The Gypsy Warriors

I have to say that I did not watch the whole movie - I just couldn't! What with US army personnel parading around London in uniform before the US had entered the war; the stock footage of the 1970s era London Ambulance rushing the agent to the hospital; the "military" DC3 in civilian paint scheme; the Rolls driving around with headlights full on in the blackout; the "French Port" with lights blazing, also in the blackout; the "Social Club" in London that had both male and female members; the two "heroes" jumping out of the aircraft without a jump-master; and... Well, I could go on and on but I think you get the point. I just could not take this seriously and, in all fairness to the writers, I don't think it was meant to be taken seriously. But, you would have thought that they would have tried to make this wartime "buddy" movie a little more authentic. My advice is to not waste your time on this movie. Your time would be better spent sorting your sock drawer.

When in 1940 was America in the war? I could have sworn we didn't enter it until after Dec. 7, 1941.

We didn't even have a reliable intelligence organization until well after that. They built the Twin Towers just for that movie in 1940 and tore them down again? The gypsies were some of the first in all countries the Nazis went after to put in concentration camps, they hightailed it out of France as they as they could. It was almost as horrible as watching "Santa Fe Trail" with screwing up history. Except they didn't have Custer saving the day at Harper's Ferry instead of Robert E. Lee, as actually happened and having all the officers of the Civil War at West Point in the same 4 year period. Tommy should have decked out of this one and Jimmy never lived up to his dad's talent.

This film lost all appeal for me when I started laughing about five minutes into it. Was that really the New York city skyline being used as a French seaport in 1940? The World Trade Centers were even there! We rewound and yes, that was supposed to be a French seaport in 1940. The film was made in 1978, the Towers completed in 1976. Really, really, really big mistake. I guess the audience wasn't supposed to be intelligent enough to know the difference.

And that announcers' voice! What was up with that? I know he was providing background information but it was just plain annoying. We bought this for $5 thinking it was a good Tom Selleck movie. My comment to my husband was actually "it's a Tom Selleck movie, it can't be all that bad". It was that bad and even worse. Although after seeing the New York city skyline as France, we turned it off after we stopped laughing.

World War II has plenty of stories that can be told, some real and some mere fantasy. This tale, false but possible, takes place in France, 1940. The Germans are occupying the country and begin to take control of Paris, a time-consuming process. Beneath a winery lies a secret lab with chemicals that could contain a "Satan bug", a compound that would kill half the world in six months. Can the Americans smuggle out the compounds before the Germans use them? Only with the help of the local gypsy population.

This is not a thinking man's movie. The gypsies serve no clear purpose in the film beyond perpetuating a stereotype that they're all thieves and swindlers (with one woman ironically saying that the Europeans are always trying to cheat her people). The compound for the "Satan bug" is written on a clearly-visible note and seems to be a recipe for a harmless combination of carbon and other basic elements. And it's apparently easy to get a Nazi uniform, fake a German accent and be accepted as a superior officer in a secret base. (That's right, the Germans don't speak German -- they speak English with bad accents.) Another reviewer said this is a movie for Tom Selleck fans and no one else. I think that's a fair assessment. I love Tom Selleck, and as such I really enjoyed him as a womanizing spy disguised as a Nazi. He was a poor man's James Bond and pulled it off well. This film deserved a sequel or even a dozen sequels. Would I have liked it without Selleck? Perhaps, but I suspect not nearly as much. It's a made-for-TV movie that is as disposable as any other. Selleck's presence was the defining factor.

I recommend this to all Selleck fans. I think it's one of his better performances, even if the movie as a whole isn't that amazing. Everyone else, you may want to pass on this one. It's good to see if you happen to catch it on television during a rainy afternoon, but probably not worth a purchase and only possibly worth a rental. I own a copy, and I am proud of it, but I don't think this is the route that will work for everyone.

Two Americans do unbelievable heroics just as France is being occupied by the Germans in the Second World War - and before the United States had entered the conflict. This is the sort of film that irritates some of us sensitive Brits, though your reviewer didn't mind Tyrone Power being in the RAF and Humphrey Bogart being at El Alamein. The duo depart on a highly dangerous mission (apparently involving a "Satan bug")with the minimal of briefing, exchange wisecracks as they descend into France by parachute, and link up with several gypsies, including a redundant girl.(Oh yes,the two are seen off by a senior officer who is driven up to their plane in a car with headlights blazing; presumably the Yanks didn't think the blackout applied to them.) The two manage to penetrate a high-security laboratory - and I do admit that they have a novel way of getting their explosives in. Everything then seems to go off with clockwork precision.

The only redeeming features are some pleasant countryside and some good props - a couple of old vehicles and an impressive drainage system.