The Longest Day

Twentieth Century Fox | Release Date: October 4, 1962

7.2	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 17 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

FilipeNetoApr 23, 2020

The allied landing in Normandy is almost certainly the moment, in the whole World War II, that was most often taken to the cinema. There are, therefore, a lot of films about it. Some are better, others worse. This is one of the most epic, oneThe allied landing in Normandy is almost certainly the moment, in the whole World War II, that was most often taken to the cinema. There are, therefore, a lot of films about it. Some are better, others worse. This is one of the most epic, one of the most expensive and one of the best.

I'm not going to waste time explaining what the D Day was because 95% of the people who are going to read this review know what happened there, and the few who still don't know, I advise, should do some reading about it before taking this film. This is because the film does not waste time on explanations either. The script, written by Cornelius Ryan, has serious problems: it is quite clear that the whole effort was focused on reporting, very meticulously and rigorously (as far as I was able to see) the landing and its previous arrangements. One thing I really liked was to see several nationalities and military forces that, alongside the British and Americans, also take part of D-Day: the Scots, the Irish, the free French (I miss the Canadians)... but everything that goes beyond the landing report, and which is also part of a good movie script, has been undervalued: the construction of the characters was limited to a series of sketches, when they are not caricatures, the dialogues are cliché or sound absurd and, moreover, the film has no story to tell that goes beyond the war story. It is the epic "documentary film" of war, at its best.

Another problem with the film is that its a nest of highly regarded movie stars who practically limit themselves to appearing and saying something. It is eye-catching for the audience, and the camera work tried to echo that with frontal shots from that stars, but it sucks for the plot because we are seeing the actor So-and-so, not the character he plays. Among the actors that appear in the film we can mention Eddie Albert, Paul Hartmann, Robert Ryan, Curd Jürgens, George Segal, Richard Burton, Hans Christian Blech. I especially liked the work of Henry Fonda, as the Teddy Roosevelt's son, eager to honor his father's name and memory, and to see Sean Connery, still quite unknown (the first 007 film premiered in the same year as this one) playing the role of a simple Scottish soldier, with touches of British humor. John Wayne is good, but he always seemed to me like a very theatrical actor and his characters sound artificial.

Despite all this, this film had the full commitment of its directors, who through it wanted to honor the men who fought that day, winners and losers. That is meritorious. The film has excellent cinematography and an exceptional film and camera work, worthy of the Oscar for Best Black-and-White Cinematography, which won that year. The special, visual and sound effects that were used are also really well done and look great (Best Special Effects it was another Oscar that this film collected). The film has great sets and costumes and an excellent post-production work, where the commitment of all involved is perfectly felt. There is no scene or sequence that seems to be over, or out of place. The film is long, in fact, it is three hours in length, but if the audience gets carried away it will not be a problem.

Technically extraordinary, this film makes a remarkable account of the military events it portrays. But the flaws in the script, the poor construction of characters and dialogues, the constant parade of famous actors with nothing to do hurt the final product.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

BroyaxJan 26, 2023

Une pléiade de stars : c’est le jeu qu’on pratique pendant tout le film pour tromper l’ennui. Le premier qui détecte la star a le droit de se barrer en courant. Il peut alors voir de vrais films de guerre : Un pont trop loin, Patton, La ligneUne pléiade de stars : c’est le jeu qu’on pratique pendant tout le film pour tromper l’ennui. Le premier qui détecte la star a le droit de se barrer en courant. Il peut alors voir de vrais films de guerre : Un pont trop loin, Patton, La ligne rouge… pendant que les autres continuent de se faire chier devant cette vieillerie en noir et blanc.

Des longueurs longues comme un jour sans pain, des collages à faire mourir de honte Hitchcock (on veut bien être indulgent mais tout de même !). Récemment j’ai vu le documentaire Sacrifice : juste des images d’archives colorisées, c’était 100 fois plus palpitant que le jour le plus con de la daube la plus longue.

Mais à dire vrai n’importe quel documentaire est définitivement plus intéressant que cette vieille mascarade hollywoodienne qui se fait reluire le cul pendant des plombes.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews