The fall from the cablecar

Ha, ha: back in the 60's it seemed to be acceptable to portray all Germans as a Teutonic stereotype with an outrageous accent! I don't remember the film confusing me too much, as I accepted it was supposed to be preposterous, but maybe that is also because I found the obvious flaws so irritating that they ditracte me from all other aspects that the film may have also offered. It was also somewhat sad to observe a decline in Donald Houston's career; being reduced to having to perform a limited role and bereft of lines in the script. His acting style, like Burton's, always sliced the ham extra thick, so he was bound to milk it far too much when he was snivelling at the prospect of falling to his death from the cable car. It also seems unfair that Eastwood was not asked to show the same reaction when he was in equal peril earlier in the film; slipping from the roof of the cable car station until Burton gives him a helping hand. In fact both Burton and Eastwood showed no fear throughout: why do movies like this put the starring roles in danger when the viewer knows they are not going to be killed, it fails to bring any tension, irrespective of the efforts of the scene music and photpgraphy? Equally the same can be said regards the opponents of the starring roles; the viewer knows the outome for them will be failure and death. As a viewer I remember being frustrated by this and thinking 'get on with it!'; wishing I had a fast forward button to progress to the inevitable outcome of many scenes in the film. To be fair to Where Eagles Dare it is not the only film that is guilty of being almost completely predictable in this manner: Right up to today Hollywood rarely serves up something different and still likes to play it safe with repeating the same film formats that previously successfully brought in revenue, so this most probably means my views of Where Eagles Dare are in the minority.

Hi Grampz -

Okay, I think I follow your logic regards the SS officer's reaction, but there was more than his adversary and Smith who were trying to interject; but even so, perhaps point taken. As for the double agents, they had loads of chances to kill Schaffer and Smith when these two has their backs to them. They did not suspect Smith of being a double (or triple) agent, surely just judging him as an enemy to be killed like they did the radio operator. Okay that would make a short film. Also I suspect I am missing a point here; relating to how you seem to differentiate Smith from the McPherson and the radio operator.
Many years ago, spanning over about a five year period, I tried to re-watch this film a couple of times, but on both occasions I became impatient with what I have stated as the aspects I see as flaws. I suspect I would be the same now, even if someone like you pointed out the error of more on the logic of my objections.
I do admit that sub consciously I'm most probably prepared to over-look, or not notice, worse flaws in other films: maybe because I like or sympathised with their subject matter or overall approach.

I have to agree with most of the comments in this thread, that there are 'many' implausible events and situations that occur, that allow the plot to continue to its successful conclusion. (and, the best overacted Vilhem scream I've ever seen in a movie)

But, you also touch upon one of small, but interesting, aspects of the film. Derren Nesbit who played Gestapo Major Von Hapan (and was in the earlier film "The Blue Max" with Anton Diffring, who was also in both films)is a more complicated character, after you've watch the film 'once a year' and begin to notice the subtle nuances, and the events that lead to his demise...

The early scene between him and Kramer does setup the distrust and antagonism between them which culminates in the interrogation scene (note how he calmly re-browses through the documents on the table, after being confronted, a sign of the struggle for superiority), but Kramer's comments about why they didn't inform him of the spies existence may reveal the Gestapo's officer's habits, which either are a brilliant aspect of his work (be where the soldiers talk freely, to gain information) or a flaw in his professionalism, in that he spends his time drinking, and chasing women (to the point where no one can ever find him).

When he questions Mary Ure, he's in the castle's converted lounge, 'drinking', which either reflects his favorite pastime, or his preferred method of interrogation...

The expression on his face, after he escorts her back to her castle room, shows that he knows he's onto something, but may suspect that he's again been left in the dark about it by the others (which is why he goes to find them, to his doom). He 'wants' to believe Smith's story, which would confirm his suspicions about the army officers' refusal to include him, and would give him the affirmation that 'he' is the superior German officer and that the Gestapo is the ultimate authority.

If any additional scenes had been filmed that included his character, I'd love to have had the chance to see if more of the character traits had been revealed...

I agree that when confronting the British army the German army bit off more than they could chew quite a few times and made errors (El Alamein; getting ahead of their supply routes, etc.), but I did say 'most' and not 'always' (wow; that is very defensive soundiong of me!). I also agree the very significant and vital input of the USSR for the Eastern Front, but I did mean the British army's theatre v the Germans (again a back-tracking defensive comment). I also understand the movie was intended to be hokum, and no one should criticise it purely for its 'far-fetched' approach. For me it was the portrayed incompetence of the bad guys, making war look a bit too easy and somewhat dashing along with the almost voyeuristic suffering shown in the scene the original post referred to (the Subject line), and this also being the case in a few other scenes, all of which served to put me off a repeat viewing. Why I do not complain about the bawdy nature of carry on films is maybe because I do not find then gratuitous. I appreciate the point you make though. As for Rambo films I've not even bothered to watch any of them so I can't comment.