My friend Dave Sindelar, who has viewed and reviewed something like 2,300 fantasy and science fiction films by this point, calls this kind of movie a "Gizmo McGuffin". That is, the plot device is an invention that sets the events in motion, and then is hardly ever seen again, except as an excuse to move onto the next bit.
The "gizmo", in this case, is a "barium record" which can convert converted/recorded sounds into electricity, but once the device is introduced and demonstrated, it is stolen by the wife (and assistant) of the scientist who invented it, and the rest of the movie is essentially a chase to get it back.
"Valley of the Eagles" has a very odd feel to it. Filmed in black and white and set in Sweden (or Norway - the opening exposition seems to conflict a little with the geography - call it "Scandanavia" for the sake of discussion), the movie starts out as a noir crime story featuring a science fiction element and the most stoic, wooden acting from the principals you could possibly imagine. The scientist (played by John McCallum) never exhibits any emotion stronger than mild irritation in the first 15 minutes, and the police detective in charge of the investigation barely registers more than bemusement.
Then the screenplay takes a unexpected turn as the fleeing thieves take to a cross country flight for the USSR border, and the "heroes" join a band of Lapplanders who guide them across the Northern wildernesss. And the next hour is essentially a "safari" film, with Lapplanders and elk (or reindeer?) standing in for the native tribes and elephants, wolves standing in for crocodiles and lions, and the Arctic circle standing in for Africa. The scientist and the policeman remain stoic, unruffled and unemotional in the face of difficulty and disaster, although it seems to me that McCallum allows himself to play a little looser near the end of the trip when he finally confronts his wife and admits that he seems to have forgotten why he was so worked up about the theft of the device in the first place. (The screenplay implies that the journey has changed him, but the change is mostly in the dialog, not McCallum's delivery.)
All of us who were watching this for the first time agreed that all the ingredients were there to make this movie suck, and we really should have hated it. Instead, we found it, well, mildly enjoyable. The scenery was spectacular and it was obvious that the director and cinematographer knew how to shoot and compose a scene (even with the blurry print, "broadcast quality" taped copy we had). Even though the lead actors were not especially demonstrative, this actually served to make the heroes seem unflappabl, uncomplaining and admirable. There were actually some witty lines; two of the supporting character actors steal most of the scenes they appear in. There's a bit of pathos, and an even handed treatment of the price the nomads paid for the way they choose to live. And whoever wrangled and trained the animals must have been a genius; the "payoff scene" where the attacking wolf pack is driven off by trained eagles (!) is unlike any animal stunt scene I've ever watched.
There are problems, of course, and they keep me from rating it higher than a "6". The first 15 minutes are deadly slow and dull - even a small walk-on part by Christopher Lee can't punch up the interest factor. The screenplay makes the odd choice to cut back and forth between the pursuers and the pursued for the first part of the chase, and then remains with the chasers for nearly 50 minutes, as if it had lost interest in the wife and the assistant scientist once they got the actual chase started. And the ending made no sense; in spite of the fact that McCallum's confrontation with his wife in the valley of Eagles ends amiably enough, (and he gets his device back), the next morning she is "fleeing" once again with guides from the village across the mountain face of the potential avalanche. Why is she running? And what native guide would be stupid enough to endanger his life by trekking across the snow-face that has threatened his village with extinction for decades (if not centuries)? Just way too irritating and contrived for me to swallow; I wouldn't buy it in a "Tarzan" movie and I can't buy it here.
But still, it's worth seeing once if some classic movies channel decides to revive it. The director went on to make "Dr. No", and "From Russia With Love", two of the all time classic James Bond films, and in spite of the problems and odd choices, it's nice to see talent shining through archaic plotting and old school film devices.
The "gizmo", in this case, is a "barium record" which can convert converted/recorded sounds into electricity, but once the device is introduced and demonstrated, it is stolen by the wife (and assistant) of the scientist who invented it, and the rest of the movie is essentially a chase to get it back.
"Valley of the Eagles" has a very odd feel to it. Filmed in black and white and set in Sweden (or Norway - the opening exposition seems to conflict a little with the geography - call it "Scandanavia" for the sake of discussion), the movie starts out as a noir crime story featuring a science fiction element and the most stoic, wooden acting from the principals you could possibly imagine. The scientist (played by John McCallum) never exhibits any emotion stronger than mild irritation in the first 15 minutes, and the police detective in charge of the investigation barely registers more than bemusement.
Then the screenplay takes a unexpected turn as the fleeing thieves take to a cross country flight for the USSR border, and the "heroes" join a band of Lapplanders who guide them across the Northern wildernesss. And the next hour is essentially a "safari" film, with Lapplanders and elk (or reindeer?) standing in for the native tribes and elephants, wolves standing in for crocodiles and lions, and the Arctic circle standing in for Africa. The scientist and the policeman remain stoic, unruffled and unemotional in the face of difficulty and disaster, although it seems to me that McCallum allows himself to play a little looser near the end of the trip when he finally confronts his wife and admits that he seems to have forgotten why he was so worked up about the theft of the device in the first place. (The screenplay implies that the journey has changed him, but the change is mostly in the dialog, not McCallum's delivery.)
All of us who were watching this for the first time agreed that all the ingredients were there to make this movie suck, and we really should have hated it. Instead, we found it, well, mildly enjoyable. The scenery was spectacular and it was obvious that the director and cinematographer knew how to shoot and compose a scene (even with the blurry print, "broadcast quality" taped copy we had). Even though the lead actors were not especially demonstrative, this actually served to make the heroes seem unflappabl, uncomplaining and admirable. There were actually some witty lines; two of the supporting character actors steal most of the scenes they appear in. There's a bit of pathos, and an even handed treatment of the price the nomads paid for the way they choose to live. And whoever wrangled and trained the animals must have been a genius; the "payoff scene" where the attacking wolf pack is driven off by trained eagles (!) is unlike any animal stunt scene I've ever watched.
There are problems, of course, and they keep me from rating it higher than a "6". The first 15 minutes are deadly slow and dull - even a small walk-on part by Christopher Lee can't punch up the interest factor. The screenplay makes the odd choice to cut back and forth between the pursuers and the pursued for the first part of the chase, and then remains with the chasers for nearly 50 minutes, as if it had lost interest in the wife and the assistant scientist once they got the actual chase started. And the ending made no sense; in spite of the fact that McCallum's confrontation with his wife in the valley of Eagles ends amiably enough, (and he gets his device back), the next morning she is "fleeing" once again with guides from the village across the mountain face of the potential avalanche. Why is she running? And what native guide would be stupid enough to endanger his life by trekking across the snow-face that has threatened his village with extinction for decades (if not centuries)? Just way too irritating and contrived for me to swallow; I wouldn't buy it in a "Tarzan" movie and I can't buy it here.
But still, it's worth seeing once if some classic movies channel decides to revive it. The director went on to make "Dr. No", and "From Russia With Love", two of the all time classic James Bond films, and in spite of the problems and odd choices, it's nice to see talent shining through archaic plotting and old school film devices.