Reviews

I remember seeing this movie in the Champs Elysées in Paris when it was distributed, it must be in 56 or 57. I possess the whole set of 80 books of his novels plus one which story is probably not known here. Here is the story of that extraordinary book: Paris in the XXth century - as explained in Wikipedia: Jules Verne's publisher, Pierre-Jules Hetzel, thought the book's pessimism would damage Verne's then-booming career, and suggested that he wait 20 years to publish it. In a scathing rebuke to Verne, Hetzel writes about a draft of the novel he has just seen: I was not expecting perfection - to repeat, I knew that you were attempting the impossible - but I was hoping for something better. Hetzel was also critical of Verne for not covering new ground with the novel:

In this piece, there is not a single issue concerning the real future that is properly resolved, no critique that hasn't already been made and remade before. I am surprised at you ... it is lacklustre and lifeless. With that, Verne put the manuscript in a safe where it was forgotten, only to be discovered by his great-grandson in 1989. The original French version was finally published in 1994, and an English translation by Richard Howard was published by Random House in 1996. When the french edition was published his grand son explained that having no way of finding the combination of the safe they had to explode it and that's how they found the manuscript. Hetzel was quite unjust about the book which is remarkable when we consider all the technology Vernes thought would be at mankind's disposal in 1960. A book worth reading.In the 70s the whole set of the Voyages extraordinaires were published with the same Hetzel covers by Michel de L'Ormeraie edtion with the original fac simile of the pictures and same lettering than the original edition.

I have not seen the movie and although Branagh is a famous actor without any possible discussion, by reading the 2 quotes from the dialog here, it shows that he did not understand the character of Poirot and what Agatha Christie really wanted to say thru this great novel. If I dont mistake Christie did not like Poirot. So she personified in him a kind of macho, misogynist man. He's very proud of his skills as a detective and thinks he will never fail to bring the culprit to his judges. He's also more or less a true catholic. The first error which appears on the first quote is to think that Poirot will listen to his heart. He listens to what is right or wrong and wont fail to do so in all the novels the author wrote; it is an error to make of Poirot another Miss Marple. The second error is to believe that Poirot will justify himself like the second quote tends to show. He is too proud and his inner debate is for himself and no one else. He will never justify his actions before anyone. Those two traits of character were superbly shown in the David Suchet's impersonation of Poirot in the television series. There was something of that too in Sydney Lumett's movie although the movie tends more to be a spectacular super production with an extraordinary cast difficult to equal today.Even the music of the film was spectacular with it's theme in the rhythm of waltz punctuating the sound of the locomotive and the rails, and somehow referring to the decadence of the period the late thirties and the horrors impending later. The television adaptation has a great cast but not really movie stars like Widmark,Finney,Cassel, Bacall and others in the movie. In the television production Poirot gives us the date of the action: 1936. The book was published in 1934 and make reference to the Lingbergh kidnap case of 1932. But may be that already Christie had some doubts about the political events going on after Hitler's and the Nazis coming to power in 1933. Justice is more and more torn to pieces by those monsters. This revolts Poirot. The ending of the television production is by far in accordance with the character and the way Christie judged Poirot. Poirot for the only time in his life has lost his case in his eyes.

This movie is based on Captain The Hon. Ewen Edward Samuel Montagu, CBE, QC, DL, RNR (19 March 1901 - 19 July 1985) book published in 1954. Montagu wanted to publish it earlier but MI5 opposed the publication fearing that it would create a diplomatic incident with the Spanish authorities; after lengthy negotiations, he was at last authorized to do it on conditions of eventual rewritings by different people concerned by the history. Montagu on the other had decided not to divulge the name of the man whose corpse was used for the operation Mincemeat. Many books have been published just after the war until progressively details were unclassified. To my knowledge the last one which I've just finished reading was written by Ben Macintyre and published in 2010 and is to be considered the true story containing in particular the fact that in 1996 at last was discovered the true name of Bill Martin which was Michael Glyndwr. So the movie as well as Montagu's book contains many modifications so that people still alive at that time should remain hidden. Of course today the movie would be done not only respecting history but even some facts which were known to the public thru the book; for instance Jewell and his officers on the submarine were to sink the canister; when they tried to do so, it did not although they shot at it and they had to use to use explosive in the end. The movie is also special to me because I happened to meet Bob McNaught the associate producer of the movie in 1964. Bob used to live in Denham and was a friend of a producer, Maxwell Setton (he produced another true story of WWII, "I was Monty double" starring the actor who actually personified Marshall Montgomery for MI5 Double Cross System ) who happened to be the husband of my godmother Eve. Bob was a Glider Pilot in the British Glider Pilot Regiment during World War II. He was part of Operation Market Garden and took part in the fighting in Arnhem during September 1944 with the British 1st Airborne Division. In the summer of 1964 I spent my vacations in Denham at Max and Eve's White cottage situated a few yards from Bob's. Bob was a music and opera lover. I was at that time 23 and I spent a whole afternoon at Bob's cottage listening to operas excerpts and also discovering the music of Richard Strauss. Bob's Labrador "Jojo" with his full weight on my knees! Moreover Bob spent the afternoon pouring huge and strong Gin and Tonics in my glass! while I was enthralled by Puccini's La Bohème sung by Renata Tebaldi I really did not pay much attention to what I was drinking and the result was particularly catastrophic when I had to leave the house and walk back to my godmother's house! It took me some 15 minutes to reach it and I was told the next morning that I was in an extremely happy mood during the dinner, putting a great "ambiance", a great moment before waking up the next morning with a huge hangover! The last time I met Bob was in Nice in 1966 while I was a member of the second unit of a Columbia movie. I thoroughly recommend the reading of Ben Macintyre's book which has very funny passages, especially during the Sicily attack and of course others quite moving. Claude from Paris France

I've just watched "7 days in May" and loved it and I intend to buy Fletcher Knebel's book which it is adapted from. The cast is fantastic and the way the story is told a great moment of cinematography. I'm surprised that another book of Knebel has not been set into a movie moreover considering the actual situation in the USA and the Trump administration. I'm referring to Night at Camp David which has been republished in 2018 by Vintage books. As the foreword cover of the book states: "What would happen if the President of the USA went stark raving mad?" The book was first published in 1965....Knebel also wrote another political fiction "Convention" where a voter discovering that the President candidate uses a computer to get informations on voters to help his election and decides to change her vote. Doesn't-it remind us of the Cambridge Anaklytical recent scandal.....

Rich and Brasseur were made to perform the roles of Fouché and Talleyrand. Of course unless someone masters the French language foreigners will miss all the subtleties of the dialogue, not only the dialogue but also in the silences and looks of the two politicians one to the other. Rich was a fantastic actor and not long before he died he portrayed a remarkable Cardinal Mazarin in the play "Le diable rouge" (The red devil). As for Brasseur he's a great heir of his father's talent Pierre Brasseur.

I think your casting review could at least mention as one of the writers Stephen Sondheim which is the major author of the original musical for Broadway!

When one pretends to write a scenario on a major historical period of ANY country he has the obligation the historical facts of that period. The French Revolution whether one agrees to what happened or not, is a major event of my country. I completely disagree with the idea that It benefited France as one of it consequences was to deprive the country of some of the most illustrious scientist (Antoine Lavoisier father of modern Chemistry for instance), writers (André Chénier famous French poet), etc... of the time. But there is one thing which is intolerable is to transvestite events. Who can seriously imagine that one could escape unnoticed during the minutes between you were called in the prison and driven to the cart which would bring you to the guillotine which by the way was Place Louis XV the actual Place de la Concorde which topography remained the same but for the presence of the Luxor obelisque set much later in the center of the square. The only known and established fact of people escaping the guillotine concerns some of the actors of the Comédie Française. Charles Labussière (1768-1809) was an actor of the theater. He was employed by the "Comité de Salut Public" as he needed money to live. The Committee would establish lists of people who should be forwarded to the Revolution Tribunal last step before the guillotine. Labussière was so distressed to see on the lists names of people he admired, authors, scientists, actors that he imagined a way to slow down their presentation to the tribunal and eventually escape their fate. He would snatch the document concerning those people's names, make a small ball of the paper and soak them in a bucket of wine under his desk. At night after leaving his office he would go to the river and throw the balls of paper in the Seine where they would dissolve and be taken by the current. The Committee did not make copies of the lists so that the Tribunal could not double check the names presented to it. It is estimated that by Labussière's courageous act some 1000 persons escaped the fatal end among them a great number of the Comédie Française actors. Among the famous persons of the time were Florian one of the major french fabulists and Josephine de Beauharnais future wife of Napoleon and Empress during the 1st Empire. As one can imagine Labussière played a very dangerous game as risking his head if he had been discovered. This is history, this movie is nothing but invention without any interesting purpose. Period movies should somehow increase the knowledge of the viewers at the same time it entertain the public. Even Alexandre Dumas novels which contain many errors, have a historical foundation which made the story credible. Michelet History of France also contains approximation but they were due to absence of documents at the time the book was written and would be corrected later. These are valid excuses, in this film nothing can excuse such incoherence. We know the facts for certain today and have to use them.

Although one of the commentators above says that few people have read Tolstoi's book, I think his statement may not be exact. If you're someone who loves to read you must have read War and Peace just as people with a minimum of culture and interest in literature have read Proust, Dumas, Victor Hugo or great American novels by Heminghway or other English writers. As far as I'm concerned I read the book after attending 4 times the superb Paris opera house production of Prokofiev masterpiece staged by Francesca Zambello probably one of the most prestigious production ever made in Paris since Strehler's Nozze di Figaro in 1973 and just as a testimony here is the finale worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aGQmluM_bo. It is rare to see the french public giving a standing ovation as that was the case during all the performances I attended. The emotion was at its highest level. I was so enthralled by the performance that I decided to read the book and did it in just one week of course in French not understanding Russian. I had seen when I was a youngster the American film with Mel Ferrer and Audrey Hepburn. And I decided to watch the Sergueï Bondartchouk one recently and bought the whole set of dvds. The main critic I'll make on this Russian version is its length. At many moments the director could have shortened his shots without in the least damaging the atmosphere of the episode concerned. The acting is of course absolutely astounding from the smallest part to the main characters, the photography is amazing especially the battle scenes which at many moments remind you of the epic paintings which have been realized at that time in the late nineteenth century. One can also regret that the french company which has distributed the film did not have it remastered before putting it on the market. Considering the price of those four dvds one could demand for a perfect picture. Nevertheless the movie is a must see and one should also watch the opera taking into account that Prokofiev used for its libretto a very small part of the novel focusing the action on Andrei, Natacha and Peter and the great battle scenes (Moscow and Napoleon debacle in particular). The Paris cast was mainly Russian with a superb Natacha, Peter and Andrei.

There is a french book called " Paroles du Jour J" literally translatable in "Words from D-Day". It is a 119 pages consisting of letters written on D-Day or a few days or weeks later by soldiers, whatever their ranks who were part of those moments full of tragedy and also courage.The front page of the book shows the face a young guy of 17 Robert Boulanger from Quebec.He was just 18 when he was killed in august 1942 during the attempted invasion at Dieppe. The first words of the introduction to this book by Jean Pierre Gueno are "War is not men story, war is a youngsters story". Watching this movie I felt exactly the same emotions I felt while reading those different letters written by allied soldiers as well as German ones. There's a sense of uselessness in all that war which could have been prevented if only common sense had prevailed in France as well as in England. I'm reading Churchill's book and many times he stresses the huge responsibility of the British government during the period from 1933 to 1939 where it was still possible to stop the incoming massacre which resulted in 60 millions deaths civilians as well as military. The present movie is far more impressive than Saving private Ryan, far more moving and should be seen by all the generations who followed WWII just to teach them not to believe that freedom is something you should merit by your deeds and that we have all our responsibilities if we fail to achieve it.

How can a great actor like Lambert Wilson son of one of the greatest french actor accepts to participate in such a stupid and pathetic scenario and movie. Even the worst of spaghetti movies is better than this monstrosity. How did Ennio Morricone waste his time and talent to compose a score for that! Do those guys have bank accounts problems? Even my concierge would not watch such movie! There are limits not to be overshoot in the production of movies and this one has by far overtaken them showing the total lack of culture of Andrew V. McLaglen as far as knowledge of the Muslim culture, ways. It's a total lack of respect towards a great civilization whatever our feelings are for the extremists we see at work today who also betray their own civilization and faith.

Although not a cult movie, Valley of the kings is a nice entertaining movie. For me it has a special flavor as I had left definitely Egypt 3 years before to settle with my parents in Paris.

I saw the movie when it was released in Paris in 1954. I enjoyed it. It was the occasion to see those magnificent temples and especially Abu Simbel where is shot one of the main scenes. At that time the Assuan Dam had not provoked the disastrous effects we know today nor obliged to move the temple. The faces of Ramses II were not spoiled by the cuts visible today due to the move in several sections of this splendid masterpiece of art and architecture.

It is worth seeing such a movie with a good cast and dream a little to what was the shock in those times for the lucky traveler able to reach them. Imagine what was the shock of Belzoni when he discovered the temple sunk into the sand!

The subject: we know it.

The result: we know it.

The special effects: we know them

The actors: we know them and are not surprised as to the standard of their acting.

But what about the way it presents WWII? We know it: properly self centered as usual.

Who suffered for 5 long years? Europe Who had their country destroyed with Millions of people killed or forever disabled ? Europeans not to speak of the victims of the Holocaust and of course the family for many generations who were irradiated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes the attack on Pearl Harbor was treacherous and lousy. Yes there was more than 3000 guys and civilians killed or wounded.

But why? Because as usual the American people always think they know best and do not to learn from lessons of the past, or of their allies i.e. France (1940), Great Britain, Poland, Belgium, Russia, etc. And after their final victory America again reiterate and forget as for example the causes which led to September 11th. which also cost thousands of victims.

Nationalism, Isolationism is a LUXURY which has always brought hate and revenge. Instead of always asking for God, they should remember this very simple saying: Help yourself and heaven will help you and not the contrary.

This is a very poor picture, with the usual absence of nuance for depicting characters, the good and the bad and we all know how it ends. Millions of dollars have been spent to produce it when they could have been employed to alleviate the suffering of people in some of the towns of the United States.

What a waste!

How can we express our thanks and recognition to those Canadian youngsters who gave their lives for us Europeans, and French in particular. I was only 3 years old in June 1944. I was with my parents one of the few lucky ones not really exposed to the harshness and monstrosity of the filthy German IIIrd Reich. We were the lucky ones to have escaped occupation of Egypt thanks to Monty and his army. What would have happened if El Alamein had not been his victory? The Egyptian government was pro German, few know that.

As someone wrote above, the USA have been up to now considered practically the only one who won the war. When you speak with US citizens and Republicans in particular they just look at you Frenchmen like small fry. They never mention that the Canadians were there, that Commandant Kieffer and his men represented the French on D-Day and many lost their lives. They forget that the French Resistants were also there and helped them prepare that day. They always think they know best and other should keep quiet.They always think they are the best of the best...

But here at last Canada has been remarkably presented and the movie sounds so true that all the parts which have been dramatized merge completely with the news reels. It is terribly moving and unless you have a stone instead of a heart you just can't keep from crying at different moments.

This movie is far more impressive and real than all the Hollywood's super productions of the Spielbergs and Co. It's a must see and I'm astounded that there are only five reviews. How unjust!

This everlasting subject of the relations between the three major leaders in charge of defeating the Nazis and settling a lasting peace in the world benefits here of an original staging.

All along the movie the director gives us the impression that a dialog was set between the three leaders, while in reality we know it was a dialog between deaf guys.

Churchill knew from the beginning that Stalin was a liar, deceitful rascal, FDR was already too ill to oppose the cynical Stalin and had to sustain the eternal isolationism of the American people (we must really thank Japan for Pearl Harbor because otherwise Europe would be one of the Nazi provinces), Stalin was in Russia murdering his opponents, fighting against Germany and would have probably concluded a separate peace treaty with the Nazis if Churchill and FDR had not fallen into the trap he presented them at Yalta.

As far as the casting of the three head of states, the poorest choice was Bob Hoskins impersonating Churchill. He did not have the looks, he did not master the speech. Michael Caine makes a splendid impersonation of Stalin although his face is still far from the dictator's one. John Lithgow is a very credible FDR. As for Harry Hopkins there is no resemblance but this is not important in itself. Molotov aka Jan Tríska was not a bad choice.

There are of course errors in the staging. Stalin used always an interpreter. I'm not even sure he could speak English.

As for the historical facts they are accurate as you can't change such important events which shaped the world history and the fate of millions of people.

The merit of the movie is it emphasizes the blindness of the USA President as regards USSR and the sinister cynicism with which poor Poland and many other eastern countries were treated and still are.

Nothing has changed since, the USA are always the poorest international diplomats abroad because of their stubbornness to impose their language to the rest of the world forgetting that to understand a foreign country's culture and mentality it is mandatory to speak its language. We've seen the result in Irak, in Vietnam, in Egypt, in Lybia and in Afghanistan now. Force is not the sole solution, it generates humiliation and anger. That was the case with Germany which lead to WWII and the Nazis.

Will the lesson be understood one day? I doubt, splendid isolationism which was before the attribute of England, is now anchored in the USA's people mentality whatever their leaders' declarations may be....

I review this movie having watched it diagonally (as we say in french)but I have downloaded it and I'm adding English subtitles to follow the story correctly.

Anyway as a previous reviewer says it's a shame to see how such a story is not viewed by a greater audience.

These are facts without the usual melodramatics so consciously added by American directors.

Perhaps the movie should have been more explicit in the end credits about the facts that it is proved now that the Soviets have murdered that man although they pretended it was not the case. From the beginning his arrest was unlawful and the attitude of the Russians should have been condemned strongly.The allies did not want to hurt the Russians and observed the same attitude they had with the Katin murders.

But what can we expect from a country which is the equivalent of the Nazi regime and which has not change since the Stalin period in spite of their denials?

Today the only remaining interrogation is when did Wallenberg die. There are still searches but they are impaired by the obstacles put to the researchers to consult properly all the archives available and of course many compromising ones must have been deliberately destroyed...

Personally as I wrote in the forum, I feel terribly concerned by those events, my grand parents having disappeared in 1944 in Budapest while the Nazis were fleeing the country.

Altogether, the different scenes I've watched show these events coldly and the actors are very convincing in their different parts.

I've read the negative reviews and the conclusion I draw from them is that their authors obviously refuse to look at the real purpose of the script.

The easy way to look at this movie is to see the courage and determination of those guys to save the Texas battalion from complete destruction. But is it really the point the script writer and the director wanted to stress out?

My answer is no. From my perspective as a French citizen this movie deals from the first image to the last about tolerance, respect of the one who is different from you . The USA after the shock of Pearl Harbor took measures totally inexcusable against citizens born in the country and treated like prisoners of war. In the Army those who nevertheless volunteered to join the allied forces, were like their fellow black compatriots , subject to racist behavior of the white soldiers.

The problem is that the bullet which kills you doesn't care if you're white, black or your skin yellow. The result is for all the same. Loss of life, grief of your companions on the battlefield and in the families and friends far away. For both groups fear is the same. For both groups you try to connect with some unreachable element which you call god with different names and which reassures you and gives you courage.

That's what this movie is all about. Perhaps some of the flashbacks could have been suppressed, but all in all the script is well constructed and the acting very convincing and many times very moving.

Paul Verhoeven has made an excellent movie, the script is interesting and the actors are very good.

The main reproach I'll do to this production is in the first place to fall in the actual pit of thinking that the more you put realistic and gore shots in a movie, the better it is. We all know what the Gestapo's murderers and torturers were capable of doing to their victims. Is it necessary to see those acts of pure sadistic behavior? Absolutely not. They bring nothing to action. The same applies to the first scene with students dinner.

The second reproach is that some situations which I'm absolutely sure could not occur in the relations between Erik Lanshof and Susan as well as his friend Guus.I doubt that in real situation Susan as a secretary of a high ranking officer like Colonel Rafelli, would have intimate relationships with his subordinates. Her familiarity in the presence of her superior is quite impossible. Moreover in the 40s women in these jobs were very cautious and rather prudish. I doubt also that those guys would have such disrespectful conducts before the Queen of Holland, with crude language etc. Many scenes could have been suppressed which would have shortened the movie which is much too long(2h35 minutes); this would have given a more dynamic movie.

Some here are always dissatisfied with that kind of movies; of course Battle of Britain is a masterpiece, but why diminish the real qualities of this movie which gives us from the very man who was in these terrible moments protecting us (I should say "you" as I'm French, but indirectly they protected us; had Britain fallen into the hands of the Berlin monsters it would have been worse than the actual occupation of France we suffered for all of us.)with his fellow pilots.

The power of this movie is summed up in the first phrases of Wellum long after the war. "you can't forget it" he says, and quite probably so true. The power of the movie is to take us right up into the minds and side effects of their jobs at an age when you should think yourself as eternal. Their reactions may seem shocking (see the arrival of Wellum at his station), but they are so true when you fight against fear everyday, well I suppose.

No, this is a great movie as the BBC often produces, full of emotion and I'm not ashamed to have succumbed to it. It was worth seeing.

I find the other reviews very mild in their appraisal of this documentary. What were they waiting for? A Cecil B. De Mille production? A Spielberg one full of blood to make it as gore as possible?

I think this documentary as always all the BBC produces,gave a just balance between realism and testimonies of people who actually were part of the event.Moreover it can be viewed by a public of all ages and when I write this I think of the younger generations who were born well after the end of the war and who are moaning and always complaining for their so difficult life! My God they are lucky and do not realize it.

When you see in the movie what was left of Caen after the invasion, you understand what it was.

When you listen to those veterans who were adolescent when thrown into this nightmare, you wonder how you can sleep again after what you went through.

That's what makes this film a great documentary. No fiction, no stupid love affair mixed in the middle of the script to satisfy the sexual appetite of some viewers. This is real, even if some scenes are taken from different great movies by Spielberg or others.

I watched it, and I wept many times admiring the courage of those men facing the inevitable when they landed on the beaches. I'm 72 and being born in Cairo, I remember our anguish at the time of the Battle of El Alamein, I was just only one year old but I clearly remember how frightened I was by the light of the aerial defense in the sky from my bedroom. And I consider myself to be a lucky one as we never really suffered from the war in Egypt. Thanks, Monty!

Yes this is a very good documentary to be showed regularly so that no one should forget what can happen when extremists whether from the right or the left wing take power.

I enjoyed this movie and it moved me a lot. May be I'm too sentimental and romantic. I think what this movie shows perfectly is this over excitement of all those guys who know that this could be their last days of joy and amusement.

D-Day is near, they know although the date is still a secret. They know that when they'll cross the channel many will loose their lives only a few minutes after they landed.

That's what is the film about. Those guys when they go back in their barracks would probably have nightmares, what do we know of what was going in their heads, they were lonely and needed something to overcome their fears. Some were reckless, others found happiness and kindness far from their home and families.

The cast is excellent and Gere and his comrade are excellent and so true in their acting.

Yes a great movie.