ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

bowmanblue There are some films that need little introduction. 'Kelly's Heroes' is one of them. However, in today's Hollywood, movies about the Second World War are few and far between, so some may question the relevance of an ensemble piece set in the dying days of Nazi-occupied Europe. First of all, I'll probably stick my neck out and say that it's probably not that 'historically accurate' (or at least not to my knowledge!). By that, I don't mean that Allied forces are fighting zombies or abducted by vampires. From the little I know of the period, all the uniforms, military language and techniques look genuine enough to fool a layman like me. When I say it's not 'historically accurate' I mean that, whereas most films of this era concentrate (naturally) on the struggle between German and Allied forces, 'Kelly's Heroes' offers more of a 'crime caper' set during the conflict. If I could compare it to anything, I'd almost say it felt like an 'Ocean's Eleven' in the middle of World War II.Clint Eastwood plays the titular 'Kelly' – a war-weary soldier who's had enough of potentially dying any day without anything to show for it personally. So, when he learns of a bank full of gold behind enemy lines, he puts together a group of equally ambitious troops all willing to risk their lives for a slice of the bullion. As I mentioned, it's a bit of an ensemble cast, the two most notable additions are Telly Savalas and Donald Sutherland, both who vie for position of the cast member who's trying to steal every scene they're in. However, just because the film is largely about the quest to blow open a bank vault, doesn't mean that it's not a war film. The setting alone means that our 'heroes' come up against all the perils associated with the period and there are some pretty impressive set-pieces when it comes to the action.I think the best thing about 'Kelly's Heroes' is that it has a pretty broad appeal. Obviously fans of war films will enjoy it, but you have the added bonus of having Clint Eastwood in the lead (and in his prime, no less) supported by some amazing acting talent. Then throw in the action element and the engaging crime plot and you're really going to invest your time into caring whether these (not so heroic) heroes get the gold or not. Don't be put off by its age. It's as good – and more importantly fun – today as it ever was. I will never grow tired from watching a tank freak out the opposing forces by playing music loudly as it comes into battle!

ratnakar-techie Ignore the critics, this is one hell of a joy ride. 4 different characters in search of Nazi treasure in World War II.While this is a standard guys on a mission war flick, the motivations here are different. Their motive is not heroism, but greed pure and simple.Kelly( Clint Eastwood) learns of a stash of Nazi gold hidden somewhere, and he recruits a bunch of odd balls to get that. He had earlier been made a scapegoat for a failed infantry assault, and he is more interested in the gold, than any kind of glory.And the Heroes, an opportunistic Sgt Crapgame( Don Rickles) who holds the key to the supplies and tanks needed. A hipster, half spaced out tank commander Oddball( Donald Sutherland), a cynical, often nasty Sgt Big Joe( Telly Savalas).As we can see not particularly a bunch of "'Heroes", they are just a bunch of greedy, opportunist profiteers out to make a fortune, using war as their cover. In a sense a satire too on war, showing behind all that heroism , it's just plain survival and greed.Think Good, Bad and Ugly against a World War II setting, albeit more fun, more faster paced.Typical guys movie with some solid performances, Clint Eastwood as laconic as ever, Don Rickles superb, Telly Savalas generating the right amount of nastiness and above all Donald Sutherland stealing the show as a Hipster ,tank commander appropriately called Oddball.

wes-connors Credits roll as The Mike Curb Congregation perform their catchy "Burning Bridges" during a thunderstorm punctuated by fiery explosions. Believe it or not, it's 1944 and the Germans are bombing Americans stationed in France. While future "Kojak" TV detective Telly Savalas (as Big Joe) barks orders, rugged box-office star Clint Eastwood (as Kelly) saunters on screen. After inquiries about liquor and loose women, Mr. Eastwood discovers gold in a German prisoner's possession. Even better, a $16 million fortune in gold is stored in a bank vault, just behind enemy lines. "Beach Party" series adult and insult comedian Don Rickles shows interest. Future lovable bigot "Archie Bunker" Carroll O'Connor joins the fun. Eastwood organizes "Kelly's Heroes" and a cast of dirty dozens in an attempt to infiltrate German territory and steal the gold...Writer Troy Kennedy Martin and director Brian G. Hutton may have been trying for satirical comedy with this one, but "Kelly's Heroes" fails to thrive in its World War II setting. They should have set the story in (then) present-day Vietnam; the situation, that of a heist, hints at imperialism and flirts with anti-war sentiments. The most obviously inappropriate character is pseudo-hippie Donald Sutherland (as Oddball), but Don Rickles and others area also misplaced. The action consists of character actors shouting their lines amid explosions, to which Eastwood plays straight man. A sequence involving land mines, including a gun battle, is very skillfully done; momentarily, the film is lifted. It does get back to basics, those being loud character actors and fiery explosions. In a film like this, loud character actors and fiery explosions are gold.****** Kelly's Heroes (6/23/70) Brian G. Hutton ~ Clint Eastwood, Telly Savalas, Donald Sutherland, Don Rickles

ronsbhs What STONED 60's writer wrote "Oddball's" dialog? absolutely nobody talked like that in WWII. Were they only trying to appeal to the 60's "peace-nik"crowd when this was written (After all, it had to be written in the 60's since it was released in 1970)Terrible writing, story shot full of too many holes, without the many stars carrying this it would never have made any money.Clint Eastwood surely must have needed the money to make this one as it surely wasn't up to the story lines of his most successful films.I'm wondering if what we're seeing today is the original or the many re-writes that were rampant during the selling-off of all of MGM's assets.