The most mediocre of large-scale war movies

Rating: 2/10 (5 November 2006)

Some people think very highly of this film and rate it among their all-time favourites. As Jean Brodie said, 'for those that like that sort of thing, that's the sort of thing they like'. There's certainly a lot of plot but director Brian Hutton doesn't give the film any lift and it's just all that plot that keeps it going. (It's a long movie; two and a half hours).
The main problem is that it's just a rehash of "The Guns of Navarone", (Alistair MacLean obviously knows a good thing when he sees one), but this time it's set in the Alps and with fewer name players. Burton is obviously treading water and Eastwood is wondering how he got himself involved in the first place. Co-ordinating things back at base are Michael Horden and Patrick Wymark and they are more fun than anything else in the picture. Unfortunately, the director doesn't give them anything resembling a look-in.
Despite consistent revivals and the film's considerable popularity it remains the most mediocre of large-scale war movies, indifferently acted and feebly plotted. By comparison, "The Guns of Navarone" feels like "Citizen Kane".