quarterwavevertical

To paraphrase a line from the Monty Python sketch about Australian table wines, this isn't a movie for watching; it's a movie for lying down and avoiding.

Billed as a comedy, I found nothing worth laughing at or about. Nothing seems to happen, so a viewer could go outside, cut the lawn, and come back and find that one hasn't missed anything. That's because none of the characters are the least bit interesting, let alone believable, nor do they change throughout the entire movie.

I remember when I was in high school. I was one of the geeky weirdos, but I graduated, got myself a fine university education, and grew up. Unfortunately, I don't see anything like that happening with the title character. He'll remain the way he is until well into adulthood and will continue drifting without a clue of who he really is or what he wants.

So much for the claim that it's true to life.

Don't waste your time on this hopeless rubbish. If you want to see something about high school that one could consider realistic, I'd recommend "Fast Times At Ridgemont High". I knew people like that while I was growing up.

I'd give this a 1/10 rating, but I reserve that for real stinkers. Even "Plan Nine from Outer Space", with all its ineptitude, is a much better movie and and it had some semblance of a plot, despite Ed Wood's bumbling directing. ND has none of that.

And so was I.

I expected to see a re-make of the brilliant classic 1987 movie directed by Paul Verhoeven. Instead, much of the 2014 version was a soap opera based on the TV series "The Six Million Dollar Man". (I almost expected to hear someone quote Richard Anderson's lines from the show's opening credits: "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology.")

The opening half is boring and takes too long to tell anything resembling a story. In the original, one is quickly introduced to the central conflict as well as most of the main characters, and the plot continues from there. It was something that even Shakespeare understood.

Instead, RC 2014 is more concerned about dazzling special effects and less about what the story is all about. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of character development, either. For example, in RC 1987, one can see how Lewis's loyalty to Murphy develops and how much of a scumbag Dick Jones turns out to be.

In addition, too many side stories detract from what's going on. I found the addition of the wife and son to be quite irritating. In the original, what happened to Murphy's family after he died remained a mystery to him for most of the film, adding to the conflict he experienced during his adjustment to life as a cyborg.

Also, what's missing from the original is much of the satire and cheeky humour. RC 2014 takes itself far too seriously, as if it's delivering a sombre sermon of some sort.

A re-make of a movie should be an improvement on the original. This didn't happen with this version of "RoboCop".

The first Mad Max movie was good and its first sequel (known as "The Road Warrior" in North America) was a masterpiece with some clever gimmicks and plot twists. I thought that the second sequel was lukewarm as it didn't add a lot that was new to the MM story.

MMFR was bewildering. It has a promising start with Max contemplating his situation and, since his pursuit car from the first two films is shown, seems to be set in the time between them. Unfortunately MMFR calls that into question. The car, which was a custom-built vehicle, is destroyed in TRW but manages to get totalled in this as well. (Were there mechanical magicians somewhere in the wasteland somewhere?)

I thought that since Max is mentioned in the title that the movie would be about him. Nope. It's more concerned about a renegade group of women escaping from a community run by a tyrant. Max is largely along for the ride.

There's a lot that isn't explained. Max has flashbacks about a child, but who she is and why he has those memories is a mystery. Since that plot element adds little to the story, why keep it?

The community the women are escaping from is also baffling. It certainly isn't Bartertown and its construction and location doesn't make a lot of sense. It takes energy to pump water above ground level and where that comes from remained a mystery. Why it has to be dispensed from a height makes no sense, either.

When the movie was over, I wondered why I bothered. It's a case of "I've seen it and now I wish I didn't."

Many years ago, PBS had a weekly film review series called "Sneak Previews", with its original hosts being Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. Each edition would conclude with a feature known as "Dog of the Week", introduced by a single bark from the resident canine. (I recall the first one being a charming terrier named Spot.)

The re-make of the classic "Rollberball" would definitely qualify as a DOTW. The only things it has in common with the 1975 original is the name and the first name of the main character.

"Rollerball" 2002 is a mess. It starts with a game of an apparently illicit skateboarding down the streets of San Francisco, which has absolutely no connection to the main plot. As for the game of RB itself, it seems to be a combination of "American Gladiators" and roller derby with some elements of mixed martial arts.

There isn't much of a plot so it's hard to figure out just what the purpose of the game is, let alone its rules, aside from being a gimmick by which certain people can become rich. At least in the film directed by Norman Jewison, RB serves as a substitute for war in the society that exists.

On the whole, the acting is awful. Chris Klein was no James Caan and the female lead, Rebecca Romijn, made Raquel Welch's performance in "Kansas City Bomber" look Shakespearean.

I used to work in industry, and we used to have a saying: "If it works, don't fix it," something that Hollywood habitually ignores. A re-make should be an improvement on the original. This version of "Rollerball" fails in this regard.

My parents and I saw this one rainy Saturday evening in the mid-1960s when it was playing at a theatre in the area near where I grew up. It was one of those "lets go see a movie" nights and none of us really knew what to expect.

As it turned out, all three of us found it to be a nice bit of fun. I remember my mother referring to it as one of those films in which the movie interrupts a great auto commercial.

It's the kind of movie that Hollywood has long stopped making. There was no preaching, no message (others than cars can be great), no sex, violence, or gore, and I don't remember there being any profanity. (The latter point was one reason all three of us went as I believe I was still in elementary school.) It's not brain-blasting but fun like this doesn't have to be.

Like with many such films, the best parts were those that dealt with the cars, seeing them in action, seeing them up close, or simply seeing them built or repaired--the kind of stuff we used to call "neat".

It's the sort of movie where one goes out with one's friends or family and then maybe for pizza afterwards.

This is the third movie directed by Sofia Coppola that I've seen and it only confirms for me that she has absolutely no talent in that area.

Like her "Marie Antoinette", it's boring as I kept waiting for something to happen and nothing did. For one thing, there's not much of a plot. The story is such that one could go away for a while, paint a wall or two or play a round of golf, come back, and one hasn't missed anything.

Bill Murray shows that he's not much of a dramatic actor, as if "The Razor's Edge" didn't already demonstrate that, but, then, he doesn't have much to work with.

Scarlett Johansson doesn't do much, either, and I kept expecting her character to throw a tantrum because she's about as bored and aimless as the viewer is made to feel. The husband in the film doesn't seem to care about her, making me wonder why those two characters bothered getting married as they seem to be heading for divorce court.

I first watched it on commercial TV and it didn't impress me. More than 15 years later, it hasn't improved. It's so bad that anything by Ed Wood is like Shakespeare in comparison.

I first learned of this movie as a result of watching the movie "Thunder Road" on cable TV. Robert Mitchum stars in it and the cast also includes his son James.

After the end of that film, I found out that James Mitchum was in another one on similar theme, namely this one. I watched it recently and I was pleasantly surprised with it. There's no brain-blasting stuff in it and no message. It's simple entertainment that had me hooting and hollering with delight a number of times.

While it apparently inspired the TV series "The Dukes of Hazzard", I noticed a few bits in it that could well have influenced a movie made later that same decade: "Smokey and the Bandit".

I enjoyed this one a lot and it mystifies me why it's not better-known, because it's a lot of fun!

While high-performance aircraft were being tested at places like Edwards Air Force Base and Naval Air Station Patunxet River, equally important work was being done at places such as Holloman Air Force Base.

Edwards and Patunxet River tested the flying machine. Holloman tested the men who would fly them. Among the work that was done at Holloman was the effects of high acceleration on the human body with Col. John Stapp one of the investigators. There was also Project Manhigh which took men to the edge of space to study the effects of cosmic rays on the body.

All of this was essential in order to put men into space. Among those who would participate were Maj. David Simons and Capt. Joe Kittinger.

"On the Threshold of Space" tells the latter part of that story and does so quite effectively, being quite matter-of-fact. It shows some of the work being done that would help make high-altitude flight and spaceflight itself not only possible but safe for the crews. This was cutting-edge research conducted even before Sputnik was launched and there were a lot of questions that had to be answered before anybody could be launched into space.

There is a side story in which the main character gets married to one of the civilian assistants, but, fortunately, it doesn't take much away from the plot.

I liked it better than I expected. If you're an aviation and/or space buff, this movie would be definitely worth watching. I came across this one quite accidentally and I'm glad I did.

I was a graduate student when the movie came out. It came to my attention through newspaper ads plus a radio station I used to listen to, as several songs from the soundtrack album were on its playlist.

Based on what I heard on the radio, I had high hopes for this film and looked forward to watching it. I finally got my chance about a year and a half later when it was shown on a certain cable channel--the music was great; the movie, however, wasn't. I saw a sanitized version on commercial TV and my opinion remained the same. I saw it uncut once again recently and it hasn't improved with age.

Aside from the soundtrack, there's really nothing to the film. It's basically a 90-minute TV movie padded out to a far too long 2-1/4 hours. The added running time doesn't help the already flimsy plot.

Another reviewer on this site has likened it to "Saturday Night Fever" with cowboy hats and that's an accurate assessment. SNF at least examined the disco culture to some extent, but, based on UC, I'm no wiser about what the appeal of being (or, at least, play-acting) a cowboy is and I grew up in a town where country and western music was quite popular.

A major disappointment.

I remember reading the ads for this movie when it was in theatres in the 1980s, though I was never tempted to see it.

I vaguely recall watching it before on, I believe, a commercial TV channel, so some of the naughtier parts of it would likely have been edited. I wasn't impressed, largely because I thought the plot was a disorganized mess.

Since I often give a movie I didn't like a second chance, I thought I'd give it another try. (I did that with "Jurassic Park" and "Stargate" and I now have DVD copies of both in my movie library.) Turner Classic Movies showed it earlier tonight and I needn't have bothered.

My original assessment that the plot was a disorganized mess was confirmed. I quickly lost the thread and found myself wondering just what in the dickens is going on. The first half is supposed to be a comedy, but I found it completely unfunny. It reminded me of an equally lame movie, "After Hours", which had been released about a year earlier.

It only became remotely interesting when Ray Liotta's character appeared but, by then, I'd completely stopped caring. Even then, the movie failed to captivate me. And, no, I didn't think that Melanie Griffith's going topless made her character any more interesting or her performance any less annoying.

By the time the film ended, I wondered what the point was.

Avoid this one.

I began watching it tonight on Turner Classic Movies and I switched it off not even halfway through as I couldn't take any more of the "oh, poor me" whining.

This documentary portrays itself as a revelation of the evils of fast food. It isn't. Instead, it's a glorification of the victim culture that has infested our society nowadays.

Many of the people interviewed pushed the blame for their obesity on companies like McDonald's. Really? How many of them were forced to eat the burgers and fries? How many of them lacked the self-discipline to say "No!" How many couldn't be bothered to cook for themselves? How many didn't exercise regularly?

A complete waste of time.

I remember watching this when it was shown on commercial TV a long time ago and I didn't think too much of it, and I hadn't seen the original yet.

A number of years ago, I saw the original with Kevin McCarthy and Dana Winter and I thought it was good. Then again, it was made during the 1950s, and a lot of great SF movies were made during that decade (for example, "The Thing From Another World", "Forbidden Planet", "Them!").

A year or so ago, I tried watching the 1978 edition on Turner Classic Movies and I switched it off after less than an hour. I usually give a movie a second chance, just in case my first impression might have been wrong (e. G., "Jurassic Park") and I tried again last night when TCM showed it and I lasted a bit longer.

So what was wrong with it? For one thing, it was extremely boring. Nothing much happened during the time I was watching and it took a while for things to try to get moving.

The acting also left a lot to be desired. Donald Sutherland was wooden, as I found him to be in many of his earlier movies, and he looked like he had just walked off the set of another one of his films, "Animal House". Leonard Nimoy, I'm sorry to say, tried once again to shake his Spock image and failed miserably. (If you don't believe me, watch him in the Yul Brynner flick "Catlow".) However, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to a lousy script.

Unfortunately, nothing about the other characters was remotely interesting or worthy of my attention. I really didn't care what happened to any of them.

I found this version of IOTBS to be a complete and irritating waste of my time. Fortunately, director Philip Kaufman would go on to redeem himself with movies such as "The Right Stuff".

Stick with the original, despite its somewhat hokey ending.

I first watched this movie many years ago and I didn't like it. Often, I give a film a second chance a while later as I might have had the wrong impression the first time.

I started watching this on Turner Classic Movies earlier tonight and I quit about halfway through, being reminded once again of why I disliked it.

"The Apartment" was made shortly after "Some Like It Hot", probably the funniest English-language comedy ever made. SLIH is a movie which is not only fast-paced, but there isn't a scene or shot that's wasted. The action and humour start right after the opening credits and they don't let up for the rest of the film.

"The Apartment", however, doesn't go anywhere. The premise is clever and had a lot of potential if Billy Wilder had chosen to make it like, say, the play "Box and Cox". Instead, it takes about half an hour to get started and, even then, it sputters and stays that way.

Jack Lemmon is wasted in TA. He shows none of his comedic talent that he demonstrated in SLIH or "Mister Roberts". Fred MacMurray played cads in movies like "Double Indemnity" and "The Caine Mutiny" and did so effectively, but not in TA. Shirley MacLaine seemed to play the same character that she did in the Alfred Hitchcock film "The Trouble With Harry".

Another thing that disappointed me was that "The Apartment" came after Wilder had directed a number of great movies in the previous decade or so, such as "Sunset Boulevard", "Stalag 17", and "Witness for the Prosecution".

I'll avoid watching this one in the future.

I just finished watching it on Turner Classic Movies and I thought it was awful.

The plot's disjointed and I never really found out what the whole point of the reality show was, then again, the whole concept of "reality shows" completely escapes me.

Jim Carrey was miscast. He is simply not a dramatic actor. The talents of Ed Harris and Laura Linney were, unfortunately, wasted, largely because of the poor plot.

As for the director, Peter Wier, I've seen a number of his movies and I find him to be uneven. "The Cars That Ate Paris" was clever. I wasn't all that impressed by "Picnic At Hanging Rock", though I thought "Gallipoli" and "The Year of Living Dangerously" to be OK. I liked "Witness" and "Master and Commander" is in my personal DVD collection.

As for "The Truman Show", however, it falls flat and was a great disappointment for me. It's the sort of movie that one watches just to say that they've seen it and then forget about it.

I fail to see how people can consider this a sports movie, let alone a good one. Sex seems to be the main focus with baseball simply a backdrop.

This film presents little new. Baseball? How about "The Natural", featuring Robert Redford? A no-holds-barred view of a sports team? "Slap Shot" (with Paul Newman), made about a decade earlier did it better and much funnier. An older athlete mentoring a young up-and-comer? Take a look at "Fat City", directed by John Huston and starring Stacy Keach and a young Jeff Bridges, which shows that subject in a sombre manner.

"Bull Durham" was an earlier Kevin Costner movie and, frankly, I though most of them were dreadful, including "Silverado" and "Fandango". Fortunately, he more than redeemed himself in other films, such as "Field of Dreams" (which a different reviewer noted) and "For the Love of the Game".

Make a wide detour and avoid this stinker.

Reboots of movies or TV shows are generally not a good idea. One example is "Battlestar Galactica" from about 15 years ago. It started off well, but, after its second season, the plot turned silly and the series became a parody of itself.

"Star Trek" is another. The viewer is required to abandon all previous knowledge of the original series and the movies based on it, but the result is no improvement.

For example, the plot suffers from lazy writing. Rather than maintaining all the details from the original series, many of them are either ignored or written out all together. Conveniently, the planet Vulcan is destroyed and the writers no longer have to worry about the relationship between Spock and his parents. (This was similar to the destruction of Gallifrey in the current version of "Doctor Who". Why worry about the conflict between the Doctor and the other Time Lords when their home is no longer part of the plot?)

And, when all else fails, bring in a future version of a certain character as a plot device. Leonard Nimoy's Spock, unfortunately, was completely out of place.

The main characters are poorly written as well. The young Kirk is little more than an ill-disciplined, brawling hooligan who doesn't know how to obey orders, possessing an inflated self-worth. The original Uhura was from southern Africa and had a dignified manner, making one wonder if she didn't have a royal ancestry. The Uhura in this movie was completely undignified and of dubious virtue. As for Spock, the less said the better. Emotionally conflicted? How about simply lacking in self-discipline and self-restraint?

The original Chekov first appeared during the second season of the series and was introduced because of Beatlemania. He became a pivotal character in a number of episodes as well as the movies. The one in "Star Trek" is little more than a high school boy who would be more at home playing video games than serving on board a starship. The Sulu in this movie isn't much better. There's no indication that he had an interest in botany or that he had the potential for a future command.

As much as I liked Bruce Greenwood's portrayal of American President John F. Kennedy in "Thirteen Days", his Captain Pike falls short of Jeffrey Hunter's from the original pilot episode "The Cage". Speaking of which, in that show, the Enterprise had a tough-as-nails First Officer (played by Majel Barrett and simply referred to as "Number One"). Were the writers of "Star Trek" worried about having a strong female character of high rank on the bridge?

I've never served in the military, but from what I know of it, many of those same characters would be subject for courts-martial because of their conduct, or would that no longer apply in the 23rd century?

If I didn't know any better, I would swear that "Star Trek" was intended to be a spoof, but I have to keep reminding myself that this was intended to be a serious movie. To be honest, I found the "Star Wreck" send-ups to be more entertaining.

Avoid this rubbish like the plague.

I have nothing good to say about this movie. The story's been done numerous time: a young man who can't make up his mind what he wants to do with himself tries to become a draft dodger.

But it's worse than that. None of the characters are likable. Michael Douglas as the son is in serious need of growing up. Jack Warden as his father is an Archie Bunker type (fitting, considering that Rob "Meathead" Reiner has a small role).

Brenda Vaccaro's character is redundant to the plot, adding little to the story. Even so, she's far from admirable as she's not completely honest with the son.

I found the movie boring and pretentious and I wasn't entirely surprised at how it ended.

Avoid this one like the plague.

I don't understand how this movie gets such a high rating and how Peter Fonda managed to get an Oscar nomination.

The movie doesn't offer viewers anything new as this type of story has been done before. The pace is painfully slow--during the first half hour, not a whole lot happens. One can go do something else, come back and resume viewing without having missed anything significant. In addition, one can almost guess that there's going to be a happy ending.

On the whole, it was disappointing.

I've seen the movie adaptation of "The Little Drummer Girl" with Diane Keaton and I thought that was dreadful, but it was considerably better than this clunker.

I'm watching the second episode right now and--oh, my goodness!--the series has been boring so far. It's neither exciting nor fast-paced and it could put a cup of coffee to sleep. TLDG is the kind of show which one could watch for a few minutes, go off and do something else, come back and continue viewing and not lose much of what happened.

I'm debating if I want to watch the remaining episodes.

"The Border" is one of the all-time worst TV series ever made. As a Canadian, I find so embarrassingly bad that it makes shows like "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" seem like Shakespeare.

First of all, the whole premise isn't original. It merely copies other shows, such as the BBC's "MI-5" (as it's called here in North America), complete with some supercomputers, big screen TVs, and superhuman good guys who never seem to get caught.

The series doesn't show Canada in a very good light. People who don't live here might get the impression that the country's lawless and little better than the wild west or a land of international intrigue. (One would almost expect Harry Lime, as portrayed in the movie "The Third Man" by Orson Welles, to pop up and discuss Swiss democracy and cuckoo clocks before disappearing down a city sewer.) Sorry, but Canada isn't like the Casablanca of Rick Blaine or Victor Laszlo, nor is it Dodge City or Cold War-era Berlin. Also, Canadians aren't all renegade drug lords nor political extremists and not all high-level government official speak English with a French accent.

The main Canadian characters are dreadful. They all seem to have a shady past or a skeleton in the closet, such as the former Mountie. I'd hate to think that national security depended on people like that. Also, since when do foreign agents from other NATO countries and, supposedly on our side, come and go as they please in and out of Canada, with no questions asked, unless they happen to be the agency chief's girlfriend? Are this country's boundaries so porous that this can happen without anyone in that security service knowing?

I found the character of the resident techno-nerd to be quite irritating. He's a buffoon who'd rather be at home playing video games in his parents' basement than doing his job for some super-secret government agency. I shudder to think that the fate of the nation might rest in the hands of someone like him. Also, Grace Park acts like she's still playing a Cylon on the re-booted "Battlestar Galactica", as her character of the American DHS agent is completely lacking in emotion.

Avoid this series. If, however, you want to see a good spy show, I highly recommend the British-made "The Sandbaggers" from about 40 years ago. It's quite realistic and shows how an intelligence service is actually run.

This is the perfect movie. It's based on a story by a master: Rudyard Kipling. It has action and adventure, set in an exotic location, and it has an unbeatable cast.

According to the stories I heard, director John Huston wanted to make this movie for many years. Apparently he first considered Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy and, later, Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole. I also heard that he also approached Paul Newman and Robert Redford.

Eventually, he selected Michael Caine and Sean Connery, and, after seeing the movie, it was well worth the wait. Caine and Connery are terrific together as, respectively, the main characters Peachy Carnehan and Daniel Dravot. In addition, Christopher Plummer plays Kipling and Saeed Jaffrey is Gurkha soldier Billy Fish, who helps Peachy and Danny once they reach their destination. After seeing the movie, it's hard to imagine anyone else in those roles.

Of course, a good movie requires an appropriate score and it's amply provided by Maurice Jarre, whose previous credits included "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Professionals". It's hard to top someone like that.

I first heard of "The Man Who Would Be King" soon after it was released and I saw the ads for it in newspapers and on television. Everyone I knew who saw it had high praise for it. I finally got to see it while I was an undergrad when the on-campus student cinema showed it in 1977. It lived up to its reputation and I went home knowing that I had just seen a wonderful film.

This is one movie that has improved with time. Not only have I come to regard it as a classic, it's become one of my personal favourites and I look forward to adding it to my collection. It's excellent entertainment from beginning to end.

The only good thing about Season 4 was the addition of the armoured personnel carrier. The rest was a complete waste of time.

The title of my review says it all. This movie is, on the whole, bland, uninteresting, and unexciting.

Let me sum up the plot, bland and uninteresting as it is. George Clooney plays a professional axe-man, someone who works for what used to be known as an outplacement firm and makes his living by firing people as well as giving motivational speeches on the side. He does a couple of things to make himself look good and then continues as if nothing happened. The end. I just saved you the time and trouble of having to see it.

And that's one of the things that's wrong with the movie. His character doesn't change.

He's proud of what he does to the point of smugness, but he's an empty shell. His only real joy in life is being able to accumulate traveller points so that he can get priority service in fancy hotels as well as being a member of the elite club of credit card holders. But he has no soul, emotion, or, it would seem, conscience. He cold-bloodedly tells people that they're sacked and then makes some insultingly cloying statements about them having a bright shiny future because they were canned. The fact that he's helped destroy their lives has absolutely no effect on him.

But the other main characters are equally as unlikable.

He meets someone else who's also away from home a lot on business eventually becoming attracted to her. But she turns out to be not what he thinks she is.

His junior colleague is an immature, inexperienced millennial snowflake. She doesn't appreciate that what she does affects people, though she finally gets a hint. The audience is told that second-hand; the movie would have been better if it showed her reaction.

His boss isn't any different, having the personality of a frozen kipper.

It's a mystery to me how this movie managed to earn several Oscar nominations. There's nothing of substance in it. The actors seem to be bored with their roles and their performances appear to have been mailed in. Many of the scenes are redundant and could easily have been cut because they don't show anything new. In addition, the musical soundtrack is annoying.

This movie is a complete waste of time.

This show is so boring that it makes watching paint dry seem like edge-of-your-seat excitement.

Whenever I watch a TV show or movie and the plot is slow-paced, I expect things to develop with time. That could mean character development or the revelation of subtle details that help with the story. "Lodge 49", however, has neither.

In addition, there are too many side stories filled with unnecessary details. The plot keeps switching back and forth between them so that one can't really follow what's going on, let alone care about what's happening. Compare that with something like "Breaking Bad" or "Better Call Saul". Those shows have only a few main characters, the side stories are clear and succinct and, eventually, they come together. The writers for those two series made good use of the time on screen; those for "Lodge 49" didn't do that.

I switched it off part-way through the second episode. It's another misfire for AMC. Avoid this one.

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.