Quand les aigles attaquent

Critics generally compare "Where Eagles Dare" unfavorably to "The Guns of Navarone." As usual, the critics are wrong.

"Navarone" has many virtues, but too much talk and high-mindedness slow down the story. Anthonys Quayle and Quinn are wonderful, but Gregory Peck comes off as more of an Oxford don than a world-renowned mountaineer and David Niven, playing surely the oldest corporal in the British forces,.proves an insufferable bore. "Eagles", on the other hand, dispenses with the moralizing claptrap and serves up non-stop action. Although it's running time is approximately the same as "Navarone's", it never seems as long and you never feel the characters are trying to make a point, except with their machine pistols.

Of course "Eagles" greatest strong points are Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood. By 1968 Burton had eschewed the serious parts for the big money and the critics crucified him for selling out. Well, in this case I'm glad he did since he's superb as team leader Major Smith. Burton projects an aura of invincible self-confidence. He's rather reserved much of the time, but you never doubt his engagement. This is a man who simply won't be defeated. Peck's stuffy, diffident performance in "Navarone" pales by comparison. And Eastwood, though hardly Burton's equal as an actor, is Dirty Harry in boot camp - his Schaffer will kill you sooner than look at you, and it doesn't hurt that he looks great too.

"Eagles" also has a better villain than anyone in "Navarone", superior scenery, and a far superior score. Ron Goodwin's theme has been etched in my mind for over 30 years, but I can't remember a note from "Navarone's."

Perhaps the greatest World War Two adventure film of all time. Less realistic than a James Bond movie, but outstanding escapist entertainment.

I couldn't help notice one of the postings about this movie, calling it a snoozer. I hardly agree with that assessment. In fact, I would categorize the film as one of the best action films ever made, whether WWII or other. If the action isn't enough to hold one's attention, the movie has a number of twists and turns to hold your attention until the perhaps not-so-obvious ending.

Some postings have also been critical of the length of the movie, somewhat more than 2+ hours. Again, everything about the film keeps it moving very well.

Most of the postings rate this film on a 1-10 basis. I give it a 10 for sure.

Clearly one of the best of its genre, Where Eagles Dare, comes across as a powerful espionage drama with a high dose of adrenealin. Although the screenplay is quite convoluted, it is extremely engrossing and keeps the viewer on the toes. In fact the intertwined storyline adds to the vigor and vitality of the film. Its like a guessing game which the director plays with the audience.

Richard Burton charts out of his usual epic and sensitive roles and dons on the mantle of a tough Major. He is ably supported by Clint Eastwood who is impeccable in his little speaking role of of Lt. Schhaffer.

The cinematography and background score catapults the film to new heights. The title music is haunting and remains with you hours after you finishing watching the film.

I feel that maybe a little more deft editing would have enabled the film to be labled as a classic.

My highest praise is reserved for films that, with little ornamentation or pretense, accomplish their task. "Where Eagles Dare" does so with few one liners and special effects that are a part but not an overwhelming part of the script. In other words, there is little or no room for gratuitousness in this picture.

It is interesting to see Richard Burton in a role that demands little or no dialogue, especially considering this is a man who has rendered dialogue most exquisitely beautiful by the particular lilt of his voice. In this role he is frank and only speaks when necessary, therefore, seeing as how most of this film is action, he says very little. Some purists would fault Burton for taking a role that seems devoid of the usual acting challenges he appeared to enjoy attacking early in his career, but I disagree. This film is a departure from the normal Burton "oeuvre" and yet he does pull of the role of Major Smith convincingly. One does not expect this man to be either audacious nor flamboyant and Burton, whose very presence suggests a call for histrionics, executes this role quietly.

Now it is well known that Burton was not seeking a challenge by taking on this project, his primary concern was revamping his potency in the box-office by staring in a blockbuster. And he got it. But we cannot fault him for that because he possessed the facility as an actor to pull it off. Burton could be both a dramatic performer and a daring sex symbol. Besides, standing alongside a veritable "tough-guy" like Eastwood, Burton needed to be able to hold his end up because the movie going audience had already identified Eastwood as the quintessential tough guy. Had Burton not been up to the task, this film would not have been a success.

The script is entertaining and has a few notable twists in it, a testament to the skill of screenwriter and adventure novelist Alistair MacClain. Character development is not of particular importance in this story and yet one does come away with a palpable sense of Major Smith, a fact that I again acknowledge is the handywork of Burton, whose presence is auspicious regardless of his role. Overall, this film appears to be able to balance the rhythmic quietude of action while interjecting enough personal flair to make the film memorable and not another futile exercise in on-screen action and viewer instant gratification/escapism. This movie is one of the best in its genre and is worth a good viewing.

This is one of the first real action movies as we know it today, ever made. The movie has lots of explosions and gun- and fist fights. The story is told in a fast pace with lots of cuts, even though the movie itself isn't short at all (158 minutes.).

Even though it is still a war movie, this movie isn't as heavy and or serious as many other WW II movies made in the same period. It is kind of in the same style as "The Guns of Navarone" (Also written by Alistair MacLean.). It's more is adventurous and fun to watch than heavy or realistic. Director Brian G. Hutton later also made the other 'fun'/adventurous/WW II movie "Kelly's Heroes".

Another element that distinct this movie from other movies from the same genre is the story. The story by famous writer Alistair MacLean is just brilliant! It begins as an average WW II rescue-mission movie but as the movie progresses the story takes several twists, until at a certain point you don't even know who to thrust anymore. The ending is really action-movie-like spectacular and features a tense fight an a moving cable-car followed by the perhaps even better car chase, which really reminded of the chase were Indy and his father are escaping the Nazi's on the motorcycle, in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" Even the music sounded kind of similar! I wouldn't be surprised if Spielberg and Williams were inspired by this movie. The same goes for many other movie directors and other persons in the movie business by the way. I see similarities between this movie with 'modern' work quite often, both in story and characters as well as the action, editing and many other elements from this movie. This really is an inspirational movie, that as an action movie, just like as for instance "North by Northwest", was far ahead of its time.

It was a bit strange to see Clint Eastwood in the sidekick role. The main character of the movie is played by the legendary Richard Burton. Both actors really push this movie to an higher level with their profession and expertise and both are very believable in their roles.

An entertaining, action packed adventurous war movie with a splendid story and two wonderful performances from the two main actors.

10/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/