Ike: Countdown to D-Day (2004 TV Movie) User Reviews

Oustanding: Tom Selleck shines at last

[Lupercali · 8/10 · 18 January 2005]

Ike: Countdown to D-Day (Australian title) is a fine movie relating the 90 days prior to the Normandy landings from the point of view of Dwight D. Eisenhower. It's a film about the hardships of responsibility and leadership, about decisions which you know will cost the lives of perhaps tens of thousands of men. It's not blood and guts and explosions. It's weather reports, terse meetings, and agonising decisions.

There is no action at all in 'Ike'. It's very much a drama and a character study. The ensemble cast is uniformly superb, and none are better than Selleck, who turns in an unforgettable performance. It's ironic that for the longest time Selleck was relegated to B-movies and lightweight fare, his movie career never really managing to take off. It seemed his famous good looks were to consign him to a brief stint as a TV hunk, followed by a decline into obscurity.

In 'Ike', Selleck emerges reborn, balding, moustache long-gone, dour, sensitive and intense. If this movie doesn't finally kick-start his movie career and give him the sort of break that Travolta got with 'pulp Fiction', there is no justice.

Compelling character study of Ike, gripping D-Day strategy tale

[roghache · 8/10 · 27 May 2006]

There are no combat scenes in this wartime drama, yet it offers a compelling portrait of Ike and a gripping depiction of all the strategy meetings involved in the Allied landing in Normandy. I'm one of the few who has not yet seen Saving Private Ryan, and think this might be a useful movie to have watched first. The film chronicles the complicated planning meetings during the three month build up to D-Day, the operation masterfully orchestrated by the American General Dwight D. Eisenhower in his position as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force.

Tom Selleck is positively brilliant in his portrayal of Ike. Like every other viewer, I knew what the real Eisenhower looked like but while watching this movie, I didn't see Tom Selleck or Magnum. I saw Ike. The movie gives a moving portrait of this confident and decisive but not egotistical general. Fortunately, it avoids any depiction of an alleged romantic affair with his chauffeur Sommersby, best not to cast needless aspersions. It especially provides a touching glimpse into this leader's inner turmoil, secret doubts, and emotional anguish at sending soldiers into a dangerous battle bound to involve high Allied casualties. The battle depicted in this film is truly Eisenhower's inner one.

The most wrenching scene is definitely the one in which Eisenhower himself visits the paratroopers on the eve of the landing. As this group is expected to suffer especially high casualties, he realizes that he is undoubtedly sending many of them off to their deaths. However, given the dire wartime situation, he realizes he has no choice. His unpretentious friendliness with these paratroopers is touching as he tries to put them at ease, shares a cigarette with them, and shows genuine interest in their personal lives...uncharacteristic of a military commander in his position.

The inner squabbling between the generals is also interesting, the various egos of those who disagree on strategy. It's obvious why there needs to be one leader with the final word! Ike exhibits both able tactical strategy but also admirable people skills, dealing respectfully with both the political leaders and the other generals, seeking their opinions, but unafraid to ultimately insist on his chosen course of action. Generals Montgomery, Patton, and Bradley are all highly involved in the planning operation. I'm no expert on the historical accuracy about any of these generals, so will leave such commentary to others better informed.

Charles DeGaulle is certainly cast as an irritating, unsympathetic, and uncooperative obstacle to the Allies' plans, though some have commented that this depiction is inaccurate. Hopefully. While I hesitate to disparage the dead, he comes across as quite despicable here. Churchill is also shown of course, behaving very Churchillian!

The planning operation of Operation Overlord makes a riveting story. I was especially taken with the operation's total dependence on the weather reports near the target date. The pressure must certainly have been on these meteorologists to get their forecast right! Sellick brought to life an historical figure I had previously really never thought much of, though Eisenhower must have been regarded quite heroically in public opinion for him so have gained such an endearing nickname. I hope his portrayal in this movie is accurate, because I would like to believe that Ike actually was in real life the very capable but unpretentious and compassionate man of integrity depicted here.

"We shall make the world safe for democracy".

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 29 May 2016]

If nothing else, the movie elevated General Dwight D. Eisenhower in the eyes of this viewer as a strong and resolute leader who became the Supreme Allied Commander of all forces in the European theater during World War II. When British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Ian Mune) stated to the general - "No human in history has ever held the power for which you now ask" - I didn't get the impression that Eisenhower was demanding it so much as Churchill was offering it.

The dramatization of events leading up to the D-Day invasion is strong on military planning and consultations between various military leaders, and the sense one gets of Eisenhower's character is that he listened patiently to everyone's opinion and then made a decision - right or wrong. The scene where he hands over a potential admission of failure taking full responsibility in case things go badly is something modern day political leaders would do well to learn from. At no time does one get the sense Ike was sidestepping his responsibility or laying off a decision due to uncertainty or lack of resolve.

Tom Selleck was a surprise here. I don't think I've ever seen him sans mustache and bald, but his characterization of Eisenhower here was as good as one might imagine. Maybe a little on the husky side from what I remember, but my image of Ike comes from when he served as President and not the war hero. All in all an excellent portrayal and an excellent film, along with my timing as I write this a day before Memorial Day, 2016. Eisenhower's spectacular leadership allowed my Dad to return home safely from the War, who served with the Timberwolves in an area along the Maginot Line.

Surprisingly Solid Portrayal of General Eisenhower

[Piafredux · 17 September 2004]

Before I saw this film I'd never have thought Tom Selleck's body type or acting skill were remotely apt for him to portray General Eisenhower. But Selleck pulls off the role admirably: this is the best playing of a role I've seen him manage. Kudos, Mr. Selleck - you made me forget you were Tom Selleck and had me, from the get-go, believing you were General Eisenhower.

The film isn't about the war, the SHAEF staff, or even the invasion itself: it's about Ike's superb organizing and planning brain and his ability, unique in history, to manage what was, to that date, the most unwieldy and potentially fractious warfare coalition ever to have joined hands as allies. Selleck and writer Chetwyn tell quite well how Eisenhower dealt with the frustrations and burden of his critical command.

Sure there are bits of created dialogue not to be found in the historical record and compressions of events and characters necessitated by the limits of cinematic storytelling, but on the whole this is a worthy film that achieves exactly what it set out to do: tell about Ike's grasp of the task set before him and his unparalleled aplomb in carrying it off.

The only egregious gaffe in the writing was the line spoken by Group Captain Stagg in which he tells Ike and the senior SHAEF staff that the low pressure storm systems, which boded ill for the launch of the invasion, depended on how much they'd be propelled by the jetstream. In 1944 the jetstream had not been discovered. Some prewar and wartime high altitude fliers had experience of the jetstream's effects, but meteorology had not yet identified the jetstream by name, or learned of its constant presence as prime determinor of weather aloft or at ground level. (If you think me wrong about this, see the PBS 'NOVA' episode about the late-1940's crash of an Avro Lancastrian airliner in the Andes Mountains.)

The only other objection I have to ALL films, to many otherwise comprehensive books, and to nearly all of the media reportage about the Normandy Invasion is the complete absence of mention of OPERATION NEPTUNE. NEPTUNE was the co-equal naval component of OVERLORD - which was the land component of the total SHAEF plan and operation. Without NEPTUNE there was, and could have been, no OVERLORD. Indeed the NEPTUNE planning gave SHAEF and Ike as many fits and starts and moments of intense anxiety as did any of the factors in the OVERLORD planning and execution. The two operations were, from the start of the invasion planning through its execution, akin to two hands being necessary to wash each other.

A note to the IMDb reviewer who posted here that Field Marshall Montgomery was humorous and well-loved: this is simply not so. Most of Monty's associates - both senior and junior and both British and American - found him intolerant, rigid, insufferable, and the antithesis of humorous. It was also Monty's grave flaw that he prided himself as god's gift to generalship - a trait he shared with America's General Patton and which put Monty and Patton at loggerheads with each other throughout the war (Ike put up with much nonsense from both of them, and yet Ike's leadership managed to harness their talents to the task of achieving Allied victory). In his own plodding way Monty was a fine field commander, but he lacked completely what are today known as "people skills" - which lack disqualified him from being appointed supreme allied commander, which Churchill recognized long before it was necessary to appoint one. It was Ike alone among Allied commanders who had in spades all the people skills Monty and Patton lacked, as well as a near-perfect grasp of the leadership the Allied coalition, stacked as it was with prima donnas from every Allied nation, required in order for victory to be achieved over Nazi Germany.

(By the way: let's all learn to spell "martinet," okay?)

Quibble: Timothy Bottoms' work as Ike's able SHAEF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith is too easygoing. General Smith suffered from painful stomach ulcers and those who knew him did not mistake his ulcerous irascibility! Bottoms misplays Smith as a soft-spoken foil or private confessor to Selleck's finely etched Ike. Perhaps this soft Smith is artistic license since the film is not about Smith but about Ike, but I still feel that Chetwyn and Bottoms might have tried to give General Smith and his ulcers and his legendary suffer-no-fools-whomsoever wrath their historical due.

Most importantly 'Ike: Countdown to D-Day' succeeds in a way that most historical films fail: it gives the sense that none of what we now as history was preordained or a done-deal, that the events that Ike dealt with were not easy or inevitable - or glorious. There is here real drama given life by fine portrayals of characters facing up to and dealing with the gravest doubts and tasks.

Selleck Gets the Job Done

[DD-931 · 7/10 · 4 June 2004]

I have to say I think this may be Tom Selleck's best acting performance. He doesn't necessarily deserve an Emmy, but I'm also not being sarcastic; this is definitely a quality performance, not because it is some scene-chewing piece of grandstanding, but because it is subtle, honest, and to the point. The way Selleck shows Ike's moments of anguish over his awful responsibility are understated but no less compelling, and actually give some sense of what the actual man had to go through.

Although there are some inaccuracies in the film (Ike visits the paratroopers in the DAYTIME on June 6th? Those guys had dropped into France some 12 hours earlier!), I think we still get a good sense of how things were happening around Ike before D-Day. And contrary to some other opinions, I thought the portrayals of Churchill and Montgomery were both well-done and totally fair.

Terrific movie

[secretariat-6 · 10/10 · 7 April 2007]

I watch this movie repeatedly. It renews my faith in the human spirit. Despite some reviewers critiques of historical inaccuracies, which I cannot dispute, as I do not know all the facts: one thing shines through. The quality of humility that Ike, Churchill, Bradley possessed. How they held onto the vision of what had to be done. The strength of character of these men, is so well portrayed. Every actor in this movie amazed me. Selleck, of course, wasn't even Selleck. He was Ike. He totally overcame himself, to play this role. Magic, indeed.

I can't critique the historical facts, but I was moved by this movie, to start researching WW2 history.

I'm even more moved, by the comments of the people on here. I love the commentaries here...even the "spoilers".

To me, this is a very powerful documentary about the weight of decisions faced by the "players" at the time. The movie shows how aware these men were of the potential consequences of these decisions, and how heavy that burden was for them. They did not take it lightly.

They agonized about the choices they were faced with. (Perhaps, unlike some of our present leaders........)

The portrayals of Montgomery and Patton were excellent. It showed their arrogance, but also acknowledged their brilliance as generals. Ike saw both qualities and used their strengths, but didn't let himself be used by their egos. And he truly appreciated their insights and their drive.

Ike and Churchill never lost sight of the main purpose. The movie shows how easily they might have been swayed, but they were so very clear of their vision of what had to be done.

A tremendous study of strength of character. In his role as Ike, I think Selleck has come close to Sean Connery.

Beyond "hunk",.....to timeless "first class actor." Movie of the decade, so sez me...

Excellent reconstruction about the D-Day preparation with a sensational Tom Selleck

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 6 October 2006]

The picture concerns about the previous ninety days to the D-Day invasion , known as ¨Overlord operation¨. Dwight H. Eisenhower confronts problems and odds and designs splendidly the most sensational military operation of the history . He must deal and convince to the most prestigious world leaders as the intelligent Winston Churchill (Ian Munne) , an arrogant General Montgomery (Bruce Philips) , an obstinate General DeGaulle ; besides he resolves the complications on subordinates as a rebel General Patton (Gerard McRaney) or a General who publicly speaks about the operation . Ike is finely played by Tom Selleck who makes a brilliant speech explaining to various politicians and authorities , as the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth , the developing of the Normandy Landing , but he exposes the following :

¨Five beaches -codenamed Utah, Omaha, Gold,Juno and Sword- were selected as the landings points for the British and US Corps , the operation will be preceded by a month-long bombing campaign to disrupt communications , preventing reinforcements from moving quickly into the threatened area and destroy vital bridges and gun positions . The landing depended of the weather, when the forecast was cool, began the operation D-Day 6 June 1944 . The landings commenced at 0630 hrs, and by midnight 57.000 US and 75.000 British and Canadian troops and their equipment were ashore and the beachheads were being linked into a continuous front . The General Omar Bradley (James Remar) commanded US 1st Army ,a post he handled with considerable efficiency breaking out from the bridgehead . The German response to the landings was hampered by the damage done to their communications ,by a rigid structure which required a personal directive from Hitler before any significant move could be made and by belief that the landing the major Allied attack would come in the Pas of Calais,a belief fostered by Allied deception operations . Allied casualties during the day amounted to 2.500 killed and about 8.500 wounded.Allied air forces flew 14.000 sorties in support of the operation and lost 127 aircraft¨.

This famous event from how was orchestrated the dangerous , risky landings maneuvers is well photographed by David Gribble and magnificently directed by Robert Harmon . This TV picture will appeal to history buffs . Well worth seeing .

A Good Performance by Tom Selleck in a Tough Role

[lawprof · 9/10 · 9 July 2004]

Dwight D. Eisenhower was the perfect choice for Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces that stormed French beaches on the one D-Day that indelibly evokes 6 June 1944. Having successfully commanded the forces that invaded North Africa and subsequently Sicily, Eisenhower was the right man at the right time, the indispensable molder of a coalition with perhaps too many headstrong generals and admirals. All these senior officers had combat command experience-Eisenhower never left the United States during World War I. He was a remarkably competent staff officer whose abilities were noted by, probably, the shrewdest judge of Army men in America, George Marshall. And Marshall elevated his protege from lieutenant colonel to General of the Army in a very short period.

The problem with portraying Eisenhower in the tense and confusing period before the actual invasion is that never-ending talk, not action - briefings, meetings, staff reports - were the basis for the Supreme Commander's decision to launch the invasion or postpone it. Weather issues were critical but The Weather Channel has much more excitement every night than that found in the calm, Scottish-accented reports RAF Group Captain Stagg, Eisenhower's meteorologist, delivered several times a day.

"Ike: Countdown to D-Day" has no battle sequences nor does it explore the emotional territory of the fighting men who would begin what Eisenhower termed "The Great Crusade," the title of his postwar bestselling memoir.

Tom Selleck, in an outstanding performance, captures the nuances of a general with high ideals and a simple but consummate love of his country. British generals and some American ones, including Patton, decried Eisenhower's lack of battlefield command experience and even his ability to grasp complex tactical situations. They were, to a certain degree, correct but what they missed was that his job was not to micro-manage combat but to hold together men of extreme temperaments and often mutual dislikes against the forces that might pull them apart and damage the coalition effort.

Selleck's Eisenhower is quiet, thoughtful and fully engaged in being an ALLIED leader and his gifts in that capacity are well reflected by this actor. Yes, some incidents are perhaps subject to challenge by the historically knowledgeable (including me) but in the main this is as accurate a movie dramatization of D-Day planning and decision-making as we're likely to get.

While Eisenhower's driver and confidant, Kay Summersby, an attractive Englishwoman in uniform, is present kudos go to the writers and director for not hyping up the film with an unnecessary romantic digression into the general's alleged extramarital affair with the winsome chauffeur.

This film might bore some but it's a fairly good capture of the tensions and issues preceding the issuance of one of the most momentous orders in the history of warfare: "Let's go!," Eisenhower simple command that translated years of preparation into a massive assault that presaged the liberation of Europe.

9/10

Tense TV Docudrama

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 26 May 2006]

Not badly done, this story of the way Dwight D. Eisenhower managed to pull off the risky Normandy landings in 1944. It shows its low TV budget but I suppose we can do without still another majestic spectacle and settle for a little more in the way of a character study.

Tom Selleck as Ike is surprisingly good. He's an unpretentious and likable guy, a hunk to women maybe but he seems to be accessible as a buddy too. That cracked voice maybe.

Here he shrugs off his lackadaisical Magnum P. I. persona and does quite a good job of being Eisenhower, more adaptable than anyone might have thought. He's put on a few pounds for the role, had the hair shaved off his frontal area, and deepened his voice. There's another thing too. Eisenhower smoked like a volcano, and this is shown in the movie. He's constantly puffing away, as are many of the other characters. Smoking cigarettes wasn't the stigma then that it has now become. Butts were in your package of K rations, along with all-American chewing gum. The writers and producers were right to leave out some of Ike's pecadillos, like his affair with his aide, Kay Sommersby. There's no room for romance in this compact drama. But the smoking belongs. It's even used as a gag at Montgomery's expense, which I won't explain. It would have been tempting to drop all the cigarettes from the film and make it more PC. The film makers ought to be complimented on retaining them.

The script of course doesn't give him any flaws. He's the hero after all. He never loses his temper. He doesn't browbeat anyone. Well, he DOES let his weather man, Stagg, have a couple of powerful jabs. He has doubts about the invasion schedule but not about himself. We see him doing one of the things Ike did best. He managed to pull together a team of disputatious colleagues and subordinates who were jealous of one another. (He did the same thing as president; he was like your nice uncle.)

Every story has to have some sort of obstructionist. In this one it's Charles DeGaulle, who disapproves of Ike's plan and refuses to cooperate with the landings -- something that didn't happen in real life. He and Ike have an argument about who should make the announcement of the landings. It's left unresolved, an editorial imperfection. DeGaulle wasn't easy to work with. Winston Churchill remarked of him, "The heaviest cross I have to bear is the Cross of Lorraine."

Selleck gets good support from the rest of the cast, whom we get to know fairly well. Especially neat is General Omar Bradley, even less pretentious than Ike. (Bradley is played by James Remar, whose name sounds as if it ought to mean something when spelled backwards, but it doesn't.) Man, you have to put these guys next to the pompous, prop-carrying MacArthur and his florid prose to appreciate their humility.

Ike went on after the war to serve as president of Columbia University and was later elected president of the US for two terms. He was no more colorful as a politician than as a general, but he took us through eight years of the worst part of the Cold War, finally brought an end to the Korean conflict, and foresaw the rise of what he called "the military-industrial complex." A decent guy, and this is a pretty decent movie about a couple of extremely tense days in his life.

Not a single shot fired -

[kaaber-2 · 8/10 · 22 December 2005]

• 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.

good actors in solid TV movie

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 27 March 2016]

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.

After "Ike: Countdown to D-Day," I Will Never Disparage "Made For TV" Again

[im_veritas_photo · 10/10 · 1 April 2007]

Tom Selleck scores an honest tour de force in his portrayal of General Dwight David Eisenhower, Commander-In-Chief, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force, European Theatre of Operations, in the weeks and final days leading up to June 6, 1944. (I am so proud to have gotten that entire title correct.) The plan for the invasion of Hitler's Europe was developed primarily by General Eisenhower, with the help of his allied staff. This made sense. Eisenhower was, as he himself admitted, primarily an organizer and planner. That he indeed was a supreme planner led to the ultimate success of Operation Overlord.

Eisenhower had to fight hard, against fractious political forces, for Churchill's and Roosevelt's acceptance. They eventually granted Ike unfettered command of all the allied forces engaged in the landing at Normandy.

Few people, myself included, really appreciate the mass of details which had to be coordinated for D-Day. Watch this movie and learn at least some of them. Almost three million troops crossed the English Channel to land in France on, and immediately after, D-Day. Nothing like this had, of course, ever occurred in all of human history. One can only hope nothing like it ever need occur again.

This 2004 film has me convinced I'll always, from now on, carefully examine those "Made For TV" movies for gems like this one. All this praise for a movie that has not one bit of "action" in it. It's all docudrama, all about planning and preparation. It is better than anyone might predict.

Tom Selleck was, as I indicated above, masterful. I have always liked him as an actor; now I truly admire his acting ability. Selleck belongs with the best.

Kudos! A perfect movie, in every way. To hear me say that is really quite rare.

Tom Selleck---who'da thunk it?

[MrGKB · 6/10 · 9 September 2006]

I tumbled to this one as part of a large pruning-out of a friend's DVD collection, and although this one won't be a keeper for my own library, it was still a worthwhile watch, if only for the novelty of Tom Selleck doing an extraordinary job of portraying Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Mr. Selleck, to be totally honest, looks nothing like Eisenhower, even with his head and mustache shaved, but just as Gretchen Mol strutted her stuff to great effect in "The Notorious Bettie Page," Mr. Selleck rises to the occasion and embodies Ike with a remarkable verisimilitude that allows his audience to ignore the physical discrepancy. It is definitely one of Selleck's shining moments as an actor.

The script has its problems, but this is no surprise in a talking heads story about the concerns of mounting the largest amphibious invasion in the history of warfare. Certain events are shuffled about and compressed temporally, some are created out of whole cloth, and a few seem to be egregious mistakes (cf. Ike's chat with troopers of the 101st Airborne on the wrong day), but mostly it's all in service of the story. Within the context of a two hour made-for-TV docu-drama, it works. Complaint can be made about the portrayal of various persons, notably General Patton, Field Marshall Montgomery, and Charles DeGaulle (whose nose isn't nearly big enough), but these are all minor lights orbiting the main star, Ike. If nothing else, the film properly leads one to further exploration of the events chronicled; there is a wealth of information out there, needless to say.

Selleck really does a bang-up job, reining in his Magnum P.I. persona almost completely to portray a man who not only had the weight of the world on his shoulders, but also carried its very fate in his hands. I think Ike himself would have been pleased.

Unbelievable historical distortions...

[pax-18 · 4/10 · 2 September 2005]

I swear you come off feeling more sympathy for the Germans than the French after seeing this. There are serious omissions and out of context statements that portray the French in every which way possible in a negative light. Its so obviously tainted by current politics (and I'm sure Tom Selleck's conservative politics) its not funny. The one time in the show where Churchill makes the off comment about the French trying to impede their escape from Dunkerque. As if they were collaborating with the Germans at the time... Totally out of context I cant believe Churchill would've made that comment to Ike at all. It was probably completely made up for the show. See the great BBC docu series "History of WW2" for the context.

The admiral in charge of French forces in the area at the time wanted to stay in the fight. He expected the Brits to fulfill their obligations in their alliance at the time and not abandon the field of battle. He didn't understand they couldn't fight on probably because being an admiral vs a land force general didn't help in his understanding the Germans had far superior tactics and there was no point in keeping up the fight and risk the capture of 400 000 allied troops by the Germans. The motivation was honest though not one of a backstabbing nature. The French admiral saw cowardice in his eyes. And he felt betrayed and abandoned by his British allies.

But also the fact the French had to threaten the closure of the port (tho they had no means of really doing it) if the Brits didn't evacuate them on a 50\50 basis is a sad statement on the British leadership far more than the French leadership at the time. In the last days of the Dunkerque evacuation 100 000 french soldiers held the line while the remaining 40 000 brits got first dibs off the continent. Hows that for "surrender monkeys"? I seriously hope Americans will get a chance to see the BBC series dramatized documentary "History of WW2" and get a truer picture of what really happened. So that unlike the sad distorted comment by the main comment posted for this picture and the awful Ike program they can really get an honest perspective of what happened.

Superb - true war drama without combat

[trpdean · 5 October 2004]

I would really recommend seeing the DVD due to the excellent commentary by Selleck, the writer and director.

Argument about the Second World War - what went wrong, what went right, why things were done - and of course about the historical accuracy of any depiction in film - is one of those great indulgences of mankind.

But I think this movie very faithful to history - and those who say that a single particular meeting with Churchill at which Y was decided did not occur, because instead there were a dozen meetings in which Y was gradually decided -- or that there were also A, B and C people at other meetings - are simply not dealing with every movie's need to compress a true story.

I think this movie (though it does acknowledge that there was some condensing of character and incident) is truly excellent.

There is a maturity about the playing (and Selleck is really superb - a tribute to the seriousness with which he took the task of playing a hero who had an obviously immense impact on history) and sober approach to the issues -- that make it very moving.

The movie does a wonderful job at showing Ike grappling with:

a) the difficulties of others' personalities (DeGaulle, Patton, Miller, Montgomery),

b) the tactical decisions (how near to the landing do you have the paratroops drop - and do you change your mind as you learn of German troop movements? The need for a full or half moon as well as good weather; the likelihood of further delay to see if things improve -causing a loss of German surprise about place of invasion).

It's just superb in every way - it will make you wish this were part of a 12 or 14 hour series about Eisenhower in wartime.

Selleck (with his Midwestern accent and - for this movie - very deliberate in movement and speech - makes a superb Eisenhower).

A goof ? ?

[byron-116 · 6/10 · 25 January 2020]

Ike and his staff watch a film with Rita Hayworth.... in the 2-3 scenes of this film within the movie, along with Rita Hayworth is Gene Kelly, Phil Silvers, Eve Arden Otto Kruger etc. This film within the movie is COVER GIRL that was in glorious Technicolor, yet in the film it is shown in black and white.

"There is no true glory in war."

[jmbwithcats · 8/10 · 1 September 2004]

Ike is a dialog movie, a movie about decisions, if you're looking for a action film with no substance, this movie is not for you.

Tom Selleck in decisively his greatest role, broke all molds, portraying the compassion, thoughfulness, and deliberation of Supreme Commander General Dwight D Eisenhower.

The film showed no battle, except the inner battle Eisenhower faced, alone, concerning the decisions he had to make, the risks, that were ultimately successful. The supporting roles were well played, the ending emotionally touching, the film both fascinating, deliberate, and decisively rich with consternation.

The film was both heartfelt and moving, and very finely made. Tom Selleck deserves an Emmy for his performance.

For more information on the 34th president of the United States

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/de34.html

Timeline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/dday/timeline/index.html

All generaling

[=G= · 6/10 · 2 June 2004]

"IKE:Countdown to D-Day" will fill your TV screen in almost every frame with Selleck as General Eisenhower ("Ike"), supreme allied commander of Operation Overlord forces in the days prior to the WWII invasion at Normandy. A historical docudrama, the film manages the give some sense of the mission, the variables, the trade-offs, the strategy, and the personalities involved in the planning of this momentous event resulting in a sort of Ike flavored flick about generaling with lots of Selleck pondering the ever changing situation as D-Day draws near. Most will appreciate the patriotic undercurrents of this pat film and the gravity of the occasion it represents. However, few will have sufficient familiarity with the history or with Eisenhower to fully understand the particulars, inferences, and subtleties. A worthwhile watch for the drama alone, "IKE:..." makes a nice prelude to "Saving Private Ryan" or companion to "The Gathering Storm" (2002). (B)

Good Movie

[jimmyolsenblues · 8/10 · 1 June 2004]

This was a very good movie to watch on memorial day. Tom Selleck does a wonderful job as Eisenhower. The movie takes place mostly in a headquarters setting in england just before D-DAY. I am a big fan of Tom Selleck , but even I have "type casted" him as Magnum PI. Well let me tell you , he breaks that type cast, with a wonderful performance. Really really showed a warm and kind side to the Supreme Allied Commander. Especially good movie in our times of a war with Iraq. It makes you wish we had leaders like this today. This is not a gore movie. This is not saving private ryan, it is a movie about big decisions and small decisions and how those choice affect everyone. From a manager perspective, it is a great manager movie. I wish I had a boss like IKE.

The Burden Of Command

[sddavis63 · 8/10 · 23 June 2012]

If ever there was a movie that paid homage to the old adage that "it's lonely at the top" this must be it. Tom Selleck offered a truly brilliant performance as General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces invading France on June 6, 1944 - now, of course, best known as D-Day. Eisenhower was inexperienced (or at least much less experienced than British General Montgomery, who wanted the command) and forced to deal with any number of problems - from politicians, to ambitious fellow generals, to weather - as he sorted out strategy and, ultimately, as he had to make the final decision on whether the invasion could proceed as scheduled. Throughout the movie, the cost of war in human life was front and centre. This was not glossed over. Selleck's role as Eisenhower was central to the movie, but the heroes portrayed were those who were going to be risking their lives on the battlefield.

The movie is tense, not riveting. The burden faced by Eisenhower can be felt by the viewer; the emotion as the casualty reports came in after the invasion had begun is also felt by the viewer. Selleck's performance was noteworthy. I've never really thought of Selleck as a great actor, but in this made for TV movie (to honour the 60th anniversary of the invasion in 2004) he was superb, and he cannot fail to draw the viewer into the decision making process. Eisenhower is portrayed here as a humble man, seeking command not for glory but because he knows that he is the best suited for command in the circumstances; not seeking the limelight, but willing to take the blame should the invasion go wrong. He's portrayed as a diplomat as much as a general, walking a tightrope between competing egos.

The atmosphere of the movie is perfect. The sets are authentic. It is a made for TV movie, so it isn't flashy - but it shouldn't have been. It was exactly what it should have been to honour such an occasion. Certainly this ranks as one of the better made for TV movies you will come across. (8/10)

Selleck does an excellent job

[TiminPhoenix · 8/10 · 3 June 2004]

Selleck proved once again that he is a fine actor and was not merely some beefcake actor that had a good run before his series left TV. Here, within the time and the nature of the story he shows Eisenhower as the military leader, politician, and diplomat that Ike had to be.

It also shows the burden of leadership. The naysayers, even the ones with good intentions and concerns in the end do not have to make the decision. Selleck shows us the nature of the man who does. History is written by the winners of course and as with many a war, to include very recent ones, there will always be those who will be critical of every decision, every choice made.

Eisenhower, as with all leaders, made a choice, followed through on it, and put everything, to include history's judgment of him on the line. Few then as now have the guts to do this.

As to showing Patton in a negative light, I had at first that very same feeling as many posters who didn't like seeing someone such as Patton treated this way. But his entire fate rested in Eisenhower's hands, despite Patton's greatness in battle, there did come a time when he was completely at the mercy as it were, of a former subordinate. If we see a sense of shame, it's has to be reflective of what the actual Patton felt in Ike's office.

I think Monty came off better. Granted, his ego was shown, but was not overdone. There was actually before and well after D-Day Monty's habit of doing everything he could, right up to a certain limit to challenge Ike's leadership. One level of genius for Monty was knowing precisely how far to go and when demanded, knowing how to back off gracefully. The film could have demonized him, but didn't. It seem actually rather fair.

As to the French, what can you say....the truth hurts....at least you can say they have been proved consistent in their ways over the years.

Would be better without a so negative depiction of the French

[ro-mart · 5/10 · 16 October 2006]

In The Longest Day (1962), Hollywood saluted heavily the Fighting French. Perhaps too heavily, but without feeding resentments. Ike : Countdown to D-Day (2004) depicted France as the spoiled nation that was NOT fighting against Nazism.

It begins by a weird omission.

General Eisenhower is rebuking General Patton for having declared that the Anglo-Saxons will rule the post-war World. (The two men reported different versions of this moment. The filmmakers could only write a plausible conversation.) Eisenhower (Tom Selleck) says to Patton (Gerald McRaney) : "The Czechs are also in this war. And the Dutch and the Danes, and God knows who else." Let's examine various facts. Patton had attended the Cavalry School in France in the 1920's; he spoke French, and Eisenhower, who knew Patton personally, could easily presume his former mentor is not badly disposed towards the French in general. Eisenhower, who is preparing to send troops to fight on French beaches, is also informed, like very few man, of the action of the French Resistance (a Resistance that is ultimately successful and helpful in 1944 after years of desperate ineffectiveness). "God knows who else" ? It would have been so natural for the true Eisenhower to include "the French" in his enumeration while speaking to the true Patton. The unlucky destiny of the Danes, the Dutch and the French was similar, although the number of French soldiers killed in the war is about 11 times the total number of deaths among Danish, Dutch and Czech soldiers. It's unlikely Eisenhower didn't mention also the French, especially when the issue is the possible reaction about Patton's statement. But let's make the best of it. A tribute to the Fighting Czechs, Fighting Danes and Fighting Dutch cannot be understood as a minimization of the merit of North American and British troops who fought in Europe.

Then arrived a disdainful remark.

At a moment in May 1944, in Eisenhower's Headquarters, top rank officers are viewing a movie made by the Red Army about the surrender of the German 17th Army, in Crimea, in May 1944. The documentary is completed by a minimal narration.

While viewing tanks in Russia, General Montgomery (Bruce Philips) loudly suggests to rethink the strategy. Eisenhower, the supreme commander, seated in the row behind Montgomery, barely budges. But when Montgomery adds, very seriously : "And we'll have the French to help us along", we see Eisenhower with strongly knitted brows, and American General Bradley (James Remar), beside Montgomery, is visibly upset when he turns back to look at his friend Eisenhower. Immediately after this, other images are projected. The narrator is then telling that those images come from a smuggled unedited film from the Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings, and the narrator adds "the ghetto resisted six weeks to an entire German Army". Right after those images of skinny human beings and the narrator's comment on their long resistance, General Smith (Timothy Bottoms), Eisenhower's Chief of staff, behind Bradley, shouts : "Twice as long as the well fed French Army in 1940. Don't count on them to help us along." The audience of officers in the dark room laughs, except Montgomery.

This striking sequence of images from Warsaw Ghetto and General Smith's remark cannot be accidental. But is it relevant in a movie on the last weeks before D-Day ? The main fighting of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising lasted from April 19th to May 16th, 1943. Did Eisenhower and his staff view a documentary movie on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising nearly A FULL YEAR AFTER the Uprising ? If so, did the Chief of staff, on the eve of a landing in France, actually jump on an opportunity like that movie on Warsaw Ghetto martyrdom to blast the French Army ? "Twice as long as the well fed French Army in 1940. Don't count on them to help us along." What if somebody added : "Sir, the French Army was as well fed in 1939-40 as the American Navy was in Hawaii in December 1941, although rather busier on the weekends. Should Poland thank the Japanese because America finally started to cross swords with the Germans. " Entertaining joke, isn't it ? Although the entire cast in the drama is credible, convincing, let's notice how the dialog later in the drama makes the characters strangely flimsy for a short moment.

General Montgomery is heavily depicted in the movie as a man disconnected from reality. For instance, later in the movie, we see Montgomery being probably the last British officer to expect he could enforce a no-smoking rule in a room where his boss Churchill, a famous heavy smoker, is about to enter.

After Smith's remark on the French Army, a remark supposedly made as late as 1944, the romantic Montgomery depicted in the movie should have claimed the British Army fought against the German Forces in 1940 without more success than the French Army.

Moreover, Free French soldiers led by General Koenig fought beside the British against Vichy French in Syria in 1941 and against Afrikakorps in Libya in June 1942. When the Anglo-Saxons fought the Germans in Tunisia between February and May 1943, they were helped by Free French troops led by General Leclerc, who had fought in the Sahara as early as 1941. Free French troops also fought against the Germans in September 1943 in Corsica, for instance. In May 1944, Bradley, Smith and Eisenhower were as well aware of those facts as Montgomery.

But don't count on this movie for fairness.

Instead, we hear Montgomery complaining about indiscipline from Smith, and it's easy for Eisenhower to tell Montgomery that he himself was the first officer to break the discipline with his comment on the strategy. So Montgomery shuts up, for once. Following that, Eisenhower tells Smith he loved his so-called reply to Montgomery. This line isn't from the solemn Eisenhower who, in the same drama, pronounced the word "racialism" when rebuking Patton about Anglo-Saxons' superiority. Too bad.

Selleck's Best Performance Ever

[mso88 · 6 November 2006]

Tom Selleck is improving with age. While always likable from the Magnum days, he never seemed to elevate himself, or perhaps his characters, beyond that of "TV Guy." Then came some surprisingly solid movies performances. Well, maybe not a complete surprise considering his workmanlike approach to each and every role.

With "Ike" Selleck reaches a high-water mark. Serious and determined, the character seems to flow from this actor...never wooden or stilted, but competent, complex, and natural. The firm determination when meeting with staff officers on the eve of the invasion. The restrained exasperation/rage during the DeGaulle encounter. The free-wheeling charm when mingling with the airborne troops.

It remains Tom Selleck's best performance to date.

Comments on Ike and Tom

[warbirdlover · 8/10 · 5 June 2004]

It's the wrong day, it should have been June 5th. I wanted to comment on Tom Sellek's performance. I really enjoyed the movie, and Tom to me was believable as a caring general. Ike had to know this was history in the making.

From some of the reviews I've read about this movie, some knit-picked his portrayal, but seeing him as magnum and Quigley it amazed me that he seemed like he really was making those decisions, and yet showed compassion for the troops. I'd like to see him in other war movies, I bet he'd do well in them as well.

Warbirdlover

Great movie!!!

[flash6644 · 9/10 · 4 October 2005]

This movie just grows and grows on you, when I first saw this movie I thought it was good but then after I watched it a second time I realized it was even better than I had thought. Tom Selleck gives a great performance as Ike and Timothy Bottoms does a great job as Beetle Smith. The rest of the cast was good as well. It is a very historically accurate film except for mistake toward the end of the movie. Lots of great dialogue and it tells very well the extreme burden that Eisenhower was under right before the invasion of France. This movie will only get better and better with time. I highly recommend this movie.