KELLYS HEROES (DVD/1970/DLAYER WS/BRANDNEW TRANSFEThis tongue-in-cheek 1970 variation on The Dirty Dozen looks less fresh than it did in the year of its release, but it still has some enjoyable moments. Clint Eastwood stars along with Donald Sutherland, Harry Dean Stanton, Telly Savalas, Don Rickles, Carroll O’Connor, and Gavin MacLeod in the story of American soldiers who try to steal gold behind enemy lines in World War II. Sutherland’s hippie G.I. doesn’t have the sardonic and timely appeal he did during the Vietnam War, but the film’s irreverence and several of the performances are worth a visit. –Tom Keogh
Buy “Kelly’s Heroes” For Only $6.03
March 12, 2008
#1
I have to register a dissenting opinion about this trivial parody of horrific WWII experiences. When this movie was recently shown on TCM it was stated that Clint Eastwood was unhappy with the cuts made after shooting. I found myself wishing they had made more cuts or scrapped the movie entirely. Donald Sutherland’s character, as a 60′s type hippie complete with a 60′s type (not WWII military) hairstyle who was seemingly sent back in time to command a renegade tank group, was particularly painful to endure. Other anachronisms could be cited but are less important than the generally juvenile script which one had to put up with. I know Hollywood has been successful in marketing war as a fun game for the good guys with the bad guys as stereotypical straight men but children should outgrow their action figure toys at some point in adulthood and begin to see the world in a slightly more intelligent light than an impressionable juvenile. You could view the catastrophe of war as surreal or as a psychotic episode divorced from reality as in “Castle Keep” and some humor might work. This movie, I am sorry to say would inspire some to think that war is actually like a fun video game with tiger tanks being blasted in the ass with paint just for the hell of it before being finished off for real.
I guess I also don’t understand the Clint Eastwood mystique. His perpetual semi-catatonic expression I suppose is considered macho but to be fair I have never really watched one of his movies and perhaps there are better ones than this. I actually found Telly Savalas as the most believable character in the movie was he seemingly attempts to maintain some small degree of reality to this disjointed mess. Carroll O’Connor also manages to parody a stereotypical Army General without crossing the line into childish fantasy. The culmination of fantasy is when the three unarmed renegades casually confront a tiger tank and without being machined gunned to death, as would occur in real life, convince the German tank commander to join them in robbing the bank he is supposed to be guarding. Really believable right? I suppose if your taste in literature consists of action comic books, you might enjoy this creation. There is also the possibility one might become interested in if the renegades actually succeed in their bank robbing goal and you might follow that action. However, there is so much in this movie that masquerades as believable and is not, that the movie does not engage one who cannot accept contrived situations and shallow characters.
March 12, 2008
#2
Brian Hutton’s (Where Eagles Dare) 1970 WWII/bank heist caper starring Clint Eastwood, Donald Sutherland, Harry Dean Stanton, Telly Savalas, Don Rickles, Carroll O’Connor, and Gavin MacLeod. A very tongue-in-cheek film diluted by its tacky, absurd, and outdated 1960s liberalism and shallow script. This film has recently been adapted and outclassed by the more recent ‘Three Kings’ which has a much deeper screenplay and script incorporating various themes of sharp satire, drama, and action.
The film follows various rogue WWII G.I.s in France who choose to abandon their posts when they hear of German gold being stashed in a nearby bank vault. The likable rogues encounter various obstacles such as German defenders and other potential robbers on their way to their objective. Each scene is innundated with stereotypes or absurd anachronisms. The acting for the most part is shallow whereby it is the skeletal constitution of the film that is humorous as opposed to its intended comedy.
Again, this is a rather shallow film that is slowly but surely becoming fossilized into the tasteless fashions and values of the period which spawned it. Entertaining to watch on TV or to rent but a waste of money in terms of purchase. Since the more recent ‘Three Kings’ is essentially the same story but of such superior quality in terms of screenplay, script, acting, and direction, ‘Kelly’s Heroes’ in comparison comes out to be nothing more than a crude prototype worthy of viewing only for curiosity or as a sentimental relic.
March 12, 2008
#3
Even though I own this DVD, I would never say it’s a great movie. Most of the other reviews here must be from people in their 40s and beyond (I’m in my 30s). I say that because they must have seen this movie when they were young and it affected them in a way that has colored their current point of view. IMO, this is one of Clint’s most forgettable movies, along with ‘Where Eagles Dare’, and later, ‘Heartbreak Ridge’, ‘Pink Cadillac’, and ‘The Rookie’.
The biggest problem with this movie is that Clint isn’t a ‘group guy’-he’s a loner and that’s one of the key ingredients that makes so many of his other movies work. Though his character is seen as an ‘off by himself kind of guy’, he’s still part of the unit. For him to be able to drive jeeps around and do his own thing (on apparently his own schedule) doesn’t jibe. When you’re in the military, your a grunt, stuck with the rest of the grunts. There are no allowances made just because you’d rather be alone. You’re thrown in with the rest, and you’re your stuck with them. Even though Kelly outranks a lot of the other guys, he is supposed to be part of that unit. For him to have carte blanche to roam around as he does isn’t believable. Had the storyline had Kelly as someone (not necessarily a soldier) who was a lone entity, with no ties to any one group or side, it would have played out better imo. With Clint forced to be a part of the group, he looks constipated trying to squeeze his words out.
Another thing that detracts from the film is all the bickering. Some of it is amusing at times (gotta love Sutherland’s Oddball), but the majority of it presents the characters as men who only know how to communicate through yelling, complaining, and berating each other. I realize this IS a war movie (as in, none of the characters WANT to be there), but realize it is a MOVIE, and as such, a balance needs to be struck where the men’s frustration with being stuck in the military (and overseas at war) should be mixed with other aspects of the human personality. The humor here is all biting sarcasm-not surprising for a war movie, but a one trick pony nonetheless.
‘Kelly’s Heroes’ is one of a long line of movies (and TV shows) that takes place during one war, but are aimed at commenting on another (the Vietnam War). The fact that this is a caper movie inside a war movie is a not so subtle comment that war is for profit-nothing more. I agree with this sentiment. Wars aren’t started (and prolonged esp) by men with big hearts out to save lives and extinguish tyrants. They are to protect assets and/or forcibly take them. The Iraq War is a very obvious example. We have a long history of business with Iraq-including when Suddam was in power. They were once an ally. Time has a way of burying the truth (actually, men do…and do).
Anyway, unlike the others here, I don’t think this movie has aged that well. The war themes are indeed timeless, and the action scenes are well done, though the shooting of soldiers isn’t that realistic imo. But, the often one dimensional characters (particularly any of the non-Americans) make this a (mostly) mindless action movie without any real passion or guts (real emotion). The movie doesn’t take any chances, and suffers for it.
I own it because it’s a time capsule of Clint in his 30s (I’m still a Clint fan despite my feelings about this movie and I don’t mind owning 2 star movies). Clint’s acting (finding his on screen power/personality) didn’t move to the next level until he did ‘Dirty Harry’. He was forever changed after that-and he knew it. He showed more depth in ‘The Beguiled’, but found his power (non-western) in Harry Callahan.
March 12, 2008
#4
Stay away from this awful movie. although Eastwood’s done a lot of great work in his 40 + years of filmaking, this is one movie to pass up. Donald Sutherland’s hippie character is a complete waste, while Carroll O’Conner’s character is simply a caricature of an inept army general. Eastwood does his wooden impression of a concerned soldier. Sadly, Savals and Rickles are the best actors in the whole movie. Poor attention to detail throughout: no one gets dirty or has a five o’clock shadow, despite marching through the French countryside for days. Also, after being strafed by an American plane, the soldiers call it the “air force” (which didn’t exist until after the war) instread of “air corps.” No battle tactics displayed by the German soldiers who die by the score. Not one of them takes any cover or concealment. And were the Germans so deaf, dumb, and blind as to not see the Americans creeping up on them or their tank rumbling through town? The final showdown between the German tank driver and the Americans (Eastwood, Savalas, Sutherland) is a poor joke, modeled on the man-with-no-name shootout scenes. They’d been trying to kill each other for an hour and suddenly they and the German hatch a plot together to blow open the bank’s doors. Not even funny or in the least bit interesting. JUST AWFUL! Stay away from it
March 12, 2008
#5
The irritating 1960′s style anthem songs are the biggest downfall of this movie. Well, that and the fact that Eastwood has about five lines. OK, those things, and the ethics of wanton plunder of an occuppied country.
On a positive note, Don Rickles does a great job as the supply sergeant with an eye for fiscal gain. Telly Savalas is the sour master sergeant mother-henning the misfits. I’ll also add that the tanks they used for the German Tiger tanks looked very convincing – and I don’t think they were M48′s doctored up to look like Tigers.
Overall, a solid 3 out of 5 stars.