Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The main issue i have with this film is that 98% of the film has nothing to do with D-DAY , it's about two officers on a boat talking about their romance with a woman. If the film had suggested that this would be the story that would have made it much better like if the title had been say "Two soldiers and a lady" that would have been good but calling it D-day the sixth of June is just totally wrong. It's like calling Manhunter the life of Hannibal Lector (for those of you who didn't get that joke Hannibal only shows up for about five minutes in Manhunter). Aside from the title being wrong the story is really uninteresting mainly because you want the film to show you you the bits with D-day in them because that's what the film has promised in the title but it never bloody shows them. If you want a really boring melodrama about love then yeah it's for you but other wise don't watch it and ignore the title completely.

Atrocious wartime romance filmed in widescreen and colour and very typical of its period, (it was made in the mid-fifties). Actually it has nothing very much to do with D-Day, (and it's so awful as to be something of an insult to the men who fought and died then). Rather that's when it begins as two of the men on board one of the ships, an American, (the inexplicably popular Robert Taylor), and a Brit, (the somewhat more charismatic Richard Todd), reminiscence in flashback about the woman they both love, (the beautiful but vacuous Dana Wynter). If it were better made, (it's directed by the monumentally untalented Henry Koster), it might have been tolerable but even by the standards of fifties' romantic tosh this is a real turkey, plucked, stuffed and oven-ready.

In your 'goofs' section you state that Capt Parker says that he has been over here for three years and three months thus meaning he was involved in the war eight months before America entered the war. I watched the movie yesterday (on TV) and Parker definitely replies 'TWO years and three months' when asked. Phew, this means he came over here AFTER America entered the war. That's a relief then! I enjoyed the film. It was a little slow at times and half way through I suddenly remembered the ending (I must have seen it many years ago). I kept hoping the ending wasn't what I thought but it was. Sad. But I thought Dana Wynter was lovely and Richard Todd was excellent. A very enjoyable movie.

This movie is on my list of ones not to bother with. Among my many peeves are movies that are mislabeled, that use an enticing title-"Battle of the Bulge" is another-and then portray little if any of the events the title implies. "Lafayette Escadrille" is another. Saw this one 40 years ago on the tube, as a 14 year old I was annoyed at the lack of action and real history. One incident stands out in my memory. At the end when the landings finally occur and newsreel footage is spliced in, the soundtracks plays the songs of the various armed forces, the Marine Corps hymn is played, my mother (born in 1913) said to me (the precocious history buff) "They didn't have Marines at D-Day, did they?" The answer of course is no, the ETO was a strict Army-Navy operation. I would call this a "bait and switch" movie, you are lured in by an enticing title, the actual movie is a scam.