Gregory Peck was a great actor no question. He was a pacifist and believed in gun control. He had that liberty as a result of the military man and woman who gave the ultimate sacrifice

The Realistic Battlefield Photography, especially the static Shots of the Aftermath of conflict are Outstanding. The Solid Cast of up and coming Character Actors and a Contemplative, Meditative Mood, all combine for a glimpse at the Futility of Fighting in a Forgotten War.The Propaganda inserted for the Cold-War effort ("they are not orientals, they are communists"), and the Pat rescue Ending are Forced into the Movie and really do nothing to Enhance the Realism of the rest. There are a few other Distractions of Disbelief. The Loudspeaker Brainwashing and the Heavy Handed Peace Talks scenarios are typical Hollywood hokum.But Overall, the Film Succeeds mostly because of the Better Parts, and the Movie is a Worthwhile Effort. It almost gives a Glimpse of what was to come in the 1960's and that was Not a Pretty Picture. No amount of Mind-Control would make us Forget the next "Police Action" (undeclared War).

Plot: As an end to the Korean War is negotiated, US and Chinese troops battle over a hill vital to the negotiationsBased on the non-fiction book by the (in)famous SLA "Slam" Marshall, this is more of a docudrama than a film; therein lies both its success and its failure. Gregory Peck brings conviction to the role of a company commander whose mission is to seize and hold a hill that has just been lost to the enemy. The hill is militarily worthless but politically vital. So up he goes. The rest of the characters are one-note grunts and a politely malevolent Chinese propagandist. Where this film differs from the rest is in the combat: people get lost, mistakes are made, there are friendly fire incidents, orders go missing, and some soldiers simply don't want to fight. In short, nothing goes according to plan -- which was the message of most of "Slam"'s books. An example: a lone soldier finds an enemy machine gun nest and, in a scene we've all seen before, gets ready to blow it up with a hand-grenade -- only he misses the gun slit and nearly blows himself up! Beating the enemy also means overcoming the mistakes on your side too. The combat sequences are among the best ever shot: troops really hug the ground, it takes a lot of shots to kill people, units manoeuvre, the battlefield is littered in detritus, and leadership really matters. However, despite the compelling story, the tight focus, the excellent battle scenes, the lack of bombastic Hollywood heroics, the insight into combat, the rising tension and Mr Peck, the film never quite becomes a classic because the characters are too thinly sketched. Nonetheless, this is one of the best war films ever made.

For a film made in the 1950s, Pork Chop Hill is incredibly grim in its approach to war. Focusing on a battle late in the Korean War, the movie emphasizes the futility of the fighting, which served no other purpose than to assert American resolve during peace talks.The film's realism is complemented by a good performance from Gregory Peck as an officer in charge of the attack on the insignificant hill. Peck balances just the right amounts of determination and recognition of the futility of what he is doing. It stands alongside Tom Hanks's performance in Saving Private Ryan as one of the greatest performances in a war movie.The film does suffer at the conclusion from the studio's insertion of a patriotic coda, as was typical for the era. Nevertheless, Pork Chop Hill stands as an accomplishment in war movie realism.