Film shot at Sherwood lake 35 miles from hollywood and in the tank where Paramount had replicated a swamp within the studio. A troop of marines lead by Richard Arlen is sent to rescue a group of ship wrecked girls lead by Ida Lupino. This being Hollywood the men were pictured in wet muddy clothes but the girls consisted of a beauty chorus all elegantly dressed and beautifully coiffeured. To lend authenticity the jungle battle scenes used real machine guns with live ammunition. The extras were provided by a large number of distinguished veteran marines under command of Major William McIvian. Handling the guns was gunnery sergeant George Daley and each marine had to have at least one citation for bravery. Shooting was held up on first day waiting for a stuntman. After finding out how much stuntmen got paid one of the featured players Harry Tenbrook volunteered making a perfect fall. He admitted afterwards to Director Henry Hathaway he had never done that before. Recently employed South African Bit player Eldred Tidbury showed skill in shooting so impressing Daley to suggest a military career. Hathaway thought girls a little too glamerous and ordered them to wander through mud and snag their dresses. To obtain speed Hathaway employed two film crews so their were no delays in between takes. The principal Roscoe Karns was known as a practical joker leaving a bedouin head in Eldred Tidbury's bed. One of the players got his revenge by spiking Karns dinner with laxative. A good effort but could have been better with only moderate return at box office.
3 Reviews
Possibly the worst film ever made
1930s_Time_Machine26 February 2023
Poor Ida Lupino left a burgeoning film career in England for stardom in Hollywood but ended up in the atrocious SEARCH FOR BEAUTY. As if that wasn't bad enough her next picture was this - which was even worse! Why she didn't jump on the next boat back to Liverpool is anyone's guess. The most polite description of this picture is: absolute garbage.
The plot concerns that immortal question which philosophers have debated since the time of Socrates: how would a group of sex-starved marines rescue a group of sex-starved young women who have been shipwrecked in the jungle where they spend their days playing in a pool in their underwear. It sounds like one of those pictures which is so bad it's good but don't be fooled - it's just bad. Did someone really get paid for writing this?
I don't know what's worse: the acting, the direction, the script or the story. Richard Arlen (who got his break in the movies by being taken into Paramount's medical centre after accidentally crashing his motorcycle into their gates!) substitutes normal acting for a series shouts and snarls.
Arlen is however Laurence Olivier compared with Toby Wing. That's the big dichotomy with this picture because Toby Wing is the only reason to watch this trash. The girl couldn't act for toffee but since in most of her scenes she's just in skimpy underwear, acting ability isn't really something anyone is concerned with. You can see why she earned the title: 'the most beautiful chorus girl in the world.' She truly was utterly, utterly gorgeous - had this picture been lit and photographed half-decently, every 14 year old boy in the world since 1934 would have had a copy of this film hidden under his bed!
The plot concerns that immortal question which philosophers have debated since the time of Socrates: how would a group of sex-starved marines rescue a group of sex-starved young women who have been shipwrecked in the jungle where they spend their days playing in a pool in their underwear. It sounds like one of those pictures which is so bad it's good but don't be fooled - it's just bad. Did someone really get paid for writing this?
I don't know what's worse: the acting, the direction, the script or the story. Richard Arlen (who got his break in the movies by being taken into Paramount's medical centre after accidentally crashing his motorcycle into their gates!) substitutes normal acting for a series shouts and snarls.
Arlen is however Laurence Olivier compared with Toby Wing. That's the big dichotomy with this picture because Toby Wing is the only reason to watch this trash. The girl couldn't act for toffee but since in most of her scenes she's just in skimpy underwear, acting ability isn't really something anyone is concerned with. You can see why she earned the title: 'the most beautiful chorus girl in the world.' She truly was utterly, utterly gorgeous - had this picture been lit and photographed half-decently, every 14 year old boy in the world since 1934 would have had a copy of this film hidden under his bed!
They Opted for Awful
view_and_review26 April 2024
Warning: Spoilers
First, there was "Here Comes the Navy" (1934) now we have "Come On, Marines!" Both movies were awful, but at least "Here Comes the Navy" had James Cagney and Pat O'Brien.
"Come On, Marines!" was such a scatter-brained movie it was hard to make sense of it. There was a marine aiding a Navy man in his desertion. There was a battle in South America that wasn't explained at all. And there were half-naked white women bathing in the jungles of South America while a war was going on. If that doesn't sound like a mixed up partially erotic dream then maybe you should get your head examined.
A marine named Lucky Davis (Richard Arlen) was set to go to officers training until his plans were upended by a wild woman (played by Grace Bradley). She came to his base and made such a scene that he was withdrawn from consideration for being an officer. He was upset with the woman, but he was furious with the cab driver who brought her there. Spud (Roscoe Karns), the cabbie, brought her to the base specifically so that she would cause a scene and embarrass Lucky.
Lucky's response was to get back at Spud. At this point the movie was shaping up to be just like "Here Comes the Navy" which featured two adult males behaving like children.
When Lucky found Spud driving his cab he shot at the cab. It was a stupid move that was equally dangerous. It should've cost him his freedom, but his punishment was to be sent to the jungles of South America for some unstated mission. Before he departed he forced Spud to join the Marines so that he would have to join him in the jungles.
You see, Spud deserted the Navy and was facing a five year prison sentence if they ever caught up to him. Lucky's payback to Spud wasn't to turn him in to the Navy, but to force him to join the Marines instead.
At this point the movie wasn't that good, but it was watchable. What happened once Lucky and Spud got to South America was incomprehensible.
They were sent to rescue some "kids." When they got to the "kids" they found a group of women giggling and playing in the water. They hardly looked like they were in need of rescuing and the whole scene was out of place like the pope in a pub. I was distracted as my mind tried to make sense of it all. Why were these women referred to as kids? Why were they frolicking in a warzone? Why were they half naked? How was their make-up so flawless?
While my mind tried to rationalize this soft porn plot I was able to make out a budding romance that was as odd as everything else.
The enemy, known as Solano, fired upon the girls and the marines at the watering hole. Lucky ordered everybody to take cover inside a nearby building. One woman, Esther (Ida Lupino), refused to move and it was unclear why. All she had to do was run across the water she was just playing in, but she was obstinate in rejecting Lucky's orders. I could only question her intelligence as there were mortars landing all about her, but she seemed to want to make a point of not obeying Lucky. She was behaving like a spoiled little girl which brought up thoughts of many bad stereotypes of pretty women.
Lucky, instead of saying "suit yourself," and getting to cover, walked through the shallow water and grabbed her while she feebly kicked and screamed. It was a strange and childish scene that made zero sense. I suppose the whole scene was to show his strength and chivalry juxtaposed to the shrill disobedience of pretty young women. Whatever the point of it all, it was repulsive.
There would be another scene in which Lucky picked up a kicking and screaming Esther, and it was even more counter-productive.
While the two were walking they came under fire again. Instead of telling her to run and jump into the wagon, he picked her up, ran with her, and placed her in the wagon while she fought him.
Please tell me how it's faster for a person to pick up an able-bodied adult as opposed to having that adult run herself? They were trying waaaaay too hard to show the command, virtue, and manliness of this Marine.
Eventually, and quite abruptly, they fell in love. I knew that's what they were setting up, but there was no transition at all. It went from fighting to kissing in a matter of one scene. It was like this movie was only budgeted for exactly 70 minutes and making a sensible romance would've taken them over that budget.
"Come On, Marines!" could've sufficed with being mediocre, yet they opted for awful. Was everyone involved under the influence of something? There clearly wasn't a sober individual involved with this project. Maybe they wanted to throw mud on the Marines. If so: mission accomplished.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
"Come On, Marines!" was such a scatter-brained movie it was hard to make sense of it. There was a marine aiding a Navy man in his desertion. There was a battle in South America that wasn't explained at all. And there were half-naked white women bathing in the jungles of South America while a war was going on. If that doesn't sound like a mixed up partially erotic dream then maybe you should get your head examined.
A marine named Lucky Davis (Richard Arlen) was set to go to officers training until his plans were upended by a wild woman (played by Grace Bradley). She came to his base and made such a scene that he was withdrawn from consideration for being an officer. He was upset with the woman, but he was furious with the cab driver who brought her there. Spud (Roscoe Karns), the cabbie, brought her to the base specifically so that she would cause a scene and embarrass Lucky.
Lucky's response was to get back at Spud. At this point the movie was shaping up to be just like "Here Comes the Navy" which featured two adult males behaving like children.
When Lucky found Spud driving his cab he shot at the cab. It was a stupid move that was equally dangerous. It should've cost him his freedom, but his punishment was to be sent to the jungles of South America for some unstated mission. Before he departed he forced Spud to join the Marines so that he would have to join him in the jungles.
You see, Spud deserted the Navy and was facing a five year prison sentence if they ever caught up to him. Lucky's payback to Spud wasn't to turn him in to the Navy, but to force him to join the Marines instead.
At this point the movie wasn't that good, but it was watchable. What happened once Lucky and Spud got to South America was incomprehensible.
They were sent to rescue some "kids." When they got to the "kids" they found a group of women giggling and playing in the water. They hardly looked like they were in need of rescuing and the whole scene was out of place like the pope in a pub. I was distracted as my mind tried to make sense of it all. Why were these women referred to as kids? Why were they frolicking in a warzone? Why were they half naked? How was their make-up so flawless?
While my mind tried to rationalize this soft porn plot I was able to make out a budding romance that was as odd as everything else.
The enemy, known as Solano, fired upon the girls and the marines at the watering hole. Lucky ordered everybody to take cover inside a nearby building. One woman, Esther (Ida Lupino), refused to move and it was unclear why. All she had to do was run across the water she was just playing in, but she was obstinate in rejecting Lucky's orders. I could only question her intelligence as there were mortars landing all about her, but she seemed to want to make a point of not obeying Lucky. She was behaving like a spoiled little girl which brought up thoughts of many bad stereotypes of pretty women.
Lucky, instead of saying "suit yourself," and getting to cover, walked through the shallow water and grabbed her while she feebly kicked and screamed. It was a strange and childish scene that made zero sense. I suppose the whole scene was to show his strength and chivalry juxtaposed to the shrill disobedience of pretty young women. Whatever the point of it all, it was repulsive.
There would be another scene in which Lucky picked up a kicking and screaming Esther, and it was even more counter-productive.
While the two were walking they came under fire again. Instead of telling her to run and jump into the wagon, he picked her up, ran with her, and placed her in the wagon while she fought him.
Please tell me how it's faster for a person to pick up an able-bodied adult as opposed to having that adult run herself? They were trying waaaaay too hard to show the command, virtue, and manliness of this Marine.
Eventually, and quite abruptly, they fell in love. I knew that's what they were setting up, but there was no transition at all. It went from fighting to kissing in a matter of one scene. It was like this movie was only budgeted for exactly 70 minutes and making a sensible romance would've taken them over that budget.
"Come On, Marines!" could've sufficed with being mediocre, yet they opted for awful. Was everyone involved under the influence of something? There clearly wasn't a sober individual involved with this project. Maybe they wanted to throw mud on the Marines. If so: mission accomplished.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
