John-Kane25
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.
TankGuy
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
kkirkup
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"
frankfob
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.
AD
