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 (1)

Great Undersea Adventure Classic!!
This is a great undersea adventure as a Submarine searches the world's ocean floors planting sensors for possible earthquakes starring Lloyd Bridges, Brian Kelly and Shirley Eaton,it's truly a great undersea,adventure classic!! ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Action-packed film is entertaining and satisfying
55 Days at peking surprised me. Though not having the best of titles, I thought this was going to be a romance centered around the Boxer Rebellion. Instead, the film is more along the lines of Zulu, featuring constant large scale sieges and fast-paced action.

55 Days is not perfect by any means. The political talks drag a bit and at 2 and a half hours the film goes on a bit longer than it really needs to. The use of American actors as Chinese characters is also quite distracting and occasionally produces some unintentional laughter.

Still, the film is entertaining and absorbing. Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner, and David Niven all deliver good performance. The battle scenes are the film's most memorable aspects and they are very well made, especially for its time. The film was obviously made at a large budget so the film, in technical terms, is superior to a lot of similar action films of its time. Those looking for a companion piece to Zulu might find 55 Days worth watching.

A Well-Made But Biased & Politically-Dated Film
When I first saw this film as a child, I was offended by it, being an Asian-American of Filipino/Chinese descent. However, seeing it now, with the understanding that this film was made during the height of the Cold War & the beginnings of the War in Vietnam, I can understand why it was made (though I still don't agree with it's political point of view!)

First, for general viewers who just want to see a well made, big-budget war picture with hints of romance, then this movie does deliver on that level. Charleton Heston is excellent as a flawed, temperamental loner & professional soldier who falls for Eva Gardner, a "fallen woman" of Russian nobility, while the foreign "legations" in Peking (what we would today call "embassies") are under attack by the Boxer Rebels (I Ho Chuan Society) during the rebellion of 1900 in China. David Niven is likeable as the British ambassador, even though he does come off as a bit pompous. The sets & costumes are well-done (especially when you consider that this film, set during the last days of the Ching Dynasty in China, was actually shot in Spain!), & the battle sequences are realistically staged. (For martial-arts buffs, there's even a martial-arts demonstration during the birthday of the English Queen!) So, if all you're looking for is a fast-paced war picture with great costumes & macho action performances, then, on that level only, this film delivers.

If you're a history buff, however, then this film definately is not for you! For one thing, all of the major European characters, (whose point of view this movie favors) are fictional characters. The only real-life historical figures are the ruling Manchus (played by caucasian actors in "Asian-face!") & the Japanese Colonel Goro Shiba. (He & the other Japanese are played by real Asian actors. I guess during the Cold War, the Japanese were our allies against "the Red Menace", thus worthy of respect, while the Chinese, who were Communists, were not worthy of respect when portrayed on film. But then, this movie also features the Russians in a positive light, so go figure!) There is also a scene where the German minister is killed on the street by a mob of crazed Boxers, but in real life, the real German minister was shot by a Chinese officer (one man!) who was sympathetic to the Boxer cause. This film also carefully omits the subsequent rape & sacking of Peking after the defeat of the Boxers, though focusing heavily on the Boxer's depredations against Christians & foreigners. (True history is balanced, not one-sided.) Lastly, according to this film, the British & Americans were in charge of the relief efforts during the siege. Actually, the Germans, under von Waldersee, were the real leaders of the International Relief Force sent out to defeat the Boxers & rescue the besieged legations.

Finally, for Asian-americans & viewers interested in serious political debate, this film is also a no no! The most obviously offensive aspect of this movie is the white actors playing Chinese (though again, this was made in 1963), but the other offensive aspect is that this film favors the colonialists' point of view! (The basic point of 55 Days is, colonialism is good & whenever natives fight back, they deserve to be supressed! It's the same kind of thinking that got us involved in Vietnam.) This movie was made during the beginnings of our involvement in Southeast Asian politics & it's obvious that this "historical" drama is really a pro-Vietnam propaganda film disguised as an epic action-movie!

Okay, the "Boxers" (or I Ho Society) were not saints. They did murder a lot of innocent people in their anger over the semi-colonialism imposed by the West & Japan on China during the 19th Century. But this film shows only one point of view. (A bad story-telling style for a supposedly "realistic" war picture.) However, for viewers who want to get a balanced point of view in one film about the Boxer Rebellion, well, good luck! Chinese movies on the subject tend to do the exact extreme political opposite of 55 Days (which is just as bad!) And remember, though there are historical inaccuracies in 55 Days, Chinese movies (or more accurately, Hong Kong movies) can be just as inaccurate about their own culture! Check out any of the '70's Shaw Brothers kung-fu films if you don't believe me!

So in closing, personally, I would recommend watching this film, but only if you understand it's (many) flaws. For a truly balanced perspective on the subject, after watching 55 Days At Peking, check out The Boxer Rebellion/Bloody Avengers, a Shaw Brothers kung-fu flick about the Boxer Rebellion which exaggerates the Chinese p.o.v. at least as much (if not more) as 55 Days exaggerates the European/Japanese p.o.v. The real-truth lies right in-between these two films. Be sure you get the letter-boxed version of 55 Days, because the pan & scan really cuts out some important details (more so than other films.)

OK action film marred by some faults
"55 Days at Peking" is a decent action film for a war genre fan or maybe some one who wants to see a different time period in a film. The film is pretty decent as far as its genre goes, but there were some problems in the storyline that made me give it no higher than three stars.

The first problem I had with this film was the inclusion of the mandatory American hero. It seems quite often whenever some thing is set in a foreign land and involves foreign - and is made in America - there HAS to be an American lead. Most of the other nationalities play a mostly minor role save for David Niven's character, who feels like a historic individual. I'm not saying the Americans weren't at Peking, but Charleton Heston's character feels a tad too cliche.

The second problem I had was the love story. It takes up a good part of the film and slows it down...in fact it very nearly made me lose all interest in this movie. Doesn't really do much to the story and leaves some holes open. Even when Ava Gardner's character meets an unfortunate circumstance, I couldn't feel sorry for her. I didn't care too much since the whole thing felt like a typical forced movie romance.

Finally, there are some historical inaccuracies. The battle didn't quite happen as the movie portrays it. These mistakes are all fairly minor, I suppose, and some might just flat out ignore it since the battle (and war, really) isn't well known.

On the whole, it wasn't that bad. There are some great battle scenes including a charge up a ramp behind a wheeled defense, firing shots through sliding windows, and the climactic assault with a huge artillery tower - this last part is my personal favorite, and for what it's worth I thought it was a pretty cool scene.

If you're a fan of to-the-last-man movies like the (superior) "Zulu" then you'll probably like this movie. Yes, some might not have compassion for the defenders since them being rescued meant an end to China's real independance, but I guess you really can't like the Boxers for trying to annihilate a group that includes women and children. Even if the Imperialists were morally bad guys, I can't hold compassion to the Boxers for their terrorist tactics. But enough of this...if you like this type of film, rent this and check it out.

Exciting epic produced on the grand old scale
"55 days at Peking", has certainly in the years since it's release in 1963 come in for it's share of flack over its romantisizing of history, fictional characters and depiction of Chinese nationals. In reality however I feel you must look at this film first and foremost as the first class piece of entertainment based on historical events it was intended to be. I certainly appreciate the great effort and attention to detail that was lavished on this stunning recreation of the events surrounding the Boxer Rebellion of 1900 in Imperial China.

As an ardent student of chinese history in general I can see that the focus is upon the foreigners that were present in China at that time and that the Chinese point of view is rarely explored in detail. However what must be appreciated in this Samual Bronston production is the vivid recreation of Imperial China, the earnest performances by the leads, exquisite costumes, the excellent action scenes, and sublime musical score by the famed Dimitri Tiomkins which all add up to an engrossing two and a half hours of viewing. Charlton Heston as Major Matt Lewis the tempremental soldier for hire, David Niven as the upright British Ambassador Sir. Arthur Robertson and especially the ever beautiful Ava Gardner as the "scandalous" Russian Baroness Natalie Ivanoff all lend a commanding presence in their roles. Ava Gardner as the "woman of ill repute" who falls for Heston's no nonsense Major during the seige of the foreign legations during the rebellion and ends up paying for her devotion with her life has I feel never been better. Ava proves her often underestimated talent here as she develops from shallow society lady out for a good time, into a human being who learns the value of self sacrifice for something you believe in. The wonderful Victorian costumes which suit her so well also emphasize what a great beauty she was in her movie heyday. The main criticism of this film has always been directed at the depiction of Chinese characters by caucasian actors. I feel that there is little to get offended by here as in particular the depiction of the Dowager Empress Tzu-Hsi is actually done in a much more favourable light than how the woman actually was in real life. I feel Flora Robson lends a commanding presence as the Dowager Empress and her Chinese makeup, far from being offensive is fascinating and superbly done. Robert Helpmann also shines in his sinister role of Prince Tuan, the empress's chief advisor and evil genius. They are actors playing roles just like any other performer that portray a character not of his or her own nationality and they should be rightly seen as just that.

"55 Days at Peking", while certainly not historically accurate contains an exciting fictional story woven into historical fact. This does not necessarily make it a bad drama or production and indeed here we are treated to a great story full of action, romance and a vivid retelling of a dramatic story from a "human level" as was probably witnessed by those that lived through it. The depiction of the rise of the boxers into a violent nationalist movement, the actual rebellion and siege of the foreign legations in Peking resulting in much bloodshed and destruction , the vivid and beautiful recreation of life in the decadent Ching court under the Grand Dowager Empress, are all beautifully played out in a eye popping and engrossing drama. Samuel Bronston who was responsible for some great early 1960's epics such as "El Cid", and especially the classic "The Fall of the Roman Empire" here excels himself in recreating the times in 19th Century China. The sets are sumptous with Peking being magically brought to life on sets created in Spain.Rarely nowadays do yuo see such an allout effort in mounting a top class production. The Ching court as depicted here, while not up to later "The Last Emperor", standards is still wonderful and really portrays the beauty of court life that hid so much that was wrong with the ruling system in China at the time. Rarely have more vivid depictions of the lives of ordinary Chinese been portrayed and the rebellion sequences are second to none in their raw energy, savage depiction of the loss of life and the destruction caused.

"55 Days at Peking", is not perfect by any means but I feel it has been unfairly condemmed by the supposed political correctness movement. I really enjoy historical dramas, even of the romanticised kind and Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner really maintain your interest through the long running time with their excellent work in this film. Long before computer generated special effects this film sees one of the great sets built for a film during the 1960's and for that alone it is worth seeing apart from all its other good qualities. Enjoy a journey back to grand old film making of the old school when Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner do battle against the boxers in "55 Days at Peking".

Excellent only for critical analysis
This film has only one redeeming quality- it provides an excellent opportunity to discuss bias, historical perspective, director's artistic liscence, and distortion of historical events. I viewed this film knowing that the Chinese, poorly portrayed by Americans or British, were being presented from a completely demeaning perspective that simultaneously plays the Americans as the savior heros. I plan to use this in my 7th grade social studies class to demonstrate exactly how a series of events as complex and consequential as the Boxer Rebellion can be recreated so completely and utterly wrong. Watch this as you would a Disney film like Mulan, knowing that it will only get the gist of something, and not provide any reliable characters or history. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Favorite childhood movie- have always loved horses.
51 years ago, my father took me to see "Gypsy Colt". Of all the horse movies I've seen & all the horse books I've read, Gypsy Colt is the one that I recall with the fondest memories.
What can be any better- ride your coal black horse bareback to school & Gypsy will be there to give you a ride back home after school.
Gypsy was the name I gave to one of my favorite horses.
It is a happy story with Meg & Gypsy reunited at the end.
I believe it is a must see for all young people who love horses
& must see for adults - we need more movies like this.

Gypsy Colt
Wonderful family movie for all ages we just love Gypsy. Well made movie for 1954.

Great Horse Movie!!!
This was such a heart warming story of a little girl and her pet horse, the horse is so loyal to her. Just goes to show horses can be a best friend too, not just dogs. Really good family show I recommend this if you like horses and good clean movies. Everyone will enjoy this sweet and really heart warming movie. Buy it and you won't be sorry!!!

Great Movie
This is a GREAT movie that has a wonderful storyline, climax, and ending. I love this movie. If you love horses, then you will love this Film!

Wonderful!
This little gem, overpriced as it is, should be in every little kid's video library. This kind of movie is rare today, a family movie with no explosions, evil doers, violence, disrespect, etc etc etc. It's about a poor farming couple who has a little girl named Meg, and Gypsy is her best friend. During an extreme drought, Meg's parents decide they have no choice but to sell Gypsy. Gypsy's new owner, a race-horse breeder, is nice enough, but the man he employs to handle his horses is hateful and Gypsy repeatedly runs away from him and back to Meg. To make a long story short, this is a great family movie, just wish it wasn't so hard to find at a reasonable price. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

One of the best of the jungle epics
This should be on every true film lovers top 10 adventure list What
is sad is that this is the only version still not avalible on disc.

The story is that of legendary hunter Allen Quatermain and his trip
into the deep, heart of Africa where he himself has never even been
Along with him are sister/brother Deborah Kerr & Richard Carlson
who hire him to find not only her lost husband and fabled treasure
of the title but perhaps Quatermain's lost soul as well.

Filmed on location this '50's jungle adventure is nothing less than
magnificent in it's techincolor glory and should have been one of
the first films to be released on dvd. I wish mgm would get their
pace together and release this gem. The vhs tape in the meantime
tries it's best to capture all the films splendor such as jungle
stampede by over 1000 animals and the native tribe ritual dances
to name a few. Come on mgm get the lead out!

Classic Hollywood Blockbuster
I was about 9-years old when this was released. Double-pagefull-color ads in the major news-feature magazines and billboardseverywhere.Everyone--but everyone--saw it. And I fell in love withit. I have rented it several times on video and it is always asentertaining as can be. This was, indeed, the "Raiders of theLost Ark," of its day. The first time I saw a poster for"Raiders," I practically whopped out-loud. I knew it wouldbe another "King Solomon's Mines," and it was. The Africanlocation color photgraphy is magnificent, the story wonderful fantasyand Kerr never looked more gorgeous. Note, that there is no studiomusic score, but only the music recorded in Africa. And it createsjust the right mood. If you like real adventure, with the best kindof M-G-M craftsmanship, to spare, this is for you. Get comfy andenjoy what an adventure film can be. A Saturday matinee film that mostadults love. The sexual inuendo is fun and innocent.

Jungle adventure is a Hollywood classic
This colorful outdoor adventure is great entertainment and has excellent work by Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr. Ms. Curtis' search for her lost husband in Africa is the basis for the film's plot and she has all she can do to convince Mr. Quartermain that her map will help locate Mr. Curtis whom she believes is still alive and is waiting for a search party to rescue him. The safari braves several dangers from wild animals and savage tribesmen and happens upon a Watusi prince whose power and royal place in the tribe has been usurped by an evil king. Mr. Curtis' skeletal remains are later found in a diamond mine and the condemned party's safety hinges on a death duel between the Watusi prince and Twala. The location lensing in Kenya and the Belgian Congo is superb and the tension and antagonism between Mr. Quartermain and Ms. Curtis develops into a tender, romantic coupling at film's end.

Not Chamberlain's version, but OK
This isn't bad, but where's the giany cooking pot? How can you have King Solomon's Mines without a giant cooking pot? Where's the giant spider? It's just not the same without the giant spider from the Richard Chamberlain movie. David McCallum's version gave us dinosaurs, but we don't get them either in this one. In LXG there were invisible men, monsters and vampires, but not in this one. It's just not the same as the other Quartermain movies, but it's not a bad movie.

Manages to make Rider Haggard boring
This is a dull, stodgy, static version of Rider Haggard's superb adventure story. It is hard to beleive anyone could make this story dull, but the makers of this dreary film managed it. I mean, they even leave out Gagool the Witch, how CAN you have King Solomon's Mines without Gagool? Forget about this bland, tedious version, watch the 1937 version and see a REAL film. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

A sad waste of Grace Kelly's talent
I have seen all of Grace Kelly's movies, and this one stands out as by far the least appealing.
Grace's talents are wasted in the silly movie. Grace plays a lonely coffee plantation owner who meets Stewart Granger, a thoroughly awful cad, and we are supposed to believe that the two fall in love, even though there is zero chemistry between them.
Ms Kelly herself has stated publically her great dislike of this film, and I for one agree with her.

GREAT
I love Grace Kelly! She is one of the most amazing actresses the world has ever see. She shines on screen, captivating audiences with her acting ability, and her perfect looks. She is truly an inspiration to actresses today! This film captured her innocence, and showed her with 1950's hunk, Stewart Gragner. An awesome film thaat is definately worth watching! ... Read more

Amazon.com

After seeing Saving Private Ryan, this epic tale about the Normandy invasion will look sanitized. But in its re-creation of events leading to the epochal battle, the film is captivating and grand, and the parade of famous actors who cross the screen naturally give the already charged action even more of a boost. Three directors worked on it: Ken Annakin (Battle of the Bulge), Andrew Marton (Crack in the World), and Bernhard Wicki (this film being his only credit). --Tom Keogh ... 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 (1)

The D-Day Invasion of Fortress Europe, June 6, 1941
The first time I saw "The Longest Day" in a movie theater they got a couple of the reels mixed up. The only way I knew this was that every time a major figure shows up in the film we are told their name, rank and unit. This mistake did not hurt the film all that much because this sprawling story of the D-Day invasion sixty years ago today was so huge and complex that it had four directors: Ken Annakin (British scenes), Andrew Marton (American scenes) Bernhard Wicki (German scenes), and the uncredited Darryl F. Zanuck. Granted, the realism of the opening scenes of "Saving Private Ryan" make the storming of Omaha Beach in this 1962 film look like a walk on the beach in comparison, but "The Longest Day" remains along with "Battleground" one of the most realistic portrayals of what it was like for the infantry in World War II from what we will know have to call the old school Hollywood and which ended with "A Bridge Too Far" in 1977.

Based on Cornelius Ryan's celebrated book of the same title, "The Longest Day" is almost three hours long and has one of the largest all star casts every assembled (42 international stars according to the poster), albeit with big names like John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchem, Richard Burton, and Rod Steiger playing supporting roles because, to tell the truth, there is nothing else to play in this film. If you are telling the story of D-Day, no single figure is going to emerge as the star, which is the point (Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, played by an uncredited Henry Grace, has one scene). Sean Connery was about to become famous as James Bond in "Dr. No," and familiar faces include Red Buttons, Curt Jürgens, Edmond O'Brien, Kenneth More, Robert Ryan, Robert Wagner, Eddie Albert, Roddy McDowell, Peter Lawford, George Segal, Gert Fröbe, and Jeffrey Hunter. The idea of throwing in teen idols like Paul Anka, Fabian, Sal Mineo and Tommy Sands makes sense because a generation earlier they would have been storming the beaches of Normandy. However, you might have a hard time picking up the likes of Richard Dawson and Bernard Fox in the crowd. Several minor players in the film were involved in D-Day, and the piper playing as Lord Lovat's commandos storm ashore is the man himself, Bill Millin. The key thing is that the story being told is so big that it gobbles up all the stars.

The film shows events on both sides of the English Channel both before and during D-Day. On the side of the Allies there is the bad weather, troops tired from being on constant alert for several days, and the sheer size and importance of what is about to happen. Meanwhile the Germans are confident the Allies will attack at Calais and certainly wait for better weather, which explains why the key commanders are away from the front. One of the strengths of this film is that it also tells the story from the German's side. Not only do we get necessary exposition and explication concerning German troop movements before and during June 6, 1944, but there is also the human element of Maj. Werner Pluskat (Hans Christian Blech), the guy sitting on the Atlantic Wall who looks out one morning and suddenly sees the Allied invasion fleet when the fog lifts and we hear the "da da da daaah" of Beethoven's 5th (it is also Morse Code for "V," used to denote "Victory" by the Allies). It is Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (Werner Hinz) himself who calls the coming battle "the longest day." There are also the efforts of the French Resistance ("Wounds my heart with a monotonous languor") and French troops in helping to free their own country as well as the British efforts, so this is not just the Americans versus the Germans.

There are several sequences that stand out, most notably the paratroopers of the 101st Airborne landing directly into Ste. Mère-Eglise and being butchered by German troops. The shots of a a terrified and helpless Red Buttons stuck on a church steeple are probably the most memorable in the film, as is the reaction of John Wayne's colonel when he sees the carnage and orders the bodies be cut down. The assault on the cliffs at Omaha also stands out, with Mitchem sending a series of men off to their deaths trying to blow a hole open to get the troops off the beach. Again, there is not the bloody carnage of Spielerg's "Saving Private Ryan," but the scene still retains an emotional power even by contemporary war movie standards.

"The Longest Day" was the most expensive black & white film ever made until "Schindler's List" in 1993 and in both instances not using color works; after all, our "memory" of World War II is based on black & white images. Certainly "The Longest Day" is one of the best World War II films, even if now have to talk about it as representing the old school of that genre. At some point, given the success of "Saving Private Ryan" and the early chapters of "Band of Brothers," I would expect that someone is going to again try and do the macro view of D-Day. But clearly the next time around it is going to take a mini-series or limited series format to come up with something grander than this 1962 film. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Action-packed film is entertaining and satisfying
55 Days at peking surprised me. Though not having the best of titles, I thought this was going to be a romance centered around the Boxer Rebellion. Instead, the film is more along the lines of Zulu, featuring constant large scale sieges and fast-paced action.

55 Days is not perfect by any means. The political talks drag a bit and at 2 and a half hours the film goes on a bit longer than it really needs to. The use of American actors as Chinese characters is also quite distracting and occasionally produces some unintentional laughter.

Still, the film is entertaining and absorbing. Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner, and David Niven all deliver good performance. The battle scenes are the film's most memorable aspects and they are very well made, especially for its time. The film was obviously made at a large budget so the film, in technical terms, is superior to a lot of similar action films of its time. Those looking for a companion piece to Zulu might find 55 Days worth watching.

A Well-Made But Biased & Politically-Dated Film
When I first saw this film as a child, I was offended by it, being an Asian-American of Filipino/Chinese descent. However, seeing it now, with the understanding that this film was made during the height of the Cold War & the beginnings of the War in Vietnam, I can understand why it was made (though I still don't agree with it's political point of view!)

First, for general viewers who just want to see a well made, big-budget war picture with hints of romance, then this movie does deliver on that level. Charleton Heston is excellent as a flawed, temperamental loner & professional soldier who falls for Eva Gardner, a "fallen woman" of Russian nobility, while the foreign "legations" in Peking (what we would today call "embassies") are under attack by the Boxer Rebels (I Ho Chuan Society) during the rebellion of 1900 in China. David Niven is likeable as the British ambassador, even though he does come off as a bit pompous. The sets & costumes are well-done (especially when you consider that this film, set during the last days of the Ching Dynasty in China, was actually shot in Spain!), & the battle sequences are realistically staged. (For martial-arts buffs, there's even a martial-arts demonstration during the birthday of the English Queen!) So, if all you're looking for is a fast-paced war picture with great costumes & macho action performances, then, on that level only, this film delivers.

If you're a history buff, however, then this film definately is not for you! For one thing, all of the major European characters, (whose point of view this movie favors) are fictional characters. The only real-life historical figures are the ruling Manchus (played by caucasian actors in "Asian-face!") & the Japanese Colonel Goro Shiba. (He & the other Japanese are played by real Asian actors. I guess during the Cold War, the Japanese were our allies against "the Red Menace", thus worthy of respect, while the Chinese, who were Communists, were not worthy of respect when portrayed on film. But then, this movie also features the Russians in a positive light, so go figure!) There is also a scene where the German minister is killed on the street by a mob of crazed Boxers, but in real life, the real German minister was shot by a Chinese officer (one man!) who was sympathetic to the Boxer cause. This film also carefully omits the subsequent rape & sacking of Peking after the defeat of the Boxers, though focusing heavily on the Boxer's depredations against Christians & foreigners. (True history is balanced, not one-sided.) Lastly, according to this film, the British & Americans were in charge of the relief efforts during the siege. Actually, the Germans, under von Waldersee, were the real leaders of the International Relief Force sent out to defeat the Boxers & rescue the besieged legations.

Finally, for Asian-americans & viewers interested in serious political debate, this film is also a no no! The most obviously offensive aspect of this movie is the white actors playing Chinese (though again, this was made in 1963), but the other offensive aspect is that this film favors the colonialists' point of view! (The basic point of 55 Days is, colonialism is good & whenever natives fight back, they deserve to be supressed! It's the same kind of thinking that got us involved in Vietnam.) This movie was made during the beginnings of our involvement in Southeast Asian politics & it's obvious that this "historical" drama is really a pro-Vietnam propaganda film disguised as an epic action-movie!

Okay, the "Boxers" (or I Ho Society) were not saints. They did murder a lot of innocent people in their anger over the semi-colonialism imposed by the West & Japan on China during the 19th Century. But this film shows only one point of view. (A bad story-telling style for a supposedly "realistic" war picture.) However, for viewers who want to get a balanced point of view in one film about the Boxer Rebellion, well, good luck! Chinese movies on the subject tend to do the exact extreme political opposite of 55 Days (which is just as bad!) And remember, though there are historical inaccuracies in 55 Days, Chinese movies (or more accurately, Hong Kong movies) can be just as inaccurate about their own culture! Check out any of the '70's Shaw Brothers kung-fu films if you don't believe me!

So in closing, personally, I would recommend watching this film, but only if you understand it's (many) flaws. For a truly balanced perspective on the subject, after watching 55 Days At Peking, check out The Boxer Rebellion/Bloody Avengers, a Shaw Brothers kung-fu flick about the Boxer Rebellion which exaggerates the Chinese p.o.v. at least as much (if not more) as 55 Days exaggerates the European/Japanese p.o.v. The real-truth lies right in-between these two films. Be sure you get the letter-boxed version of 55 Days, because the pan & scan really cuts out some important details (more so than other films.)

OK action film marred by some faults
"55 Days at Peking" is a decent action film for a war genre fan or maybe some one who wants to see a different time period in a film. The film is pretty decent as far as its genre goes, but there were some problems in the storyline that made me give it no higher than three stars.

The first problem I had with this film was the inclusion of the mandatory American hero. It seems quite often whenever some thing is set in a foreign land and involves foreign - and is made in America - there HAS to be an American lead. Most of the other nationalities play a mostly minor role save for David Niven's character, who feels like a historic individual. I'm not saying the Americans weren't at Peking, but Charleton Heston's character feels a tad too cliche.

The second problem I had was the love story. It takes up a good part of the film and slows it down...in fact it very nearly made me lose all interest in this movie. Doesn't really do much to the story and leaves some holes open. Even when Ava Gardner's character meets an unfortunate circumstance, I couldn't feel sorry for her. I didn't care too much since the whole thing felt like a typical forced movie romance.

Finally, there are some historical inaccuracies. The battle didn't quite happen as the movie portrays it. These mistakes are all fairly minor, I suppose, and some might just flat out ignore it since the battle (and war, really) isn't well known.

On the whole, it wasn't that bad. There are some great battle scenes including a charge up a ramp behind a wheeled defense, firing shots through sliding windows, and the climactic assault with a huge artillery tower - this last part is my personal favorite, and for what it's worth I thought it was a pretty cool scene.

If you're a fan of to-the-last-man movies like the (superior) "Zulu" then you'll probably like this movie. Yes, some might not have compassion for the defenders since them being rescued meant an end to China's real independance, but I guess you really can't like the Boxers for trying to annihilate a group that includes women and children. Even if the Imperialists were morally bad guys, I can't hold compassion to the Boxers for their terrorist tactics. But enough of this...if you like this type of film, rent this and check it out.

Exciting epic produced on the grand old scale
"55 days at Peking", has certainly in the years since it's release in 1963 come in for it's share of flack over its romantisizing of history, fictional characters and depiction of Chinese nationals. In reality however I feel you must look at this film first and foremost as the first class piece of entertainment based on historical events it was intended to be. I certainly appreciate the great effort and attention to detail that was lavished on this stunning recreation of the events surrounding the Boxer Rebellion of 1900 in Imperial China.

As an ardent student of chinese history in general I can see that the focus is upon the foreigners that were present in China at that time and that the Chinese point of view is rarely explored in detail. However what must be appreciated in this Samual Bronston production is the vivid recreation of Imperial China, the earnest performances by the leads, exquisite costumes, the excellent action scenes, and sublime musical score by the famed Dimitri Tiomkins which all add up to an engrossing two and a half hours of viewing. Charlton Heston as Major Matt Lewis the tempremental soldier for hire, David Niven as the upright British Ambassador Sir. Arthur Robertson and especially the ever beautiful Ava Gardner as the "scandalous" Russian Baroness Natalie Ivanoff all lend a commanding presence in their roles. Ava Gardner as the "woman of ill repute" who falls for Heston's no nonsense Major during the seige of the foreign legations during the rebellion and ends up paying for her devotion with her life has I feel never been better. Ava proves her often underestimated talent here as she develops from shallow society lady out for a good time, into a human being who learns the value of self sacrifice for something you believe in. The wonderful Victorian costumes which suit her so well also emphasize what a great beauty she was in her movie heyday. The main criticism of this film has always been directed at the depiction of Chinese characters by caucasian actors. I feel that there is little to get offended by here as in particular the depiction of the Dowager Empress Tzu-Hsi is actually done in a much more favourable light than how the woman actually was in real life. I feel Flora Robson lends a commanding presence as the Dowager Empress and her Chinese makeup, far from being offensive is fascinating and superbly done. Robert Helpmann also shines in his sinister role of Prince Tuan, the empress's chief advisor and evil genius. They are actors playing roles just like any other performer that portray a character not of his or her own nationality and they should be rightly seen as just that.

"55 Days at Peking", while certainly not historically accurate contains an exciting fictional story woven into historical fact. This does not necessarily make it a bad drama or production and indeed here we are treated to a great story full of action, romance and a vivid retelling of a dramatic story from a "human level" as was probably witnessed by those that lived through it. The depiction of the rise of the boxers into a violent nationalist movement, the actual rebellion and siege of the foreign legations in Peking resulting in much bloodshed and destruction , the vivid and beautiful recreation of life in the decadent Ching court under the Grand Dowager Empress, are all beautifully played out in a eye popping and engrossing drama. Samuel Bronston who was responsible for some great early 1960's epics such as "El Cid", and especially the classic "The Fall of the Roman Empire" here excels himself in recreating the times in 19th Century China. The sets are sumptous with Peking being magically brought to life on sets created in Spain.Rarely nowadays do yuo see such an allout effort in mounting a top class production. The Ching court as depicted here, while not up to later "The Last Emperor", standards is still wonderful and really portrays the beauty of court life that hid so much that was wrong with the ruling system in China at the time. Rarely have more vivid depictions of the lives of ordinary Chinese been portrayed and the rebellion sequences are second to none in their raw energy, savage depiction of the loss of life and the destruction caused.

"55 Days at Peking", is not perfect by any means but I feel it has been unfairly condemmed by the supposed political correctness movement. I really enjoy historical dramas, even of the romanticised kind and Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner really maintain your interest through the long running time with their excellent work in this film. Long before computer generated special effects this film sees one of the great sets built for a film during the 1960's and for that alone it is worth seeing apart from all its other good qualities. Enjoy a journey back to grand old film making of the old school when Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner do battle against the boxers in "55 Days at Peking".

Excellent only for critical analysis
This film has only one redeeming quality- it provides an excellent opportunity to discuss bias, historical perspective, director's artistic liscence, and distortion of historical events. I viewed this film knowing that the Chinese, poorly portrayed by Americans or British, were being presented from a completely demeaning perspective that simultaneously plays the Americans as the savior heros. I plan to use this in my 7th grade social studies class to demonstrate exactly how a series of events as complex and consequential as the Boxer Rebellion can be recreated so completely and utterly wrong. Watch this as you would a Disney film like Mulan, knowing that it will only get the gist of something, and not provide any reliable characters or history. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This serious-minded but flawed effort at bringing James Jones's later World War II novel to the screen might have languished in film vaults had reclusive director Terence Malick not resurfaced with a newer version, the likely spur to this video release. This first attempt, lensed in 1964, offers glimpses of what may have attracted Malick to the project.

Jones's story focuses on two American soldiers during the Guadalcanal campaign, the newlywed draftee Private Doll (Keir Dullea) and Sergeant Welch (Jack Warden), the hardened veteran. Doll is determined to survive whatever the cost, disobeying orders if it will improve his chances; Welch is dutiful yet calculating, resorting to deliberate acts of madness to toughen up his troops by showing them war's own absurdity by example. The clash between the private and the sergeant thus becomes the core to the film, focusing on the "thin red line" between sanity and insanity and depicting how that line blurs for both protagonists.

As directed by veteran Andrew Marton (55 Days in Peking), the film is at its best during sweeping battle sequences capturing the gritty horror of hand-to-hand combat, as the Americans try to take an impregnable wall of caves held by the Japanese enemy. Less successful are portentous scenes and dialogue that underscore this evident parable with a heavy hand; there's a self-conscious art film spin that misfires.The original black-and-white Cinemascope negative shows wear and tear, and early copies betray serious problems in their optical transfers. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Simitar does something half right for once
I will only grant that Simitar did something half right with the release of The Thin Red Line since they didn't bother to letterbox it. That aside, the pan and scan transfer is done rather well, keeping up with the activity onscreen. The disappointment over the lack of widescreen is also mitigated somewhat by the extras on this DVD. They include a trailer, brief bios and abridged filmography of Jack Warden and Keir Dullea, info on Guadalcanal(geography, history. etc.), and documentary footage of Marines fighting on Guam and Tarawa, but I don't recall seeing any on Guadalcanal(contrary to the jacket description). BTW, the audio is Dolby Digital 2.0, not PCM. Given the tendency of sixties war films towards wider and louder spectacles, I think this low-budget film is vastly underrated. It certainly is "serious-minded but flawed" as the Amazon reviewer noted, but I believe it succeeds more than it fails in bringing to life the conflicts in Jones' novel. This is thanks mostly to the capable performances of not only Warden and Dullea, but also Ray Daley and James Philbrook, who played Captain Stone and Colonel Tall. Interestingly enough, James Jones wrote director Andrew Marton and commented on "how marvelous I thought were the combat scenes in the film." Spain may not be Guadalcanal, but the black-and- white photography obscures that. I'll leave debates of accuracy to those who have actually seen Guadalcanal. Followers of spaghetti westerns will recognize the terrain pretty quickly though.

A very good war movie depicting the brutality of war.
I recently viewed this film and it is a forgotten masterpiece. Fortunately with Terrence Malik's remake, this film has been resurrected. It conveyed the horrors and brutality of war and the inner conflicts which reside in man; then there is the "thin red line". The book is a masterpiece among war novels and this film depicts only a small section of the book. The combat scenes were realistic, yet without the gore. Andrew Marton's direction was sharp and truly heightened the dramatic intensity especially in the scenes between Warden and Dullea. Although I have yet to see Malik's remake, I am happy I was able to catch this version and will wholeheartedly recommend it.

Better than Malick, but still not Jones.
The Thin Red Line (Andrew Marton, 1964)

Andrew Marton (King Solomon's Mines, The Longest Day) took on James Jones' best, and biggest, novel some thirty-four years before Terence Malick did. After the desecration Malick released, I resolved I had to see Marton's version as soon as I could, because surely, nothing could possibly be worse than Malick's. I was right... but not by much.

Marton focused on some different points in The Thin Red Line than Malick did (including, surprisingly, a glancing reference towards the book's homosexual themes), but in the end, there's still way too much missing for this to be a good adaptation of Jones' gorgeous, sprawling novel of the Battle of Guadalcanal. Marton focuses, as any decent adaptation would have, on the conflict between Private Doll (Keir Dullea of 2001: A Space Odyssey) and Sergeant Welsh (the omnipresent Jack Warden). Someone, however, should have mentioned to screenwriter Bernard Morton (Earth vs. the Flying Saucers... nuff said) that when you're already desperately trying to concatenate a six-hundred-page (in eight-point font) novel into just over an hour and a half, you don't write in extra confrontations between the two main characters or you lose sight of the rest of the novel (in this case, well, the four days of battle of Guadalcanal, which get about ten minutes of screen time). And yet still, in a film an hour shorter than Malick's, Marton managed to squeeze in the whole book rather than just the first half. Astounding.

Dullea, never the best of actors, well earned Noel Coward's "Keir Dullea, gone tomorrow" jibe. There were some directors, Kubrick among them, who were capable of turning Dullea's oddly featureless face to their advantage. Marton is one of them. Dullea, by virtue of his complete indistinguishability from your basic eighteen-year-old American preppy, becomes a sort of everyman, while the easily-recognizable Warden is a character all to himself. (Jones fans, take note: one of the movie's true weaknesses is that it explores Welsh's "property" ideas even less than does Malick's movie.) This in itself creates an additional tension in the movie, which in some places it sorely needs. But in the end, both Marton's and Malick's attempts to being The Thin Red Line to the screen both failed for the same reason: the source material won't stand for it. Far too much of the book is internalized and doesn't translate well to the screen, leading to isolated dramatic scenes (needless to say, Marton and Malick focused on many of the same points of high drama offered in the novel) in seas of slow, uninteresting sitting in the jungle and waiting.

Still, if you were as disgusted by Malick's heretical retelling as I was, this is worth a rental. It's not the movie it should have been (when someone finally does he Thin Red Line correctly, it will, deservedly, be as lauded as was From Here to Eternity), but it's a step farther in the right direction than Malick got. **

A lesson for directors
Watch this outdated, macho, adolescent film and then watch Malick's 1998 remake. Watch how the exact same dialogue in the exact same scenes come out corny and inflected here and then watch the sublime subtlety of the new version. Dullea and Warden are wonderful, but overall this is just melodramatic pap.

An underestimated film
I worked on this film in 1966 as camera operator for Director of photogrphy Manuel Berenguer ASC. Mr. Berenguer got an Oscar nomination for the best B/W foreing film.Been aware of the difficulties we went through in the actual filming, for which the audience is oviously not aware, and seen the final result on the screen, I'm convinced that this version from Marton is far better than the last version.Is very unfortunate that the DVD copies does not by far mach the original release print, picture and sound quality. ... 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 (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