Castle Keep (1969)

Castle Keep

Fantastic eurpean back drop. Amazing glamorous casle. Slow build up at first. Energetic but short action ending. June 2, 2008

A character herein asks of another, "Did you hear a scream, maybe a wild bird or an eagle?" I'd add, "Or perhaps, nothing?"

"We don't believe in fighting," a soldier tells Peter Falk's character in the middle of the night on an otherwise quiet street. "Oh," Falk responds, "who believes in fighting?" The soldier, who a moment before had been leading a handful of soldiers singing for redemption, responds that "We believe in God. That frightens you doesn't it? All you believe in is fornication and killing. We're conscientious objectors," the soldier (played by Bruce Dern) tells Falk, in conclusion. Patrick O'Neil's character is an objector in a way too. He plays a "famed art historian" turned fighting subordinate who tries to persuade Burt Lancaster to abandon the castle they are holed up in rather than see it destroyed should they try to hold it against advancing Germans. He tells Lancaster, his one-eyed commander (a man who apparently can't see the forest for the trees, or so it seems to be suggested) that "If something isn't saved, what's it all for?" Lancaster, whose name herein is Falconer, continuing on this theme, objects by saying that "You can't save anything by giving it to the Germans. If you give them anything you have to give them everything."

All this, mind you, takes place in Belgium at "a tenth century castle in a twentieth century war," as the film trailer states. The characters herein likewise are rather oddly situated. We have the art historian in a historic castle filled to the rafters with priceless art; the one-eyed commander determined to hold the fort, as they say; a preacher (not the singing guy above who was from another unit), who berates a German tank with words until it is simply too close not to be fired upon; a would-be writer who is trying to absorb all that is happening around him; a cowboy of sorts, who takes a liking to a Volkswagon Beetle Bug car and spends an inordinate amount of his free time polishing it and driving it in circles in front of the castle; and we have Peter Falk's character, a baker turned soldier---the most alive character in the film, the most watchable actor herein---who, almost just to make him as odd as some of the others, winds up helping the local baker's wife (whose husband is presumably dead) literally make bread. Falk: "I've got no place to go, no place to retreat to." The words could just have easily been spoken by Lancaster's character, of course. Hence the latter's determination to stand his ground. Is this a wonderful picture? That should be easy enough for you to answer from just this sketch I've provided you with, but as you can project a bit of your own thinking into this film, you can argue (as others have here) that this film has more depth than one might at first glance see. That depends more on you than anything else, of course, so I'll leave it at that and give Castle Keep a rather neutral three stars and leave it to you to decide whether to have a gander at this film. Cheers November 28, 2007

Avant-garde World War II flick full of pretentious blather (2.5 Stars)

Two World War II flicks involving a European castle came out in 1968, "Where Eagles Dare" and "Castle Keep." If you're a fan of war films you've no doubt heard of "Where Eagles Dare," which is one of the greatest war action/adventure films ever made; but I wouldn't be too surprised if you've never heard of "Castle Keep" or only vaguely heard of it. There's good reason for this.

THE PLOT: The Germans are marching on a Belgium village in the Ardennes where a small group of American soldiers make a stand at a 10th century castle.

"Castle Keep" has a lot going for it: a great cast, including Burt Lancaster, Peter Falk, Bruce Dern & many more; fabulous Yugoslavian Winter locations & castle; thrilling action scenes; it's well-made on a technical level; and it hardly comes across dated at all, even though it's forty years old. Fans of the film describe it as "poetic" & "haunting" and it's certainly obvious the filmmakers were shooting for something groundbreaking, meaningful and artistic.

Unfortunately "Castle Keep" failed to grab my attention until well into the second half of its 1 hour & 45 minute runtime, which is when the great action scenes start. The characters have a lot of dialogue but you never get to know them or care about them. Maybe because the chatter comes off as unreal, artsy and inscutable. Want a sample? The Count of the castle comments to Theresa (who is his wife, I think), "They planned this war because there was something they hadn't yet smashed." She replies, "Who are we, Henri?" "We are the keepers." [Thanks to Amazon reviewer Steven Hellerstedt for citing this dialogue].

The script is full of such "deep" nonsense. Which I suppose would be okay as long as the story itself pulled me in, but it didn't. The story doesn't perk up and grab the viewer's attention until the Germans march on the village well past the hour mark.

Want another example of the film's "unreal" vibe? The soldiers go into town to kill time at the local whore house. When they enter all the prostitutes are standing or lying around in various tantalizing poses in lingerie. I'm sure they were just hanging around like that waiting for five soldiers to walk in -- WHY SURE! You gotta see it to believe it. I busted out laughing!

One reviewer offered the interpretation that one soldier, the writer, is simply remembering how it was, not how it really was, and that's why it comes across so dreamlike, bizarre and unreal. I find this a valid explanation. Others point out that it's an allegory about the futility of the Vietnam War which was going on at the time of release. Another interpretation is that the message is one of contrast: Life from death, and death where once life was (Huh?).

Hey, I'm all for "message" films with deeper meanings, that is, as long as the film itself is interesting; the original "Apocalypse Now" is a good example. The greatest sin in filmmaking is to be boring. The second is to be pretentious. Unfortunately "Castle Keep" commits both of these transgressions IMHO.

BOTTOM LINE: "Castle Keep" is an avant-garde film palatable to a chosen few. It's either groundbreaking or pretentious depending on your tastes. I certainly respect it and enjoy numerous aspects noted above, but personally deem it a failure. Still, I'm an open-minded person. Maybe next time I'll "get it."

If my words intrigue you, check it out. I strangely found it worth viewing (and owning) even though I currently don't like it. I can't figure it out but, then again, I can't figure the film out either. November 28, 2007

I'm not sure what to think of this film.

Castle Keep is not exactley a normal war film infact I thought it was realy wierd and some parts just didn't fit in and didn't make any sense. The film plays out like a slow paced drama where some of the soldiers are talking about philisophical stuff and the meaning of life and blah blah ect, things don't get interesting untill the second half when the germans try to infiltrate the fortified castle the cast includes Peter Faulk, Burt Lancaster, Patrick O'Neal and some others. A group of American soldiers take over a very old castle as a stronghold, the castle is owned by an unworldly aristocrat whose major concern is for his priceless art collection which I thought was very strange. The film is a cross between a 1960's art film and war film thats why it has these sureal and bizzare scenes like the one in the brothel that has weird carnival music playing in the background. Despite the unknown status of this film it has been praised by other directors and has become a sort of anti-war film for the vietnam era cause of its messages which is not exactely clear, the film had some slightly boring scenes in it but it does make up for it during the end which you'll just have to see what happens I'm not going to spoil it, I'm not saying that it was bad cause some parts were realy good and interesting. The film overall was average I would give it 3.5/5 stars if your looking for a different and strange ww2 film then this might be what your looking for. June 24, 2006

Not even as a night-light....

And I thought `Catch-22' was the worst WWII movie ever made.

At least the source of that one - Joseph Heller's best selling novel - is funny and brilliant. Maybe William Eastlake's CASTLE KEEP is a great novel, too. I'll never know, and after watching director Sydney Pollack's take on it I'm none to anxious to hunt it down. A group of American soldiers, led by eye patched Major Abraham Falconer (Burt Lancaster) decamp in a medieval castle that stands between the advancing Germans and Bastogne. The castle is the residence of the Count of Malorais and Therese, a winsome lass with a wandering eye, and contains a Louvre's worth of art.

Having established a promising plot the movie promptly abandons it and spends nine-tenths of its remaining time standing around talking. Oh, Major Burt makes a heavy move on Therese, Captain Patrick O'Neal moons over the art, the enlisted men spend some time in a cat house in town and, inexplicably, Sergeant Peter Falk takes up residence with a widowed baker's wife. And wild-eyed Bruce Dern, with choir, pops into the movie every now and then as a hymn singing conscientious objector. But most of the time it's just tedious, pretentious, impenetrable talk. For instance, at one point Therese and the Count share this exchange - "They planned this war because there was something they hadn't yet smashed." "Who are we, Henri?" "We are the keepers."

I think CASTLE KEEP is supposed to be a serio-comic response to Vietnam, but this absurd depiction of the futility of war is subverted by its ponderous arrogance and leaden pacing. Static and deathly boring.
April 11, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...