It's very difficult, for me, to understand those reviews that credit Selleck with a defining performance as Ike. His acting, intonation, enunciation, and body language were flat and unconvincing. Unless Ike was that dull himself, which does not seem to be the case, Selleck was a very disappointing casting choice.
The main scenes that have stuck with me were the endless shots of Selleck lighting cigarettes and exhaling smoke during one-on-one encounters with Churchill and his staff members. Not since some of the early Nick Nolte films has anyone relied so much on empty gesture to compensate for a weak screen presence.
But the film might be a must-see for history buffs. It reveals aspects of the invasion decision-making and execution process that, as far as I know, have not been adequately treated elsewhere.
Just don't expect to come away from it inspired or feeling some connection with the Ike character. And you certainly won't come away impressed with the similarity that Selleck's interpretation bears to Eisenhower (as George C. Scott's did to Patton -- reportedly making even Patton's daughter forget she wasn't watching her father).
The main scenes that have stuck with me were the endless shots of Selleck lighting cigarettes and exhaling smoke during one-on-one encounters with Churchill and his staff members. Not since some of the early Nick Nolte films has anyone relied so much on empty gesture to compensate for a weak screen presence.
But the film might be a must-see for history buffs. It reveals aspects of the invasion decision-making and execution process that, as far as I know, have not been adequately treated elsewhere.
Just don't expect to come away from it inspired or feeling some connection with the Ike character. And you certainly won't come away impressed with the similarity that Selleck's interpretation bears to Eisenhower (as George C. Scott's did to Patton -- reportedly making even Patton's daughter forget she wasn't watching her father).