![The Longest Day [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/e/ec/50x50px-ZC-ec673344_B00158K0RY-51nA9W-0S1L.jpg)
What do you say about a film that no longer looks quite like film?
The Longest Day (1962) is a huge cinematic recreation of 6 June 1944, and the Allied invasion of France as envisioned by one of the greatest names of the golden age of American cinema -- Darryl F. Zanuck. Those who don't know who Mr. Zanuck was need to find the time to do a bit of research. You'll find his name attached to some of the most important films created during six decades.
Photographed in black & white in 35mm CinemaScope, with re-issue engagements blown up to 70mm, The Longest Day is a textbook of precisely what one could do with properly exposed black & white negative 45 years ago.
From white to blacks, and the gray scale in between, this disc has it all and nicely rendered for the nuance of grays.
The cast reads like a dictionary of actors of the era: John Wayne, Richard Burton, Red Buttons, Richard Beymer, Eddie Albert, Bourvil, Sean Connery, Mel Ferrer, Henry Fonda, Steve Forrest, Gert Frobe (Goldfinger), Alexander Knox, Peter Lawford, Sal Mineo, Robert Mitchum, Kenneth More, Edmond O'Brien, Robert Ryan, Richard Todd, and possibly every other actor then in SAG.
Until the arrival of Saving Private Ryan a decade ago, this was THE Normandy invasion film.
The interesting technical point that we now reach is the question of what a film should look like on Blu-Ray.
How much like "cinema" should it look?
Should it retain grain?
Should the image be cleansed?
And it is on this point that many people agree to disagree.
While I'm firmly in the "keep the grain" and eliminate noise reduction camp, there are those who prefer to have less (or no) grain, and prefer their images nice, bright, tidy and clean. Very, very clean.
While I enjoyed seeing The Longest Day on Blu-Ray, I was unable to recognize it as film. There was no look of the cinema, except for some occasional white vertical scratches that remain.
To my eye, the image appears to be highly processed, removing grain, and with it, much of the high frequency information that can be so easily replicated in the wonderful Blu-Ray system. This is what high definition Blu-Ray is all about. Facial tonalities as they are, take on the look similar to wax figures in Madame Tussauds. I'm thinking back here to Paramount's HD
release of The Untouchables which was devoid of detail.
Let me be absolutely clear.
I would bet that the majority of the audience for this film will either never recognize the fact that it no longer looks like film, or loves the look.
Possibly I'm just a purist.
Can I recommend a disc that has been processed to look a bit like Bambi?
Sure.
Do I like it?
No.
Will many people care?
Probably not.
The Longest Day is superb filmmaking, bought to Blu-Ray by Fox in what appears to be a nicely cleaned version.
Recommended.
RAH
The Longest Day (1962) is a huge cinematic recreation of 6 June 1944, and the Allied invasion of France as envisioned by one of the greatest names of the golden age of American cinema -- Darryl F. Zanuck. Those who don't know who Mr. Zanuck was need to find the time to do a bit of research. You'll find his name attached to some of the most important films created during six decades.
Photographed in black & white in 35mm CinemaScope, with re-issue engagements blown up to 70mm, The Longest Day is a textbook of precisely what one could do with properly exposed black & white negative 45 years ago.
From white to blacks, and the gray scale in between, this disc has it all and nicely rendered for the nuance of grays.
The cast reads like a dictionary of actors of the era: John Wayne, Richard Burton, Red Buttons, Richard Beymer, Eddie Albert, Bourvil, Sean Connery, Mel Ferrer, Henry Fonda, Steve Forrest, Gert Frobe (Goldfinger), Alexander Knox, Peter Lawford, Sal Mineo, Robert Mitchum, Kenneth More, Edmond O'Brien, Robert Ryan, Richard Todd, and possibly every other actor then in SAG.
Until the arrival of Saving Private Ryan a decade ago, this was THE Normandy invasion film.
The interesting technical point that we now reach is the question of what a film should look like on Blu-Ray.
How much like "cinema" should it look?
Should it retain grain?
Should the image be cleansed?
And it is on this point that many people agree to disagree.
While I'm firmly in the "keep the grain" and eliminate noise reduction camp, there are those who prefer to have less (or no) grain, and prefer their images nice, bright, tidy and clean. Very, very clean.
While I enjoyed seeing The Longest Day on Blu-Ray, I was unable to recognize it as film. There was no look of the cinema, except for some occasional white vertical scratches that remain.
To my eye, the image appears to be highly processed, removing grain, and with it, much of the high frequency information that can be so easily replicated in the wonderful Blu-Ray system. This is what high definition Blu-Ray is all about. Facial tonalities as they are, take on the look similar to wax figures in Madame Tussauds. I'm thinking back here to Paramount's HD
release of The Untouchables which was devoid of detail.
Let me be absolutely clear.
I would bet that the majority of the audience for this film will either never recognize the fact that it no longer looks like film, or loves the look.
Possibly I'm just a purist.
Can I recommend a disc that has been processed to look a bit like Bambi?
Sure.
Do I like it?
No.
Will many people care?
Probably not.
The Longest Day is superb filmmaking, bought to Blu-Ray by Fox in what appears to be a nicely cleaned version.
Recommended.
RAH
).
At least he wasn't rude about it.
