what's the beef that some people have with this movie? - Force 10 from Navarone (1978) Discussion

[–] LuboLarsson 16 years ago

It is a good movie, I own it and whenever I'm in the mood for a good World War II movie I stick it on BUT I think the problem is when people compare it to the classic Guns of Navarone. It is inevitable that it will be compared to its predecessor and its not a patch on the original. Still its cool to see a young Harrison Ford just after Star Wars and before appearing in The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Also great to see Carl "Appollo Creed" Weathers between Rocky and Rocky II. So many cool things about this film.

reply

[–] Bill-16 8 years ago

Can't agree more with LuboLarsson, they may have done better removing any mention of Navarone because of the comparison.
Guns of Navarone was a Monster Hit when I was kid, they would show it on TV and it was like The Ten Commandments back then.. you had 3 Channels and when certain movies were on, everyone watched.
Wizard of Oz was always largest audience draw back in them old days.

....................
I have nothing to say... I've been such an arse already.

reply

[–] rockmail 16 years ago

The problem with this movie is that it's the "McDonalds" equivalent of a war movie. The producer simply throws together some stars with a poorly written follow up script to a well-known movie, then spends as little on equipment, art direction, and special effects as possible.

It's an obvious attempt to simply make money for a studio, and as a creative effort it fails miserably.

Other than that, it's fine. ; )

(Seriously, it's pretty bad. If no other war movies had ever been made, it would be okay, but since life is short, and there are so many other better choices, it's a waste to even consider watching this flick.)

reply

[–] pbl1 16 years ago

its boring, shallow cr@p (with decent actors) -- as was the book.

What the $%*& is a Chinese Downhill?!?

reply

[–] Don_Lephtie 16 years ago

I thought it was a good movie I just wish they showed more of the Partisan's own contribution to the war. I like all the characters and stuff but I wish they didnt down play the yugoslav side of it so much and just glorify the western allies because the true story of the partisans is very remarkable they were the only country in WW11 to liberate themselves without the russians or the western allies, of course they both did help the yugoslav partisans but they only sent small missions to assist them and never large armies.For those of you that like this movie i recomend that you watch the movie "the battle of neretva" it is about the partisans and stars yul brenner but it deals mostly with the partisans and there struggle against the germans, italians, croat fascists and serb nationalists.(ps its pretty sad tho)

reply

[–] This_Is_Anfield 16 years ago

It's a fairly good movie. It's by no means a classic, but it's definitely worth a dvd rental. Always surprises me that war movies either need to be praised to the skies or panned as worthless dirt. This movie sits very neatly in the middle and I didn't have many complaints. Infact I enjoyed it much more than We Were Soldiers.

reply

[–] rockmail 15 years ago

Nope, they don't need to be "classic", and this movie is NOWHERE near the "middle" of entertaining war movies.

You have to wade through some relatively bad Steve McQueen and John Wayne war movies to even approach the "middle" of war movie quality. There are literally over 200 war movies better than this one. If you want to spend every minute of the rest of your life watching war movies, then go ahead and watch this.

reply

[–] alexfardreamer 13 years ago

I agree. This movie is painful to watch, especially when you take the time to watch it AND "The Guns of Navarone" to compare the two films with an analytical eye.

Even if you overlook the fact that Robert Shaw doesn't resemble Gregory Peck and that Edward Fox doesn't look or sound like David Niven, the script has a huge gaffe regarding Mallory's character...namely, that in "The Guns of Navarone" the Peck incarnation of Mallory was chosen for the mission because he spoke German so well that he could convincingly pass for a Wehrmacht officer, while the Shaw Mallory doesn't speak Deutsch....

reply

[–] leighburne 11 years ago

Never mind the character inconsistencies, how about their original plan to blow up the bridge to stop the Germans crossing the ravine... which then leaves a nice sturdy dam for them to cross over instead. Great plan guys, great plan.

reply

[–] chrissso 7 years ago

AWESOME POINT!!!!!

reply

[–] Wuchak (8177) 4 years ago

But the dam was many miles away (it took a long time for the water to reach the bridge after the dam was blown) and the Allies obviously thought that destroying the bridge was enough to hinder Axis activity in the area. The road that crossed the dam was likely very secondary compared to the bridge route.

reply

[–] jejozi 11 years ago

I'd looove to read that list of "over 200".

Was this great? Not even close. It was rather formulaic, but it was worth a watch. I don't go out of my way to watch it, but if I come across it while surfing, usually, amazingly, when they're being marched out to be shot, I'll watch it.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

[–] Sleutelaar 12 years ago

Apart from the fact that this movie is a really pathetic waste of anyone's time, the real beef I have with it is the simple fact that it reverses friends and foes: It shows us the Cetniks as enemies (because they are Serbs, perhaps?), while in reality the Cetniks fought against the German occupiers, and it presents to us the Ustasha's as allies (because they are Croatians, perhaps?), while in real life the Ustasha's were nazi collaborators who, just as the SS muslim 'Gebirgsdivisionen' Handschar and Skanderbeg, murdered jews, gypsies and civil population in general.

It is just mere unbelievable that noone seems to have noticed this perverse twist of reality.

reply

[–] Tito32 12 years ago

You`re right, Cetniks were good guys.

If you want someone with "perverse twist of reality" look no further, just find the nearest mirror...

reply

[–] Sleutelaar 12 years ago

Interesting case of argumentem ad hominem you demonstrate here: I suppose that your own mirror shows you the looks of complete ignorance and unawareness of any fact on a daily basis, isn't it? Well, for the likes of you they created online encyclopedia's, so why don't you try a glance, hm? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e

reply

[–] Phagocyte 11 years ago

As a matter of fact, the Chetniks were on the side of the Germans and Italians, and committed unspeakable atrocities against the native Croat (mostly Muslim) population. That is why the British decided to support the partisans instead.
The 'Ustasians', who were also German allies, were not mentioned in this film at all. Strangely, since this was nominally their 'turf'. Perhaps the filmmakers thought that that would complicate things unnecessarily.
What I find puzzling is that the film depicts the communist partisans as heroic resistance fighters, having been made during the cold war when the commies were clearly the enemies (from the American/Hollywood perspective at least)...

reply

[–] christomacin (4537) 6 years ago

This movie was made before the Civil War in Yugoslavia. Hollywood and McClean would have no reason in 1978 to prefer Serbs over Croats at that time. I think the fact that this was filmed in Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito has more to do with the way partisans and Cetniks are represented in the film.

reply

[–] Broadsman 11 years ago

Clearly ether you have not the ablity to read or have never picked up the book let alone read it!
The film was put together to please the yanks!

reply

[–] ovemunk 15 years ago

The major problem is that it only have the title in common with the book. The book is a fine follow-up to "The Guns og Navarone" where McLean takes the 3 main caracters Mallory, Miller and Andrea and throws them into a new adventure imidiatly after they have blown the guns. The book actualy starts on the Destroyer watching the guncave burning on Navarone. This movie takes the main idea but twist the storyline beyond recognition ,discards Andrea, makes a new role to Harison Ford (Fresh from Star Wars) and gets "Jaws" and Barbara Bach squeeced in somehow to benefit from their popularity in James Bond etc...

But off course if you don't know the story you MIGHT find the movie entertaining, i can't.

reply

[–] wez4 15 years ago

What a bizarre film! Just bought the extended version and I thoroughly enjoyed it. There are a few snipes though, Mallory and Miller are rather annoyingly chirpy all the way through, Barnsby seems completely clueless for a colonel and there's an awful scene where a German armoured car driver gets his head chopped off by a wire stretched across the road. The scene is so awful its embarrasing. The head is clearly a plastic one and I for one thought "that was rather harsh!" I mean, there are easier and less violent ways to stop an armoured car! The cast seem a bit mish-mashed as well. A war film with the crazed fisherman from Jaws, Han Solo, Ringo Starr's missus, Jaws the Bond villain and Apollo Creed!!! Then again, it was this oddball cast list that made me buy it in the first place!

reply

[–] FinnurE 15 years ago

I think the US version is the one that people generally hate. It's true that even the European unaltered version of the film is no classic, but it's a lot better than the US version which seems to be the version most critics saw at the time. I thought the technical aspect of the film (apart from the decapitation scene) was excellent.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5184666

reply

[–] Randy-144 15 years ago

One gripe I have is that everybody speaks English -- especially the German soldiers. In one scene, after Ford and Shaw have detonated the explosives in the bowels of the dam, they yell at the three Germans who have come down to inspect the source of the explosion and who also witness water leaking into the tunnel they are in, "Let's get out of here!" The Germans then follow Ford and Shaw out of the tunnel. I would think the Germans would shoot anyone who didn't speak German or wear a German uniform. This is the problem with all war movies that don't use subtitles or else have foreigners all speaking English.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dla_one 8 years ago

They were just workers who worked at the dam, they weren't armed. They didn't need to understand exactly what Ford and Shaw's characters were saying, they got the idea by their actions and looking at what was happening.

reply

[–] fluffybob 15 years ago

I dont think its so bad. I find it quite enjoyable light entertainment and it has its humorous moments. Ive seen plenty of war movies that I would call worse.

There are no oscar performances, I am sure the military buffs can point out all sorts of inaccuracies, and I will take peoples word that its not true to the novel, but hey, its not like Alistair Maclean is high literature either. The connection with Navarone is certainly tenuous but so what.

reply

[–] raynerchris 14 years ago

I enjoyed it - way better than I'd been led to believe.

reply

[–] harmedandderangerous 14 years ago

"what's the beef that some people have with this movie?"

I usually have Italian beef with this movie. (And potato salad.)

reply

[–] kelzan 14 years ago

I just saw this movie for the 1st time today. I heard about it years ago after I saw the classic Guns of Navrone which I have on DVD.
I thought it was pretty enjoyable, but not in the same class as it's predecessor. There was plenty of action, the acting was decent, and the story had a lot of twists and turns. I don't know if I would buy this movie, but it was well worth seeing.

reply

[–] LightningLad 14 years ago

It gets unfavourably compared to its predecessor, but to me, just because a movie isn't as great as a great movie, doesn't make it terrible. There are much worse movies that don't get slammed as hard because they don't have a daunting precursor. It's a bit like having an overachieving sibling.

reply

[–] surround_sound 14 years ago

From the opening frame I couldn't take the actors replacing Peck and Niven seriously to the point I actually thought it was a comedy or parody of sorts. It didn't have any of the grit, the intense personalities or memorable setpieces of the original. I also saw it on VHS copy (as opposed to the Widescreen DVD of Guns that I have), so that may have added to it.

reply

[–] grendelkhan 14 years ago

It's not a classic and no comparison to the original; but, so what? I enjoy the film, warts and all. That is the only real defenition of a good movie, in my book, whether it is entertaining. It has plot holes that the original Navarone installation could comfortably fit in, but I have fun watching the characters and certain scenes (some much more than others). The Lescovar plot doesn't really work, but there is plenty of general mayhem. To me, it is a war comic of a movie and I grew up with war comics. Some, like Sgt Rock and Enemy Ace were very good and insightful; some, like Sgt Fury, were mostly wild doses of action and humor. Guns of Navarone is like the former, Force 10 is much more of the latter. I don't take it seriously.

reply

[–] streetlegal 13 years ago

I like it, it isn't a classic and was never going to repeat the success of the first film. It also doesn't have the 'feel' of a late-70's film, it's a throwback to more innocent, light-hearted war films so perhaps that's another reason why it didn't do well.
Robert Shaw was the best thing about the film, so sad that he died shortly after making it but he was-as usual-brilliant. He carried the film as far as I'm concerned.

reply

[–] surround_sound 13 years ago

just that first scene of them sitting on the boat after the Navarone explosion ruined it.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"I like it, it isn't a classic and was never going to repeat the success of the first film"

Exactly! I've got to admit I just saw it recently for the first time and I had been put off by the poor reviews in the past, but I quite liked it. It's a really good cast and surprisingly (perhaps,) I thought Robert Shaw and Harrison Ford worked really well together and the plot had lots of little twists and turns.

It's funny the sequel being done so much later and it clearly wasn't a big budget film even for the time, but I thought it was very entertaining, with the surprising bonus of Barbara Bach in the bath tub.

reply