Amazon.com

The Longest Day is Hollywood's definitive D-day movie.More modern accounts such as Saving Private Ryan are morevividly realistic, but producer Darryl F. Zanuck's epic 1962 account isthe only one to attempt the daunting task of covering that fateful dayfrom all perspectives. From the German high command and front-lineofficers to the French Resistance and all the key Allied participants,the screenplay by Cornelius Ryan, based on his own authoritative book, is as factuallyaccurate as possible. The endless parade of stars (John Wayne, HenryFonda, Robert Mitchum, Sean Connery, and Richard Burton, to name a few)makes for an uneasy mix of verisimilitude and Hollywood star-power,however, and the film falls a little flat for too much of its three-hour running time. But the set-piece battles are still spectacular, andif the landings on Omaha Beach lack the graphic gore of PrivateRyan they nonetheless show the sheer scale and audacity of theinvasion. --Mark Walker ... 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 (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 (6)

Widescreen fans please note...
...you can order a very good quality print of this film from Amazon France's marketplace sellers. The only drawback is that the English version has French subtitles which can't be erased using the menu. However, when you see the low price, even accounting for postage, you won't complain.

A movie that needs to be remade
Don't get me wrong. This movie is fun but as historical accuracies go, it falls pretty flat. The movie doesn't even use the real names of the people involved.

I'm a big fan of epic period pieces and I think there is a lot going for this kind of movie to be made today (with an international cast)

First I'd choose John Milius, Michael Mann, or Mel Gibson as director

Sample Cast
George Clooney or Billy Zane.....US Marine Major
Catherine Zeta Jones...Russian countess
Elizabeth Hurley....British ambassador's wife
Tom Sizemore.....US Marine sgt
Chow Yun Fat.....Prince Tuan
Michelle Yeoh....Empress Dowager
Brian Cox....British Ambassador
Ioan Gruffudd (Hornblower) or Heath Ledger....British Captain
Jermey Irons....German Colonel
Sophie marceau....French ambassador's wife
Alan Rickman....Russian ambassador

You get the picture :-)

spectacular yet intimate
Before the era of political correctness, Caucasian actors donned make up to play characters of other races; roles which, for whatever reason, could not be filled by non-white actors at that time. If you are the kind of person who gets mad watching white people play "sinister" Chinese roles then stay away from this movie or be prepared for this kind of thing:

Prince Tuan: "Your majesty, the execution has been stopped!"

The Empress: "Who!"

Prince Tuan: "Jung Lu!"

However if you can keep that momentary suspension of disbelief going just long enough to allow yourself to get into the story, then you can believe Flora Robson is the Empress and 55 Days is one of the most underrated films of all time: the action sequences are extremely well paced and choreographed and the film, for the most part, stays faithful to history. Obviously the producers could not reproduce the entire Forbidden City so the "palace" exterior scenes are somewhat hokey, but the legation compound and the city wall are reproduced in a convincing way and as set pieces they are used to great effect.

Look for Walter Gotell (General Gogol from the 007 films) and Nicholas Ray himself (in wheelchair) as the American ambassador.

55 days at peking
With all the wham, bam, thank you not madam junk that is prevasive now, this has a superb plot and it has class. This is a 5 star in a world of -1 s! Niven is wonderous and Ava is regal with her feet of clay.

Enjoyable epic and star vehicle
"55 Days At Peking" is an unusual and enjoyable epic and star vehicle. Not least among its admirable characteristics is a set re-creating in Spain an authentic impression of the old Legation Quarter of Peking. The set makes sense to anyone who knows the actual site in modern-day Beijing. That is a considerable achievement in the pre-digital cinematic art of illusion. It shows, too, that there was a great deal of China knowledge behind the making of the movie. Well into the 1990s, many Boxer Rebellion-era structures survived in the old Legation Quarter of Beijing. Due to enduring political and cultural sensitivities, the historical significance of these structures was unsignposted and ignored by the official Chinese tourist authorities, and most of the area was occupied by Chinese Government organisations. The gate of the former British Legation which was recreated for the movie could still be seen just off Chang'an Avenue in Zhengyi Street, a short walk southwest from the Beijing Hotel. The layout and other striking architectural features of the area are well-recorded in books such as Michael J. and Yeone Wei-Chih Moser's "Foreigners Within The Gates" (Oxford 1993). The movie takes liberties with history--overplaying, for instance, the US military contribution, and making the British Minister (played by David Niven) appear a more militarily energetic figure than he seemed to contemporary observers of the siege of the legations. Some purists might find jarring the poor Chinese calligraphy in graffiti, and the casting of (generally well made-up) Caucasian actors in major Chinese roles. However, the standard caveat applies that this is an entertainment, not a documentary. Talent like Chow Yun-Fat, John Lone, Gong Li, Zhang Yimou and Wayne Wang wasn't available to western moviemakers in 1963. "55 Days At Peking" entertains with a creditable impression of this historical episode when China warred by proxy on the rest of the world. It is an interesting film to compare with "Khartoum", in which Charlton Heston also plays the lead, as part of the canon of epic moviemaking about imperial and colonial wars. The casting and illusion of China is worth comparing with "The Inn Of The Sixth Happiness" (1958), in which Robert Donat plays a Chinese mandarin and Wales substitutes for China. It would be fascinating to see a remake of this film with a re-worked story and script, a re-arrangement of Dimitri Tiomkin's excellent score, digital technology, and cross-cultural casting and direction. However, as it probably still could not be shot in China without unacceptable interference, it might need "Red Corner" treatment. ... 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