The Longest Day : Awful movie

Awful movie

Over acted, sappy jokes, choppy story telling - it's hard to follow, hard to watch and the jokes fail.

Really, do we need to zoom in on the German officer's boots to see they are on the wrong feet? We already saw him put the left boot on the right foot, and vice versa. And what's the point in making the Germans look like buffoons anyway...leave that to Hogan's Heroes.

What a waste of two hours.

Re: Awful movie

the film has its corny aspects but I still think it is a great film.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion,what war films do you like? most war films have similar flaws and strengths as THE LONGEST DAY.

Re: Awful movie

The action is pretty good, even though the film does make the landings look like a rather lazy, low intensity event, but the character drama is indeed rather corny and the comic relief element annoyingly dumb. The build-up featuring loads of wooden acting and forced exposition is the weak part - especially the scenes where John Wayne strikes poses and basically talks us through the WW2 history, not forgetting to repeat several times whatta so very historical day is lying ahead. A bloated, but ultimately very mediocre film.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

Re: Awful movie

I think certain aspects, such as the national stereotyping, were pretty dated even when the film was first released and the comedy is now embarrassing and quite excruciating-particularly to a modern audience.I recall an old veterans` anger at what he was watching and saying it wasn`t even remotely close to what happened on June 6th-he hated the film with a passion.
Despite all these problems it`s still an important visual document about D-Day and provides a good starting point and hopefully encouragement to read and learn more.The film also utilises many original locations and has many technical achievements which haven`t been bettered:I challenge anyone to find a comparable action sequence to the French Commando attack on Ouistreham.The straffing run by the 2 Me109`s is another highpoint although granted the shot carries on a fraction too long as the beach obstacles suddenly disappear!It has many memorable scenes including the Luftwaffe ace chewing and spitting out his commander and a desperate Pluskat desperately trying to tell his tea-supping superior(clearly nothing in the cup!)that hell is raining down on him.Yes it`s terribly flawed in places but it`s an invaluable piece of filmmaking, which like the event it`s based on, will never be repeated.

Re: Awful movie

I challenge anyone to find a comparable action sequence to the French Commando attack on Ouistreham.

A cinematic tour de force.

Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007, 2010. Clio, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.

Re: Awful movie

Agreed, Squeethie, a tremendous sequence.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

Re: Awful movie

They must have slung the camera under a wire but I'm damned if I can spot the posts holding it up. (Unless it was a helicopter shot?)

Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007, 2010. Clio, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.

Re: Awful movie

agree the French commando sequence is the highlight of the film.
The extras on the 2004 special edition dvd has an interview with Ken Annakin the director of that sequence and he confirms it was a helicopter shot.

I just watched the dvd again and I still think it is a great film but have to agree that the action sequences,apart from the French one are surprisingly tame,and there are to many bits of humour and too many speeches but I like John Wayne's character reminding his officer that Britain had been in the war a bit longer than the Americans.

Re: Awful movie

And, I was shocked to learn that the Casino battle didn't even happen in real life.




Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

Re: Awful movie

Two hours? What version did you watch?

But yeah, I mostly agree. It's not really worth the slog.


HARUMPH!

Re: Awful movie

Quit pussy trolling. I see you conveniently erased all of your previous posts so as not to appear to be the net whore you are.

Re: Awful movie

I've done nothing of the sort. It's you who are trolling...and got caught doing so - nice try.

So what if I didn't like the movie, what do you care?

Re: Awful movie

Yes, instead of "The Longest Day", it might have been called "The Longest Movie". They tried to cram too many aspects of the Normandy Invasion into one movie. And the gimmick of casting every big-name actor on the planet was a bit much.

Re: Awful movie

It did make the movie a long one but I like the way it followed the vignette style of Cornelius Ryan's book. It was a about the invasion as a whole and not just some specific part of it, so we got to see all the small parts that added up to the great success.

Re: Awful movie

What a waste of two hours.

The version I saw was just under three hours. Did you see a severely edited version?

Re: Awful movie

This film is not perfect, but you have too be exceedingly pretentious or a ninny to find no value in it.

Re: Awful movie

Then color me pretentious. And make sure you scour the reviews for the dozens of others who felt the same as me and call them names too.

I took my son to Normandy and it was there that I learned of this movie (when we were St. Mere Eglise where Private John Steele was hanging from the church steeple)and I got an interest in it. I'd already seen A Bridge too Far, Big Red 1, Eye of the Needle, Americanization of Emily, Battle of the Bulge, Great Escape, Battle of the Bulge, 36 Hours (another James Garner film that is highly underrated)- plus the more contemporary movies; Saving Private Ryan and the fantastic mini-series Band of Brothers.

After seeing all these movies and reading countless books and then actually BEING on these beaches - this movie just doesn't hold a candle. The documentaries we saw in the countless museums in Normandy are better than this movie.

And the cold hard truth is, draft-dodging John Wayne just can't act his way out of a paper bag. While stars like Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable enlisted - Marion Morrison (AKA John Wayne) stayed home. Only to later finger point at people who did serve and them them on McCarthy's black list. No thanks.

But yeah...I'm pretentious. And a ninny. Because I have standards for what a quality movie should be.

Re: Awful movie


draft-dodging John Wayne

Wayne had a legitimate deferment for being a married man with three kids. It isn't as if he lied or moved to a neutral country. Millions of other Americans had the same exemption as specifically allowed for by law.

Only to later finger point at people who did serve and them them on McCarthy's black list.

Actually, none of the Hollywood Ten served with the Allied armed forces during the war. Indeed, they mostly opposed American aid to the Allies and the Allied cause from August 1939 until 22 June 1941. You might want to look up what happened on that date to cause them to suddenly change their minds.

just can't act his way out of a paper bag.

Wayne did tend to play the same character in most of his movies. He did that very well indeed. Given how popular his films were, it seems most people had a higher opinion of his skills than you do. In this film, he was far more natural than some of the others. Richard Burton, in particular, was not at all believable as anything other than an actor

Re: Awful movie

Yes, he had a legal deferment - just as the others I named could have obtained. But they did not, while Wayne did file for one. Hmmmmm
Also consider that Wayne was known to have told friends and family that he'd enlist "after he made 2 or 3 more movies, " - but he never did. He was quoted as having used an old shoulder injury as an excuse as well - but that didn't stop him from doing his own stunts in his movies (something he always took pride in). And there are the stories that he refused to go because he wanted to stick around and continue his affair with Marlene Deitrich, "The best lay I every had."

Yes, millions of Americans did receive the same deferment. And it was all legal. But those Americans weren't lining their pockets with millions of dollars portraying ACTUAL military heroes on the big screen. You don't find anything terribly hypocritical in that?

True that none of them served with the Allied forces - but I didn't say they did. But I know that Lawson served in the Red Cross Ambulance Corp in France in WW-I. And no need to look up June 22, I already know.

It is what it is - I didn't care for the movie. There are dozens of others that are much better. I'm just astonished that it was nominated for Best Picture.

By the way, Sean Connery should lobby to have his name removed from the credits. That characters was beyond ridiculous.

Re: Awful movie


But they did not, while Wayne did file for one. Hmmmmm . . .


And I'm sure that every one of the millions of other men who took their deferment had their own reasons and justifications.

But those Americans weren't lining their pockets with millions of dollars portraying ACTUAL military heroes on the big screen.

Wow. An actor was employed acting. What a revelation! Nest you'll tell me Waynre was never a working cowboy, or Olde West sheriff, transport pilot, copper, or boxer. I dare say quite a few of those men with IIIA deferments had lucrative businesses or mistresses or both that they were loathe to leave.
Incidentally, have you served? If not then what moral authority do you have to condemn Wayne for not volunteering?

True that none of them served with the Allied forces - but I didn't say they did.

Well, that's technically true. You claimed more than one was a veteran. I suppose some could have served with the Axis or some other power instead of just supporting the Nazis and lobbying to keep America from supporting the Allies. As noted, only one might have a slim claim to that status. He didn't serve in the forces, didn't join an organization that would find its members in harm's way, and indeed got fired soon after arriving in Paris.

And no need to look up June 22, I already know

So you now then that these men supported the Nazis right up until their masters i Moscow told them to switch. You probably also know that they supported a regime so monstrous that comparisons with the Nazis are actually valid, unlike the usual invocations of Godwin's law and that they wanted that regime for the United States.

It is what it is - I didn't care for the movie.

Apparently because you don't like the politics of one of the dozens of actors.

Re: Awful movie

I made my initial posting on April 2nd and John Wayne didn't come up until July 21st - he was not the reason I didn't like this movie. In case you missed my original posting, I've pasted it below for you.

I didn't mention how cheesy Sean Connery's role was - it was bloody awful (as was his acting...good thing he made up for it as James Bond).


Over acted, sappy jokes, choppy story telling - it's hard to follow, hard to watch and the jokes fail.

Really, do we need to zoom in on the German officer's boots to see they are on the wrong feet? We already saw him put the left boot on the right foot, and vice versa. And what's the point in making the Germans look like buffoons anyway...leave that to Hogan's Heroes.

What a waste of two hours.


See, not a word about Wayne.

I've never seen a bigger much of whiney b----s in my life as the folks in here when someone doesn't like a movie. Read a review, move on, write your own (if you'd care to). But piss and moan about it four months after the review was written - haha, get a life!

Re: Awful movie

I see the "discussion" part of "discussion board" eludes you. - or does when people disagree with you.

Re: Awful movie

excellent post... thank you!

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.
Top