Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

SnoopyStyle The plans for the D-Day invasion is being set closely consulting with Winston Churchill. Dwight D. Eisenhower (Tom Selleck) has to corral the disparate personalities on the task at hand. Gen. Montgomery wants a slashing strike but must accept the broad invasion. Patton has caused international tension with his off-the-cuff public comments and Ike sidelines him as a diversion. The predictions of casualties are dire. The plan is besieged by equipment shortages, near-discovery by the Nazis, delay, and a fear of failure. On June 6, 1944, Ike sets off the biggest amphibious assault ever attempted.Tom Selleck is bald and without his mustache. He still looks like Tom Selleck. I don't necessarily buy him physically but he has that commanding presence. This is not an action movie. It is a character study. There are several strong characters and each one is played competently. Bruce Phillips is great as Montgomery. I like all the behind the scene jockeying and the back story.

dimplet During the commentary they said that the idea for the film came from Stephen Ambrose. Whoa! Ambrose wrote "The Supreme Commander, The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower," which, sadly, we have to assume was used as a primary source for this film, because the film provides no credits for any historical sources.The problem is Ambrose has very little credibility as a historian, after being proved to have fabricated and plagiarized a great deal of the material in his books. He claimed to have spent "a lot of time with Ike, really a lot, hundreds and hundreds of hours" interviewing Eisenhower on a wide range of subjects, and that he had been with him "on a daily basis for a couple years" before his death "doing interviews and talking about his life." But then when the truth started coming out about Ambrose' lies, someone did some checking: "The former president's diary and telephone show that the pair met only three times, for a total of less than five hours." This is from Wikipedia. Just look at the entry on Ambrose for a long list of fabrications, exaggerations, factual errors and plagiarism. Anything touched by Ambrose is suspect, and this includes Ike, Countdown to D-Day. We have already seen a list of anachronisms and criticisms from posters, especially about the bias and factual errors concerning the French and DeGaulle. Unless you have a background in the history of these people and events, it is impossible to judge whether the portrayals are accurate, particularly the private side of Patton and Montgomery. The film does not present the positive accomplishments of these generals, and we know you do not get to be a general by behaving like a 10 year old, which is how they are portrayed. The business of Eisenhower's threatening to send Patton home over the slapping incident is sheer nonsense. Eisenhower actually defended Patton against criticism from Washington, and never considered relieving him. The "Knutsford Incident" also seems to have been fundamentally distorted. The portrayal of Patton by Lionel Chetwynd simply is not true. While I gather there may be some basis for the prima donna portrayal of Montgomery, my gut feeling is it is exaggerated for dramatic purposes and that he was not such a pompous fool. jhiggins993 from Woodbridge VA, says the whole business of Montgomery arguing with Ike over tactics is nonsense: "In fact, Field Marshal Montgomery as overall ground commander for the invasion, was the principle architect of the assault plan that was used on D-Day" Another reviewer says Chetwynd has a long record of rewriting history in his screenplays. So if the business of Montgomery arguing with Ike is false, what's left, talking about the weather? The key scenes of Ike with Winston are made up, too. Eisenhower didn't have to persuade Churchill to support him to be Supreme Commander to unify the arguing factions because they weren't arguing, and the choice was up to FDR. The film portrays Eisenhower as a clear-thinking leader. Perhaps, but that's not what we saw in his eight years as President of the United States. This is the guy who kept Richard Nixon as his vice president for eight years, even though he despised him, and didn't have the guts to stand up to the anti-communists, or defend his friend Gen. George Marshall against attacks by Joe McCarthy.This film also makes the outcome of D-Day less certain than it was, failing to tell hardly anything about the extensive deception to convince Hitler that the invasion would be at Calais. Ian Fleming even contributed to the ruse of a fake courier's body washed up in Spain. Hitler slept till noon on D-Day because no one was allowed to waken him, and even then Hitler believed the real invasion would come at Calais. Tom Selleck delivers a commanding performance. Not having been alive during WWII, it is impossible for me to judge its accuracy. I was alive during the Eisenhower administration, though quite young, and we have plenty of TV clips from the era. Selleck's version does not match this later public image.The portrayal of Churchill is good. But if you listen to Churchill's actual speeches, he was less forceful and edgy than is portrayed here. Many of Churchill's famous radio speeches were done by an actor impersonator, so we have an actor (Ian Mune) who may have been imitating an actor imitating Churchill.The film makes a point early on about how Britain stood alone against Hitler until America entered the war, and, indeed, the bravery of the British people under Churchill's leadership will stand till the end of time as one of the noblest acts of humanity. However, I'm a bit surprised our modern British friends have not attacked this American production, as they do with most Hollywood renditions of WWII. Perhaps it is because the writer, Lionel Chetwynd, was born in Britain, and lives in Canada?The script of Ike is excellent and believable, internally. The acting is very good, and the story is low-keyed yet riveting. But, like most Hollywood attempts at history, we should not put too much faith in the details. This is a dramatization, and some details and characters were fabricated, along with virtually all of the dialogue. If it was based on works by Stephen Ambrose, then the fabricated dialogue is based on fabricated "history." The basic story is true, of course, and Eisenhower deserves credit for what he accomplished. But if you want to learn about history and get your facts straight, you are going to have to do some reading and watch some reputable documentaries, of which there are many on WWII. Ike provides a sense of the time and place, but given the known errors, I do not trust the portrayals or facts. Ike should be viewed for entertainment purposes, only.

roghache There are no combat scenes in this wartime drama, yet it offers a compelling portrait of Ike and a gripping depiction of all the strategy meetings involved in the Allied landing in Normandy. I'm one of the few who has not yet seen Saving Private Ryan, and think this might be a useful movie to have watched first. The film chronicles the complicated planning meetings during the three month build up to D-Day, the operation masterfully orchestrated by the American General Dwight D. Eisenhower in his position as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force. Tom Selleck is positively brilliant in his portrayal of Ike. Like every other viewer, I knew what the real Eisenhower looked like but while watching this movie, I didn't see Tom Selleck or Magnum. I saw Ike. The movie gives a moving portrait of this confident and decisive but not egotistical general. Fortunately, it avoids any depiction of an alleged romantic affair with his chauffeur Sommersby, best not to cast needless aspersions. It especially provides a touching glimpse into this leader's inner turmoil, secret doubts, and emotional anguish at sending soldiers into a dangerous battle bound to involve high Allied casualties. The battle depicted in this film is truly Eisenhower's inner one.The most wrenching scene is definitely the one in which Eisenhower himself visits the paratroopers on the eve of the landing. As this group is expected to suffer especially high casualties, he realizes that he is undoubtedly sending many of them off to their deaths. However, given the dire wartime situation, he realizes he has no choice. His unpretentious friendliness with these paratroopers is touching as he tries to put them at ease, shares a cigarette with them, and shows genuine interest in their personal lives...uncharacteristic of a military commander in his position.The inner squabbling between the generals is also interesting, the various egos of those who disagree on strategy. It's obvious why there needs to be one leader with the final word! Ike exhibits both able tactical strategy but also admirable people skills, dealing respectfully with both the political leaders and the other generals, seeking their opinions, but unafraid to ultimately insist on his chosen course of action. Generals Montgomery, Patton, and Bradley are all highly involved in the planning operation. I'm no expert on the historical accuracy about any of these generals, so will leave such commentary to others better informed.Charles DeGaulle is certainly cast as an irritating, unsympathetic, and uncooperative obstacle to the Allies' plans, though some have commented that this depiction is inaccurate. Hopefully. While I hesitate to disparage the dead, he comes across as quite despicable here. Churchill is also shown of course, behaving very Churchillian!The planning operation of Operation Overlord makes a riveting story. I was especially taken with the operation's total dependence on the weather reports near the target date. The pressure must certainly have been on these meteorologists to get their forecast right! Sellick brought to life an historical figure I had previously really never thought much of, though Eisenhower must have been regarded quite heroically in public opinion for him so have gained such an endearing nickname. I hope his portrayal in this movie is accurate, because I would like to believe that Ike actually was in real life the very capable but unpretentious and compassionate man of integrity depicted here.

kaaber-2 thank God. The closest we come to a battle scene in "Ike" are the quotes from Laurence Olivier's "Henry V". I do believe that's a small mistake, though: I don't think that film hit the theaters until 1945, somewhat too late for D-day. However, it's justified, artistically: we think of Henry's bombast (one of the greatest speeches at that) when Ike pays his own, humble tribute to the airborne troopers just before D-day. And there is a more subtle reference to Henry V when Ike has to sacrifice an old friend (and nearly sacrifices Patton, too, another old friend.) His thoughts on that also bring Shakespeare to mind.I loved the film. It stayed true to its purpose, the portrayal of a general making a very tough decision. Selleck was great, and so were they all. Montgomery had a human face to him, and so did DeGaulle (although 90% of it was nose) and he was just as irritating as he is supposed to have been, power-greedy and quite oblivious to the fact that most of his France had in fact sold out to Nazi Germany. The script is great - philosophical and well-written to a fault. Now, why did I think I would be bored? I wasn't, for even one second.