After one large movie and this made-for-TV version, why can't someone stop messing around with the true story of the "Great Escape" and present it as it actually happened. The ending also fails to make clear that there were 2 UK-mounted war crimes trials of the murderers of the 50 escapees. Also Burchardt in real life was sentenced to death by hanging at the 2nd trial, but was reprieved. There are loads of other changes from the real events, but then Hollywood and the film industry has rarely cared about accuracy.
13 Reviews
This Film Is Also In Honor of those Escapees...And the Commandant of the Camp
theowinthrop21 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I am noting that of the previous comments of this film two of them are rather picky about the factuality of the aftermath story of the Great Escape. There have been times that I have been picky like that too, but I also note that the very fact that a film is made to show what happened after is a triumph for at least partially telling the full story.
This film begins when the escapees are beginning to be rounded up and brought back to prison camp (or...as we later learn...exterminated). One of them is in a prison for interrogation near Berlin. One night he goes to his cell door because he hears another prisoner's door being opened for interrogation purposes. He looks out the window of the door and sees Colonel Von Lindiener (Manfred Andrae) the commandant at the stalag the escape occurred at being hustled out. He has obviously been worked over pretty fiercely. Subsequently it is learned that the Colonel was executed for failing to prevent the escape.
Now Von Lindiener was not an idiot like Werner Klemperer's "Col. Wilhelm Klink" in HOGAN'S HEROES, nor an easy-going man, but he had been running the camp to the best of his ability as per orders. Unfortunately (as the first film showed) there were prisoners in the camp who had escaped other camps before and were expert in various specialties needed to properly aid in an escape. He did his best, but was outmaneuvered by them. A demotion in rank might have been proper punishment for the man, but when you have a bunch of opportunists, criminals, and fanatics running a government under a racist madman you can't count on normal behavior or balance regarding punishments. The Commandant was as much a victim of the backlash as those escapees who were unlucky enough to be captured by the Gestapo.
The film follows how the surviving officers who led the escape start learning of the massacres of their comrades. An American officer, played by Judd Hirsch, is put in charge of the investigation aided by Christopher Reeve as Major Dodge. Slowly (with the assistance of Anthony Dennison as Lieutenant Corery and Charles Haid as Sergeant MacKenzie) the actual fates of the dead escapees, and the identities of their killers come out. And the killers rounded up for trial and punishment. But as they get closer and closer to the ringleader of the assassins Hirch, Reeve, and Company find not only a ruthless, unrepentant adversary, but evidence of a still in place Nazi underground.
Now how much of this is true I can't say. Certainly the criticism of the failure of the film to note a large scale British trial of the murderers is noted. However the film on its own merits was quite good, and deserving of being shown again. Best performance in it (I thought) was Hirsch, though Reeve did well in support.
I noticed that the one man the British condemned to death was reprieved. I would not be too harsh on the British for that. After World War II there was an American trial dealing with the massacre of captured Americans during the Battle of the Bulge by SS troops. The "Malmady" Masacre trial similarly ended with a death penalty for the leader and several others. However there were voices against it - the Junior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Joseph McCarthy (for whatever reason - the heavy German voting population in that state may have been one) arguing that the SS troops were ordered to shoot prisoners. It's doubtful that McCarthy's worthless grandstanding did anything but annoy the Truman Administration, but new political realities dictated leniency. The death sentences were reduced to relatively light prison sentences. However, the head of the death squad, in the 1970s, was shot to death fleeing from his burning cabin. Sometimes justice is slow but complete.
This film begins when the escapees are beginning to be rounded up and brought back to prison camp (or...as we later learn...exterminated). One of them is in a prison for interrogation near Berlin. One night he goes to his cell door because he hears another prisoner's door being opened for interrogation purposes. He looks out the window of the door and sees Colonel Von Lindiener (Manfred Andrae) the commandant at the stalag the escape occurred at being hustled out. He has obviously been worked over pretty fiercely. Subsequently it is learned that the Colonel was executed for failing to prevent the escape.
Now Von Lindiener was not an idiot like Werner Klemperer's "Col. Wilhelm Klink" in HOGAN'S HEROES, nor an easy-going man, but he had been running the camp to the best of his ability as per orders. Unfortunately (as the first film showed) there were prisoners in the camp who had escaped other camps before and were expert in various specialties needed to properly aid in an escape. He did his best, but was outmaneuvered by them. A demotion in rank might have been proper punishment for the man, but when you have a bunch of opportunists, criminals, and fanatics running a government under a racist madman you can't count on normal behavior or balance regarding punishments. The Commandant was as much a victim of the backlash as those escapees who were unlucky enough to be captured by the Gestapo.
The film follows how the surviving officers who led the escape start learning of the massacres of their comrades. An American officer, played by Judd Hirsch, is put in charge of the investigation aided by Christopher Reeve as Major Dodge. Slowly (with the assistance of Anthony Dennison as Lieutenant Corery and Charles Haid as Sergeant MacKenzie) the actual fates of the dead escapees, and the identities of their killers come out. And the killers rounded up for trial and punishment. But as they get closer and closer to the ringleader of the assassins Hirch, Reeve, and Company find not only a ruthless, unrepentant adversary, but evidence of a still in place Nazi underground.
Now how much of this is true I can't say. Certainly the criticism of the failure of the film to note a large scale British trial of the murderers is noted. However the film on its own merits was quite good, and deserving of being shown again. Best performance in it (I thought) was Hirsch, though Reeve did well in support.
I noticed that the one man the British condemned to death was reprieved. I would not be too harsh on the British for that. After World War II there was an American trial dealing with the massacre of captured Americans during the Battle of the Bulge by SS troops. The "Malmady" Masacre trial similarly ended with a death penalty for the leader and several others. However there were voices against it - the Junior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Joseph McCarthy (for whatever reason - the heavy German voting population in that state may have been one) arguing that the SS troops were ordered to shoot prisoners. It's doubtful that McCarthy's worthless grandstanding did anything but annoy the Truman Administration, but new political realities dictated leniency. The death sentences were reduced to relatively light prison sentences. However, the head of the death squad, in the 1970s, was shot to death fleeing from his burning cabin. Sometimes justice is slow but complete.
Fiction or history, doesn't matter. A confusing mess.
mark.waltz1 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, the period detail is quite good, and technically, it's superb. But you'd have to follow every single frame and have a detailed plot synopsis to really make sense of it all. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a sequel to the classic 1963 war epic or the other side of the situation from the first film showing unrelated characters involved in the attempts to aide prisoners of war in escaping. So technical rating, an 8. Storytelling, 2. Acting wise a big n/a because the actors are really saying little and running around or shooting without real characters to play.
Aired in two parts, it's overly long and cumbersome for most of the dreary first part. The video release cut out half of it, which would be interesting to see if only the full movie was anywhere near interesting. Major stars Christopher Reeve and Judd Hirsch are wasted, and soap star Michael Nader is in nothing more than a cameo as a tough German who allegedly decapitated someone with a whip. His battle with Reeve is completely underwhelming. Probably one of the most unnecessary TV movie sequels to a classic movie, and I'm sure many viewers did not return for part Ii when this first aired.
Aired in two parts, it's overly long and cumbersome for most of the dreary first part. The video release cut out half of it, which would be interesting to see if only the full movie was anywhere near interesting. Major stars Christopher Reeve and Judd Hirsch are wasted, and soap star Michael Nader is in nothing more than a cameo as a tough German who allegedly decapitated someone with a whip. His battle with Reeve is completely underwhelming. Probably one of the most unnecessary TV movie sequels to a classic movie, and I'm sure many viewers did not return for part Ii when this first aired.
Mostly it's the "untold story" because this isn't what happened but as entertainment it's passable
gpmjobs24 February 2010
The issue with this "true story" is that it was a made for America TV film, as a follow up to a cinema film that had already been twisted to add an American interest. By the time you get to the stage of this film it's very difficult to make for an audience who will have very little connection to the real story - i.e. that 76 predominantly European or Commonwealth service men escaped from a PoW camp, 73 were re-captured and under direct orders from Hitler 50 were executed in ones and twos by SS and Gestapo henchmen.
The film itself, if it didn't have the silly "untold story" tag, would be passable TV fare. The investigation, the depiction of the nature of the murders (i.e. individuals rather than the 50 in a field as per the original) are realistic whilst not necessarily being true. The fact it plays loose with who did the investigating and what actually happened is only an issue if you are looking for the true story.
If you're looking for a film about war crimes and investigating them, then as TV movies go this is OK. If you're looking for the real "untold story" then don't believe everything you see in this production.
The film itself, if it didn't have the silly "untold story" tag, would be passable TV fare. The investigation, the depiction of the nature of the murders (i.e. individuals rather than the 50 in a field as per the original) are realistic whilst not necessarily being true. The fact it plays loose with who did the investigating and what actually happened is only an issue if you are looking for the true story.
If you're looking for a film about war crimes and investigating them, then as TV movies go this is OK. If you're looking for the real "untold story" then don't believe everything you see in this production.
Codswallop
malcolmgsw10 June 2021
After watching this film I am waiting for a remake of Waterloo showing how the Americans beat Napoleon. That is just as fanciful as this ridiculous film. There is no attempt at vermisilitude..It goes beyond embarassment and an insult to the brave men who were murdered.
Untold Story because it never happened like this
collioure_bee24 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I read someone comment if you had read the book you'd know there is a lot of truth to this. If you'd read the book you'd know this film is very loosely based on a book and then played with to give it an American interest. Apparently Bushell was caught after being betrayed by a Frenchman. No he wasn't, the depiction in the original film is how he was caught. Apparently an American made a "home run" No he didn't. By the time the escape took place the Americans had been put in a separate camp and none went out. Apparently a former American cop lead the investigation. No he didn't, it just goes on making it look like the Americans were the heroes and in this case, they weren't. They even make Winston Churchill look like a three foot tall midget. Bad casting at it's most obvious. The acting was pretty bad, and Charles Haid's accent was abysmal. I liked him in Hill St Blues but what was that accent all about? As for the romance angle, that was purely laughable. Had this been portrayed as an escape story it could have been passable but to pretend it is the true story of what happened next, or even insinuate it, is frankly an insult to those who really took part. If it's just a mooovie, then don't try to pretend that it's telling us something that really happened like this.
The story of The Great Escape and the subsequent events is incredible enough without having to make things or change events. In fact this film waters down some of the events like the officers that were captured and taken to a concentration camp and escaped from there by tunneling out.
Watch it for entertainment, but don't expect to learn any sort of accurate facts from it.
The story of The Great Escape and the subsequent events is incredible enough without having to make things or change events. In fact this film waters down some of the events like the officers that were captured and taken to a concentration camp and escaped from there by tunneling out.
Watch it for entertainment, but don't expect to learn any sort of accurate facts from it.
Bloody awful. About as factual as Disney.
erniedev5 February 2020
Bad acting and even worse story line. Where did all the American come from ???. The American had nothing to do with the Great Escape and definitely nothing to do with the investigation at the end of the war. Then when did Hollywood ever let the truth get in the way of a (not so) good story.
Blecch
counterrevolutionary30 January 2003
I only saw this silly made-for-TV sequel in it's chopped-down 93-minute video version, and it was quite obvious that there were many things missing. On the plus side, I didn't care.
Where THE GREAT ESCAPE was a somewhat-fictionalized version of a true story, GE2 is a fictional story which only touches reality at odd points (and sometimes the oddest: the part about recognizing some Gestapo officers from a painting in a nightclub is true).
The real story of the investigation of the Stalag Luft III murders would probably have been a lot more interesting, but there might not have been a part in that for Christopher Reeve.
Where THE GREAT ESCAPE was a somewhat-fictionalized version of a true story, GE2 is a fictional story which only touches reality at odd points (and sometimes the oddest: the part about recognizing some Gestapo officers from a painting in a nightclub is true).
The real story of the investigation of the Stalag Luft III murders would probably have been a lot more interesting, but there might not have been a part in that for Christopher Reeve.
One of the worst "Untold Stories" ever released
John-ridley335 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Why Oh Why? Do American TV and film producers continually offer such diabolical and unbelievable rubbish to the public. "GE2" not only has dreadful casting and even more dreadful acting but the story line is so far removed from anything remotely relating to the truth that one is inclined to believe the entire project was dreamed up by person or persons under the age of fourteen whose parents were probably not even alive during WWII and had no knowledge of such events to pass on.
John R.
John R.
Barely passable as entertainment
I_should_be_reading_a_book3 March 2021
As a thriller, I have seen worse in television. Escape suspense was so-so, postwar plot not that much, albeit interesting in the portrayal of the protection granted to nazi criminals in exploiting them as assets for the cold war. Acring, as expected of the cast was simply hineous, with the probable exception of Donald Pleasance and even his talent was botched by an amateurish direction job.
About the factual content, I cannot judge, knowing barely nothing about it but what was presented by the original film but even if the miniseries were accurate, the depiction ruins the story.
Watchable if you found it for free and have nothing else to invest your time in.
Passable
gwhiteye24 March 2023
It's a passable movie if you don't mind a fictionalized version of real wartime events. The idea is there so at least you get the point that it's trying to make. It might not be 8 out of 10 stars but at least it's better than the majority of the Hollywood garbage that's out there these days. I enjoy looking back into these older films and finding gems. I wish this one was a little bit more polished. The one thing that really stuck with me was the idiotic music score that played. This is a serious film with a serious subject matter but they played this music as of it was a joke of some sort. Just by that one gesture the film loses two extra stars from me.
More factual than given credit for
ScarletPimpernel642 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Many of the names, such as Reeve's John Dodge and MacShane's Roger Bushnell were actual characters. (And yes, Dodge *was* related to Churchill!) If you've read the book, then you know there is a great deal of fact in this telefilm.
True, there's no romance in the novel, but as Hitchcock said, "It's only a mo-vie." And instead of the master assassin being killed, he was taken to trial. But overall, if you manage to see this in its entirety, you should enjoy it. (Well, you know what I mean.
What makes this even more interesting is the presence of Donald Pleasance, one of the stars of the 1963. Plus, Jud Taylor, who directed Part 2, was also in the film.
True, there's no romance in the novel, but as Hitchcock said, "It's only a mo-vie." And instead of the master assassin being killed, he was taken to trial. But overall, if you manage to see this in its entirety, you should enjoy it. (Well, you know what I mean.
What makes this even more interesting is the presence of Donald Pleasance, one of the stars of the 1963. Plus, Jud Taylor, who directed Part 2, was also in the film.
I enjoyed it - BUT.....
adamchurchill5 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
As far as TV Movies go, I think this is a good one - I tried watching this last Christmas, but due to bad weather, my satellite dish lost the signal, just as I was getting into the film - suffice to say I swore very loudly !!
Luckily they showed it again tonight, and I'm glad that they did !!
I failed my RAF and Army applications in 1986, and so I always maintained a strong interest in RAF based war films - not least because my late Uncle served as Ground Crew in the RAF in India during WW2.
And my late Father saw Active Service as Ground Crew at RAF Kasfareet, Egypt in the 1950s.
The original Great Escape is an all time classic - I remember Dad sitting glued to it in front of the TV one Christmas when I was a kid
This TVM remake cast the late, great Christopher Reeve, and the "Lovable Rogue" Actor Ian McShane as real people who were there when it really happened.
It captured the "essence" of the escape itself, but IMHO the evidence gathering that led to bringing former Gestapo members to justice in the aftermath was the best part of this TVM.
I enjoyed it - BUT........... They tried to cram too much into too little space by splicing what were essentially two great storylines into one TVM IMHO They missed out on a very good opportunity, why not.... Make a TVM remake of "The Great Escape" concentrating on the fact based escape from the POW camp - ending it with "To Be Continued" And Then Make "The Great Escape II: The Untold Story" as a sequel dealing with the aftermath.
Win Win.
Luckily they showed it again tonight, and I'm glad that they did !!
I failed my RAF and Army applications in 1986, and so I always maintained a strong interest in RAF based war films - not least because my late Uncle served as Ground Crew in the RAF in India during WW2.
And my late Father saw Active Service as Ground Crew at RAF Kasfareet, Egypt in the 1950s.
The original Great Escape is an all time classic - I remember Dad sitting glued to it in front of the TV one Christmas when I was a kid
This TVM remake cast the late, great Christopher Reeve, and the "Lovable Rogue" Actor Ian McShane as real people who were there when it really happened.
It captured the "essence" of the escape itself, but IMHO the evidence gathering that led to bringing former Gestapo members to justice in the aftermath was the best part of this TVM.
I enjoyed it - BUT........... They tried to cram too much into too little space by splicing what were essentially two great storylines into one TVM IMHO They missed out on a very good opportunity, why not.... Make a TVM remake of "The Great Escape" concentrating on the fact based escape from the POW camp - ending it with "To Be Continued" And Then Make "The Great Escape II: The Untold Story" as a sequel dealing with the aftermath.
Win Win.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
