Raid on Rommel (1971) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
30 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Rushed and Poorly Produced WWII Fare
SgtSlaughter3 July 2001
It's simply too bad that this movie was ever made. Okay, "Raid on Rommel" isn't the worst WII movie ever produced. Browse through some of my other reviews, and you'll soon learn that. The sad thing is, any middle-aged American man is liable to pick this one up off of the DVD rack at Suncoast like I did a few years ago and be shocked by how such a promising-looking movie turned into such a big letdown.

Made in 1971, "Raid on Rommel" was originally planned as a made-for-TV special to make some more money off of the special effects sequences in "Tobruk", far too many of which were incorporated into this film. The far-fetched plot revolves around a British commando unit who have to sneak behind the German lines and blow up the shore batteries at Tobruk, allowing the British Navy to sail into the harbor unmolested and begin an attack. There's a lot more going to complicate matters, including the presence of a conscientous objector (Christopher Cary), an Italian prostitute (Danielle de Metz), Field Marshall Rommel (Wolfgang Preiss), and a zealous Nazi Captain (Karl Otto-Alberty). Non of these supporting characters are developed in the least, which is quite unfortunate - especially considering that the latter two are among the best "Nazi" character-actors to have ever graced the screen.

Long on action and short on intelligence or flair, "Raid on Rommel" proves to be one immense bore from start to finish. The action sequences revolve almost completely around footage lifted from "Tobruk". This is probably because "Raid on Rommel" was shot on a shoestring budget. This shows up in that even actors from our film are substituted for by actors from "Tobruk" (there's a sequence where Burton's character is taking on a German tank, and whenever there is a cut to the "Tobruk" footage, it becomes jarringly obvious that the actor in the other shots is George Peppard rather than Richard Burton). Whole scenes, plot points and character traits seemed to lifted from "Tobruk", too, which was a real shame.

Another deadly flaw in the film's execution is the poor choice of casting Richard Burton in the lead. I've never been a fan of Burton. His work in "Where Eagles Dare" was entertaining and fun, but nothing to stand up and applaud for. Here, he doesn't even put an effort into making his role convincing. He sleepwalks through most of his scenes; there are a few points where he calls characters by other characters' names or by the actor's name.

Even on DVD, the non-English sections of the film (and there are several of them) are not supported by subtitles, making it almost impossible to tell what is going on between the characters. There are key discussions between Rommel and Captain Schroeder which lead up to the climax, and I could only understand snippets of these scenes thanks to a semester of college-level German.

I had always considered Henry Hathaway a great director; after all, he was the brains behind the John Wayne classic "True Grit", one of my favorite westerns. The rest of the crew had experience limited to other low-grade movies or fairly strong TV series. At best, "Raid on Rommel" plays like an extended episode of "The Rat Patrol" and just cannot be taken seriously as a feature film. See "Tobruk" instead.

4/10
40 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Entertaining Burton desert war adventure that uses footage from a better film
face-782-6562017 August 2010
British forces must destroy gun emplacements in Tobruk. Richard Burton once again gives n outstanding performance as Alex Foster who must destroy the German guns. This movie is a mixture of the guns of Naverone and battle of the bulge as you have American tanks m41 walker bulldogs and m48 Patton as German Panzers ( all of which is footage lifted from Tobruk ) similar to the bulge film. You have Burton exactly copying the actions of Peppard to fit the stock footage of Tobruk into the action scenes of this film. However this is what lets the film down as it doesn't use any new footage as far as battle scenes are concerned it is like watching Tobruk again but just with different actors. Still worth a watch as it is exciting and well acted
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Tedious rubbish
Jan-14626 August 2000
This afternoon the BBC aired once again this abominable film about a British commando unit set out to destroy a German petrol dump in order to prevent the Germans from using their tanks. As far as I am concerned everything that could be wrong about this movie is wrong: the Germans are portrayed as silly cartoon-like figures who are only interested in war and who believe everything Hitler says. The British protagonists are all civilized people who took on the battle reluctantly and are heroes simply because they're British. This film is also rather comical: at one point one of the British special service man is seen in an encounter with the German general Rommel. Every now and again this British soldier tries to show that he speaks German fluently. Well, he doesn't. You don't have to be German (and I am not) to see that these so called highly trained commandos wouldn't last an hour if they were dropped as secret agents in Nazi-Germany. If this film was shot in the years between 1940-1945, I could have understand. But in 1971?
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Duplicate Footage from Tobruk
tmkwdi31 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I watched Raid on Rommel, followed by Tobruk yesterday and was amazed to see the same footage used in each film. I'm not referring to actual newsreel footage, but to scenes that were specifically shot for Tobruk (1967) that were used intact in Raid on Rommel (1971). Of course, the principals (Richard Burton/Raid on Rommel and Rock Hudson/Tobruk) were only seen in their respective films, but many of the action scenes and background actors appear in each. Most notorious was the aircraft strafing scene with a British-marked P-40. In another scene, the driver of a half-track is seen through his rear-view mirror, then the camera pans to see his profile. The identical sequence appears in both films, giving one an eerie deja-vu sensation. Wonder if anyone else has noticed this obvious duplication?
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Reasonable desert war movie
Penfold-134 September 1999
There are a lot of bizarre chains of circumstance which set up the plot of this. People just happen to have talents and interests which assist the plot, others have very improbable reasons for being where they are, and so on.

But if you can forget about the artificially convenient, this is a pretty good tale, pretty well told. A medical corps unit, and some of its patients, who start out as captives, end up, under the leadership of Richard Burton, being a commando team who play a vital part in the assault on Tobruk. Oh, and there's a girl in there somewhere.

There are plenty of tense moments, adventures, incidents, and so on. People get shot, things get blown up, the Germans are uniformly stupid except for Rommel, the military genius.

It's got all the ingredients (even if it did borrow some of the more spectacular explosions and so on from another movie), and the actors are as convincing as they can be given their improbable backgrounds.

A perfectly enjoyable, inconsequential, undemanding movie which makes two hours or so pass pleasantly enough.
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Sympathetic Depiction of Rommel . . .
zardoz-1321 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Admittedly, Henry Hathaway's "Raid on Rommel" isn't the masterpiece that Brian Hutton's "Where Eagles Dare" was for Richard Burton, but this low-budget World War II epic about an unlikely British commando unit operating behind Nazi lines in North Africa doesn't qualify as a complete bust. Richard M. Bluel's screenplay is predictable but entertaining for the most part. Sure, better movies about the British North African campaign have been made going back as early as "The Desert Rats of Tobruk" (1944) and then in the 1950s came Hathaway's own "The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel" (1951), followed by Robert Wise's "The Desert Rats" (1953), Nicholas Ray's "Bitter Victory" (1957), Terence Young's "No Time to Die" (1958), Arthur Hiller's "Tobruk" (1967), and one of the very best and most grim: Andre de Toth's "Play Dirty" (1969). "Raid on Rommel" deserves no Oscars or special recognition of any kind, but it is an amenable way to spend 99 minutes.

Indeed, "Major Payne" producer Harry M. Tatelman plundered the Universal Studios' stock footage archives for all of the exciting action footage from Hiller's "Tobruk" and seamlessly incorporated it into "Raid on Rommel." I would even argue that the action footage fares better here than in Hiller's "Tobruk." "Tobruk" was a "Guns of Navarone" clone with Rock Hudson as a Canadian and George Peppard as a German Jew who fought against the Nazis. Mind you, recycling footage in Hollywood is an age-old, time-honored practice. For example, every low-budget caveman or lost continent movie that came out of Hollywood in the 1950s exploited footage from "One Million B.C."

In "Raid on Rommel," Burton is cast as Captain Alex Foster. British Intelligence riddles a Nazi half-track with machine gun fire and Foster climbs into it and drives off into the desert seemingly oblivious as to his destination. Later, a Nazi convoy ferrying sick P.O.W.s discovers Foster and picks him up. Initially, Major Hugh Tarkington (Clinton Greyn of "Robbery") knows that Foster isn't suffering from heat exhaustion, but he warns him that he wants to know his orders. Foster reveals his mission to Tarkington, only to learn that he has stumbled onto the wrong convoy. Instead of seasoned commandos at his disposal, he has the sick and the injured. Boy, is Foster upset and Tarkington isn't inclined to help him. Eventually, Tarkington changes his mind.

Meanwhile, Foster manages to make something of the men at his disposal thanks largely to Sgt. Maj. Allan MacKenzie (John Colios of "Scorpio") and the British overpower their Nazi captors and disguise themselves as the enemy. Talk about improvising! On their way to Tobruk, Foster and MacKenzie give their men a boot camp in firing mortars and rappelling down ropes by slinging them to the sides of the personnel carriers. Along the way, they pick up a civilian and a beautiful woman and use them as a part of their masquerade. Our valiant heroes enter Tobruk, meet Rommel at his headquarters where Foster learns the whereabouts of a fuel depot, and then they blow everything to hell and gone. The scene at Rommel's headquarters is especially neat because Tarkington gets into a polite argument with a cultured Rommel about collecting postage stamps, thereby giving Foster—disguised as a Nazi officer—time to study secret German maps.

No, "Raid on Rommel" is not the most historically accurate World War II film by any stretch of the imagination. However, few films produced about historical events are faithful to history. If you see a movie to get the facts straight, you're a misguided soul. Hollywood doesn't specialize in history lessons; movie makers want to entertain us first and then second strive for accuracy. During the last half of the 20th century, all World War II movies contained historically inaccurate equipment. American 'Cold War' army tanks usually masqueraded as Nazi Tiger Tanks and vintage Navy propeller driven fighters doubled for Japanese Zeroes. As far as that goes, most filmmakers ignored the fact that Nazis spoke German and Hitler's madmen uttered their lines with obvious ersatz accents. These problems became conventions largely because American audiences couldn't speak the foreign dialects and subtitles were confined to foreign art films. "Raid on Rommel" contains one of the most obvious conventions of World War II movies that "Catch-22" changed. During one scene, an Allied P-40 Tomahawk fighter attacks the Nazi convoy that Foster has joined. The enemy manages to hit the fighter and it streaks off, pouring smoke, and crashes behind a sand dune with a fireball explosion rolling heavenward to mark its demise. Of course, the producers no more than the owner of that vintage plane were about to destroy it for this inconsequential movie. In "Catch-22," you actually get to see a plane crash nose first into the side of mountain!

Meanwhile, the significance of "Raid on Rommel" is undoubtedly lost on today's audience. In 1951, Hathaway helmed an ahead-of-its-time World War II biography "The Desert Fox" and portrayed Rommel (James Mason) in sympathetic terms. In fact, Hathaway's portrait of Rommel proved too sympathetic and most film critics scourged Twentieth Century Fox for this depiction. A couple of years later to set the record straight, Mason reprised his role as Rommel in "The Desert Rats" and he was not accorded the sympathy that outraged critics in the Hathaway gem. Read the major reviews of "The Desert Fox" in Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times and you will see for yourself that Hathaway stirred up controversy.

Yes, "Raid on Rommel" is a potboiler of sorts, probably memorable to World War II fans more for Hathaway's brief but sympathetic Rommel scene and for—according to one Burton biographer—Burton's sober performance. He didn't drink a drop while he was acting, but then crusty old Henry Hathaway, who never gave any actor a break, probably kept his eye on the Welshman. The performances are standard and one of the most respected Bavarian actors who specialized in playing German officers—Wolfgang Preiss—plays Field Marshal Rommel.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A really bad movie
rps-230 September 2003
The history is wrong. The props are inaccurate. The story is over the top derring do nonsense. It was the presence of Richard Burton that drew me to this turkey. Alas, it must have been his worst role. I fail to see how any film maker can be so careless with his subject and so contemptuous of his audience. The Germans did not use flying boats and certainly not in the desert. The Wehrmacht did not use the type of campaign ribbon shown on the German uniforms. There are no puffy white clouds over the Libyan desert. Edward R. Murrow's CBS broadcasts could not have been heard in Africa. And on and on and on. Nor have we even approached the absurd plot, complete with an Italian bimbo and a philatelic Erwin Rommel. Or the very chintzy special effects. Nope. My one line summary says it all. A really bad movie!
41 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Filled in an evening thought not bad
hbuxton-3824211 November 2018
OK a few errors like petrol tins. Thought as free on tv worth watching. Wouldn't pay at movies but tv free and enjoyed it. Interesting their German was so good to fool them eh
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Who makes these decisions ?
yilgarn8 August 2010
What an awful mish-mash of a movie. Lacking direction, mediocre acting, appalling editing. One wonders who approves the making of films like this. I can't even put this kind of propaganda in context (1971)- hooray the West democracies can win sometimes ? Surely movie-makers have some respect for their craft, and even with low-budget pot-boilers they'd bother with script,continuity,plot and character development ? Why were the (British) propaganda war films during, and just after, World War 2 so sophisticated and nuanced and yet so many rubbish war films made from the 1970s onwards ? So much for the linear-development of cinema as art. Some genres have 'naturally' petered out, such as Westerns. Hollywood only rarely re-captures the wit and humour of pre-war rom-coms. "Art house" films are mere pretension and few are both experimental and touch the audience. "Serious" war films are one-dimensional. This film doesn't pretend to be serious, but really...it should never have been made.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Enjoyable Potboiler
TankGuy23 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
In the baking heat of the Sahara in 1943, British army Captain Foster(Richard Burton)is tasked with destroying Tobruk's gigantic harbour battery. However he only has a battered medical unit with which to do it. Will he be able to outsmart notorious desert fox Rommel and complete his mission...

With it's TV movie production values, Henry Hathaway's wartime actioner is essentially a rehash of 1967's Tobruk, which starred Rock Hudson and George Peppard. In fact 95% of this movie's action sequences are pinched from said film, therefore this is basically recycled fun. Some footage is even lifted from Universal's own Away All Boats(the British commandos scrambling onto the landing craft at the end of the movie look curiously identical to American marines). Eagle eyed viewers will also spot Jeff Chandler's explosive demise from that movie, which may or may not have been inserted by accident during the climatic bombardment of the Royal Navy Destroyers. The score is a little annoying and the film gets bogged down in worthless dialogue(a discussion about stamp collecting?). However Richard Burton earns his paycheck as the hardened military man and the action scenes are enjoyable even if they are borrowed.

Arthur Hiller's version may be much more fulfilling, but this is a great time passer for a boring afternoon/evening. 7/10
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Shakespearean Action Hero
bkoganbing4 April 2006
Looking at the criticisms of poor Richard Burton for taking a role in Raid on Rommel makes me want to put a word in for him. Acting was a craft as well as an art to him, it's how he made his living. I'm sure he got a good pay day out of Raid on Rommel. I think he also wanted to try the action genre as well. He made a much better choice with Where Eagles Dare though.

It's a poorly conceived story from start to finish. Someone in Allied Headquarters in London had the brilliant idea of freeing a bunch of captive commandos in North Africa and send them on a mission to Tobruk to spike some harbor guns. Same idea as in Guns of Navarone. So Burton gets the job.

But upon executing the escape he discovers he has freed a bunch of medical personnel and hardly enough commandos. Never mind he uses what he has.

His mission is to blow up those guns, but on discovering a fuel depot for Rommel he makes a little side trip to blow it up. Hello, but I think he was compromising the mission he was sent on. Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense to do the job you're assigned to and then when you got out you tell headquarters and they do another mission? That makes more sense to me.

The fuel depot sequences and the finale with the guns at Tobruk harbor are taken from the Rock Hudson film a few years earlier. Burton gives a rather pedestrian performance as does the rest of the cast.

By the way as if our heroes didn't have enough on their hands they're also transporting the mistress of an Italian general. That man wasn't going to sacrifice any of the comforts of the homefront. They keep her all doped up and at one point, one of the commandos decides to sacrifice for king and country and give his all for the mission.

Just who was the dope who thought her up?
20 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Very Cool WWII film!
comquirk30 July 2001
I really liked this film. It was a little slow to start, but the acting and action made it worth while. Richard Burton is the in top of his form. I really liked how there were no subtitles to the German speaking parts. (at least on the DVD). It immersed me in the film further, and allowed me to guess what they might be saying via recognizable words and such. Also, it was interesting how they played the more human side of Rommel. A very intriguing story laden with likeable characters. Check this one out.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Raid on Another Movie
prudhoeboy11 July 2021
This movie insults the intelligence of the viewer by ripping off the basic plot and lifting the action scenes of the 1967 movie Tobruk - basically plagiarism. Richard Burton probably didn't even know just reading lines. The portions of the movie that were different from Tobruk seemed fake and contrived. This is a dumb non-movie so advise watching only if you absolutely have nothing better to do.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
HUGE Disappointment
jimel9827 April 2012
There are a number of inaccuracies, but that's fine, not all war movies have to be historically accurate, but with that said, it just isn't a very good movie. Some of the silly things thrown in for reasons unknown: suddenly during a battle a speech by Hitler is heard, but not being listened to on a radio, just part of the soundtrack; when the Italians are being killed with the flamethrower suddenly we hear some kind of prayer in Italian, but again, part of the soundtrack; when the Quaker medical officer dies we hear his lines about being a conscientious objector replayed. We're treated to just a number of nonsensical additions or gimmicks that just don't work. Additionally, the special effects are OK, but not great and they weren't great when they were used the first time in "Tobruk", a much better movie. Lastly, I swear Richard Burton, while dressed as a German captain and speaking to a German enlisted man, asked for the telephone in English. I listened a few times and I'm sure of it. I'm glad I watched this, but I seriously doubt I'll never watch it again.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Hathaway adapted to the modern times
tfs-admon0223 February 2007
Richard Burton stars this film in which he is the British Captain Foster, who rescues some British doctors and some few soldiers from e convoy in which the Germans carried them to Tobruk. Captain Foster divide these British men so that some of them feign to be German and the others are the sick ones. So, leaving the German soldiers in the desert, they go to Tobruk, where they destroy the fuel deposits and then the canons so that the British Army can arrive at Tobruk port. Although the plot can sound nice and entertaining, Hathaway does not develop their characters (for example, the Italian prostitute is only decorative) and the Germans are very easy to be cheated. The director tries to adapt to the modern times, using many zooms and, perhaps, from the content point of view, in the character of Richard Burton, who is really an antihero: Captain Foster is a Maquiavellian man, who does not respect the Geneva conventions'rules, attacking a sanitary German convoy and using prisoners of war to get his aim. There two curiosities about this movie that I would like to remark: the first one is the use of war images from Tobruk by Arthur Hiller, which was also produced by Universal; the second one is that the filming location was in San Felipe, in Baja California Norte (Mexico) in spite of Africa. These facts show us that this film was B war movie in budget and in quality.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Poor all around
frankfob20 August 2002
Toward the end of his career, Richard Burton was accused of taking any role if he was paid enough money for it. Unfortunately, after seeing this Burton film directed by veteran Henry Hathaway, the same might be said of Hathaway. He was one of the industry's top-rank directors, responsible for some of the finest films to ever come out of Hollywood, but his career was virtually over by the time he made this (he would make only two more--a western with Gregory Peck and a cheap blaxploitation flick--before he retired); he should have quit while he was ahead. Hopefully he was well paid for this picture, as it has virtually nothing to recommend it. The action footage was lifted wholesale from 1967's "Tobruk", and isn't particularly well integrated into the film. The performances are lackluster, the script is a patchjob, and it has a "let's get it into the theaters quick and get it out before they hear how lousy it is" look to it. A complete waste of time. Don't bother.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good remake of "Tobruk"
kkirkup25 August 2004
I watched this movie with my dad when I was a kid. I just felt nostalgic, and bought a copy of this movie off Amazon.com. After watching it, I realized that most of the battle scenes were actually from the 1960's Rock Hudson Film "Tobruk". The plot was nearly identical, but "Tobruk" is the better of the 2 to see. Still if you are a fan of Richard Burton, you can't go wrong with this version. Another plus, it is available on DVD, while "Tobruk" can only be found on used VHS. Burton was much better in "Where Eagles Dare" but carries this movie anyhow. Lots of familiar faces can been found in this movie if you are a fan of WW2 movies. The German nemesis in this one can also be found as the German tank commander in "Kelly's Heroes"
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A good war action film with some interesting twists
SimonJack18 November 2013
What a difference a few years make! "Raid on Rommel" came out in 1971. As fate would have it, it was at the tail end of WW II movies with plots of far-fetched fiction. Seeing it again, after all these years, I still enjoy it for the action and for the different twists it had from other similar ventures. Sure, it uses some of the excellent footage Universal shot for "Tobruk" four years earlier. That film, with Rock Hudson and George Peppard, scores just a little higher than this one on the IMDb charts so far.

Other reviewers, who noted the use of the same footage from other films, weren't too harsh on this movie. Most of the criticism of the film has been based on its far-fetched plot. The film didn't purport to be a true or real event. And it was in good company. Hollywood produced several war flicks over a decade that had very far-out fictitious plots. The production of the make-believe war plots got a big push in Hollywood with "The Guns of Navarone." That 1961 blockbuster was produced by Columbia, and had a huge cast of big names to go with a thrilling and action-packed story. Gregory Peck, David Niven, Anthony Quinn, Anthony Quayle, Irene Papas, James Daren and Richard Harris head the cast that included some other fine actors.

But it was MGM that scored with the most hits. "The Dirty Dozen," in 1967 is one of the higher scoring war films by IMDb viewers. It came close to matching the Navarone cast, with big names of the day that included Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, George Kennedy, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Sutherland, Richard Jaeckel, John Cassavetes, Robert Ryan, Telly Savalas and Clint Walker. MGM hit it big again the next year with "Where Eagles Dare." Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood were the two stars in what I think is one of the very best war films ever made. Then, in 1970, MGM had another winner with "Kelly's Heroes." That box-office hit also had a big cast of very familiar names. Besides Eastwood, other leads were played by Don Rickles, Carroll O'Connor, Gavin MacLeod, and repeats Sutherland and Savalas.

Universal tried its hand in the fantasy war film arena in 1967 with Tobruk. It starred Rock Hudson and George Peppard. While it was well- liked, it didn't score as well then, or now, as the others films. So, after the three successive MGM hits, one can understand why Universal would want to give it another try. Especially since they had some great footage already shot in other films, most notably Tobruk. But, this time they went for a single big name, Richard Burton, to head the cast.

Others have noted that this sub-genre of make-believe war films was coming to an end – or had come by the time of "Raid on Rommel." Universal's gamble didn't pay off. It went with a single big name, a cast of much less-known actors, a low budget and rehashed older film. All of that, with the viewing public's tiring of such films, ended with a film that bombed with the critics and did little better at the box office.

Still, I think the performances of the supporting cast in "Raid on Rommel" were all quite good. There was just enough mystery and intrigue. And the few different twists with good action add up to a most enjoyable war picture in my book.
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Average warfare movie full of battles , explosions , thrills and extraordinary feats
ma-cortes11 August 2014
Libya 1943 . After almost three years of bitter desert warfare , Rommel's brilliant use of his Panzer divisions has driven the British into a position of desperation . The fate of the Mediterranean hangs in balance . The British troops are in progress toward the North Africa to battle the army of the Third Reich . The key point to carry out an action of attack results to be Tubruk, a shelter for Rommel and the Nazi troops, which is protected with all kinds of artillery , including powerful guns . The only option to destroy Tubruk is infiltrating an allied command, led by a British captain posing as a Nazi officer , in this area occupied by the Germans . Captain Foster (Richard Burton , though Robert Stack was initially cast) plans on raiding German-occupied Tobruk with hand-picked commandos, but a mixup leaves him with a medical unit led by a Quaker conscientious objector . Along the way they must pass through Alix line disguised as German soldiers and they pick up and drug the lover of an Italian general called Vivi (Danielle De Metz) , blow up the entire fuel supply for the Afrika Korps, and contacts philatelic gossip with Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (Wolfgang Preiss who was famous for playing Nazis in Second World War films)and takes on headstrong officer Schroeder (Karl-Otto Alberty). Despite all odds they succeed with their assignment . There actually was a raid on Tobruk, 13-14 September 1942, including the German-Jewish SIG and fake British POWs .

This thrilling wartime picture contains high-powered action-packed, shootouts , grand-scale blow-up , thrills and lots of fun ; though turns out to be average and embarrassing . The film belongs the sub-genre of warfare commandos , being highlighted by a stirring and thrilling climax with overwhelming action scenes. This sub-genre began with "The Guns of Navarone", following : ¨Dirty dozen¨ , ¨Kelly's heroes¨,and ¨When the eagles dare¨ . "Raid on Rommel" is one of the several examples of how an exhausted formula followed throughout the decade of the 1960 and early 1970. The picture bears remarkable resemblance to ¨Tobruk¨ (Arthur Hiller) , in fact portions of the film were edited into this 1971 Richard Burton film Raid on Rommel (1971) and nearly all the action scenes was footage taken from Tobruk. The greater interest to see is Richard Burton's interpretation of on the screen, but hardly have any virtue . Burton had previously appeared in two other Second World War movies set in North Africa prior to this film , as he played Captain Leith in Bitter victory (1957), fourteen years earlier and Captain 'Tammy' MacRoberts in Desert Rats (1953), eighteen years earlier. The film has a development of a very simple and plain plot with plenty of nonsense situations , sticky events ,absurd events and many other silly things .

Colorful cinematography by Earl Rath , it was filmed on location at San Felipe, Mexico, San Felipe is in the Baja California Norte region of Mexico . Lively and jolly musical score by Hal Mooney . The motion picture was regularly by Henry Hathaway who was Hathaway's only WW II movie which wasn't made by Fox, it was made by Universal ; it was a massive flop and was quickly withdrawn from theaters . ¨Raid on Rommel" was quickly relegated to the small screen, having its television premiere on NBC . Henry had directed twenty years earlier the classic 20th Century-Fox movie about Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and also set in World War II North Africa, ¨Rommel¨, (1951). Hathaway's other movies about the Second World War were all for studio Twentieth Century-Fox and included ¨The House on 92nd Street¨ (1945); ¨Wing and a Prayer¨ (1944); ¨You're in the Navy Now¨ (1951) and ¨13 Rue Madeleine¨ (1947).
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
bootleg
louiss14 January 1999
OK WW2 actioner if it didn't steal all of its action footage from much better film " Tobruk " which makes this a bootleg rip-off for anyone who may have paid either to see this in a theater or rent the video. Don't bother just watch Tobruk instead.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The lowest ebb.
brogmiller16 September 2020
Both actor Richard Burton and director Henry Hathaway came full circle with this film. Burton having starred in 'Desert Rats' in 1953 in which he shares a brief scene with the character of Rommel and Hathaway having directed a splendid biopic in 1951 entitled 'Rommel, Desert Fox'. With this connection in mind one would love to enthuse about 'Raid on Rommel' but it is alas nigh on impossible to do so. The sheer awfulness of this opus beggars description and must surely represent an all-time low for both actor and director. Originally made for the small screen and soon shuffled back there after having failed dismally at the box office, it has no redeeming features whatsoever. It is basically a rehash of Universal's 'Tobruk' of 1967. It uses action sequences from that film and Burton is also obliged to have dyed blonde hair so as to achieve 'continuity' with George Peppard! The supporting cast is uniformly awful and the female interest is provided by an actress dressed like a model on a safari shoot for Vogue. It is left to Wolfgang Preis as Rommel to supply some much needed class to the proceedings. James Mason's characterisation in 'Desert Fox' was criticised for being too sympathetic and his appearance in 'Desert Rats' was far less so. Here Rommel is portayed as a benign individual who would far rather discuss philately than military strategy. This film would have us believe that at this point in the Desert War Rommel's Afrika Corps had the upper hand whereas by 1943 it was a spent force and on the retreat. The score by someone named Hal Mooney, is abysmal. Hathaway's first directorial credit was a 'B' western in the early thirties and he signed off in the seventies with a risible Blaxploitation movie. Luckily for us there were a few good ones along the way. Michael Caine worked on the principle that people forget the bad ones and it would seem that Burton shared the same philosophy. It is still sad however to see this sometimes brilliant but oftentimes misguided artiste appearing in such unadulterated trash.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not The Worst War Film Ever But It's Still Not A Good One
Theo Robertson9 September 2013
This is one of these films that often crops up when someone brings up the topic of worst war films . It probably doesn't deserve this reputation but there's no denying it drowns in a sea of mediocrity . From the outset there's a major spanner in the works with its setting of Libya in 1943 where radio broadcasts talk of the Battle for Tobruk . The film never states when in 1943 it's set but this doesn't matter because the battle for Tobruk took place the previous year and by 1943 Rommel was on the back foot and not as this film suggests on a knife edge between victory and possible defeat . The outcome of the North African campaign was certain in 1943 , especially with the Operation Torch landings in November the previous year . One can understand some artistic license in making the stakes some what higher but not to the point of rewriting history . Wouldn't have just been easier setting the film some time in early 1942 when things were far more uncertain ?

Richard Burton even today is a legend of British stage but his career arc in cinema left a lot to be desired and he's obviously slumming it big time here . One wonders if he's trying to emulate the success of WHERE EAGLES DARE where is character is on a top secret mission to defeat the Nazis . The problem is the top secret plan is a bit to similar to a previous and much better film called TOBRUK and if this wasn't bad enough RAID ON ROMMEL makes use of footage from TOBRUK very blatantly which leads to several instances of confused continuity and is a distraction . It also explains why Burton has his hair bleached since the climatic battle scene is culled from TOBRUK where blond haired George Peppard takes on some German tanks . As a footnote the continuity announcer pronounced the title as " Rain on Rimmill " which whilst being some what surreal sums up the carelessness of this movie
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A nice war film
balochistan2 May 2020
One of the decent war films which I always love to watch. If you liked this film then you probably will like "Tobruk (1967)".
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Very poorly done direction but Wolfgang Preiss was Great
John-Kane2513 April 2018
Overall this movie was poorly done. The plot has been used many times before and the low light filming is very grainy. There is a lot of low light filming so it stands out right from the beginning.

Then they sort of judge World War II by 70's vietnam views by adding a medic who is a conscientious objector. He refuses to fight when the Brits take over the German convoy. A wwii movie should have the value systems of the 1940's, not the 1970's. The British knew why they were fighting the Germans.

They added a lady character for no reason, she has no development and serves no purpose other then to have something to look at I guess.

I liked Karl-Otto Alberty in his small role from 'Kelly's heroes so seeing him again in 'Raid on Rommel' was fun. He just fits the German soldier role so well. Wolfgang Preiss was excellent playing as Rommel. So the film does have some good points.

At the end the party of what looked to be no more than 2 dozen men loses about 50 men and still has 50 men when they take the shore batteries. This is from using film from a previous movie and just slapping it together haphazardly. The movie should have ended after the tank scene at the fuel dump. If it had ended there I think I could rate it higher.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A waste of time and talent for all
GeorgeSickler30 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This turkey got a "Gentleman's 5" solely because everybody must have needed fast money to make a mortgage payment, or a gambling debt, or alimony or something. Just one laughable, incredulous scene after another.

Imagine Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, walking through a German hospital ward tent in the Sahara in Summer wearing a tightly-belted full-length shiny black leather German trench coat.

Or how about a caravan of German trucks holding British POWs, German men and officers, and a beautiful Italian mistress to an Italian general - being strafed by a British fighter.

But, except for the British insignia on the side, this British aircraft had the emblems and markings of The Flying Tigers, under command of Claire Chennault of the First American Volunteer Group assigned to help the Republic of China Air Force fight the Japanese invasion of China pre-Pearl Harbor. This was the angry sharks head, open snarling mouth and teeth on the nose of the plane.

Someone definitely made a wrong turn somewhere, and it wasn't just this Flying Tiger. And so it goes.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed