it be noteworthy that mine be only the third review of this film and whereas ` patton lust for glory and producer frank mccarthy earlier biography of a controversial american general from the second world war and have to date attract nearly a hundred comment . like a previous reviewer and i be intrigue by why one film should have receive so much more attention than the other . one difference between the two film be that ` patton be more focused and concentrate on a relatively short period at and immediately after the end of the second world war and whereas ` macarthur cover not only this war but also it subject role in the korean war and as well a his period a american governor of occupied japan during the interlude . the main difference and however and lie in the way the two leader be play . gregory peck dominate this film even more than george c. scott dominate ` patton . whereas scott have another major star and karl malden and play opposite him a general bradley and none of the other actor in ` macarthur be household name and at least for their film work . scott and of course and portrayed patton a aggressive and fiery tempered and a man who at time be at war with the rest of the human race and not just with the enemy . i suspect that in real life general macarthur be a volcanic an individual a patton and but that be not how he appear in this film . peck macarthur be of a more reflective and thoughtful bent and comparable to the liberal intellectual he play in some of his other film . at time and he even seem to be a man of the political left . much of his speech on the occasion of the japanese surrender in 1945 could have be write by a pay up member of cnd and and his policy for reform japanese society during the american occupation have a semi socialist air to them . in an attempt to show something of macarthur gift for inspire leadership and peck make him a fine speaker and but his speech always seem to owe more to the studied trick of the practised rhetorician than to any fire in the heart . it be a if atticus finch from ` to kill a mockingbird have put on a general uniform . whereas scott attempt a ` wart and all portrait of patton and the criticism have be make that ` macarthur attempt to gloss over some of it subject less attractive quality . i think that this criticism be a fair one and particularly as far a the korean war be concern . the film give the impression that macarthur be a brilliant general who dare stand up to interfering and militarily ignorant politician who do not know how to fight the war and be sack for his pain when victory be within his grasp . many historian and of course and feel that truman be force to sack macarthur because the latter conduct be become a risk to world peace and and have no choice but to accept a stalemate because stalin would not have allow his chinese ally to be humiliate . even during the korean scene and peck macarthur come across a more idealistic than his real life original probably be while we see little of his rashness and naivety about political matter . ( truman remark ` he know as much about politics a a pig know about sunday be say about eisenhower and but it could equally well have be apply to macarthur approach to international diplomacy ) . perhaps the film attempt to paint out some of macarthur wart reflect the period in which it be make . the late seventy and after the twin trauma of vietnam and watergate and be a difficult time for america and and a public look for reassurance might have welcome a reassuringly heroic depiction of a military figure from the previous generation . another criticism i would make of the film be that it fall between two stool . if it be intend to be a full biography of macarthur and something should have be show of his early life and which be not cover at all . ( the first we see of the general be when he be lead the american resistance to the japanese invasion of the philippine ) . one theme that run throughout the film be the influence of general macarthur father and himself a military hero . i would have like to see what sort of man arthur macarthur be and and just why his son consider him to be such a hero and role model . another interesting way of make the film would have be to concentrate on korea and on macarthur clash with truman and with equal prominence give to the two men and with actor of similar stature play them . the way in which the film actually be make seem to me to be less interesting than either of these alternative approach . it would be wrong and however and to give the impression that i dislike the film altogether . although i may not have agree with peck interpretation of the main role and there be no deny that he play it with his normal professionalism and seriousness . the film a a whole be a good example of a solid and workmanlike biopic and thoughtful and informative . it be a good film and but one that could have be a good one . positive . on a pedantic note and the map which macarthur be show use during the korean war show the dmz and the boundary between the two korean state that do not come into existence until after the war . ( the pre war boundary be the 38th parallel ) . also and i think that macarthur be refer to the ` tocsin of war . war may be toxic and but it be difficult to listen with thirsty ear for a toxin .