Big Jim McLain (1952)

The Worst Film Ever

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Big Jim McLain is a hilariously bad propaganda film. If it was made by the Nazis, the cast and crew would had got medals from Goebbels.John Wayne surely was doing his best to avoid being labelled as a commie (it was made in conjunction with his own production company.)Big Jim McLain (John Wayne) and his partner even bigger Mal Baxter (James Arness) are investigators for the House Un-American Activities Committee. They have been sent to Hawaii to round up some local Communists. They visit Dr Gelster a psychiatrist who is treating one of the party members. While there, McLain charms the doctor's secretary, Nancy Vallon (Nancy Olson) and asks her out. McLain and Baxter become targets of the local communist head honcho, really tall Sturak (Alan Napier.)It is left to James Arness to really ham up his character's anti communist credentials. Oh if only he could get his hands on those reds under the beds. He fought in Korea you know.Wayne is too busy being a tourist and trying to charm Olson who he met on his first day ashore. Although raucous party girl Veda Ann Borg is also interested to know how big John McLain really is.Napier is suave and despicable going around in expensive cars treating the lower ranked members of the party with disdain. It is a laughably bad and camp film. You have a nurse who once dabbled with the reds and talks about being a communist like being struck down by a disease. She does penance by working with ill children.Given the mayhem caused by the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s. Wayne should had burned the negatives.

Even though the script and directing were a bit rough, the storyline was almost OK. The film quality (I know – it was black and white) – sucked, and other than Wayne and Arness, I didn't notice any memorable talent. Nancy Olsen was meh – OK – I guess. As mediocre as this flick is, it is a movie of its time. I got the message loud and clear…the US and the rest of the world were still recovering from a horrible war, and communism is/was a dangerous road go down. I have seem this movie once and doubt I will sit through it again. If it wasn't for John Wayne and James Arness, this movie would probably end up starless – but those two are in it – so I will have to hand out five stars.

While Big Jim McLaine was made during the early Red Scare years of the Fifties, it still would have been a good action movie without the topical headlines that helped promote it. The villains could have been gangsters or hoodlums and nobody would have taken the position that maybe these people were just misunderstood. Granted, John Wayne may have been outspoken in his politics, but his movies were popular because of the image he projected. The men that went to see his movies may not have been as big or strong as he was but would have liked to have been. The John Wayne image was classic Hollywood wish fulfillment. Just as the Joan Crawford or Bette Davis image was for a lot of women. In those days, you picked your hero or heroine and stuck by them so regardless of what anybody else said or did, you went to see their movies. These people who delight in revealing what they have heard about your favorite star are doing it out of a sense of meaness. Movies originally were meant to entertain. That's why they ran them in theaters. Those films meant to educate were usually shown in classrooms. How many kids would have shown up at a theater if there was going to be a film about the pioneers crossing the desert and their hardships, but no Indian attacks. No drama, just historical fact. Aside from its topical subject matter, Big Jim McClain still would have drawn a crowd because John Wayne was in it. Like him or not, the guy had to have some sort of charisma to have lasted as long as he did.

I know what you're all thinking. Yes, most of the comments center on the anti-Communist agenda of the late 40's to the mid-50's and rightly so. John Wayne was one of those actors who believed in "CYA" (cover your 'butt') when it came to keeping his job in Hollywood. And rightly so again! With the likes of Wayne and cravens like Elia Kazan, they chose to appease the witch hunters rather than stand up to them. Unfortunately this did more harm than good; many of their associates (great performers like Howard Da Silva, John Garfield and Betty Garrett) were banned for years if not for life.This movie was a product of those who wanted to convince the modern day inquisition called the House on Unamerican Activities that they were genuine flag waving, apple pie eating homies. Obviously the ruse worked.However I'm straying from my one line summary here. I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed the subliminal content of this film. Yes, it reeks of good ol' flag waving Americanism vs the no-good commies, but has anyone noticed the "law and order" theme of this film? Has anyone noticed that it takes place in (of all places) Hawaii, which was then only a "Protectorate" of the United States? Hawaii didn't get statehood until 1959, seven years after this film was released. I really believe (I wonder if anyone else does!) that the movers and shakers of 60's television got the idea of "Hawaii 5-0" from this film. There are quite a few similarities. First of all, the head honcho is a white guy (Jack Lord, John Wayne). Secondly, they both hunt down criminals (Lord goes after the common garden variety type and Wayne goes after the same, only a little "redder"). Thirdly, both "law and order" agencies are based in Hawaii (why?) and finally, the guys who work with John Wayne in the film are actual Hawaiians whose acting is as stilted and crummy as the Hawaiians who try to act in the TV show!!!Finally, I ask "why"??? Am I imagining all of this or does someone else out in the ether have the same opinion as I do? Somebody, please tell me if this is so!