James Garner and Julie Andrews are two of the most appealing actors in movie history. One reviewer here said the two don't have chemistry but I disagree: they're great together.
The dialog and action are mostly good, at least for about the first two-thirds. Then, as in many movies, the plot gets out of control, and becomes less and less believable.
One significant problem is the James Coburn character. A switch seems to flip in the middle of the movie, and he goes from good guy to bad guy. The transformation is not credible, and the viewer is left scratching their head.
There is a lot of biting antiwar commentary, much of it clever. But by the end, one wonders what the filmmakers are trying to say about the "big" questions of war, principles, integrity, bravery, etc..
The problem with all antiwar movies, for me, is what's the answer to "What if we didn't fight?" Take Korea, an unpopular US war that cost President Truman another chance at re-election. There'd be no South Korea, and Kim Jong-un would rule one of the most dynamic populations on the planet. No K-Pop, and a much bigger military threat. Do you think that might be a war worth fighting?
1 out of 1 found this helpful