Reviews (131)

Comparisons are inevitable; they're also unhelpful
The comparisons are of course between THE LONGEST DAY and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. The only similarities are: both movies depict the allied landings at Normandy on D-Day, they are tributes to the servicemen of WWII, and most importantly, both are good movies. That said, general comparisons are unhelpful because the realism that made Spielberg's movie so memorable is totally absent from THE LONGEST DAY; for two very good reasons: (1) technically, the capability was unavailable in 1962 and (2) morally, that level of graphic violence would have been unacceptable. Also, Mr Zanuck, as director, did not want to make bloody messes of his numerous stars.

Realism aside, on its own merits THE LONGEST DAY is a tribute that has stood the test of time. The huge collection of stars (over 40) and the near 3 hour length qualifies it as epic. On an emotional level, it is a patriotic salute to the soldiers who went ashore. With a scope larger than Omaha beach, the focus is not exclusively American; the movie depicts the role of the British, and other allied troops, as well as the work of the French resistance. German dialogue is subtitled to add some realism. Perhaps the best aspect of the movie is that as an adaptation of Cornelius Ryan's book of the same name, it is based on a historically accurate account of the battle.

For realism, patriotism, and a sentimental heroic story, only partially based on real events of D-Day, watch SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. For an old fashioned, "clean" war movie based on history with good acting (Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, John Wayne, Curt Jurgens) watch THE LONGEST DAY. Better yet, view both, just don't spoil the experience with a lot of comparisons.

The Longest View
Unlike Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day was filmed to dramatize the true, unfolding story of the invasion of France beginning several days before the invasion, which was documented for all time by journalist Cornelius Ryan. Ryan did something few historians have successfully accomplished since the end of the war. He compiled thousands of interviews and wrote a realistic account of the invasion which reads like a suspense and action novel. The movie seeks to combine many characters taken from Ryan's book, and is therefore fiction as well as history, but it is masterfully done and is otherwise true to history. Stereotypes of incompetent German officers and troops, so common in film and television of the early 1960's was not a problem in this movie, nor is the graphic violence of Private Ryan observable. The true story is the focus of the movie, and it was made primarily for veterans who had seen the real violence and had fought tough, intellegent and brave Germans, and had no need to be reminded of those horrors. They did have a desire to see their sacrifices and trials acknowledged alongside the background of historical context. It is a gripping movie. A side note for those who might want to compare The Longest Day with Saving Private Ryan. These should compliment each other, not be compared with each other. The audience for The Longest Day was primarily the veterans, their peers and children. The audience or Saving Private Ryan is primarily the grandchildren of the veterans, young people who are in the main, quite ignorant of history. There is no doubt that Saving Private Ryan is more accurate a portayal of historical American and German weapons and villages, but this was not even attempted in the Longest Day. If you will read The Longest Day before watching Saving Private Ryan, you will see that the sites and sounds remembered by many of the interviewed veterans who were at Omaha and Utah beaches somehow happened at the same time and place in Saving Private Ryan. That makes Saving Private Ryan as inaccurate for what it shows, as is The Longest Day, for what it doesn't show. Both movies are excellent, and both are moving.

IT HAS NOT STOOD THE TEST OF TIME
Director Darryl F. Zanuck tried his best with the technical resources at his dispostition at the time and using the narrative standar for epic movies of that time. But watching this movie today is a really act of courage. It drags and drags, the three hours seem to never end. Also, even if they tried to give a view of the global situation, they failed miserably.

The movie is an endless sequence of shell and fire sounds, a really pain. I simply don't like the movie, although I understand what they tried to do.

Only a Partial View of D-Day and Operation Overlord
Although this film is certainly worth watching, the viewer who has little idea of what Operation Overlord was about won't learn very much about it. Of course, we see many examples of heroism, but so much was left out that one can easily get a distorted view of things.
(1) Contrary to the impression that the Hollywood movie industry gives, the Americans and British did not defeat Germany alone. Three-quarters of the strength of the German Wehrmacht was destroyed by the Soviet Union. I realize that this film was made a the height of the cold war, but still some mention should have been made of their contribution to victory.
(2) The most impressive part of Overlord were the meticulous preparations made. Some mention of it was made, but more of it should have been shown, such as the various special weapons and ships that were made to ease the assault on the fortified beaches. Archive film could have been easily procured to show the various devices used to clear mine fields and barbed wire.
Most crucial was the development of the "Mulberry" artificial ports.
(3) This film used several Germans as advisors such as Blumentritt who were in the Wehrmacht High Command. They use this film as a vehicle for pushing the now largely discredited line that "if only Hitler had let the Generals run the war, they would have won it for him", and the also the myth that they opposed Hitler and held nothing but contempt for him (von Rundstedt calls Hitler "that Bohemian Corporal" in the film). In reality they were all very loyal to him and they really strongly supported him and his criminal policies when they were winning the war.
(4) The importance of the deception campaign making the Germans think the assault will be at the Pas de Calais and not a Normandy was very important and continued even after the landing on D-Day to make the Germans think Normandy was just a diversion.
This was not mentioned. A whole "virtual army" was created with fake radio traffic opposite Calais. This could have been shown as well.
(5) Although I have nothing personal against the man, John Wayne is a very poor actor and I have no idea where he got his reputation as one of Hollywood's leading men!

The Longest Movie
I watched on June 6th 2004 "The Longest Day" to learn about D-Day June 6th in 1944. In general it was a painfully boring movie. I accomplished my goal of learning about D-Day, but it was at a cost of wasting about three hours of my life. It is my belief that this story could have been told in one and a half hours instead of three. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Why censor?
I have a copy of the full version of this movie on VHS and was looking forward to owning a copy on DVD. After receiving a copy of the DVD, I noticed the PG rating. To my dismay, I found that they had censored the 'juicy' parts of the movie. The 'juicy' parts actually portrayed the relationships between the King and his mistress and that between the future Queen and the King's twin brother. I did not find the 'juicy' parts to be offensive in any way but rather it contributed to the storyline as a whole. For censoring the movie, I give it 3 stars. However, I must commend the Studio for the quality of the transfer. The video quality is relatively good compared to the tape version but the audio quality in some parts of the DVD could be improved. I hope that the Studio will produce the full version in due course.

Sensored version
I like the movie but not the version offered by amazon.com. I watched the unrated version in Europe and it was much nicer and made sence. Here I watch a tape and get upset how conversations are cut in the middle just because of the nudity of Silvia Kristel or Ursula Anders. For example, when Louise de La Valliere comes to join the king in bed she gets undressed while they talk. End of the conversation is cut... Believe me, uncut version is not something restricted, it is not even close to be "too bad to show", I do not understand why it is so sensored here. I wish there were an original version to buy.

Old stars play old heroes
This is a fun little diversion for swashbuckling fans. D'Artagnan (Cornell Wilde), Aramis (Lloyd Bridges), Athos (Jose Ferrer), and Porthos (Alan Hale Jr.), prove they still have what it takes to be heroes as King Louis XIV (Beau Bridges) tries to eliminate his twin brother (Beau Bridges) and marry the infanta of Spain. The sword work is not quite as sharp as good Bob Anderson work or as excitingly realistic as William Hobbes, but there is plenty of it in a variety of creative scenarios. It is fun to watch the old actors Ferrer and Bridges work together as Hale tries to keep up and Wilde holds himself aloof. Ursula Andress adds camp appeal as the king's lover. Olivia de Havilland adds credibility in a cameo as the King's mother. There is also a good deal of political intrigue and mistaken identity to keep the story moving along.

Trivia: The role of Athos, here played by Jose Ferrer, is played in the recent "Man in the Iron Mask" by John Malkavich. There is another pair of historical sword-fighting movies set in France where these two actors play the same character. In "Joan of Arc" with Ingrid Bergman, Ferrer plays the Dauphin. The same role was played by Malkavich in "The Messenger: the story of Joan of Ark" with Milla Jovovich. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

"Family-freindly" my butt!!
This movie was very poor. For one thing this is NOT family friendly. For example in one scene these dogs get mad and they attack each other and in the end of that scene one of the dogs WAS RIPPED APART AND WAS VERY BLOODY. Also my Mom says that a scene were cut. Also the music is horrible. Also there was one very stupid curse they called the dogs(very ironic) also if you know spanish you can get an easter egg from the song they sing. In a few scenes all of a sudden stuff is completely red.

such a shame
i was telling my wife of a film i had seen when i was a child that was both excellent and moving.......CALL OF THE WILD

so i sourced it from australia as the dvd is deleted in the uk.
i thought i had given my money to a con man who had sent me a pirate copy until i read reviews from other buyers.

never have i seen such a rough dvd with the most awful picture and sound quality. the film is also one of the most dissapointing i have seen and i am embarrassed that i admitted to my wife that it made me cry when i was a kid!!!
i can only presume that it was the trauma of sitting through such badly worked material that upset my childhood.....

do yourself a favour and buy white fang instead.

such a shame

poor quality
Sorry ragmuffin, for being honest, I thank you for your 1 nice email,
but object to your other 2 " not so nice email's "
I will give you 100% for very good delivery very quick to the uk...thank you.
picture cover on dvd was different to advertised on amazon. very weary on buying again on amazon.

Not worth it
My mom purchased the video for my viewing pleasure, but I wasn't pleased. The music in the beginning sounds sort of alienated, the picture quality is horrible, and you actually see dogs tearing apart an animal and leaving its blood everywhere! I could only watch twelve minutes before I decided that it was not worth it to watch. If you ever, for any reason, actually WANT to watch the movie, then I recommend you read the book first, because the book is MUCH better than the movie.

Only Charlton Heston could keep me watching a dog like this
It's never a good plan to make a film where the dog is named Buck and the star is called Chuck, but this film's got more problems than that. Silly acting, weak photography, and a mediocre script that only sparks when it turns violent and nasty. In Charlton Heston's thoughtful 'In the Arena' autobiography, he considers this film "a total failure". He may not know good politics, but he has enough taste and sense to avoid film debacles most actors of his age have lived off for decades. So if Chuck actually writes "please don't watch this", listen to the man. Or listen to Paramount Studios, which shelved this film after they saw it.

"The Call of the Wild" is not unwatchable, but it's bad enough, one of the worst movies in Heston's career. Place this on the Turkey shelf next to Heston's equally bad "The Awakening", a ridiculous 1980 Exorcist/Omen knockoff. I haven't read Jack London's book, but this movie seems, um, a very loose adaptation.

The extras in the Alaska town are played by an assortment of German/Italian/British/American/Spanish actors, mostly overdubbed. What gems they say: one jumps onto a bicycle and yells "Yippee! Yippeeeee!" (Note: "Yippee!" will never be acceptable in a Hollywood script, and is punishable if done in real-life.) Heston's human co-star runs into that same town, yelling "Hi! Hi! Hi!" like a stoner coming down from the mountain commune. If all of the movie was as corny as the townspeople, we might have had a comedy for the ages. Alas.

As amusing as the vomiting town drunkard was, it was Charlton Heston, always a powerful presence, who kept me watching. He looks a little grumpier than usual, perhaps he noticed that the many wolves in the film are actually hybrid dogs that don't look much like North American wolves. However, his scenes with Buck are touching, against all odds and logic. I never thought of actors having on-screen chemistry with animals, but Heston proves it does exist. Those scenes keep the film from being a complete waste of film stock, but there aren't nearly enough of them.

Still, this dull film contains one classic Chuck Heston line - words he was born to speak: "Mister, if you touch that dog again I'm gonna shoot ya!" Yippee! ... Read more

Reviews (12)

"Family-freindly" my butt!!
This movie was very poor. For one thing this is NOT family friendly. For example in one scene these dogs get mad and they attack each other and in the end of that scene one of the dogs WAS RIPPED APART AND WAS VERY BLOODY. Also my Mom says that a scene were cut. Also the music is horrible. Also there was one very stupid curse they called the dogs(very ironic) also if you know spanish you can get an easter egg from the song they sing. In a few scenes all of a sudden stuff is completely red.

such a shame
i was telling my wife of a film i had seen when i was a child that was both excellent and moving.......CALL OF THE WILD

so i sourced it from australia as the dvd is deleted in the uk.
i thought i had given my money to a con man who had sent me a pirate copy until i read reviews from other buyers.

never have i seen such a rough dvd with the most awful picture and sound quality. the film is also one of the most dissapointing i have seen and i am embarrassed that i admitted to my wife that it made me cry when i was a kid!!!
i can only presume that it was the trauma of sitting through such badly worked material that upset my childhood.....

do yourself a favour and buy white fang instead.

such a shame

poor quality
Sorry ragmuffin, for being honest, I thank you for your 1 nice email,
but object to your other 2 " not so nice email's "
I will give you 100% for very good delivery very quick to the uk...thank you.
picture cover on dvd was different to advertised on amazon. very weary on buying again on amazon.

Not worth it
My mom purchased the video for my viewing pleasure, but I wasn't pleased. The music in the beginning sounds sort of alienated, the picture quality is horrible, and you actually see dogs tearing apart an animal and leaving its blood everywhere! I could only watch twelve minutes before I decided that it was not worth it to watch. If you ever, for any reason, actually WANT to watch the movie, then I recommend you read the book first, because the book is MUCH better than the movie.

Only Charlton Heston could keep me watching a dog like this
It's never a good plan to make a film where the dog is named Buck and the star is called Chuck, but this film's got more problems than that. Silly acting, weak photography, and a mediocre script that only sparks when it turns violent and nasty. In Charlton Heston's thoughtful 'In the Arena' autobiography, he considers this film "a total failure". He may not know good politics, but he has enough taste and sense to avoid film debacles most actors of his age have lived off for decades. So if Chuck actually writes "please don't watch this", listen to the man. Or listen to Paramount Studios, which shelved this film after they saw it.

"The Call of the Wild" is not unwatchable, but it's bad enough, one of the worst movies in Heston's career. Place this on the Turkey shelf next to Heston's equally bad "The Awakening", a ridiculous 1980 Exorcist/Omen knockoff. I haven't read Jack London's book, but this movie seems, um, a very loose adaptation.

The extras in the Alaska town are played by an assortment of German/Italian/British/American/Spanish actors, mostly overdubbed. What gems they say: one jumps onto a bicycle and yells "Yippee! Yippeeeee!" (Note: "Yippee!" will never be acceptable in a Hollywood script, and is punishable if done in real-life.) Heston's human co-star runs into that same town, yelling "Hi! Hi! Hi!" like a stoner coming down from the mountain commune. If all of the movie was as corny as the townspeople, we might have had a comedy for the ages. Alas.

As amusing as the vomiting town drunkard was, it was Charlton Heston, always a powerful presence, who kept me watching. He looks a little grumpier than usual, perhaps he noticed that the many wolves in the film are actually hybrid dogs that don't look much like North American wolves. However, his scenes with Buck are touching, against all odds and logic. I never thought of actors having on-screen chemistry with animals, but Heston proves it does exist. Those scenes keep the film from being a complete waste of film stock, but there aren't nearly enough of them.

Still, this dull film contains one classic Chuck Heston line - words he was born to speak: "Mister, if you touch that dog again I'm gonna shoot ya!" Yippee! ... Read more

Reviews (12)

"Family-freindly" my butt!!
This movie was very poor. For one thing this is NOT family friendly. For example in one scene these dogs get mad and they attack each other and in the end of that scene one of the dogs WAS RIPPED APART AND WAS VERY BLOODY. Also my Mom says that a scene were cut. Also the music is horrible. Also there was one very stupid curse they called the dogs(very ironic) also if you know spanish you can get an easter egg from the song they sing. In a few scenes all of a sudden stuff is completely red.

such a shame
i was telling my wife of a film i had seen when i was a child that was both excellent and moving.......CALL OF THE WILD

so i sourced it from australia as the dvd is deleted in the uk.
i thought i had given my money to a con man who had sent me a pirate copy until i read reviews from other buyers.

never have i seen such a rough dvd with the most awful picture and sound quality. the film is also one of the most dissapointing i have seen and i am embarrassed that i admitted to my wife that it made me cry when i was a kid!!!
i can only presume that it was the trauma of sitting through such badly worked material that upset my childhood.....

do yourself a favour and buy white fang instead.

such a shame

poor quality
Sorry ragmuffin, for being honest, I thank you for your 1 nice email,
but object to your other 2 " not so nice email's "
I will give you 100% for very good delivery very quick to the uk...thank you.
picture cover on dvd was different to advertised on amazon. very weary on buying again on amazon.

Not worth it
My mom purchased the video for my viewing pleasure, but I wasn't pleased. The music in the beginning sounds sort of alienated, the picture quality is horrible, and you actually see dogs tearing apart an animal and leaving its blood everywhere! I could only watch twelve minutes before I decided that it was not worth it to watch. If you ever, for any reason, actually WANT to watch the movie, then I recommend you read the book first, because the book is MUCH better than the movie.

Only Charlton Heston could keep me watching a dog like this
It's never a good plan to make a film where the dog is named Buck and the star is called Chuck, but this film's got more problems than that. Silly acting, weak photography, and a mediocre script that only sparks when it turns violent and nasty. In Charlton Heston's thoughtful 'In the Arena' autobiography, he considers this film "a total failure". He may not know good politics, but he has enough taste and sense to avoid film debacles most actors of his age have lived off for decades. So if Chuck actually writes "please don't watch this", listen to the man. Or listen to Paramount Studios, which shelved this film after they saw it.

"The Call of the Wild" is not unwatchable, but it's bad enough, one of the worst movies in Heston's career. Place this on the Turkey shelf next to Heston's equally bad "The Awakening", a ridiculous 1980 Exorcist/Omen knockoff. I haven't read Jack London's book, but this movie seems, um, a very loose adaptation.

The extras in the Alaska town are played by an assortment of German/Italian/British/American/Spanish actors, mostly overdubbed. What gems they say: one jumps onto a bicycle and yells "Yippee! Yippeeeee!" (Note: "Yippee!" will never be acceptable in a Hollywood script, and is punishable if done in real-life.) Heston's human co-star runs into that same town, yelling "Hi! Hi! Hi!" like a stoner coming down from the mountain commune. If all of the movie was as corny as the townspeople, we might have had a comedy for the ages. Alas.

As amusing as the vomiting town drunkard was, it was Charlton Heston, always a powerful presence, who kept me watching. He looks a little grumpier than usual, perhaps he noticed that the many wolves in the film are actually hybrid dogs that don't look much like North American wolves. However, his scenes with Buck are touching, against all odds and logic. I never thought of actors having on-screen chemistry with animals, but Heston proves it does exist. Those scenes keep the film from being a complete waste of film stock, but there aren't nearly enough of them.

Still, this dull film contains one classic Chuck Heston line - words he was born to speak: "Mister, if you touch that dog again I'm gonna shoot ya!" Yippee! ... Read more

Reviews (131)

Comparisons are inevitable; they're also unhelpful
The comparisons are of course between THE LONGEST DAY and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. The only similarities are: both movies depict the allied landings at Normandy on D-Day, they are tributes to the servicemen of WWII, and most importantly, both are good movies. That said, general comparisons are unhelpful because the realism that made Spielberg's movie so memorable is totally absent from THE LONGEST DAY; for two very good reasons: (1) technically, the capability was unavailable in 1962 and (2) morally, that level of graphic violence would have been unacceptable. Also, Mr Zanuck, as director, did not want to make bloody messes of his numerous stars.

Realism aside, on its own merits THE LONGEST DAY is a tribute that has stood the test of time. The huge collection of stars (over 40) and the near 3 hour length qualifies it as epic. On an emotional level, it is a patriotic salute to the soldiers who went ashore. With a scope larger than Omaha beach, the focus is not exclusively American; the movie depicts the role of the British, and other allied troops, as well as the work of the French resistance. German dialogue is subtitled to add some realism. Perhaps the best aspect of the movie is that as an adaptation of Cornelius Ryan's book of the same name, it is based on a historically accurate account of the battle.

For realism, patriotism, and a sentimental heroic story, only partially based on real events of D-Day, watch SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. For an old fashioned, "clean" war movie based on history with good acting (Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, John Wayne, Curt Jurgens) watch THE LONGEST DAY. Better yet, view both, just don't spoil the experience with a lot of comparisons.

The Longest View
Unlike Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day was filmed to dramatize the true, unfolding story of the invasion of France beginning several days before the invasion, which was documented for all time by journalist Cornelius Ryan. Ryan did something few historians have successfully accomplished since the end of the war. He compiled thousands of interviews and wrote a realistic account of the invasion which reads like a suspense and action novel. The movie seeks to combine many characters taken from Ryan's book, and is therefore fiction as well as history, but it is masterfully done and is otherwise true to history. Stereotypes of incompetent German officers and troops, so common in film and television of the early 1960's was not a problem in this movie, nor is the graphic violence of Private Ryan observable. The true story is the focus of the movie, and it was made primarily for veterans who had seen the real violence and had fought tough, intellegent and brave Germans, and had no need to be reminded of those horrors. They did have a desire to see their sacrifices and trials acknowledged alongside the background of historical context. It is a gripping movie. A side note for those who might want to compare The Longest Day with Saving Private Ryan. These should compliment each other, not be compared with each other. The audience for The Longest Day was primarily the veterans, their peers and children. The audience or Saving Private Ryan is primarily the grandchildren of the veterans, young people who are in the main, quite ignorant of history. There is no doubt that Saving Private Ryan is more accurate a portayal of historical American and German weapons and villages, but this was not even attempted in the Longest Day. If you will read The Longest Day before watching Saving Private Ryan, you will see that the sites and sounds remembered by many of the interviewed veterans who were at Omaha and Utah beaches somehow happened at the same time and place in Saving Private Ryan. That makes Saving Private Ryan as inaccurate for what it shows, as is The Longest Day, for what it doesn't show. Both movies are excellent, and both are moving.

IT HAS NOT STOOD THE TEST OF TIME
Director Darryl F. Zanuck tried his best with the technical resources at his dispostition at the time and using the narrative standar for epic movies of that time. But watching this movie today is a really act of courage. It drags and drags, the three hours seem to never end. Also, even if they tried to give a view of the global situation, they failed miserably.

The movie is an endless sequence of shell and fire sounds, a really pain. I simply don't like the movie, although I understand what they tried to do.

Only a Partial View of D-Day and Operation Overlord
Although this film is certainly worth watching, the viewer who has little idea of what Operation Overlord was about won't learn very much about it. Of course, we see many examples of heroism, but so much was left out that one can easily get a distorted view of things.
(1) Contrary to the impression that the Hollywood movie industry gives, the Americans and British did not defeat Germany alone. Three-quarters of the strength of the German Wehrmacht was destroyed by the Soviet Union. I realize that this film was made a the height of the cold war, but still some mention should have been made of their contribution to victory.
(2) The most impressive part of Overlord were the meticulous preparations made. Some mention of it was made, but more of it should have been shown, such as the various special weapons and ships that were made to ease the assault on the fortified beaches. Archive film could have been easily procured to show the various devices used to clear mine fields and barbed wire.
Most crucial was the development of the "Mulberry" artificial ports.
(3) This film used several Germans as advisors such as Blumentritt who were in the Wehrmacht High Command. They use this film as a vehicle for pushing the now largely discredited line that "if only Hitler had let the Generals run the war, they would have won it for him", and the also the myth that they opposed Hitler and held nothing but contempt for him (von Rundstedt calls Hitler "that Bohemian Corporal" in the film). In reality they were all very loyal to him and they really strongly supported him and his criminal policies when they were winning the war.
(4) The importance of the deception campaign making the Germans think the assault will be at the Pas de Calais and not a Normandy was very important and continued even after the landing on D-Day to make the Germans think Normandy was just a diversion.
This was not mentioned. A whole "virtual army" was created with fake radio traffic opposite Calais. This could have been shown as well.
(5) Although I have nothing personal against the man, John Wayne is a very poor actor and I have no idea where he got his reputation as one of Hollywood's leading men!

The Longest Movie
I watched on June 6th 2004 "The Longest Day" to learn about D-Day June 6th in 1944. In general it was a painfully boring movie. I accomplished my goal of learning about D-Day, but it was at a cost of wasting about three hours of my life. It is my belief that this story could have been told in one and a half hours instead of three. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

a raquel welch fan
This may be "mildly amusing", but with a refreshing lack of pretense, this heist movie is always a pleasure to watch.
The "gang" aren't really crooks at all and that makes for some comic moments; they succeed despite their "unprofessional" status. The lead character is a somewhat annoying Johnny Cool type that comes off dated...but there are other high points...
miss Welch...and it's filmed on location in Italy (presumably)!
So it's not academy award stuff, but it, in my opinion is eminently re-watchable. And the presense of Edward G. Robinson lends it some classic hollywood status. Get it...I'm waiting for the DVD.

Great for the Robert Wagner or Raquel Welch Fan!
Moderately amusing comedy about a gang of bumbling would be robbers. A must see if you're a fan of Robert Wagner or Raquel Welch, as they both look gorgeous here and smile dazzlingly. The rest of you might find a better way to occupy 90 minutes. ... Read more