Display MoreI'm going against the tide of popularity on this one. Eagles is an excellent movie and I saw it three times upon its initial release, however, I have to defend "The Guns of Navarone" as a better war movie.
Both are authored by the same person, yet there's really no suspense in Eagles about the survival of the heroes. Granted, both films are similar in that a group of infiltrators/experts go behind enemy lines on hopeless tasks, but somehow you just know that Burton and Eastwood will triumph.
Navarone also leads you to believe that the mission will be a success, but you don't know who is going to survive. The characters all seem vulnerable.
Eagles has over the top action - jumping from frozen cable cars, Clint firing two machine guns at once, fat old Burton climbing up a rope. Navarone has Quinn sniping at Alpine Corps and scrambling, Baker bungling a knife stabbing and Darren losing focus resulting in his death. Much more realistic.
The prelude to Navarone is also more probable. Kheros and newly designed radar controlled guns blocking a sea rescue are much more believable than the Cartwright Jones/invasion plans premise.
Thanks for indulging my screed.
We deal in lead, friend.
I agree here and love em both. Guns has the edge on this one for being more believable and at least their uniforms were made to look more accurate than the ones in W.E.D. As a collector-that detail means a lot to me-though I always did and will love the movie ;-))