In his autobiography, Michael Caine confessed to being disappointed with this movie, because director John Sturges, the Hollywood illustrious once, was somehow indifferent about it, agreeing to direct it only to get the money to go fishing. He even never came back for the editing, or for any of the other post-production sessions, where - in Caine's words - "a director does some of his most important work", concluding: "The picture isn't bad, but I still get angry when I think of what it could have been with the right director". Well, Sir Michael, I believe it wasn't Sturges fault only; it was a collaborative one!
Firstly, the pace. I've watched boring TV shows that were faster than this; the times where I wanted to leave my seat were countless. The dialogue is agonizing, repeating the same information every minute. The editing is extremely slow. The first 50 % of the scenes is long, unnecessary, and doesn't develop anything. The first half an hour could be easily abbreviated to 3 short shots. For instance, when Robert Duvall character and his assistant want to review a certain point on the map, it begins with a question from Duvall's side, then they enter a room, then Duvall switches on its lights, and brings a map, then brings another map which he pins on the wall, then brings a magnifying glass, and locates the desired point by it. Well, for the greater good of all humanity, it should have been merely: Duvall's question, then the point under the magnifying glass, AND THAT'S ABOUT IT!
Secondly, the script. The idea of the kidnappers wearing the German military uniforms, under their disguise as Polish paratroopers, defines foolishness. The motive of guaranteeing that they wouldn't be executed as spies if caught--is naive, since kidnapping the prime minister of England, from England itself, is a suicidal mission anyway. It seems fabricated solely for complicating the situation later. However, nothing is stupider than the love story. Ahh, it could be the stupidest love story ever made. Here's a girl, who loved a boy, to the extent that she killed for him, she even betrayed her country for him.. all of that is in the course of one day! Not to mention that the boy, played by Donald Sutherland, was way older than her, ugly, and it's inexplicable why she loved him in the first place (he just talked with her about how sand has a terrible way of getting where it shouldn't be!). Basically, Sutherland character is too stupid, since he let himself fall in that so-called love, while he's in the middle of a dangerous top secret mission!
Many moments are left without explanation. For example: how the last survivor of the kidnappers would get out of England? Why Sutherland character didn't deny that he wasn't a Gestapo man in the bar? Who did attack him on Alderney? And the strange dialogue between Larry Hagman character and the German solider?
Since the start, Caine character seems sympathetic to Jews, and kind of romantic, so what did that lead to dramatically?! He'll order saving the little girl, which will uncover the whole operation, however anyone in his shoes would have done the same, especially while his disguise as an allied soldier to England. Also it doesn't have anything to do with the matter of not keeping the women and children as hostages later in the church. So why it was written originally?!
Listen to lines like these: Colonel Pitts: "You speak English?", Corporal Kuniski: "Yes". Well, everybody here speaks nothing but English, you idiots!
Forget any seriousness around anyone or anything. The matter of "We do this nihilistically, not patriotically" was bizarre, or rather forced to find a reason for anything said or done on screen!
And, in the end, you have to ask yourself: what's the lesson of this movie? The Germans tried to kidnap Winston Churchill, and they failed. There is no heroism from any side. So this movie is about the stupidity of the Germens, the Englishmen, and the Americans as well!
Thirdly, additional stupidities: Anthony Quayle, with his British accent, plays a German. Caine, with his British accent, plays a German. And Sutherland, who's a Canadian, plays an Irishman, with horrible Irish accent.. Ok, this is not a thriller, this is a comedy! Treat Williams's face here has legendary dumbness. The action is so little, which makes the movie non-action. The music score is useless; just focus on it, and you'll discover that it's - like the movie itself - meaningless!
Btw, the movie is based on a 1975 novel by Jack Higgins that has the same title, however what is the meaning of that title anyway? I'll tell you, when the Apollo 11 Lunar Module landed on the moon on July 20, 1969, Commander Neil Armstrong marked the arrival with an eight-word message back home: "Houston.. Tranquility base here.. The Eagle has landed". As you see, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WW2! Even with putting in mind that the name of the movie's plan was "Eagle", it doesn't work; because if the reference was to the arriving of the operation's men, or Churchill, in the Norfolk village, then it's trivial. And if the reference was to the plan itself being done, then it's a lie!
The sole survivors from this movie were Anthony B. Richmond's cinematography, and Larry Hagman's performance. Nothing more!
I think that WW2 movies lost its popularity progressively in the 1970s, knowing that one year after The Eagle Has Landed, there would be another generation, with another taste, that would prefer Star Wars over old wars. That's why movies like The Dirty Dozen (1967) sequels would be made in TV, not cinema, during the 1980s. However, surprisingly, The Eagle Has Landed was a commercial success, which is - for me - one of the 1970s mysteries. But maybe the stars' names, and the publicity, fooled the poor viewers back then, managing to sell a very bad movie as "a major motion picture", with "the most exciting adventure story", "epic suspense", and "explosive events", as the enthusiastic original trailer promoted!
Finally, one of the movie's taglines said: "The daring World War II plot that changed the course of history", Hahahahah! This is so hilarious!
Firstly, the pace. I've watched boring TV shows that were faster than this; the times where I wanted to leave my seat were countless. The dialogue is agonizing, repeating the same information every minute. The editing is extremely slow. The first 50 % of the scenes is long, unnecessary, and doesn't develop anything. The first half an hour could be easily abbreviated to 3 short shots. For instance, when Robert Duvall character and his assistant want to review a certain point on the map, it begins with a question from Duvall's side, then they enter a room, then Duvall switches on its lights, and brings a map, then brings another map which he pins on the wall, then brings a magnifying glass, and locates the desired point by it. Well, for the greater good of all humanity, it should have been merely: Duvall's question, then the point under the magnifying glass, AND THAT'S ABOUT IT!
Secondly, the script. The idea of the kidnappers wearing the German military uniforms, under their disguise as Polish paratroopers, defines foolishness. The motive of guaranteeing that they wouldn't be executed as spies if caught--is naive, since kidnapping the prime minister of England, from England itself, is a suicidal mission anyway. It seems fabricated solely for complicating the situation later. However, nothing is stupider than the love story. Ahh, it could be the stupidest love story ever made. Here's a girl, who loved a boy, to the extent that she killed for him, she even betrayed her country for him.. all of that is in the course of one day! Not to mention that the boy, played by Donald Sutherland, was way older than her, ugly, and it's inexplicable why she loved him in the first place (he just talked with her about how sand has a terrible way of getting where it shouldn't be!). Basically, Sutherland character is too stupid, since he let himself fall in that so-called love, while he's in the middle of a dangerous top secret mission!
Many moments are left without explanation. For example: how the last survivor of the kidnappers would get out of England? Why Sutherland character didn't deny that he wasn't a Gestapo man in the bar? Who did attack him on Alderney? And the strange dialogue between Larry Hagman character and the German solider?
Since the start, Caine character seems sympathetic to Jews, and kind of romantic, so what did that lead to dramatically?! He'll order saving the little girl, which will uncover the whole operation, however anyone in his shoes would have done the same, especially while his disguise as an allied soldier to England. Also it doesn't have anything to do with the matter of not keeping the women and children as hostages later in the church. So why it was written originally?!
Listen to lines like these: Colonel Pitts: "You speak English?", Corporal Kuniski: "Yes". Well, everybody here speaks nothing but English, you idiots!
Forget any seriousness around anyone or anything. The matter of "We do this nihilistically, not patriotically" was bizarre, or rather forced to find a reason for anything said or done on screen!
And, in the end, you have to ask yourself: what's the lesson of this movie? The Germans tried to kidnap Winston Churchill, and they failed. There is no heroism from any side. So this movie is about the stupidity of the Germens, the Englishmen, and the Americans as well!
Thirdly, additional stupidities: Anthony Quayle, with his British accent, plays a German. Caine, with his British accent, plays a German. And Sutherland, who's a Canadian, plays an Irishman, with horrible Irish accent.. Ok, this is not a thriller, this is a comedy! Treat Williams's face here has legendary dumbness. The action is so little, which makes the movie non-action. The music score is useless; just focus on it, and you'll discover that it's - like the movie itself - meaningless!
Btw, the movie is based on a 1975 novel by Jack Higgins that has the same title, however what is the meaning of that title anyway? I'll tell you, when the Apollo 11 Lunar Module landed on the moon on July 20, 1969, Commander Neil Armstrong marked the arrival with an eight-word message back home: "Houston.. Tranquility base here.. The Eagle has landed". As you see, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WW2! Even with putting in mind that the name of the movie's plan was "Eagle", it doesn't work; because if the reference was to the arriving of the operation's men, or Churchill, in the Norfolk village, then it's trivial. And if the reference was to the plan itself being done, then it's a lie!
The sole survivors from this movie were Anthony B. Richmond's cinematography, and Larry Hagman's performance. Nothing more!
I think that WW2 movies lost its popularity progressively in the 1970s, knowing that one year after The Eagle Has Landed, there would be another generation, with another taste, that would prefer Star Wars over old wars. That's why movies like The Dirty Dozen (1967) sequels would be made in TV, not cinema, during the 1980s. However, surprisingly, The Eagle Has Landed was a commercial success, which is - for me - one of the 1970s mysteries. But maybe the stars' names, and the publicity, fooled the poor viewers back then, managing to sell a very bad movie as "a major motion picture", with "the most exciting adventure story", "epic suspense", and "explosive events", as the enthusiastic original trailer promoted!
Finally, one of the movie's taglines said: "The daring World War II plot that changed the course of history", Hahahahah! This is so hilarious!