jwsanfrancisco
yes, I thought selleck was brilliant,but did not pass judgment on whether a man commanding well over 85 battalions(only 25 were actually American);those administrative skills would serve a person quite well in civilian life(Ike went on to a successful political career, as the _?_th president); so should Patton(trump look-alike?)also should have run,if he had lived?also a very good portrayal of a loquacious, bombastic field Marshall Montgomery who, as he put it, bested the normally taciturn Rommel(literally, desert fox booked for parts unknown when, Bernard, with champagne glass in left hand,& riding crop in right),quite literally delivered Rommel's head on a silver platter at kasserine Pass?
dimplet
During the commentary they said that the idea for the film came from Stephen Ambrose. Whoa! Ambrose wrote "The Supreme Commander, The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower," which, sadly, we have to assume was used as a primary source for this film, because the film provides no credits for any historical sources.The problem is Ambrose has very little credibility as a historian, after being proved to have fabricated and plagiarized a great deal of the material in his books. He claimed to have spent "a lot of time with Ike, really a lot, hundreds and hundreds of hours" interviewing Eisenhower on a wide range of subjects, and that he had been with him "on a daily basis for a couple years" before his death "doing interviews and talking about his life." But then when the truth started coming out about Ambrose' lies, someone did some checking: "The former president's diary and telephone show that the pair met only three times, for a total of less than five hours." This is from Wikipedia. Just look at the entry on Ambrose for a long list of fabrications, exaggerations, factual errors and plagiarism. Anything touched by Ambrose is suspect, and this includes Ike, Countdown to D-Day. We have already seen a list of anachronisms and criticisms from posters, especially about the bias and factual errors concerning the French and DeGaulle. Unless you have a background in the history of these people and events, it is impossible to judge whether the portrayals are accurate, particularly the private side of Patton and Montgomery. The film does not present the positive accomplishments of these generals, and we know you do not get to be a general by behaving like a 10 year old, which is how they are portrayed. The business of Eisenhower's threatening to send Patton home over the slapping incident is sheer nonsense. Eisenhower actually defended Patton against criticism from Washington, and never considered relieving him. The "Knutsford Incident" also seems to have been fundamentally distorted. The portrayal of Patton by Lionel Chetwynd simply is not true. While I gather there may be some basis for the prima donna portrayal of Montgomery, my gut feeling is it is exaggerated for dramatic purposes and that he was not such a pompous fool. jhiggins993 from Woodbridge VA, says the whole business of Montgomery arguing with Ike over tactics is nonsense: "In fact, Field Marshal Montgomery as overall ground commander for the invasion, was the principle architect of the assault plan that was used on D-Day" Another reviewer says Chetwynd has a long record of rewriting history in his screenplays. So if the business of Montgomery arguing with Ike is false, what's left, talking about the weather? The key scenes of Ike with Winston are made up, too. Eisenhower didn't have to persuade Churchill to support him to be Supreme Commander to unify the arguing factions because they weren't arguing, and the choice was up to FDR. The film portrays Eisenhower as a clear-thinking leader. Perhaps, but that's not what we saw in his eight years as President of the United States. This is the guy who kept Richard Nixon as his vice president for eight years, even though he despised him, and didn't have the guts to stand up to the anti-communists, or defend his friend Gen. George Marshall against attacks by Joe McCarthy.This film also makes the outcome of D-Day less certain than it was, failing to tell hardly anything about the extensive deception to convince Hitler that the invasion would be at Calais. Ian Fleming even contributed to the ruse of a fake courier's body washed up in Spain. Hitler slept till noon on D-Day because no one was allowed to waken him, and even then Hitler believed the real invasion would come at Calais. Tom Selleck delivers a commanding performance. Not having been alive during WWII, it is impossible for me to judge its accuracy. I was alive during the Eisenhower administration, though quite young, and we have plenty of TV clips from the era. Selleck's version does not match this later public image.The portrayal of Churchill is good. But if you listen to Churchill's actual speeches, he was less forceful and edgy than is portrayed here. Many of Churchill's famous radio speeches were done by an actor impersonator, so we have an actor (Ian Mune) who may have been imitating an actor imitating Churchill.The film makes a point early on about how Britain stood alone against Hitler until America entered the war, and, indeed, the bravery of the British people under Churchill's leadership will stand till the end of time as one of the noblest acts of humanity. However, I'm a bit surprised our modern British friends have not attacked this American production, as they do with most Hollywood renditions of WWII. Perhaps it is because the writer, Lionel Chetwynd, was born in Britain, and lives in Canada?The script of Ike is excellent and believable, internally. The acting is very good, and the story is low-keyed yet riveting. But, like most Hollywood attempts at history, we should not put too much faith in the details. This is a dramatization, and some details and characters were fabricated, along with virtually all of the dialogue. If it was based on works by Stephen Ambrose, then the fabricated dialogue is based on fabricated "history." The basic story is true, of course, and Eisenhower deserves credit for what he accomplished. But if you want to learn about history and get your facts straight, you are going to have to do some reading and watch some reputable documentaries, of which there are many on WWII. Ike provides a sense of the time and place, but given the known errors, I do not trust the portrayals or facts. Ike should be viewed for entertainment purposes, only.
Timothy
Many excellent historical connections and references. The final speech, though was apparently put in Ike's pocket, not handed to his aid. BTW, of all the nations involved The Canadians at Juno Beach were the only Force on D-Day to reach their objective despite about 50 percent casualties in the first wave of the attack. It is important to remember that while there were large numbers of Americans and British troops, that soldiers from many other nations participated as well. Many a non-British veteran will tell you how troops from other nations were used in vastly more dangerous areas than the British. This movie does show the huge amount of time spent waiting for action and the huge challenge in keeping the enemy uniformed. More about diversionary counter-intelligence would have been interesting. Nevertheless, the numbers of dead are staggering to read.
kaaber-2
thank God. The closest we come to a battle scene in "Ike" are the quotes from Laurence Olivier's "Henry V". I do believe that's a small mistake, though: I don't think that film hit the theaters until 1945, somewhat too late for D-day. However, it's justified, artistically: we think of Henry's bombast (one of the greatest speeches at that) when Ike pays his own, humble tribute to the airborne troopers just before D-day. And there is a more subtle reference to Henry V when Ike has to sacrifice an old friend (and nearly sacrifices Patton, too, another old friend.) His thoughts on that also bring Shakespeare to mind.I loved the film. It stayed true to its purpose, the portrayal of a general making a very tough decision. Selleck was great, and so were they all. Montgomery had a human face to him, and so did DeGaulle (although 90% of it was nose) and he was just as irritating as he is supposed to have been, power-greedy and quite oblivious to the fact that most of his France had in fact sold out to Nazi Germany. The script is great - philosophical and well-written to a fault. Now, why did I think I would be bored? I wasn't, for even one second.
