Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

torgulsmith-225-355486 Wonderful film, very much about the sane man confronting the insanity of war. Beautiful photography in the palette of the 60's ww2 films, rich greens, browns, blues. A film about travel, meeting different characters, each representing different aspects of human nature. Reed is completely out of character, yet completely convincing. However. However. What is up with the polish girl, who is a totally sympathetic character, machine gunned, at the end? And Brooks, etc all, blithely crossing the Swiss border, without a moments reflection on the beautiful corpse they left behind? Why could not the screenwriter allowed her to live, explain the practical necessity of her betrayal, and stay with brooks?

Scotthannaford1 Michael J. Pollard does, to an extent, spoil every scene he is in.I think that the main problem that Oliver Reed is one of the finest actors of the past thirty years - all brooding menace and power bubbling under the surface. Considering his role as Bill Sykes (the ultimate depiction of a vicious character), he is quite believable here.However Pollard hams up his role and plays it like a smacked up hippy. I can't imagine that the French Resistance fighters would have followed him for an instance, and I am sorry to say he is badly miscast here.The film is also, to an extent, a little derivative, with some pretty shoddy direction. It does have some superb cinematography which helps balance this out, but to be honest its a film to watch on December 27th when you have had your fill of Christmas cheer and just fancy something light.

Craig Larson I stumbled on this movie on a Sunday afternoon and, having nothing better to do, sat down to watch. I wasn't expecting much--director Michael Winner doesn't have the strongest reputation--but this was a very well-done film. It has that 60s anti-establishment tone, though Oliver Reed's character is more indifferent to war than an outright rebel. When he is captured, Reed's character, Hannibal Brooks, volunteers to work at the Munich zoo and becomes the caretaker for the zoo's elephant, Lucy. When the German caretaker is killed in a bombing raid, Brooks is put in charge and directed to take the elephant to safety in Ausria. What follows is a series of largely comic misadventures, though the film does develop a serious tone as it goes on. Unable to take the elephant by train, Brooks sets off on foot, accompanied by two German guards and a female cook. There is some great German scenery in the film as Brooks and company make their way into the high country. Following the accidental death of one of the guards, plans change and the remaining trio make their way to Switzerland. There's a rogueish American escapee, played by Michael J. Pollard, who keeps crossing paths with Brooks, as well as a German officer, played by Wolfgang Preiss, whose path crosses Brooks' as well. Rather reluctantly, Brooks becomes something of a hero, though he's motivated more by his desire to keep Lucy safe than by anything else. A very enjoyable movie that I wouldn't mind seeing again some time.

Wiseguy-7 Well worth watching! Escaping from Germany to Switzerland with an elephant, Hannibal Brooks embarks on an action-packed adventure that will keep your attention, and provide some laughs along the way.