MovieChat Forums > The Guns of Navarone (1961) Discussion > If I could change anything about this mo...

If I could change anything about this movie


I would have developed James Darren's role as Pappadimos, the quiet killer. I think it would have helped his career.

reply

I gave 8 for the film, for 3 reasons:

1- Some characters vanish from the movie and come back almost an hour later (and one died ... They could have show this.

2- The way the guy stab the fat one in the boat around 2:10, and the fat guy stab him after, thatb was silly.

3- Not 2 min after that (around 2:10 too), the guy with a machinegun is bullet proof against a german squadron, and kills everyone but the official. And then both kills each other, that was silly².

Wasn't this 3 things I would give 10/10 for the movie.

reply

Regarding reason #
1. I have no idea of what you are talking about characters vanishing and dying off screne
2. meh
3. I will agree with you. It was a weird presentation

reply

could you, if ever see this tread again, explain the "2. meh" ???

reply

agreed about 2 & 3, all characters stay in the movie though

(icheckmovies: IMDb vote history-compatible movielist host)

reply

"Meh" is Yiddish, basically meaning, "Yeah, so what, no big deal."

reply

I would change it by toning down Gregory Peck's overacting when he explodes at David Niven after their confrontation, before they set out to blow up the guns. Don't get me wrong, I like the movie very much and generally like Peck, but he was not good in that scene.

reply

Peck himself always said he had trouble "letting go", of really allowing his emotions to explode on the screen, and you can see this in many of his films. I don't think he overacted in that scene so much as he looked forced and a bit artificial. I agree, he was not too good in the scene, but I think for different reasons.

reply

I would change it by toning down Gregory Peck's overacting when he explodes at David Niven after their confrontation, before they set out to blow up the guns. Don't get me wrong, I like the movie very much and generally like Peck, but he was not good in that scene.

---

Peck himself always said he had trouble "letting go", of really allowing his emotions to explode on the screen, and you can see this in many of his films. I don't think he overacted in that scene so much as he looked forced and a bit artificial. I agree, he was not too good in the scene, but I think for different reasons.

--

roger1 offers:

A memory from a long, long time ago:

Though The Guns of Navarone was made in 1961, it took 8 long years for it to reach television in any form: in September of 1969.

The 60s wasn't a time of cable TV(there were only the three networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC) or of VHS or DVD.

There WERE local channels, or "network affiliates" that COULD show fairly old movies from the 30s, 40s and 50s "on local broadcast" (movies like Casablanca and monster movies like Them!) but they couldn't get The Guns of Navarone in the 60s.

So The Guns of Navarone made its "American network premiere" to start the 1969-1970 TV season of CBS, and the movie was shown in TWO PARTS, over two nights -- Part 1 on The CBS Thursday Night Movie and Part 2 the next night on the CBS Friday Night Movie.

Since The Guns of Navarone was set to debut in September, CBS spent the entire summer promoting it "coming this fall!" along with other programming.

And here is the deal:

ANY time they showed a commercial for the CBS Thursday and Friday night movies, EVERY time they mentioned that "The Guns of Navarone" would be the kick-off film of the season...they would show the same short clip of Gregroy Peck(with David Niven unseen):

Peck(angrily): "You're in it NOW -- up to YOUR NECK!!"

CONT

reply

That's part of his big speech towards Niven -- which I think is actually kind of effective(given that is driven by the required killing of a young woman, Peck IS raging) -- and this is ALL that CBS ever showed of Gregory Peck or ANYONE speaking in The Guns of Navarone, in commercials all summer long:

In June 1969: "You're in it NOW..up to YOUR NECK!!"

In July 1969: "You're in it NOW..up to YOUR NECK!!"

In August 1969: "You're in it NOW..up to YOUR NECK!!"

Boy were we ready for THAT movie, and THAT line, when they finally showed The Guns of Navarone in September.

But you had to wait to hear the line until The CBS Friday Night Movie...Part Two.

reply

I think I could do with a little less Anthony Quayle closeups grimacing with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. But I like him a lot here and as an actor elsewhere.

reply

I came here to post about your #2 and #3... those two deaths at the end were really weird....

reply

I`d give Stanley Baker more to do and change his last sequence which still causes confusion.

reply

More Irene Pappas.

reply

Too hairy for me!

reply

Too long. I don't buy the guys climbing up a sheer rock wall in the rain without 95% of them dying. Fights/deaths looked fake. Singing in the middle was silly.Gregory Peck's a little listless.

reply

I love this movie, loved it the first time I saw it, went to see it again when it was first released at least three times. It's a "guy movie", and boys, prepubescent, especially, dug the fact that the presence of women in the movie was slight (no romance, to speak of, albeit an interesting vibe between the Quinn and Pappas characters). James Darren was a popular singer around the time the film was made. I guess he was there for the younger women and girls in the audience. He didn't take up much time.

One character who confused me was Stanley Baker's. I didn't know the actor then, being a young American boy, thus I was confused as to who "this Stanley Baker guy" was supposed to be in the movie. For a log while my best guess was Anthony Quayle, whom I liked as an actor. Wrong. When I realized who Baker actually was it was like a WTF moment for me, as in "why does this guy even get a credit?". He seemed like such a peripheral character (to this at the time nine year old kid). I scarcely noticed him at all. (Spoiler ahead: when he was killed at the end that seemed to be his purpose, his job, as it were, in the film: the good guy who died. Okay, Darren bought it, too, but I guess they had to show that the commando guys were human, after all, so the ones one cared less about were "sacrificed"). Anthony Quayle's character didn't get a lot of time for character development, though his presence was essential early on (he was the "lucky" guy after all).

But the film's flaws, such as they were, struck me as minor quibbles I had with Navarone. They didn't waste much time, nor did they slow the movie down. A minute or two more or less for Darren or Baker wouldn't have greatly harmed or improved the quality of this action-adventure picture, which to my way of thinking was close to perfect as it was.

reply

Stuck more closely to the book.

reply