egafd.com

Is there more than one version of this film? I seem to remember a scene in this film which I saw a few years ago which featured a telephone conversation between von Runstedt and Keitel in which Runstedt lost his temper and said he would not speak to Hitler direct about the battle as he 'would not discuss strategy with a corporal.' This was missing in the version I saw on Ch5 last weekend. Or am I getting confused with another film?
Also am I right in thinking the only two actors in major parts in 'The Longest Day' that are still alive are Richard Todd & Sean Connery?

Don't forget that some films that were meant for cinema have been copied into cut down versions to fit TV schedules without spoiling the plot.

>I seem to remember a scene in this film which I saw a few years ago which featured a telephone conversation between von Runstedt and Keitel in which Runstedt lost his temper and said he would not speak to Hitler direct about the battle as he 'would not discuss strategy with a corporal.

Yes, that scene was in the film, I saw it on TV not too long ago.

Of course Richard Todd had the distinction of being in the film and at the real D-Day.

it was a very long film if i recall rightly nearly 3 hrs.

I seem to remember that Sean Connery only had a small part in the film, playing a private landing on the beach.

I also remember Richard Burton over acting terribly. The scene in the bar when he finds out that "Jonno" has crashed into the channel is embarrising.

Sean Connery's part was fairly small and your opinion on Richard Burton's performance, I would agee with.

Richard Todd played John Howard who lead the 2nd Ox and Bucks to capture Pegasus Bridge. They were the first allied unit to go into action on D-Day and Lt Den Brotheridge was the first allied soldier to be killed, at about 12.10 am.

In real life Todd met Howard on D-Day on Pegasus Bridge.

If there is any story crying out to be made into a movie or tv mini series it's that one, Stephen Ambrose who wrote Band of Brothers wrote a great account of it. Unfortunately, it seems that the only money to make WW2 movies comes from the USA so British exploits like that are rarely covered these days.

Also, when ITV show it, they use a computer colourised print, which is quite embarressing. Colourisation can be done quite well but dust, smoke and haze really can't, and this film, being set in WWII in bombed out cities, is full of it!

If people can't be arsed to watch a film because it's in black and white, colourising it or remaking it for a new generation with actor's they'd recognise isn't the answer. Teaching these upstarts patients and that they're missing out by not opening their minds and seeing a film they normally wouldn't really is the way forward! How many of us would look at a 70's porno and turn our noses up because it didn't feature Layla Jade or have a DP, watersports or bukkake scene every 5 mins?! Hardly anyone, I bet.

The Nat geographic Channel have a bad habit of showing colourised footage from WW2. For me it makes the programme unwatchable. It never looks right. I'm not refering to such programmes as 'WW2 in Colour' which show the relatively rare colour footage usually shot by American forces cameramen. My dad was in the RN film unit during the war and he'd have loved to have had a bit of colour film to use.

Not only long, it was the most expensive b & w film ever made. A hell of a gamble for the producer when colour was as well established as it was for big films of the time.