tompayton This movie nailed the way it was in the peacetime Air Force, especially in the old Strategic Air Command. It shows the "duty first" attitude that helped our country win the Cold War, and drives home the tremendous stress all of us were under during those hard years. Since retiring, I learned to stop trying to explain to civilians what my service was like. Now I just tell them to see this movie, it's that realistic. On the downside, some of the acting is stiff and two dimensional. In the same way John Wayne's Green Berets was criticized for being propaganda, this movie also showed all the characters as too good to be true. There were a few human problems for the Rock's new wing commander character to fix, such as the soft colonel played by Rod Taylor, the maintenance colonel who was "too dedicated" to delegate, and his own civilian wife who lacked his commitment to the mission. Get past all that, view this movie more as a documentary to learn what it was like to live on a SAC base during the Cold War.

tarmcgator I saw this film when it first came out in 1963, a few months after the Cuban Missile Crisis. I lived near a SAC base in south Florida, had a lot of friends whose fathers were USAF, and found the realism of the film rather scary. Seeing it again more recently, I was still impressed with the storyline and the semi-documentary footage of the B-52s and KC-135s.The deficiencies of this film are those of most Hollywood films of the 1950s (or the "greater 1950s" in this case): star casting and "love interest." Rock Hudson was never a great dramatic actor (one exception: John Frankenheimer's "Seconds"), although he's obviously working hard here to convince you that he's a decent guy whose job as a SAC wing commander requires him to be a "heel" at times. His lack of credibility has nothing to do with his homosexuality (in hindsight) and everything to do with the image that Hollywood crafted for him in the 1950s. Rod Taylor played a lot of macho roles but he also struck me as a little too precious in this film, cast mainly as a romantic rival for his boss's wife. She's played by Mary Peach, and her thankless role requires her to display considerable initial ignorance of the strains on a military officer's family. Since this is as much a character study as it is an "occupational" movie, the interaction between Col. Caldwell and his wife is an important part of the film. But it would have been more interesting if they were portrayed as a long-married couple than a pair of newlyweds. The "lesser" roles in the film, however, feature some convincing performances by such Hollywood characters as Barry Sullivan, Leora Dana, Kevin McCarthy, Richard Anderson, Henry Silva, and Nelson Leigh.I had not realized until a recent viewing that Sy Bartlett both produced and wrote the original story for "A Gathering of Eagles." I have long been a fan of Barlett's novel "Twelve O'Clock High" (co-written with Beirne Lay Jr.) and its classic film version, released in 1949, directed by Henry King and starring Gregory Peck and Dean Jagger. And as I watched "Gathering" I quickly realized that Bartlett was telling essentially the same story as "Twelve O'Clock High," updated from the World War II Eighth Air Force to its Cold War successors in SAC, about the soul-grinding responsibilities of command. The B-17s become B-52s, and Peck's Gen. Frank Savage becomes Hudson's Col. Jim Caldwell, but both characters face the same hard challenges, preparing men and machines for war by imposing high standards and hard discipline. The main difference is in that "love interest" subplot, but again, that would be more appropriate for a film set in Cold War "peacetime."Of course, there were a couple of moments in the film when I had the feeling that Col. Caldwell would stress out to the point that he would become General Jack D. Ripper. Interesting double-feature possibility there, coupling "Gathering" with "Dr. Strangelove."Interestingly, the best performance in "Gathering" is that of Robert Lansing, who plays a career USAF non-com with a quiet gravitas that characterized much of this under-rated actor's career. About a year or so after "Gathering" was released, Lansing traded his non-com's uniform for officer's pinks and took on the role of Gen. Frank Savage in the TV series based on "Twelve O'Clock High." I haven't seen those programs in many years but I recall the disappointment I felt when Lansing quit after one season. Good actor, good role.Conclusion: "A Gathering of Eagles" is in many ways a relic of its times, the early 1960s, when Cold War tensions were at their their tautest and nuclear war seemed a tremendous threat. Actually, compared to earlier films with similar backgrounds (e.g., "Strategic Air Command" and "Bombers B-52"), "Gathering" doesn't say much about the Cold War or about justifying SAC. Given what they had experienced in the preceding months, 1963 audiences didn't need that background info; and the fear or nuclear war may have contributed to this film's poor box office performance. Who needed the reminder?Did SAC help win the Cold War (by deterring a Soviet nuclear attack and making the U.S.S.R. spend billions for its own defense)? There's no way to know for sure, but there's a case to be made for that argument. This film is an inkling of just how difficult the job was.

wisteria9 I was only able to see this movie once and have been looking for it ever since to no avail, so far. I was at Travis AFB at the time of it's filming. I worked on the flight line and our planes were those used in the film. I was also TDY (temporary duty) at Beale AFB where I understand most or much of the filming took place. I worked on B-52's and KC-135As in servicing, recovery and crew chief duty and spent a lot of time on alert duty at the hard pad Alert Facility. All this to say that the film was VERY true to what SAC life was like in the flesh. I can see why some think the plot was a little thin as it was a glimpse into what day-to-day life in SAC was like. The Minimum Interval Take-offs (MITOs)were very true to life, sometimes three bombers and/or tankers rolling on the runway at the same time. If full count points aren't given for the plot, or there are those who would discount because of Rock Hudson's personal life, certainly full credit has to be given for accuracy. I know, I was there! I would love to own a DVD of this movie. I have been waiting over 40 years. Help, anyone? I'd even settle for a VHS tape.

enthusiast I lived in the United States when this movie came out and for quite a few years after wards. I personally loved it (the movie I mean though I still love the U.S. also), but I doubt if the movie will ever be a best seller or even much liked by the general population. The main problem is of course the leading man, Rock Hudson. He was a homosexual during the time when you could not even mention that word in a movie. There were rumors of his homosexuality during that time; years later he admitted to being one. When that occurred the residual values of his movies fell and have never come back up. Which is a shame for some of his movies; they were excellent works. I consider this a good movie, but other factors came up some years later that ruined the reputation of the B-52 SAC wings (other than Hudson's homosexuality). First, they were used in some rather controversial bombing raids during the most hated war in American history-Vietnam. Second, it was discovered in the late 1980s that the Commander of SAC (General Powers) at that time this movie was made had advocated the use of American force against the Soviets that would have undoubtedly caused WW III. Not good. There were other problems with the "mindset" shown in this movie. Fortunately, the SAC Wings did keep WW III from occurring by deterrence; without pushing so hard so as to set war off. All in all, a great movie, but somewhat murky to the average person. One last note: I won't tell you how the movie ends but I will tell you how history developed. At the end of the movie a B-52 bomber is shown returning from a mission; flying by some missiles that were on alert (probably for an ORI). Anyway, this was something of a prediction of the future as nuclear deterrence gradually shifted from the bombers to the missiles. Today there are no bombers on nuclear alert (at least in the U.S. Air Force), and I doubt if any will be again in the future. Even the missiles have been greatly reduced in number. So, in real life, the Cold War had a happy ending. Being that is the case- who really cares about how the movie ended?? :)