I'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.
