Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: titoli on February 15, 2010, 05:48:40 PM

Title: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: titoli on February 15, 2010, 05:48:40 PM
Where Eagles Dare (1968) - As I already wrote, I went to watch this a bit amazed at the fact that Eastwood was billed as second banana at a time he was the most popular star (with Sean Connery) at the italian box-office. And leaving the lead to Richard Burton at that! Who may have been a  great actor, but in action movies he couldn't be put ahead of Eastwood. All the more so in a movie where there's actually no playing until the final scene in the airplane, when Burton partially justifies his salary giving a great performance. But for the rest, rather strangely, this is a movie which requires no actors, as it is all based on action, with no character development. Which would be a great thing were it not that the action scenes are connected by a rather awkward, elaborated and little realistic plot, with such blunders as the irrealistic haircuts (Eastwood hair wouldn't have passed muster in any army), women make ups (Ingrid Pitt though doesn't look so attractive here as in her hammers) and the germans made to speak english for the stars convenience. Still the action scenes are generally effective (a couple of them even spectacular) and I give it a 6\10.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: Groggy on February 15, 2010, 06:55:29 PM
Where Eagles Dare (1968) - As I already wrote, I went to watch this a bit amazed at the fact that Eastwood was billed as second banana at a time he was the most popular star (with Sean Connery) at the italian box-office. And leaving the lead to Richard Burton at that! Who may have been a  great actor, but in action movies he couldn't be put ahead of Eastwood. All the more so in a movie where there's actually no playing until the final scene in the airplane, when Burton partially justifies his salary giving a great performance. But for the rest, rather strangely, this is a movie which requires no actors, as it is all based on action, with no character development. Which would be a great thing were it not that the action scenes are connected by a rather awkward, elaborated and little realistic plot, with such blunders as the irrealistic haircuts (Eastwood hair wouldn't have passed muster in any army), women make ups (Ingrid Pitt though doesn't look so attractive here as in her hammers) and the germans made to speak english for the stars convenience. Still the action scenes are generally effective (a couple of them even spectacular) and I give it a 6\10.

I don't disagree with this. It's fun but very slight. The only standout scene was Burton playing mind-games with Eastwood and the Nazi officers.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: cigar joe on February 16, 2010, 02:46:43 AM
Where Eagles Dare (1968) - As I already wrote, I went to watch this a bit amazed at the fact that Eastwood was billed as second banana at a time he was the most popular star (with Sean Connery) at the italian box-office. And leaving the lead to Richard Burton at that! Who may have been a  great actor, but in action movies he couldn't be put ahead of Eastwood. All the more so in a movie where there's actually no playing until the final scene in the airplane, when Burton partially justifies his salary giving a great performance. But for the rest, rather strangely, this is a movie which requires no actors, as it is all based on action, with no character development. Which would be a great thing were it not that the action scenes are connected by a rather awkward, elaborated and little realistic plot, with such blunders as the irrealistic haircuts (Eastwood hair wouldn't have passed muster in any army), women make ups (Ingrid Pitt though doesn't look so attractive here as in her hammers) and the germans made to speak english for the stars convenience. Still the action scenes are generally effective (a couple of them even spectacular) and I give it a 6\10.

I'd give it a bit more about a 7 the snow scenes alone up it for me.  O0
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: noodles_leone on April 20, 2014, 01:11:21 AM
The French version is better: the Germans speak Germans.
I strongly disagree with the rest of the criticisms: the plot is the best I've ever seen in a war movie (if only today's blockbusters could reach half this level..,), most action scenes hold up incredibly well considering they've been done in 1968, the use of music is still one if the best ever, the snow scenes are fucking great. The women are not as attractive as they are supposed to and Eastwood being a second banana probably comes from the fact that he cut out a lot of his lines himself.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: stanton on April 20, 2014, 01:18:58 AM
One of the most boring films ever. Badly directed and badly written. Idiotic in every respect. 1/10

(but don't ask me for what merit the one star is)
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: noodles_leone on April 20, 2014, 02:24:33 AM
Boobs in the restaurant scene.

(This is both the answer to your question and an in-depth justification of my 8/10 rating)
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 20, 2014, 11:38:47 AM
One of the most boring films ever. Badly directed and badly written. Idiotic in every respect. 1/10

(but don't ask me for what merit the one star is)
I'm with stanton on this one.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: stanton on April 20, 2014, 12:04:45 PM
Boobs in the restaurant scene.

(This is both the answer to your question and an in-depth justification of my 8/10 rating)

Don't remember the booby part. Surprising for a 68 mainstream film.

I re-watched it in parts last year, when it was on TV very often near midnight. I really fell asleep after about 10 min every time. But I stumbled in and out at various parts, and thought I had maybe seen it complete, too bad I missed the main thing (there can't be a god), which maybe would have raised it to a staggering 1,5/10 (or 2 if she had nice breasts).
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: noodles_leone on April 20, 2014, 02:52:00 PM
I still cannot believe I'm the only one here to like this film. It's a 1968 film that created a whole genre of video games 30 years later (infiltration games started with Comando, which gameplay is 100% derived from WED).
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 20, 2014, 04:11:49 PM
I still cannot believe I'm the only one here to like this film. It's a 1968 film that created a whole genre of video games 30 years later (infiltration games started with Comando, which gameplay is 100% derived from WED).

well, n_l, I have good news and bad news for you:
Good News - someone else here agrees with your 8/10 rating.
Bad news - that someone else is me.

I think it works well as both an action and espionage film. (I didn't like how these two people keep firing machine guns at waves and waves of Nazis and somehow never even get a scratch themselves, I thought that a little more realistic depiction of those shootings would have been better. Also, you never really got a good idea of where one place was in relation to the others.) But overall, this is a very good movie. You're welcome, and I'm sorry.  ;)

oh, and btw, I'm glad you finally found a film you prefer to FAFDM. Fag.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 20, 2014, 04:22:13 PM
oh, and btw, I'm glad you finally found a film you prefer to FAFDM. Fag.
;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: cigar joe on April 21, 2014, 04:18:57 AM
I like it better than any action flicks from the 2000's on. The farther we get away from the 40's the less believable WWII gets.  
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: noodles_leone on April 21, 2014, 04:28:33 PM
oh, and btw, I'm glad you finally found a film you prefer to FAFDM. Fag.

;D

I like it better than any action flicks from the 2000's on. The farther we get away from the 40's the less believable WWII gets. 

This movie gets a lot of little details right, like the way German army behaves in action (the hammers vs door shots, the way they send a motorcycle then blow up the tree on the road while the trucks go back...). This is the kind of stuff Leone did well.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: Novecento on April 21, 2014, 05:35:19 PM
I still cannot believe I'm the only one here to like this film.

Along with Cross of Iron and The Great Escape, this is one of my top 3 WWII films (I should specify combat only and not a wartime setting like say Casablanca, La Grande Illusion or the like). However, I am a little biased with this one and The Great Escape because I watched them when I was young and they have just stuck with me ever since in a nostalgic kind of way. Cross of Iron on the other hand I watched as an adult and was simply blown away. I had always heard that Peckinpah had gone into decline after Pat Garrett or possibly Garcia, but Cross of Iron totally turned that theory on its head. In my book it was with Cross of Iron that Peckinpah really reached his zenith.

Anyway, there are no doubt loads of Cinema Retro fans who love Where Eagles Dare also (so much so they even published a revised edition):

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/6775-WHERE-EAGLES-DARE-THE-UPDATED-AND-REVISED-CINEMA-RETRO-MOVIE-CLASSICS-ISSUE-NOW-SHIPPING-WORLDWIDE!.html (http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/6775-WHERE-EAGLES-DARE-THE-UPDATED-AND-REVISED-CINEMA-RETRO-MOVIE-CLASSICS-ISSUE-NOW-SHIPPING-WORLDWIDE!.html)
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: noodles_leone on April 23, 2014, 01:03:42 AM
Cool! Thanks.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: mike siegel on April 23, 2014, 02:13:30 AM
That film will always remain as one of my unsolved mysteries. I enjoyed it when I first saw it with my (then) best friend
in 1981. But to him it became his favorite film. Although we were just 13 years old, I couldn't understand that at all. A fine
actioner with great winter settings. There's Eastwood looking great, MG firing from around the corner (back then my favorite scene).
But then again he is so wasted and Burton is so displaced. And he has no neck for uniforms. There's not a single
character in the film that is likable really (Clint should have played the REAL lead). The Germans die like flies in a campfire,
there's a strange modern helicopter and the story is thin at the most.
But the action was terrific, the models were fantastic. Authentic locations & uniforms, snow for a change and great
camera work.
I watched it on 70mm again 3 years ago and I still think it is a bit boring (a deadly sin to me). KELLYS HEROES is so much better.
I guess Hutton learned a lot from his boring characters in EAGLES, in KELLY not a SINGLE character is boring, what
a great entertaining cast. I mean Don Rickles, Sutherland, Savalas, Harry Dean, Stuart Margolin... I wish KELLY was
as long as EAGLES runs..
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 23, 2014, 02:37:32 AM
That film will always remain as one of my unsolved mysteries. I enjoyed it when I first saw it with my (then) best friend
in 1981. But to him it became his favorite film. Although we were just 13 years old, I couldn't understand that at all. A fine
actioner with great winter settings. There's Eastwood looking great, MG firing from around the corner (back then my favorite scene).
But then again he is so wasted and Burton is so displaced. And he has no neck for uniforms. There's not a single
character in the film that is likable really (Clint should have played the REAL lead). The Germans die like flies in a campfire,
there's a strange modern helicopter and the story is thin at the most.
But the action was terrific, the models were fantastic. Authentic locations & uniforms, snow for a change and great
camera work.
I watched it on 70mm again 3 years ago and I still think it is a bit boring (a deadly sin to me). KELLYS HEROES is so much better.
I guess Hutton learned a lot from his boring characters in EAGLES, in KELLY not a SINGLE character is boring, what
a great entertaining cast. I mean Don Rickles, Sutherland, Savalas, Harry Dean, Stuart Margolin... I wish KELLY was
as long as EAGLES runs..


they're very different films (both good), EAGLES is a serious espionage/action movie, KELLY is a comedy heist/action, I wouldn't compare the comedy and the drama. With a drama, if you don't buy into something - like if you think it's way too unrealistic or whatever - then that ruins the movie, cuz there's always a point beyond which you can't suspend your disbelief any longer. In a comedy, it's all a joke anyway, so even if something is way over the top, who cares.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: mike siegel on April 23, 2014, 03:53:17 AM
Depends on your point of view.
To me KELLY has also an anti-war feeling to it which makes it valuable beyond sheer entertainment (just like M*A*S*H, which isn't 'just' a comedy).
While EAGLES to me is a serious as any Marvel comic blockbuster these days - I recite Peckinpah: ''Action without character is just crap'.
DIRTY DOZEN is a case in point. Same behind-enemy-lines stuff, but some interesting characters. And it doesn't take itself too seriousely,
which is what bothered me about EAGLES. Dead serious :) Or is it?
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 23, 2014, 05:38:50 AM
I watched it on 70mm again 3 years ago and I still think it is a bit boring (a deadly sin to me). KELLYS HEROES is so much better.
I guess Hutton learned a lot from his boring characters in EAGLES, in KELLY not a SINGLE character is boring, what
a great entertaining cast. I mean Don Rickles, Sutherland, Savalas, Harry Dean, Stuart Margolin... I wish KELLY was
as long as EAGLES runs..
Absolutely spot on. O0

And I don't buy Drink's different categories approach. Kelly's Heroes is not a comedy. When the 3 men die in the mine field, there's nothing to laugh about. Yeah, there's a lot of humor in the film, but then there's a lot of humor in life (which is also not a comedy). When people die in KH there is pathos, because the characters mean something to us. When people die in WED there is nothing, because the characters are total cardboard.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: noodles_leone on April 23, 2014, 05:54:37 AM
I understand the criticism but I actually kind of like the simple characterization in WED: they're good at what they do. That's who they are. These guys are professionals playing chess. It's cold and cool. The only two characters with more humanity than that are the Gestapo officer (it makes him greatly stand out as The Main Villain) and the German in Italy (who provides a nice contrepoint to the seriousness of the big dialogue scene).

I like KH a lot but that movie is a mess. I'm not a fan of the humor in MASH but that's just personal taste.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: stanton on April 23, 2014, 11:18:01 AM
Noodles, I still can't believe that you like this film (already a bold term for this turkey ;) ), and that you, even worse, rate it higher than FAFDM.
Actually there are so many more, whose taste I respect, and who are fond of this fi ... mess.













God it's so bad in every respect
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: mike siegel on April 23, 2014, 11:21:48 AM
NOODLES,
If we all had the same taste, THAT would be a mess :). SOMEWHERE or GRAND HOTEL BUDAPEST showing up on
a year's TOP 10 box office list :).
Sure they are pro's and they are excellent in what they are doing. But I just don't care for any of them and
to see 'just' the spectacle was a preview of today's 'blockbuster' mentality.

I watch KELLY each year I guess. Followed in a matter of days by M*A*S*H and CATCH 22. Because as soon
as I watch one of those films I want to see the other two as well again :)
Almost every scene and most of the dialogue of those films give me pleasure and a feeling of hope regarding
human intelligence -  EAGLES just gives me 2 hrs + of endless shoot-outs. I guess for 30 years
now my favorite dialogue in the film is Eastwood's 'in the last half hour you got me so mixed up that I almost forgot who I was..'(translated from my memory of the German dubbing)

But OF COURSE I collect on the film, it IS highly collectable.
The German lc set contains 43 cards! Most of them mediocre, but what a number..

(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/clint/ag-d1.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/clint/ag-d1.jpg.html)
(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/clint/ag-d2.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/clint/ag-d2.jpg.html)(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/clint/ag-d3.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/clint/ag-d3.jpg.html)(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/clint/ag-d4.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/clint/ag-d4.jpg.html)(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/clint/ag1.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/clint/ag1.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: noodles_leone on April 24, 2014, 06:10:36 AM
43 cards?? And many of them are just variations on the same theme.
Do they show the whole film, scene by scene?
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: mike siegel on April 25, 2014, 10:08:37 AM
43 cards?? Do they show the whole film, scene by scene?

Don't they appear on your screen?
I posted them all..
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: noodles_leone on April 25, 2014, 10:38:39 AM
Ok I wondered if you had some others, i didn't count. They sure show a lot.
Title: Re: Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 27, 2022, 04:21:36 PM
Have fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeqR4clzso8&t=325s