Such a frustrating disappointment

Fresh and Exciting

Absolutely Fantastic

A Masterpiece!

yes, I thought selleck was brilliant,but did not pass judgment on whether a man commanding well over 85 battalions(only 25 were actually American);those administrative skills would serve a person quite well in civilian life(Ike went on to a successful political career, as the _?_th president); so should Patton(trump look-alike?)also should have run,if he had lived?also a very good portrayal of a loquacious, bombastic field Marshall Montgomery who, as he put it, bested the normally taciturn Rommel(literally, desert fox booked for parts unknown when, Bernard, with champagne glass in left hand,& riding crop in right),quite literally delivered Rommel's head on a silver platter at kasserine Pass?

The plans for the D-Day invasion is being set closely consulting with Winston Churchill. Dwight D. Eisenhower (Tom Selleck) has to corral the disparate personalities on the task at hand. Gen. Montgomery wants a slashing strike but must accept the broad invasion. Patton has caused international tension with his off-the-cuff public comments and Ike sidelines him as a diversion. The predictions of casualties are dire. The plan is besieged by equipment shortages, near-discovery by the Nazis, delay, and a fear of failure. On June 6, 1944, Ike sets off the biggest amphibious assault ever attempted.Tom Selleck is bald and without his mustache. He still looks like Tom Selleck. I don't necessarily buy him physically but he has that commanding presence. This is not an action movie. It is a character study. There are several strong characters and each one is played competently. Bruce Phillips is great as Montgomery. I like all the behind the scene jockeying and the back story.

This movie couldn't afford to focus on certain particular views, concerns or attitudes some historical characters could momentarily have expressed or shown, while omitting to reveal many explanatory facts, without a risk of distorting general perspectives on World War II and treating unfairly contemporary historical figures. This drama depict DeGaulle, the leader of the Fighting France, very badly. 1 After a meeting with his staff on the weather in and around the English Channel, Ike (Tom Selleck) meets Churchill.Churchill (Ian Mune) complains : " DeGaulle hates me. He ignores that France is collaborating with the enemy. Pretends Vichy doesn't exist and Jews aren't being rounded up. He's an horrid man. But he guards the French prerogatives jealously. "This scene is a Churchillian brandy-champagne side-show rather than a relevant scene in the purpose of providing a fair overview on the main concerns during the war.The tirade shows the British Premier momentarily extremely unfair verbally to France and DeGaulle, when actually Churchill was fair in his behavior and his policy toward France and DeGaulle throughout the war. Perhaps as late as May 1944 in his conversations with Ike, Churchill could privately show bitterness about DeGaulle's occasional bouts of suspicion towards Britain after the British Forces had destroyed the French Fleet on July 3rd, 1940. However, the same Churchill, or rather the true Churchill, will argue against Roosevelt and Stalin, in the Yalta Conference in February 1945, to have France, then led by DeGaulle, among the occupying forces in Germany. And what about Churchill's only conversation partner in that scene, Ike ?Before and after they landed in North Africa in November 1942, Ike and American officials attempted for several months to deal with various Vichy's figures, instead of working with DeGaulle. After Ike tried to appoint a notorious French fascist as Governor of Algeria in January 1943, he was near losing Churchill's confidence. Despite petitions from London, from Moscow, from former French Premier Léon Blum writing to F.D.R. from his Vichy jail, Washington didn't recognize the French government led by DeGaulle before June 3rd, 1944. It was late for the Free Frenchmen to make any addition, criticism or comment on Ike's plan for the Normandy Landing, an opportunity given earlier to various "select" people, including King George's wife, obviously a great authority on warfare.How relevant is a line where Churchill, contrary to his own known belief, unfairly says "France is collaborating" instead of "several Frenchmen are collaborating" ? The string of selected words said by actor Ian Mune about a DeGaulle who " pretends Vichy doesn't exist and Jews aren't being rounded up " sounds much like an efficient tactic to suggest DeGaulle denied any Frenchmen were involved in the persecution of the Jews.Living in 2006, I believe the persecution of the Jews was a sufficient reason for the Allies to fight against Nazi Germany. Every humanist should stop it. I'm also admiring of what the Western Allies, and especially the Americans, did with their Victory against Germany, Italy and Japan : no claims of lands, no reparation payments required, the Marshall-Dodge Plans to financially help Europe and Japan to rebuild, etc. However, when I spoke to some 1939-45's Canadian veterans, although they were legitimately proud of their collective achievement, they didn't claim they were fighting with the concern of freeing the Jews from Vichy's police. Before May 1945, there was information available about many awful things that were happening under the Nazi rule in Germany and elsewhere. It is a fact. However, war is a process that involves masses of people. We cannot either imagine most fighters then shared our 21st century main concern about the purpose of World War II. The destiny of the Jews was far to be the main concern of DeGaulle and Churchill. That dull fact about Churchill doesn't exempt the spectator from hearing General Bradley (James Remar) privately revealing to Ike his "admiration" for Churchill. But there is no character in Ike : Countdown to D-Day who has a line fair to the French guys who fought against the Germans after 1940.2 Characters in this movie always refers to the Enemy as "Jerry". The Germans are an impersonal hazard like a storm on the Channel. The drama needs an Evil guy. It could be Laval (France), Quisling (Norway), Mussert (The Netherlands). It will be in this case DeGaulle, the leader of the Free French. Ike (Selleck) complains sincerely about a lack of help from God with DeGaulle. Churchill (Mune) says that God couldn't move DeGaulle. General Smith (Timothy Bottoms) refers to DeGaulle as a dragon to slay. At the end of the movie, DeGaulle (George Shevtsov) arrives at the Eisenhower Headquarters, where he obviously has never previously entered. Before that scene, the viewers have been warned about the absence of protocol in the Headquarters, by a dialog between a young soldier and the receptionist. In the entire scene, the French leader is a perfect "pain in the a..." for our conscientious Eisenhower.In the comments added as a special feature on the DVD, Lionel Chetwynd, the scriptwriter, claims he had read DeGaulle's Memoirs before inserting in the screenplay DeGaulle's visit to Eisenhower's Headquarters. What a comforting comment ! Among one thousand pages from DeGaulle, Chetwynd couldn't also find facts he could use, somewhere in the movie, to explain how DeGaulle's task in the war was arduous, and how this French general also deserves our admiration, not our disdain.A tribute to Ike in the World War II didn't need to settle scores.

thank God. The closest we come to a battle scene in "Ike" are the quotes from Laurence Olivier's "Henry V". I do believe that's a small mistake, though: I don't think that film hit the theaters until 1945, somewhat too late for D-day. However, it's justified, artistically: we think of Henry's bombast (one of the greatest speeches at that) when Ike pays his own, humble tribute to the airborne troopers just before D-day. And there is a more subtle reference to Henry V when Ike has to sacrifice an old friend (and nearly sacrifices Patton, too, another old friend.) His thoughts on that also bring Shakespeare to mind.I loved the film. It stayed true to its purpose, the portrayal of a general making a very tough decision. Selleck was great, and so were they all. Montgomery had a human face to him, and so did DeGaulle (although 90% of it was nose) and he was just as irritating as he is supposed to have been, power-greedy and quite oblivious to the fact that most of his France had in fact sold out to Nazi Germany. The script is great - philosophical and well-written to a fault. Now, why did I think I would be bored? I wasn't, for even one second.