Clint's unlimited ammo
Guess he was lucky to find the magic machine guns that never run out of bullets.
"Worthington, we're being attacked by giant bats!"
He is shown reloading and using multiple clips. Why cant people pay attention? Comments like these are so typical...
shareAn MP40 has a magazine of 32 bullets and fires at the rate of 500 rpm which would mean a magazine would last for approx 3 seconds, he was shown firing continually for a lot longer than that.
Also he was firing indiscriminately inside a confined space with stone walls. In real life he would have been hit several times by ricochets.
Also he stood out in the open presenting himself as a sitting duck and would have been dead in less than a minute in a real combat situation.
Also despite the Germans firing thousands of rounds at the intrepid heroes they only ever managed to inflict a small wound to Richard Burton's hand.
Also he had a ridiculous looking sixties hairstyle which would not have been permitted in the US or British Army let alone the Nazi army.
Also when he was arrested as a suspected spy the Nazis never even thought of searching him and taking that silenced pistol away from him.
Also as a suspected spy he would have been blindfolded, had his hands manacled behind his back and severly beaten then chucked into a cell and left there battered and bleeding for hours before being roughly interrogated.
Also that blond SS officer found many holes in Mary Ure's story while idly chatting to her. In real life he would have had her arrested immediately.
Also he would never have been wearing a black SS uniform, those were only for ceremonial guard duty.
OMG its a film you have to suspend some belief to watch a film like this, would you really like to see someone reloading a gun every 3 seconds just to be accurate as to how long it takes to empty a magazine as it would sure peee me off watching that.
share"he was shown firing continually for a lot longer than that"
In the castle Eastwood fires a total of 8 burst on screen, ONLY 8 bursts, each lasting a only a couple seconds. I timed them; most are under 2 seconds long. The longest is 4 seconds, but he is holding two guns and he is alternating between the two as the muzzle flashes show. He is NOT shown "firing continually for a lot longer than that".
Here a grenade is thrown at Eastwood’s feet and we can see 4 spent clips on the floor. [spent clips on the floor!] So at least 6 clips were used there because 4 were visible at his feet and there are one in each gun.
A final burst at soldiers on the stairs brings the total bursts to 8. Five or six spare clips would have easily accounted for all shots at the castle. While gunfire is heard in the background as Burton talks over the radio, we can assume this time was running concurrently with the shots of Eastwood and not separately.
"Also he was firing indiscriminately inside a confined space with stone walls. In real life he would have been hit several times by ricochets."
Maybe, maybe not. The Mythbusters have done many experiments involving real ricochets. They found tremendous energy and velocity is lost after impacts. Often, the more acute the angle the less effective the ricochet. Too acute and the bullets simply disintegrate. In order to achieve a ricochet they had to make many attempts, tweaking the bullet types, ricochet surface materials, precise angles, and bullet velocity. That is not to say a ricochet can't happen, but that it could miss, disintegrate, or loose so much energy as to be non-lethal. Close observation of the film shows large chunks in the wall with each hit, indicating a soft stone which is absorbing most of the bullet's energy. A few ricochet sound effects are heard, showing the film makers were conscious of a ricochet factor. (i.e. it wasn't overlooked) We can assume those few either missed or were non lethal velocities after impact.
Since the Germans weren't killed by ricochets either, I say fair is fair and let it pass with reasonable suspension of disbelief.
"Also he stood out in the open presenting himself as a sitting duck"
He was behind the corner of the stone wall. He emerged to fire then ducked when the Germans fired back. They did the same. It's a standard movie convention used thousands of times since gunfights first appeared in films. It's done for aesthetic reasons - to show the character and engage the audience. He could have stayed behind the corner the whole time, sticking only the gun out to minimize his exposure, but then the audience would only see a disembodied gun and not the character. Again I say reasonable suspension of disbelief.
"Also despite the Germans firing thousands of rounds at the intrepid heroes they only ever managed to inflict a small wound to Richard Burton's hand. "
Well, they ARE the heroes, and not for nothing that's what the audience paid to see - heroes defying the odds and saving the day. Bruce Willis survives hails of gunfire in the Die Hard movies, jumps off rooftops, falls down elevator shafts, dodges explosions... yes he gets bloody but only for show; never anything debilitating (KEY WORD); only to make him look tough. Most action movies follow this convention. Stallone, Schwarzenegger, hell even John Wayne... In the 60s blood and gore was less acceptable. So they can't have them smothered in blood. Even still the movie was considered violent in its day. Again I say reasonable suspension of disbelief for heroes.
"Also he had a ridiculous looking sixties hairstyle"
It wasn't ridiculous looking in the sixties, heck it isn't ridiculous looking now. He still looks cool. Eastwood has never looked ridiculous. Is it an authentic 1940's military cut? No. Who cares. Like Bill Murray in Stripes, you forgo certain details to avoid making your star look like a dork. Just as in most period films they avoid those truly bizarre looking sideburns of the 1800s.
"Also as a suspected spy he would have been blindfolded, had his hands manacled behind his back and severly beaten then chucked into a cell and left there battered and bleeding for hours before being roughly interrogated."
Maybe that's where they were taking them, to a cell or headquarters for interrogation? They escaped before they got there. Why blindfold them if they're just going to kill them anyway? How can they manacle them UNTIL they get to wherever they are taking them? Soldiers do not carry manacles on them. They were taken under armed guard; three armed soldiers taking two unarmed men to headquarters for interrogation. Seems reasonable to me.
"the Nazis never even thought of searching him and taking that silenced pistol away"
Who says they didn't? They didn't escape using a silenced pistol. Eastwood shoved one out the door while Burton turned one of the German's gun on the driver, causing the crash. After the crash Eastwood pics up a machine gun and we can assume he also recovered the pistol (and knife) off the bodies. The 'shoelace' line was silly, but IT wasn't required for the escape; only split second coordinated timing, as achieved by using the rear view mirror.
"that blond SS officer found many holes in Mary Ure's story"
The only 'hole' in her story was on what side of the square was the cathedral, after which they BOTH admit they haven't been there for years and either one could have been mistaken. He's not going to arrest her for that, especially since he's thinking with his 'small head' at that moment.
"he would never have been wearing a black SS uniform"
Perhaps, but lay people don't know that. All we see is an SS officer. I don't know if the decorations, insignias, or epaulettes the Germans wore in the movie were 100% authentic or not. For all I know they could have been wearing insignias of the Belgian army. Did they look like German soldiers on screen? Did they act the part? They looked German to me. For the sake of the movie it works. I believe most people who see the film will see an SS officer and have no idea whether his uniform was ceremonial or not.
Monty Python used to poke fun of this kind of nitpicking "I'd like to point out that the BALPA spokesman was wearing the British Psychiatric Association Dinner Dance Club cufflinks". In 'Amadeus' Mozart is asked to play in the style of Bach. The party audience wouldn't have known who the hell Bach was at the time. His music wasn't popularized until Mendelssohn's time, decades later. I bet 99.9% of the people who saw Amadeus didn't even know that. Things like that don't ruin the movie.
MAGAZINES! Submachine guns use magazines! Only top loading rifles use clips!
shareWithout getting completely immersed in the minutia of the physics of the weaponry the scene was pretty silly just by the relative behavior of the troops, especially Clint Easwood's vulnerable position to the German troops.
The Germans had already set in place an MG-42 with two guys in a prone position in the middle of the hallway which would allow the rest of their squad to offer unobstructed supporting fire while behind them. Clint Eastwood wheels around around with his two MP40's and in order to fire both of them at the same time, he had to stand in a fully erect position with his chest fully squared against the Krouts; this is the worst position to be in when receiving fire in close quarters. The fact that the Germans did not return a single shot was a typical movie cliche and baffling as the supporting troops had just laid down supporting fire to allow the machine gun to get positioned in the first place. To then let Eastwood first kill the gunner and then leisurely kill the belt feeder while they coward in the hallway waiting for Col. Klink to finally give the order to charge was a bit over the top. Now for a movie, I guess it looks cool firing two weapons like that but notice that the camera is on him because the Germans would have to be picking their noses to not even start shooting at a target like that. There was no reason for them not to be ready to be offering supporting fire from the get go.
I don't maintain that I recall the chronology of the Eastwood standoff seen in the hallway perfectly, I just recall that the Germans were so buffoonish and piecemeal in their attack that it looked silly almost from the beginning.
Movies like this can be entertaining but take them for what they are, live action cartoons. But you can only play the 'it's a movie and they are the hero's' card so many times before it becomes ridiculous. Why not have the hero's fly through the air yelling wheeee as they whistfully kill thousands? Hey, they are hero's and it's a movie.
I sense that the OP is frustrated by the buffoonish elements of the movie Coombs, not an overriding need to nitpick movies. For the Original Poster, watch a real ww2 movie like 'Cross of Iron' it will be a more satisfying experience if you want something more serious.
In the chase scene at the end of the movie you have the one motorcycle guy with a side car chasing the truck. The hero's stop the truck to blow up the bridge crashing the motorcycle, fair enough. The side car guy survives the crash and fires his MP40 at point blank range and misses every shot, the hero's return fire and kill him instantly. I have no problem w/the hero's killing him w/return fire, they were standing about 10 yards apart, but how did the German empty his entire magazine and not even hit the truck. Poor guy must have been a little dizzy from the crash.
shareI've seen Cross Of Iron and though I like Peckinpah and Coburn I think Eagles is 10 times more FUN to watch. Also they're apples and oranges. Eagles is not a serious war film like Paths of Glory or Saving Private Ryan. It's not supposed to be. And people shouldn't critique it like it is. It is essentially a James Bond film. It's escapism fun.
It's North by Northwest, not Munich (both films with undercover agents).
It's All Through The Night, not Schindler's List (both films dealing with Nazis).
James Bond was in 23 movies and was hit by enemy gunfire only twice. Yet people love bond because it's a roller coaster.
I know I can sit back and enjoy the ride and not worry about whether the German grenades had the pins on the left side and not the right, or the boots the Colonel wore didn't come out til 1946, or the magazine holds only 20 rounds not 36 or whatever.
I could watch Dr. No and say 'that's dumb, everyone knows tarantulas aren't deadly.' But you know what, I watch it and enjoy it for what it is. And that's what I do with Where Eagles Dare. Whenever it's on TV I can't change the channel. I gotta keep watching coz its so much fun.
I'm watching the movie and enjoying it. I'm not counting the buttons on the uniforms.
that it is mindless fun to watch this movie, along with the Dirty Dozen (at least the last 45 minutes, whew that movie has some serious pacing problems) and the original "inglorious Bastards" circa 1978. Also throw in the Guns of Navarone. Was it the "Raid on Rommel (Burton ironically enough) or "Tobruk" which had some good flamethrower action (can't get enough of those whacky burning nazi's)?
They are all NAZI killfests and as my handle suggests that's not a bad thing, all I am saying is that it is not a history lesson. If someone objects to the realism they are correct, they are just looking for a different kind of movie.