Ike: Countdown to D-Day (2004)

One of the best films i have seen

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Tom Selleck stars as General Dwight D. Eisenhower in the TV movie entitled,Ike: Countdown to D-Day. It follows the General in the three months leading up to the decisive invasion that would turn the tide of World War II toward the Allied powers.James Remar,Timothy Bottoms,Gerald McRaney and Ian Mune co-stars to play key supporting roles.It is directed by Robert Harmon.The D-Day invasion is the largest military operation of World War II.The TV movie opens with Winston Churchill appointing Eisenhower,better known as Ike, as the Supreme Allied Commander. He faces conflicts with British General Montgomery, American General George Patton, and French leader Charles de Gaulle.He must balance these men's egos as he organizes the risky but necessary military maneuver.Despite historical errors and inaccuracies,this TV movie is a very well done depiction of the events leading up to D-Day, headlined by one of the strongest performances of Tom Selleck's career. It manages to convey the sense of tension throughout every scene which is a testament to both the acting and the writing.

During the commentary they said that the idea for the film came from Stephen Ambrose. Whoa! Ambrose wrote "The Supreme Commander, The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower," which, sadly, we have to assume was used as a primary source for this film, because the film provides no credits for any historical sources.The problem is Ambrose has very little credibility as a historian, after being proved to have fabricated and plagiarized a great deal of the material in his books. He claimed to have spent "a lot of time with Ike, really a lot, hundreds and hundreds of hours" interviewing Eisenhower on a wide range of subjects, and that he had been with him "on a daily basis for a couple years" before his death "doing interviews and talking about his life." But then when the truth started coming out about Ambrose' lies, someone did some checking: "The former president's diary and telephone show that the pair met only three times, for a total of less than five hours." This is from Wikipedia. Just look at the entry on Ambrose for a long list of fabrications, exaggerations, factual errors and plagiarism. Anything touched by Ambrose is suspect, and this includes Ike, Countdown to D-Day. We have already seen a list of anachronisms and criticisms from posters, especially about the bias and factual errors concerning the French and DeGaulle. Unless you have a background in the history of these people and events, it is impossible to judge whether the portrayals are accurate, particularly the private side of Patton and Montgomery. The film does not present the positive accomplishments of these generals, and we know you do not get to be a general by behaving like a 10 year old, which is how they are portrayed. The business of Eisenhower's threatening to send Patton home over the slapping incident is sheer nonsense. Eisenhower actually defended Patton against criticism from Washington, and never considered relieving him. The "Knutsford Incident" also seems to have been fundamentally distorted. The portrayal of Patton by Lionel Chetwynd simply is not true. While I gather there may be some basis for the prima donna portrayal of Montgomery, my gut feeling is it is exaggerated for dramatic purposes and that he was not such a pompous fool. jhiggins993 from Woodbridge VA, says the whole business of Montgomery arguing with Ike over tactics is nonsense: "In fact, Field Marshal Montgomery as overall ground commander for the invasion, was the principle architect of the assault plan that was used on D-Day" Another reviewer says Chetwynd has a long record of rewriting history in his screenplays. So if the business of Montgomery arguing with Ike is false, what's left, talking about the weather? The key scenes of Ike with Winston are made up, too. Eisenhower didn't have to persuade Churchill to support him to be Supreme Commander to unify the arguing factions because they weren't arguing, and the choice was up to FDR. The film portrays Eisenhower as a clear-thinking leader. Perhaps, but that's not what we saw in his eight years as President of the United States. This is the guy who kept Richard Nixon as his vice president for eight years, even though he despised him, and didn't have the guts to stand up to the anti-communists, or defend his friend Gen. George Marshall against attacks by Joe McCarthy.This film also makes the outcome of D-Day less certain than it was, failing to tell hardly anything about the extensive deception to convince Hitler that the invasion would be at Calais. Ian Fleming even contributed to the ruse of a fake courier's body washed up in Spain. Hitler slept till noon on D-Day because no one was allowed to waken him, and even then Hitler believed the real invasion would come at Calais. Tom Selleck delivers a commanding performance. Not having been alive during WWII, it is impossible for me to judge its accuracy. I was alive during the Eisenhower administration, though quite young, and we have plenty of TV clips from the era. Selleck's version does not match this later public image.The portrayal of Churchill is good. But if you listen to Churchill's actual speeches, he was less forceful and edgy than is portrayed here. Many of Churchill's famous radio speeches were done by an actor impersonator, so we have an actor (Ian Mune) who may have been imitating an actor imitating Churchill.The film makes a point early on about how Britain stood alone against Hitler until America entered the war, and, indeed, the bravery of the British people under Churchill's leadership will stand till the end of time as one of the noblest acts of humanity. However, I'm a bit surprised our modern British friends have not attacked this American production, as they do with most Hollywood renditions of WWII. Perhaps it is because the writer, Lionel Chetwynd, was born in Britain, and lives in Canada?The script of Ike is excellent and believable, internally. The acting is very good, and the story is low-keyed yet riveting. But, like most Hollywood attempts at history, we should not put too much faith in the details. This is a dramatization, and some details and characters were fabricated, along with virtually all of the dialogue. If it was based on works by Stephen Ambrose, then the fabricated dialogue is based on fabricated "history." The basic story is true, of course, and Eisenhower deserves credit for what he accomplished. But if you want to learn about history and get your facts straight, you are going to have to do some reading and watch some reputable documentaries, of which there are many on WWII. Ike provides a sense of the time and place, but given the known errors, I do not trust the portrayals or facts. Ike should be viewed for entertainment purposes, only.

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...

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 .