Attack on the Iron Coast [DVD]

Product Information

I noticed also the cast making dialogue mistakes. British naval officers would always say "Left-tenant", even it's written as "Lieutenant". The film was produced by Oakmont production , a company exclusively dedicated to warfare films (Submarine X1 , Hell boats , Mosquito Squadron , Thousand plane raid , Last escape) . The motion picture was professionally realized by Paul Wendkos who displays enough spectacular images to keep things interesting . Apparently, director worked on the film's original screen story with writer/producer John C. Champion but is uncredited for such . Wendkos whose works remain undervalued in USA directed various TV series and some films as ¨Guns of the Magnificent Seven¨ , ¨Cannon for Cordoba¨, ¨Gidget¨, ¨The Flight¨, ¨The legend of Lizzie Borden¨ and ¨Hell boats¨

Principal photography began in London, England, on 15 May 1967, and ended the week of 26 Jun 1967, as reported in the 19 May 1967 and 5 Jul 1967 issues of DV. In addition to location shooting in London, filming took place at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s studio lot in Borehamwood, England, according to a 31 May 1967 Var brief.The German characters are disappointing. We're treated to some very shallow characterizations which bring to mind the worst excesses of "Hogan's Heroes". The officers sit and watch dirty movies and become sated on fine wine and liquor while their subordinates bring in urgent reports of an approaching enemy ship. This is very unfortunate, because both George Mikell and Walter Gotell are very capable German actors who have had very good roles in the past - chiefly, "The Guns of Navarone", where they acted together in 1961. This really let me down. It would have been wiser to exclude German characters altogether and dwell on the commandos some more. This is the only movie Paul Wendkos directed that has impressed me. Using oblique camera angles and careful pacing, he manages to get the most out of his meager budget. Likewise, the producers managed a much more expensive looking movie, along the lines of "The Dirty Dozen," with many more sets to dress. The photography here is equally as good as "In Harm's Way". Too bad the script isn't better,with a rather trite subplot to explain Keir's conflict with Bridges. Keir's arguments against the raid did not require them. What I did like about the script is that what appeared to be obstacles Keir used to "sabotage" the raid actually contributed to its success. Strangely inconsistent movie that was clearly done on a minuscule budget where accuracy and continuity mean little. Lloyd Bridges is not exactly renowned for his acting style - he's in it to help sell the movie in the US. The rest of the cast are all British stalwarts.

If it wasn't for Lloyd Bridges being in this, I doubt that I would have had any interest in seeing this, just another rushed out action film made on the cheap in the 60's, documenting one of hundreds of thousands of missions during World War II. Bridges is the only familiar name in this, seen in the opening vowing to make up for a mission he just failed on. He is at conflict with several other allied officers, especially Andrew Keir who blames him for the death of his son, conflicting with him over every decision made aboard ship. Bridges is seemingly acting defensive over the failed mission, and seems all too eager to clear his name by becoming commander of a very important upcoming mission. Drilling scenes are interpolated with his home life, which leads to his grade school aged son asking the above question.The opening scene has Major Jamie Wilson (Loyd Bridges) watching a movie reel showing images of actual combat between English troops and German, but from the German perspective too (!), looking more like a 1944 movie than a film taken from combat reporters. And again, would there be a cameraman filming during a commando raid? That was my first deception. Second deception: later we see a Messerschmitt Bf 109 (fighter) dropping 8 bombs on the main ship when that plane could not carry more than four (small 110lb bombs) and not one was showing under the fuselage. In the United States it was released as a double feature with Danger Route. [2] In the UK it was released as a double bill with The Beatles' animated film Yellow Submarine. [ citation needed] Plot [ edit ] Selected items are only available for delivery via the Royal Mail 48® service and other items are available for delivery using this service for a charge. This film is really a mixed bag. What's good is really, really good and what's bad is really, really bad. Lloyd Bridges gives a sincere performance as Major Wilson, but his character isn't developed as much as I would have liked. We're treated two a two-dimensional hero who doesn't have any weaknesses; he brings to mind John Wayne's Colonel Kirby of "The Green Berets". His conflict with Franklin is the core of the movie and provides enough tension that the German enemies aren't needed until the final act.

The film is about a bizarre plan to take a nearly obsolete old naval ship filled with explosives and crash it into a Nazi port--thus crippling the German's ability to use it for their ships. It all sounds very straight forward--and that's EXACTLY what it is. It's a very, very simple plot that is stretched and stretched (often by adding macho theatrics) to the point of boredom. In the end, there are no big surprises. However, I was glad to see the major characters all die in the finale--that way I know they never went on to make a sequel!! I must disagree with another reviewer regarding the ship miniatures. They look realistic on my computer screen. However, I have seen other movies ("In Harms Way,""633 Squadron,""The Guns of Navarone") where the miniatures and flats looked perfectly fine on the big screen but not on TV. In fact, in both "War of the Worlds" (1953) and "Thunderball" (1965), the wires holding up the models can be clearly seen on television, but not the big screen and both of these films were nominated for Oscars ("War of the Worlds" winning).