Robert Shaw, Harrison Ford, Barbara Bach, Edward Fox, Franco Nero, and Carl Weathers star in "Force 10 from Navarone" based on a novela by Alistair MacLean and a follow-up to "The Guns of Navarone."Mallory is now played by Shaw instead of Gregory Peck and Miller is now Fox instead of David Niven. It seems there was a traitor with them at Navarone, a man they believe to be dead. But it turns out he escaped. He was a German spy. The Intelligence service thinks he is in Yugoslavian with the Partisans, and Mallory is ordered to find him and kill him. Since only Miller and Mallory know him, they are sent along with a unit, Force 10, run by Colonel Barnsby (Ford) who doesn't want either man as he believes they will slow him down.Force 10's mission is to blow up a bridge. En route their plane is shot and everyone has to bail out. They wind up prisoners of German sympathizers. In order to be released, they tell a lot of lies that the commandant doesn't believe. But unbeknownst to them, they have a friend there.I thought this was pretty good and entertaining and boy, could they blow things up! Lots of special effects and good performances. Amazing seeing how young Harrison Ford was! Recommended. It's not a blockbuster but it is good.

I admit to never having seen the original GUNS OF NAVARONE, but I can report that this underrated sequel is a strong addition to the glut of 1970s-era WW2 movies that were all the rage at the time. These films were often similar to the wave of Hollywood disaster flicks also being made at the time, with expansive budgets big enough to do the stories justice, and ensemble casts of familiar faces.FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE stars a fresh-faced Harrison Ford, straight off the success of STAR WARS. He's a man with a mission to blow up a bridge in Yugoslavia, and he has a bunch of assorted characters helping him. Two of these are Robert Shaw and Edward Fox, playing old timers. Fox and Shaw seemed to be ubiquitous in genre cinema in the 1970s and they both give assured, confident turns.The supporting players turn out to be just as interesting. Barbara Bach is here and as alluring as ever and so is her Bond co-star Richard Kiel as a hulking Partisan fighter. Italian leading man Franco Nero bags an interesting part and gets plenty of screen time. Philip Latham, the butler Klove in Dracula: PRINCE OF DARKNESS, plays the guy who sends the chaps off on their mission at the outset, while Michael Byrne and Michael Sheard play Nazis as usual. Best of the bunch is Carl Weathers, hot off the success of ROCKY, excellent as the youthful, gung ho soldier.The plot of FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE is nothing special; find a traitor, blow up a bridge, you've seen it all before countless times. But the execution is superior. The film is packed with action and special effects which stand the test of time. Director Guy Hamilton does a grand job of the material and elicits likable performances from all of the major players. This is the type of film I caught on Sunday afternoon television but would love to add to my collection one day.

It isn't that this is a bad movie...nor is it that good. It's that it attempted to be seen as the sequel to "The Guns Of Navarone". "The Guns Of Navarone" boasted Gregory Peck, David Niven, Anthony Quinn, and Anthony Quayle...a tough act to follow. And this film just didn't...follow that tough act. The cast here is good, but Robert Shaw is not Gregory Peck, and Harrison Ford (at this stage in his career) was no Anthony Quinn or David Niven. And, while this is a decent story, it can't compare toe the complexity of "The Guns Of Navarone". It would almost be like comparing an "A" movie with a "B" movie, although I won't be that harsh.Robert Shaw played Robert Shaw in this film. That's not necessarily bad, but I've rarely found Shaw's performances to be very deep. To me he was a flash in the pan propelled by a handful of top notch films including "Jaws". Edward Fox is one of my favorite older British actors, but regrettably, he didn't have a lot to do in this film. A great talent wasted. Harrison Ford, fairly fresh off his first really big pic -- "Star Wars", does okay, but he hadn't really developed a very mature acting style as yet (and just to be clear, eventually he became one of my favorites). Barbara Bach...eh. Franco Nero is interesting here.I was appalled by the role given to Carl Weathers. I guess since it was 1978 there had to be some racist bullcrap here...and this role provided it. Weathers was a pretty decent actor. Too bad he accepted a role like this. More than any other one aspect, this is where the crass aspect came in.There's other crassness here, too, though. The score is less than inspired. The story itself is decent, but there is some immaturity here. Guy Hamilton, the director, is best known for some classy James Bond films, but he had less success in other endeavors...including this one. And by the way, if the bridge is do damned important, why wouldn't they just bomb it from the air? Yes, the film has some good moments and some good action sequences -- particularly later in the film --...but nothing that sets it apart from dozens and dozens of other war films.I should, by my own standards, give this film a "7", but since it tried to win an audience off the fame of "The Guns Of Navarone", when in reality it had nothing to do with that film, I'm dropping it down to a "6". And yes, I know it was the same author. But he didn't insert scenes directly from the original film into the first few minutes of this film. That's crass.

At the surface, this is actually an enjoyable WWII mission-action movie full of personality and clever twists with double-agents and improvisations by commando soldiers with skill and wit, Alistair MacLean style. I was even enjoying this as much as the original Guns of Navarone, that is, until the plot holes popped up (the original also had plot holes). This is not a dumb action movie that begs you to switch off your brain, so the plot holes pretty much ruin the experience. It turns out the whole plot was very significantly changed from the book though so keep that in mind.*spoilers* The biggest plot hole is the fact they were sent there because they knew Nikolai and could identify him and they knew Nikolai was at least a traitor from personal experience. So when they met him, why would they believe the story about another Nikolai that was the real traitor/spy? Another hole is that it turns out the British were constantly in touch with the partisans so they didn't have to send commandos to kill Nikolai, they could have simply told them to kill him.And then there is the whole bluff with the penicillin. First they bluff that they have it in their suitcase but they can't open it, then when it turns out it has wood inside the case, they say they buried it. Any German with half a brain would see the contradiction in the story. If they buried it for that matter, why bring the suitcase at all knowing that the Germans would force them to open it? Also the masked infiltrators were obviously discovered dead by the partisans first since they knew about it when they nabbed Force 10, so why did they leave the dead bodies there to be discovered by the Chetniks and thus give themselves away? Why would Miller instruct them how to plant the bomb at the dam, but not tell them the critical information that it would be a slow destruction and thus let them know how to time the whole thing so that they could get away and not allow the bomb to be discovered?I also had a problem with the fact that simple explosives could not destroy the bridge but water could. But this may be a lack of engineering knowledge on my part and perhaps the water eroded the ground underneath, except that he was going on and on about how it was attached to rock so I have doubts... Also the effects, although very well done, did not show an overwhelming force of water against the bridge that would convince. But, again, it may just be my lack of knowledge here.Pity, because I enjoyed the rest.