Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

quarterwavevertical I first saw this movie when it was shown in my high school about 2 or 3 years after it was released. I wasn't impressed with it back then. I watched it again this weekend and my opinion of it is even lower now.First of all, the movie is full of technical inaccuracies. The Germans had helicopters that wouldn't appear until the late 1950s/early '60s? Really? (Wouldn't landing a chopper in such a small courtyard be considered dangerous, even for military pilots? Being a metre or so off in any direction would mean that the rotors would clip the stonework, resulting in a mishap.)The use of the radios was also laughable. The size of the rig that the group took with them was what we hams would call a boat anchor because it's large, bulky, and heavy. (Transistors wouldn't be invented until the late 1940s.) Because it's supposed to be a covert mission, wouldn't something smaller and lighter have been more appropriate? From my understanding of what was used for such purposes during WW II, the radio should have only been capable of sending Morse code. There wouldn't have been the need for any of the circuitry required for voice transmissions.Then, because it was supposed to be a covert mission, why was Richard Burton's character transmitting in the clear? Shouldn't he have used code words to disguise the content and purpose of the transmission? That in itself would be another reason to used a Morse code rig as it would have been easy to encrypt the message by using a cipher. Besides, using encryption would add to the mystery of the mission for the viewers. On top of that, Morse code transmissions would have had a better chance of being received in England.I guess Alistair MacLean, as well as the movie's producers, probably thought that the audience would be too dumb to figure that out.The plot itself is full of holes. For example, since when does a covert operations team deploy only hours after, apparently, being assembled for the first time? Nobody seemed to know who anybody else was, which would hardly be conducive to the group's effectiveness.Of course, all those crack German troops that were stationed near the castle couldn't hit the broad side of a barn whenever they were shooting. All of their motor vehicles exploded and burned instantly at even the sound of gunfire and the drivers seem to find every bump, pothole, and obstacle even in broad daylight.I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.I read a number of MacLean's novels while I was in junior high and I thought he was a pretty good author. But it was around the time that this movie was made that the quality of his writing, in my opinion, started declining. He started by telling some good stories but eventually they became predictable potboilers. Change some names and settings, and one could easily figure out how it was going to end. I gave up after I read "Bear Island", which I thought was rubbish.Avoid "Where Eagles Dare", but, if you want to see a good movie in which Richard Burton plays a spy, watch "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold", which was made a few years earlier. It's a good story and has lots of plot twists to keep you guessing.

gab-14712 Where Eagles Dare has been given the status of one of the best war movies ever produced. I think that statement is going a little too far, but I found the movie to be an effective war film and one of the better ones from an era in which seemingly hundreds of movies focused on World War II were released. Despite the acclaim it has received, it has received notice for historical inaccuracy. Personally I don't mind because the value of a movie is entertainment, not truth. On top of that, this story which was written by Alistair Maclean as a pet project for Richard Burton so it's a work of fiction, so history accuracy should not matter here. The movie is rather lengthy as it clocks in a tad over two-and-a-half hours, but I felt the time flew by quickly. There are plenty of action sequences and most of them are convincing and entertaining. Who wouldn't want to see Allied personnel lay waste to a bunch of Nazi scum? Despite this being a piece of fiction, I was washed over by a feeling of pleasure watching these Allied troops infiltrate a Nazi stronghold.During the war, a British aircraft was shot down over Nazi territory leaving only one survivor, an American general. The Allies are fearful because he knows all about the D-Day invasion, which holds the key to their success in achieving victory. They decide its best that he not divulge any information to the Nazis, so they plan a rescue mission. The team is led by Major John Smith (Richard Burton)-I know, such an original name right?, and his second-in-command, Lieutenant Schaffer (Clint Eastwood) who happens to be the only American in the rescue group. After the parachute drop goes wrong, it becomes clear to Schaffer that the mission is more important and more secretive than originally thought.The performances seem to be low-key despite the starpower in the main roles. You know, the one and only Richard Burton and the main famous for his manly scowl, Clint Eastwood. They all did well in their roles, even if their roles are not the best they have ever done. Burton does well in anything he does so it's no surprise he does so here. I like Clint Eastwood, and he puts his action chops to good use here. I read that he thought the screenplay was horrible and he wished to be given less speaking lines. So director Brian G. Hutton gave more of his lines to Burton and allowed Eastwood to focus more on the action. In the end, I think that worked out well.Where Eagles Dare is a very fun, entertaining movie. The movie has lots of muscle to it, but it surprisingly has a good amount of brains to it. That scene in the headquarters meeting room with Burton revealing some traitors, that was an incredible scene. Burton's character was messing around with the heads of everyone in the room, friend or foe. The action is consistent and they do a solid job. From the beginning with that parachute drop to the infiltration of the Nazi headquarters, to the grand escape with a bunch of Nazis on their heels-it was all good fun watching Smith and crew act smarter than the Nazi's. The movie itself is nothing special, but it's fun, entertaining, and a war thriller that doesn't take itself seriously. Not everything about the film plays off as rational, but does it really have to be? My Grade: A-

Ross622 "Where Eagles Dare" isn't only one of the best WWII movies of all time it is also one of the most entertaining, and in addition it also the best adaptation I've seen of Alistair MacLean's work since "The Guns of Navarone" (1961). At the time this movie was in production Richard Burton's career was in a downward spiral due to the box office failure of many films including "Doctor Faustus" (1967) and "The Comedians" (1967) (of which these two films he did with then wife Elizabeth Taylor). So Burton badly needed a hit and even though he didn't like war movies he did this because he wanted to revitalize his film career by doing an action movie in close coordination with MacLean and producer Eliot Kastner. Thus the movie was made and Burton got his box office hit. Burton plays the title role of British army Major John Smith who is in charge of a mission to go to the Nazi "Castle of the Eagle" dressed up as Nazis in order to rescue an American General (Robert Beatty) who is held prisoner, while dressing up as Nazis. The person on the team that Smith trusts the most is an American army Lieutenant named Morris Schaffer (Clint Eastwood) who is totally confused as to why he is involved with the mission, the rest of the team consists of Brits and is allied with two women Mary Ellison (Mary Ure) and a woman named Heidi (Ingrid Pitt) who pose as Germans in order to infiltrate the castle. The movie was directed by Brian G. Hutton who would direct Eastwood again in "Kelly's Heroes" (1970) two years after this movie was released. Burton and Eastwood give one of their best performances of their respective careers, and MacLean's screenplay really kept me in suspense as well as shock with the amount of major plot twists which are too important for me to spoil in this review. The movie does have echoes of other World War II classics such as "The Guns of Navarone" (1961), "The Great Escape" (1963), and "The Heroes of Telemark" (1965), and like those films this one was truly Oscar level thanks to Hutton's expert direction made this movie the masterpiece that it truly is. This is one of 1968's finest films.

MartinHafer Years ago, I saw "Where Eagles Dare" and loved it. Now, quite a few years later, I watched it again and was less impressed. Now I am NOT saying it's a bad film but it suffers from two huge problems. First, the plot itself is very convoluted and difficult, at times, to follow. According to IMDb, co-star Clint Eastwood was NOT happy about the script...and I can see why this was most likely the case. Second, the ease at which the two heroes kill off Germans is almost cartoonish. The Germans miss again and again and again and the heroes (Richard Burton and Eastwood) are practically impossible to kill. Bomb blasts narrowly miss them and the worst they incur is a slightly wounded hand that NEVER impairs Burton's character in the least! And, they both manage to kill about 100 well trained German soldiers! It reminded me a bit of "Hot Shots Part Deux"...and that is NOT meant as a complement.Now if you can ignore all this, the film is a good escapist war film. Not as good as the same author's "Guns of Navarone"--where some of the heroes DID manage to die and the same insane ratio of killed isn't quite as bad! Enjoyable and worth seeing...but flawed when you see it twice and realize its shortcomings.