jongo-93084 They certainly look and act as a squad except that they look more like a downed B-17 crew; so the beginning is missing some impact; The briefing, the downing, and ability to strip the bomber of gear, ammunition, and guns, after happening onto a jeep; and that's your point of taking the castle; something that Falkner curiously investigates before the mission, and most definitely a place of refuge if he managed to get there in some fouled mission gone awry. So there is the event of having the map of the area in Falkners possession, and some other details from a ranking officer about his briefing of the situation in the Ardens, before the mission as well.

grantdesouza Was everyone involved in the making of this movie high on something? This film didn't know if it was a comedy, a drama or an art movie...it was ridiculous. I know it was the psychedelic hippie era of the late 60s so you could forgive it for being a little different, but seriously it was bad. I can't believe Burt Lancaster was even in involved in this rubbish. Undoubtedly one of the best actors of our time and his appearance was the only decent thing in this entire film. I'm sure he must have had regrets after he saw the completed picture. Example...Eight guys take on an entire German armored infantry division and mow hundreds of the Germans down, while of course the GIs never get hit(well not until the very end)...are they serious! Give me a break! And whats with the fire engines with lights and sirens turning up in the middle of a battle???? Enough said.

veeguy The director of this 1969 movie must have been trippin' on LSD during the filming of this picture. He was given an all star cast of excellent actors, a fantastic castle and town set locations, a great premise for an epic movie and he comes up with *this* drivel?The film has absolutely *NO* plot, it alternates between a war movie, a comedy, an anti war movie, and does a uniformly bad job at all of them. There is 1960's "hippy" speeches, a roving group of religious zealots, a fully equipped fantasy whorehouse, a beautiful unblemished story book castle in the middle of a war zone late in 1944, and that's just the few things that pop immediately into my mind.This movie is too bad to be good, too lame to be camp, too stupid to make *any* point except "-Look at just how bad a director can fail-"Do yourself a favor and skip this one. Use the time for something more fulfilling- maybe clip your toe nails or darn your socks.

Wuchak Two World War II flicks involving a European castle came out in 1968, "Where Eagles Dare" and "Castle Keep." If you're a fan of war films you've no doubt heard of "Where Eagles Dare," which is one of the greatest war action/adventure films ever made; but I wouldn't be too surprised if you've never heard of "Castle Keep" or only vaguely heard of it. There's good reason for this.THE PLOT: The Germans are marching on a Belgium village in the Ardennes where a small group of American soldiers make a stand at a 10th century castle."Castle Keep" has a lot going for it: a great cast, including Burt Lancaster, Peter Falk, Bruce Dern & many more; fabulous Yugoslavian Winter locations & castle; thrilling action scenes; it's well-made on a technical level; and it hardly comes across dated at all, even though it's forty years old. Fans of the film describe it as "poetic" & "haunting" and it's certainly obvious the filmmakers were shooting for something groundbreaking, meaningful and artistic.Unfortunately "Castle Keep" failed to grab my attention until well into the second half of its 1 hour & 45 minute runtime, which is when the great action scenes start. The characters have a lot of dialogue but you never get to know them or care about them. Maybe because the chatter comes off as unreal, artsy and inscrutable. Want a sample? The Count of the castle comments to Theresa (who is his wife, I think), "They planned this war because there was something they hadn't yet smashed." She replies, "Who are we, Henri?" "We are the keepers." The script is full of such "deep" nonsense. Which I suppose would be okay as long as the story itself pulled me in, but it didn't. The story doesn't perk up and grab the viewer's attention until the Germans march on the village well past the hour mark.Want another example of the film's "unreal" vibe? The soldiers go into town to kill time at the local whore house. When they enter all the prostitutes are standing or lying around in various tantalizing poses in lingerie. I'm sure they were just hanging around like that waiting for five soldiers to walk in -- WHY SURE! You gotta see it to believe it. I busted out laughing! One reviewer offered the interpretation that one soldier, the writer, is simply remembering how it was, not how it really was, and that's why it comes across so dreamlike, bizarre and unreal. I find this a valid explanation. Others point out that it's an allegory about the futility of the Vietnam War which was going on at the time of release. Another interpretation is that the message is one of contrast: Life from death, and death where once life was (Huh?).Hey, I'm all for "message" films with deeper meanings, that is, as long as the film itself is interesting; the original "Apocalypse Now" is a good example. The greatest sin in filmmaking is to be boring. The second is to be pretentious. Unfortunately "Castle Keep" commits both of these transgressions IMHO.BOTTOM LINE: "Castle Keep" is an avant-garde film palatable to a chosen few. It's either groundbreaking or pretentious depending on your tastes. I certainly respect it and enjoy numerous aspects noted above, but personally deem it a failure. Still, I'm an open-minded person. Maybe next time I'll "get it." If my words intrigue you, check it out. I strangely found it worth viewing (and owning) even though I currently don't like it. I can't figure it out but, then again, I can't figure the film out either.GRADE: D+