The Guns of Navarone vs. Where Eagles Dare


(Silvanito) #1

I’m not a huge fan of these films, but they seemed pretty ideal for a comparison poll.

Both classic 1960s big-budget adventure movies set in WW2, both with a star cast, both based on stories by novelist Alistair MacLean.

To me Navarone has perhaps a little more depth than Eagles, but also a much slower pace.

Eagles is just an action-adventure with a very far-fetched plot and a hell of a lot of shooting, it’s really well-made though.

What do you think?


(scherpschutter) #2

Both a good old-fashioned over the top and rather nonsensical action movies - a couple of men winning a war - and to me Where Eagles Dare is the better of the two


(magnus) #3

Where Eagles Dare, a big favorite of mine from back when. Along with the Star Wars trilogy, Crocodile Dundee 1+2, Deadly Pursuit and Escape from Alcatraz probably the one i´ve seen the most times (15+). Watched it again some years ago and it still delivers the goods, great setting and lots of twists in the plot! Of course Guns of Navarone is a great one as well. Used to love all the Alistair MacLean books and many of the film-versions are good ones!


(Stanton) #4

Both are … ups, mainly boring. Disappointing.


(ENNIOO) #5

Where Eagles Dare for sure. Biggest grossing film of the year here in the U.K at time of release. Always surprises me how the film managed to get a PG rating at the time of release in the U.K.


(chuck connors brother) #6

I much prefer The Guns of Navarone


(Paco Roman) #7

Both are silly movies. If you are in the mood for some brainless action both are good enouyh. I prefer Where Eagles Dare mostly for Clint and Richard Burton and secondly for the fact that most of the movie is photographed in a region I know well.
:slight_smile:


(Silvanito) #8

Of course these films are not exactly aimed at a german audience I think, with german soldiers portrayed mostly as bad guys that are mowed down en masse , particularly in Where Eagles Dare

They’re well-made though with many authentic props; weapons, cars, aeroplanes etc, and shot on location in Greece and the Alps


(Stanton) #9

Can’t speak for the rest of Germany, but I don’t care if the Germans are the baddies, and especially not in WW II films. They deserved to be the baddies there.
(And I’m looking forward to Inglorious Basterds, which most likely will be a fantastic film, as all the good and also all the bad reviews indicate.)

Both films have a great cast, and both seemed to have an interesting basic idea, but then nothing interesting happens.

I’ve read btw a few MacLean novels as a child, and they were all unsatisfying. Where Eagles Dare was one of them. Still I had expectations for the film, alas it was a dead film for me.


(scherpschutter) #10

It surprises me a bit that someone calls Where Eagles Dare dull.
I saw it for the first time in cinemas, when I was still very young, probably fifteen-sixteen years old, and thought it was tremendously exciting; when I watched it again, some four or five years ago (on television) I noticed that the story was rather silly and that some of the excitement had gone (I found the finale with the red buss now dissapointing, while I had found it incredibly suspenseful as a young man), but I thought it was still a decent action movie.

The Guns of Navarone is an okay adventure movie, but there are probably too many stars in it and because of that it’s too much main stream. More a Christmas movie for me.


(davidf) #11

For me, Guns Of Navarone is the better film overall.


(Stanton) #12

Hmm, maybe I would like it these days more, but 20 years ago I thought that the screenplay was weak, just like the novel. I didn’t liked the dialogues, and I didn’t liked the action scenes. It was a silly film, but not in an entertaining way.
Well, the film had no secret, or let’s say he lost its secret in the first 20 or 30 min. The rest was a bore and all the explosions didn’t help very much.

Shit, if it’s one day on TV, I’ll try it again.


(John Welles) #13

“Where Eagels Dare” because of Eastwood and Burton. Plus, you have some nice photography and a good climax atop a cable-car.


(AceHigh) #14

Where Eagles Dare is the better of these two but, for my money, I’ll take the follow up to “Guns”- Force 10 From Navarone - over either one. It just happens to have SW stalwart Franco Nero in a costarring role. I also agree with Stanton that MacLean’s books just don’t quite get there.


(Frank Talby) #15

I have not seen either of them in ages. I remember Where Eagles Dare being a fun shoot 'em up war movie.


(John Welles) #16

Also “Where Eagels Dare” had a much better film poster.


(Frank Talby) #17

it did - not that a movie poster swayed me to liking one movie over another but that was an added bonus.


(ENNIOO) #18

I had two of the same Where Eagles Dare U.K posters once, and the same guy bought them he was that keen.


(Paco Roman) #19

Force 10 from Navarone isn’t that bad either.
:slight_smile:


(Dillinger) #20

I watched Navarone like 20 years ago… Eagles maybe 10 years ago… man, I’m getting old.