It was director William Wellman's next to last feature film and the first starring picture of James Garner.

As William Orlando Darby, James Garner is far from the cynical and comical Bret Maverick whom he was portraying on television at the time in a mega-hit series. Garner sells the idea of having an Americanized version of the British commando spearheading the American landings wherever they may be.

Trained by the British Commandos, Darby's Rangers or as it is officially known the First Ranger Batallion comes into being. We follow the Rangers from their first blooding at Dieppe through the North African and Italian campaigns until they were nearly annihilated at Cisterna, protecting the Allied landing at Anzio.

The film is narrated by Jack Warden who plays Garner's chief non-commissioned officer in the unit. We meet all the Rangers, some of them not the noblest of characters such as womanizing Corey Allen who takes up with married British lady Andrea King. Young shavetail lieutenant Edd Byrnes gets a baptism of fire on many fronts both in battle with Garner and in love with Etchika Choureau.

After the action of this film is concluded Darby was killed on April 30, 1945 just days from VE Day in action. Coincidentally on the same day that Adolph Hitler committed suicide. Maybe it was better for the film to end as it did however for entertainment value.

It's a fine World War II film about a true story. And this review is dedicated to those survivors if there be any of our First American Ranger Batallion and their gallant fallen comrades.

A decent war film....not great but worth seeing.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 29 May 2021]

According to IMDB, "Darby's Rangers" is a highly fictionalized account of the first Ranger unit. I have no idea what is and isn't true, but assume the individual stories are fictional. The ending, sadly, also is fictional as there was no 'happy ending' for Colonel William Darby.

The story goes from Darby being appointed commander of the first Ranger unit and continues to the unit's return to the States once their tour of duty was complete. It features a lot of footage of the unit in training in Scotland, as well as action in North Africa and Italy.

The best thing about this film is that although some stock footage was used, it was integrated well into the story and wasn't the often fuzzy or scratchy footage. It also featured a few enjoyable stories within the movie as well as decent acting all around. Worth seeing...but not among the best war films of the era...much of which is because it was so fictionalized.

By the way, I am no professional linguist but the Italian love interest for the Lieutenant was CLEARLY French and her accent is French...with no trace of Italian.

Major Disappointment

[atlasmb · 4/10 · 28 July 2014]

I'm sorry to say that this film, which is James Garner's first leading role, is a mess. And almost all of the fault is in the writing.

There have been other films about military teams in training. And they have been better than this.

We can thank the writing for some horrible characters. And some terrible plots. They try to mix training scenes with scenes concerning the personal lives of the men, but it's all a mess.

I wish I could list all the times I cringed in response to a particular line, but that is not possible. They follow one another like lemmings.

Some visual effects were also off-putting, like when they trainees are rappelling up a cliff and one man's line comes loose and he plummets to the ground. The entire scene was contrived, amateurish and poorly done.

Obviously there are some people who liked this film, but I cannot recommend it.

Standard-Issue U.S. Army Commando Movie

[zardoz-13 · 8/10 · 25 December 2009]

"Battleground" director William Wellman made several great combat movies, but "Darby's Rangers" is not one of his best. This standard-issue World War II movie deals with the first actual commando force in the United States Army. "Darby's Rangers" is a good adventure movie set against the real-life background of war in North Africa and Italy. Virtually first hour is spent with Darby and his men learning the ropes about commando operations from the British in Scotland. When these G.I. Joes aren't being run ragged by the Brits, they are running British women ragged. The second half of this 121-minute epic follows our heroes into North Africa and they are finally shot to pieces so badly blunting an attack after Anzio that the powers-that-be break up the unit and Darby goes off to the Pentagon. Several familiar faces crop up here including Peter Brown of "Laredo" fame, Ed Byrnes of "77 Sunset Strip," Stuart Whitman, Murray Hamilton, and Jack Warden. Indeed, "Darby's Rangers" is basically a remnant of the 1940s rather than the 1950s. Wellman provides more sexual escapades for these young lions, while Darby (James Garner of "Maverick") leads the attack. You will not find any anti-authority issues in this war movie or soldiers complaining about wanting to kill their officers. Like most World War II movies of the 1950s, we do not get to see the German soldiers, except during an ambush. Meaning, the Germans are depicted as an impersonal enemy. In fact, there are no real emotional villains on the enemy side. Wellman orchestrates several interesting combat sequences, but too many officers parade around unrealistically with their rank displayed on their helmets. One scene here that Sam Fuller used in his classic World War II combat movie "The Big Red One" has troops crossing a road in front of German tanks. As the noisy tanks roll over a hill, the G.I.s slip past it, narrowly missing being hit and escaping the notice of the enemy. Max Steiner provides a suitable martial score to underline the combat scenes. Edd Byrnes is good as a green, shavetail lieutenant who grows up quickly.

Average WWII drama from maverick director Wellman

[pete36 · 6/10 · 21 June 2014]

"Darby's Rangers" is the story of an US elite unit during WWII on the European front. We get to see their rough training, initial actions, numerous encounters with women and a final big battle in which they allegedly played a major role : the landings in Anzio, Italy.

The training segment is well done, but again hampered by the love interludes. Things finally seem to get going when they set off for their first landings in Algeria in 1942, when they had to fight French Vichy troops (but as with the Germans, the enemy is hardly seen in this movie). Then it's off to Sicily and then Italy, where they encounter some fierce opposition from Jerry.

I have to admit :I really do not know what to think of this movie : the battle scenes are rather well-staged, although mostly shot an a sound stage. There is a harrowing scene when they have to move between some German panzers, some close combat in an Italian village, etc... So everything is there to make a good typical 50's war drama: the perfect all good-guy commander (Garner), his side-kick sergeant (Warden) and a whole bunch of colorful characters as the dapper Rangers, not to forget a high number of love interests. But unlike some previous efforts by director Wellman in the war movie genre, as the classic "The Story of GI Joe" (on war correspondent Ernie Pyle)and the supremely "Battleground" (on The Battle of the Bulge), this almost drowns in its own clichés. Especially the love interludes come over as rather silly and almost ruin the picture.

What's left is a so-and-so war movie, with all the right ingredients but somehow it just doesn't work. An average time-passer but that's all.

A Waste Of Time

[douglasmcbroom · 2/10 · 29 May 2021]

A soap opera disguised as a war film. Lousy battle scenes.

A little known but surprisingly good war film

[Warfilmman · 23 February 2000]

I had not seen this film before this year, and I was surprised how good it was. Though obviously filmed in the USA its portrayal of British characters (though incidental to the plot), was refreshingly good. The action scenes were well filmed and it is nice to see James Garner not playing for laughs. Though a good light comedian, I think he is best in straight roles like in 36 Hours and the Great Escape. The cast is on the whole very good, and I have to say that I thoroughly recommend watching this film, if like me you are a war movie fan.

Watch For Byrnes

[David_Brown · 7/10 · 25 August 2012]

This is an above average War Film with an impressive cast (James Garner (Col. Darby), Jack Warden (The narrator Mst Sgt. Saul Rosen), Stuart Whitman (All of whom would do better things later on)), and Director (William Wellman), in his next to last film. The main reason to watch is Edd Bynes (Lt. Arnold Dittman), who comes straight from West Point with no knowledge of the real world, either on the battlefield or in dealing with people. Spoilers: There is one scene where he kills an Itallian Soldier and feels incredible guilt about it, and Darby, has to explain why he had to do it. Later on, he and his men are ordered to disinfect some Itallians, and one woman, Angelina De Lotta (Etchika Choureau), objects because it is degrading, and will only allow herself to be disinfected if he does it. He gets himself involved with her, and she is essentially using him, because she is extremely desperate, and very sick. When she tells things about her he is disgusted and leaves. He gets drunk and is complaining about her (Including the statement "Do you think you were the first?"). Darby goes to investigate, and finds out that she slept with an Itallian Partician (Someone fighting Mussolini), and was killed. The problem is she got pregnant, and although she fell in love with Dittman, was ashamed to say it it to him, and is dying. Darby wakes up Dittman and explains what happened and said: "This woman has been through hell, I am not saying what she did is right, but compassion does not come out of an Army Manual, this is a big mess, and it takes a big man to clean it up." He goes to a Doctor and and the Doctor explains that sulfur will not help, she needs penicillin and when he tried to get some from the Army, it was explained that "It is only for soldiers and in rare cases, for their Dependants." Basically, the options are, marry her or let her die. He decides to get a local Priest, who could not speak English, but the Doctor translates and explains why they must be married. She is able to be saved but the baby inside her died. After the final military scene, where the Rangers meet up with a German Panzer (Tank) Division), and the conditions were summed up well by Rosen. "This was the low, clinging kind of fog I used to see when I was hunting duck out on Long Island... Now I know how the duck felt." Dittman is one of the few Rangers to survive, and comes back to her and is sad that the baby died, but as she pointed out that "We can have lots of babies together." What I like is not only did he love her enough to marry her, but she really loved him as well, and was elated he came back to her. You can tell they will have a fresh start, and spend a lifetime together. Byrnes performance, and the relationship with Angelina is what makes it a good film. 7/10 stars.

Wartime flick

[jb_goode · 7/10 · 12 October 1998]

Typical wartime flick for the period. Reliable late-night fare. Gather up your favorite snack and enjoy.

Near The End For Wellman

[boblipton · 7/10 · 30 May 2021]

James Garner's first starring role has him playing William Orlando Darby, and his career from the Pentagon to his training and leading the first battalion of Army Rangers, through their disbandment after most of them were killed in action. Everyone seems a little erratic from Garner to Jack Warden as his Jewish staff sergeant, on down. Only the old hands on view for the scenes with civilians -- Torin Thatcher, Frieda Inescourt and Reginald Owen seem comfortable in their characters' skins, offering the stereotyped comedy straight out of movies produced during the war, awkward and cynical.

Perhaps that was a deliberate choice, because the movie lives and breathes in the battle sequences, clearly shot on sets, and clearly designed to be as ugly as possible. There's an air of exhausted tension in the performances there, of men doing their jobs, but ready to fall down dead when the order is given.

The real Darby is shown entering an LST, heading to the newly-opened Pentagon. He would return to Italy on an inspection tourl; when the deputy commander of the 10th Mountain Division was wounded, Darby replaced him..... and was shot dead on 30 April 1945.

Slapstick melodrama with poor sets

[Coffee_in_the_Clink · 3/10 · 25 June 2021]

From a historical perspective, "Darby's Rangers" gives the viewer an adequate (but far from brilliant) representation of the formation of the US army Rangers during WW2, from their training by British Commandos in Scotland to their deployment to North Africa and later the Italian Campaign. However, the action is very poor as these scenes were blatantly shot in a warehouse on a soundstage and it is very distracting. It is hard to believe this came out the same year as "Dunkirk". The cinematographer is quite poor and I am not too sure what was wrong but the black and white just did not look well in certain scenes. The script is very poor. There is far too much slapstick that is utterly embarrassing, dialogue to measure and enough melodrama to make one vomit.

A great WWII drama movie with a nice cast

[bellino-angelo2014 · 8/10 · 16 April 2018]

This is one of my favourite war movies of the '50s, and it's based on a true story.

The movie begins in a US Army command where Colonel William Orlando Bardy is assigned as the chief of the first ranger Battalion in 1942 (formed in Scotland), and while the Rangers have tough training, they get along with some lassies. Then they fight successfully in North Africa, Sicily, and Anzio in the Battle of Cisterna (with only 7 men, out of 767, left alive). And, in the end, we see bits of the remaining rangers after war (Darby leaves Anzio boarding a landing craft, and two of the central characters get married to their girlfriends).

I loved the cast; James Garner (in his first leading man role) is excellent as Colonel William Orlando Darby, and also Jack Warden as his sidekick, top Sergeant Saul Rosen (who also narrates the movie). And there are some up-and-coming actors; Murray Hamilton as Sims Delancey; Stuart Whitman as Sergeant Hank Bishop, that gets along with proper Wendy Hollister; Corey Allen as the sleazy lover boy that falls for the older Sheila Andrews, the wife of an Archeology professor; Edd Byrnes is good as Lt. Arnold Dittman, and goes to struggle with his girlfriend (Angeline de Lotta)'s illness; and Peter Brown (in one of his first movies) gives his best role to date, especially in the scene when he is conflicted after killing a German sniper.

By the way, it's a nice and entertaining World War II movie, and maybe one of the best made in the 1950s! Recommended to all movie buffs like me!

sex implications

[darcywingo · 1/10 · 27 April 2018]

The first 33 minutes has 2 episodes that in modern times would elicit ratings, etc. No visual sex but the implications are explicit. Too bad, because this has the makings of a great 1958 black and white inspirational film. But even in these days the producer/director/writers wanted to "spice" up the action. Too bad.

Rangers die without a whimper

[cbobcant · 9/10 · 28 July 2014]

This is one of my favor war movies. The story of Darby and his Rangers has a special place for me. This movie shows a man, who is driven to see his idea for a special fighting force come to life. Now there are some things that people see as goofs or problems with this movie. I mean the tanks are not real Panzers, but come on it is the late 50's and making every detail as real as possible is not going to happen because movie budgets are not that big. There are no summer blockbusters and if they are they are few and far between. As to some of the scenes being done on a sound stage in Hollywood again that magic word budget. If you want to enjoy a tale of men in war then this is enjoyment. True James Garner is not on camera all that much well he was in command and you don't see the commander that often in the field. It was nice to see what you would call an ensemble cast in this movie. I know that Edd Byrnes and Peter Brown were the heartthrobs of the movie. Stuart Whitman and Murray Hamilton were the cynic tough guys. Jack Warden was the hard-bitten old veteran from earlier wars. There is the comic relief guys. Of course you have to have the sleazy guy that everybody hates in Corey Allen's character. The Brits, who are old hands at a dirty business. So clichéd it may be but who cares it is a good if not great little war film.

Should have been titled Darby's Romeos

[rcastl2335 · 1/10 · 28 May 2023]

Filmed on the Warner Brothers backlot for about $3.50, this super-cheesy embarrassment has the juvenile sensibility of a beach blanket movie. Much of the film involves horndog soldiers drooling over their various lovers. The script is filled with howlers like the Jewish sergeant Saul (played by Jack Warden!) translating a Hebrew phrase as "from the Jewish." James Garner, in his first starring role, is suitably sober but father-like as Col. Darby. Warden does his reliable sidekick part with professionalism. Scattered through the film are a number of Warner Brothers contract player like Edd Byrnes and a very young Peter Brown. Stuart Whitman has probably the only role of depth as a conflicted (naturally) former pro gambler who falls in love with an upper class Englishwoman. Normally a fine director, William Wellman seems to have directed this movie from the easy chair in his trailer. This movie is a dull, silly effort. Avoid!

A nice cast boosts the war drama

[bux · 4 June 2002]

Veteran Director Wellman guides the capable cast through all the usual war movie cliches and still manages to keep our interest. Scattered throughout the action are some nice cameos by then "up and coming" stars, and an especially nice bit done by Edd "Kooky" Brynes. This one is still fun.

Inspiring

[ajanderson-48673 · 8/10 · 17 August 2018]

If you don't want to watch the movie, Google, last scene Darby's Rangers. As an 11 year old seeing this movie, this last scene stayed with me. 12 years later I earned my Tab. Silly? Maybe, but it still inspires me.