Subjective rating 2 stars
My personal view of this film is: it satisfies the general public’s fantasy of war in the 1960s and is also entertaining, but for audiences who have been exposed to many realistic war films and large-scale production films in the new century, These three hours are not only not amazing, but even a bit difficult. I do not recommend watching.
There are spoilers below
The multi-line narrative of the film is one of the biggest highlights of "The Longest Day". The film does not build a story line with a specific character or some specific characters as the center, but creates characters to show the whole event from different perspectives. The advantage of this is that it allows the audience to understand a particular event more comprehensively, in this film it is the Normandy landing battle. The disadvantage of this is that the audience's sense of involvement will be weaker, and it will be harder to resonate with a certain character. My final impression of this film is closer to a documentary than a movie. The small fragments and the subtitles of each character when they appear on the scene give me a feeling that the film is retelling this historic moment. Including the beginning of the movie, the tense music is accompanied by many shots of the German army, giving people a sense of tension and oppression. I think the biggest problem with the film is that all the signs at the beginning indicate that this is a film that is very close to the real history, so it should be cruel and serious with war as the subject. However, in the middle of the film, many untimely humorous clips appeared, breaking the tone and pulling down the authenticity and seriousness of the whole film. Give two examples: first, the priest who parachuted with the airborne division, and second, the two armies passing by. The priest parachuting with the airborne division itself is very magical, and he even arranged a clip where the priest kept diving looking for his carry-on luggage. The priest played without a name, and he only played once. Without a name, this character was not created based on history, and such magical actions have reduced the authenticity of many movies. This priest is just a tool for the audience to laugh, and this clip exists only for entertainment. A long line of American and German troops passing by is even more magical than the priest. The U.S. Army discovered the German Army. Everyone suspected that it was the German Army, but they were not sure. So why did the U.S. Army, who were still skeptical in the previous second, be sure that these unclear soldiers are friendly forces in the next second? The German army has just ended the exchange of fire, so it shows that the German army is not defenseless. It has already realized the existence of paratroopers. Why don't you even look at the oncoming soldiers? Clips like this not only break me out of the sense of substitution, but also make me question the rigor of the film itself.
The last point I want to add is that almost all descriptions of war are positive. There is no painful groan of the wounded, only the appearance on the clothes. There is condolences for the dead, but there are only a few lines, and the rest are almost all the joy of victory. With a cheerful soundtrack, it gives people a feeling of "we are the side of the gods", as if the war is so easy.
The conflict in my perception of this film is here. This is a triumphant song for the victorious people who have not participated in the war, but it is close to the truth in the description and tries to give the audience a sense of substitution. I don't think that entertainment is not important, or that comedy can't become a classic, it's just that some bloggers laughed at the scenes that are not suitable for the theme and tone of this movie. This is a good entertainment theme, but not a good movie. The incompatible arrangements led to conflicts in the look and feel of the film and the essence of making money just to please the audience.
This movie was a very good movie in its time, taking into account the sense of substitution and entertainment. It was a cool film in 1962. But looking back in the 21st century, we will find that it lacks the rigor of history and reflection on war. The previous big productions are not worth mentioning in front of us who have seen countless Hollywood blockbusters.
The true classics never fade, and the rest of the film will be slowly stripped of the packaging, and see the less shiny core.
View more about The Longest Day reviews
