In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

I love old British WWII movies, as well as joint efforts like The Longest Day, or Battle For Britain, or the like. There were, however, hugely gross and awful movies like Patton or Bridge Over River Kwan, which, in fact, are shallow and misleading efforts. This one, made in 1976, seemed to be awesome, with a stellar cast, Michael Cain, Robert Duval or very young Donals Sutherland amonf those, so what could go wrong? Everything went wrong. Absolutely hilarious and totally unnecessary accents, very wrong character development, almost caricature-like portrayals of such figures as Himmler or Canaris, as well as totally wrong female casting choice - there are but the few errors of the film. Then, the plot seems to be just a total joke, and the delivery borders on the brink of fairy tale. And of course, the battle scenes - oh my, could we imagine anything less terrible? I was goggling in utter disbelief and in laughing mode - how could a war drama be shaped into a crass third-class comedic sketch of no merit? What is mostly awful is the fact that we feel no mercy or compassion to anyone, and then how can we do this to carboard cutout schematic cartoons?

Always a pleasure to see Michael Caine and Donald Sutherland. It's a WWII story, told from "the enemy's" point of view, but one thing doesn't make sense to me: why is Michael's Caine's character so keen on completing his mission? Christ. Yes, he's an honorable man, but his organization isn't, and he knows it. But then again, Germans ARE reliable. Robert Duvall and Donald Pleasence are great as usual. Jean Marsh, Jenny Agutter and Judy Geeson are forces to be reckoned with. Larry Hagman is a perfect comic relief - to the end.

The Eagle has Landed is a hammy, rambling film which takes it all too seriously.In WWII a German unit led by Colonel Steiner (Michael Caine) and his men (previously imprisoned for disobeying orders) are parachuted into the Norfolk countryside, impersonate some Polish soldiers fighting for the British and plan to kidnap Winston Churchill who is due to visit the area.The Germans have sent in an IRA spy, Liam Devlin (Donald Sutherland) to lay the groundwork. Everything is going well until a girl falls into a pond and one of the soldiers exposes his identity when he jumps in to rescue her. The nearby US army base is alerted that the village has been invaded and prepare for battle.John Sturges who made The Great Escape is rather po faced here. It lacks some underlying humour although Donald Sutherland and Larry Hagman try to provide it haphazardly. It is just that in 1976 when there was an IRA bombing campaign in full swing in the British mainland, very few Britons wanted quips from an IRA comedy sidekick.The pacing of the film is uneven and Caine tries to show a heroic side to the Nazis, he even tries to aid a Jewish woman escape.

Watch out for spoilers: It's a cliché to say "the book is better." Some books are, since they have more depth of character. This is not, however, universal. Many screenplays, for obvious reasons, streamline novels, cutting out extraneous characters and making the stories flow much more smoothly. I can point out lots of cases where the movie actually is better.Not here. "The Eagle Has Landed" does streamline the story, naturally. The entire Preston subplot is excised. So is a lot of the back-and-forth yo-yoing of Radl to Himmler. In fact, Canaris has so little to do in this flick, I'm surprised they left him in at all. (Anthony Quayle is wasted as Canaris; Donald Pleasence has a field day as Himmler, and he lets us know what Hamlet means when he says one can smile and be a villain).On the plus side, the screenplay telescopes the story nicely. The novel takes place over months, while the screenplay seems to cover just a few days.Michael Caine is perfect as the German soldier with a conscience, while playing his cards close to his chest. Donald Sutherland is fine as the wry Devlin (replacing Richard Harris, and it's too bad we missed that performance). Larry Hagman, never the world's greatest actor, plays a character who was an idiot in the book and manages to be even more stupid in the movie (so although he did the part well enough as written, he can't help coming off looking unpleasantly like a buffoon; I'm surprised they didn't hire a comedic actor to play the part). I've never been a fan of Jean Marsh so I'm happy with her performance as the faux-British traitor. Jenny Agutter is pertly pretty; that's all that is required of her and that's all she does.But when all the shooting is over, one has never really connected to the characters. In the book one is surprisingly drawn to the IRA assassin and all the men fighting for their German fatherland (or, in Steiner's case, his real father, who is in Himmler's clutches). Confronted, in the movie, with dumb Americans and Brits, angry churchmen, supposedly compassionate characters studded over with Nazi regalia, and a moonstruck girl who shoots an unwelcome suitor in the back with both barrels to keep him from betraying her hit-man lover, there is really no one here for the film-goer to sympathize with.This is where the book's depth of character makes it superior. In the book you even feel disappointed when the Nazis lose, which shows the author's mastery. In many ways the screenplay and the editing improve on the story. But overall, once the shooting starts it's a bore, when that should be the exciting part.