StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

pfarnell Its difficult to dispute some or most of the obvious criticisms of this film, that it was made hastily ( for a reason, both 1976 films on the subject were) that it has 2-bit sets, as it would tend to, another thing I find which gives it an odd feel is the lack of score/soundtrack, it has a stage play look....what I find puzzling is that it is found to be far inferior to its rival in any way, which has most of the same faults -and more besides..."Raid has the charisma and presence of action-man Charles Bronson , c'mon, YOU have the late Chuckster in charge of rescuing you from Arabs, Germans and crazy Ugandan dictators if you are ever in that position, you know you want him to-(if the real Israeli government had had Bronson they could have dispensed with the Golani brigade and Paras, C130s and recoilless gun-jeeps and just sent in Chuck with his pump-gun and melon truck to house-fight the terrorists out of existence) But this film despite its TV look is a far better, more exciting, more involving, more colourful script than "Raid..Richard Dreyfuss is pretty matter-of-fact Jewish charismatic and some sort of substitute for Bronson and Woods.I think the criticism of the actor playing Amin is pretty unfair, that his antics were over the top, of course the real Amin was in no way over the top, was he? It may be played a little even-voiced, precise and shrewd sounding by Julius, but I would call it a professional job still, bear in mind in 1976 the outside world had not seen as much of the real Amin as it had later.I can tell you that there was total silence in the cinema as Julius/Amin spoke back in 1977. A good sign.The assault on the airport terminal is VERY exciting and realistic in its muzzle-flashing ruthless flesh-spattering gore,the shock sudden loss of Yoni to a Ugandan sniper's bullet, after the commandos have taken control , is shock and matter-of-fact heroic ...the role of the black Mercedes limo is explained and its ominous silent tarantula-like approach to the terminal is tense, as the commandos leap out blazing at the first of the terrorists lounging outside(yes, they did a number on that blonde Nazi bitch).People really seem to have it in for Linda Blair and her chocolates-it seems nitpicking and perhaps the chocolates reflect something that really occurred on the flight.Jeez, they were Kosha chocolates after all, as she said, but everyone wants to exorcise poor Linda and her sweets. There is the inevitable humanitarian armchair-expert attack on the 'bloodthirsty" Israeli soldiers who cut down 1 or 2 of their own people , after warnings to stay down-hilarious that this time, Israeli soldiers are dubbed monsters for killing their own people instead of the usual innocent Muslim terrorists these days. The humanization of one of the German captors is criticised-but this features even more in the films rival with Horst Bucholz.Perhaps this person actually was a little like this, or just seemed more decent compared to the German woman.If all the terrorists were shown brutal hateful & dehumanised, then the critics would rag on that.This film is the better more entertaining better-written more involving of the first two. Apparently the later Operation Thunderbolt eclipses both.Good for it.

moonspinner55 In late June 1976, Air France flight 139--which had some 240 passengers on-board traveling from Athens to Paris--was hijacked by armed Arab terrorists who re-routed the plane to Entebbe, Uganda. All-star political adventure, filmed inexplicably on videotape (later transferred, with poor results, to film), was shown on ABC-TV just a few months ahead of NBC's version of the story, "Raid on Entebbe"; it was a rush job to beat the clock, and it shows. The harrowing facts of the ordeal have a tough time making an impact here, what with Ernest Kinoy's teleplay whipped up on the spot and Julius Harris stepping in for Godfrey Cambridge at the eleventh hour as dictator Idi Amin. The casting is certainly interesting; these stars must have had a vested interest in the proceedings and felt a great need to be a part of the experience, even if three-dimensional roles weren't exactly waiting for them (Kirk Douglas and Elizabeth Taylor, in particular, are poorly used). Some suspense and excitement near the finale, but it's long and talky when it should have been a gripping docu-drama.

H_Kivel While I substantially agree with the review by John Barnes, I also believe the film has one or two positive qualities which he neglected to mention. Yes, Mr. Barnes, Victory at Entebbe is a poor quality, third-rate, and hastily-prepared film. But it is NOT worthless.It was a 1976 attempt to portray a 1976 historical event for a 1976 television audience. That alone lends it a certain historical authenticity. So many films with much higher budgets seem far less genuine simply because they attempt to portray historical events 20, 30, 40+ years after the fact.Although I did read the book 90 Minutes at Entebbe a number of years ago, I cannot necessarily vouch for the film's complete historical accuracy. However--with the notable exception of the unruly hostages being shot by the commandos--the film appears to be an honest attempt to accurately portray the event.Nevertheless, due to the film's poor quality, I recommend it only for those who either already have a special interest in the Entebbe raid, or would like to learn about the Entebbe raid. The film actually has more educational than entertainment value.

yenlo If one is a history buff and enjoys reading about and viewing films made about historic events then they will read and view everything they can find on the subject. This film is an account of the Israeli commando rescue of Jewish hostages who were hi-jacked in July of 1976 and flown to Idi Amins Uganda. While this film which boasted an all star cast is clearly inferior to the one which came out a year later and starred Peter Finch and Charles Bronson it still makes for good viewing. It also makes one wonder with the talented cast had more time and perhaps more money been spent on making this version it might have been the best of the lot.