What so great about THE LONGEST DAY?

Oddly, this is one of those all-star films that plays better today than in did when it was first released in the early sixties: back then, some reviewers found all the celebrity cameos distracting, but to modern audiences, guys like Paul Anka and Sal Mineo don't register.

But others like John Wayne and Richard Burton sure do.

What makes it great is its structure and pacing. There's at least 25 big actors in it, yet the performances are universally good, the stories a picture of efficiency in screen-time. The invasion of Normandy was an incredibly complex operation, yet the major events are all covered with a minimum of fuss.

And they're memorable. Richard Burton commenting on his friend "Johnny" now being "At the bottom of the channel," and how "the few are getting...fewer." John Wayne succinctly telling his troops to, "Send 'em to Hell!" Richard Beymer and company walking on one side of a stone wall in plain sight of the Germans who are walking past them on the other side of it!

Plus there's a dozen resonant lines of dialogue that stick with you: "Hold until relieved." "So much for the Luftwaffe!" "You know those ships you say they don't have? Well--they've GOT them!" "Sometimes I wonder who's side God is on." And more.

No, the combat is not (blessedly) as realistic as Private Ryan. And it's in black and white, which some find annoying (personally, I like it--adds to the documentary-like feel of the picture). But it's always entertaining, with a surprising amount of humor (something sorely lacking in A Bridge Too Far, the other Cornelius Ryan book to be filmed) and a terrific score.

It's a fast 3 hours, let me tell you. And it's clean enough to be watched by children--I recall sitting with my father when I was 8 or 9 and watching it. I was hooked, watching it every year in early June (naturally) until that final scene ("I wonder who won?") would play out at almost 1 am.

I never tire of it. But even for those who don't like war pictures, it's still worth seeing as a well-organized (by Darryl Zanuck) film exercise in how to entertainingly tell a complicated tale with 10 leads and 25 star appearances. As a film, it's underrated as hell.

What defines a "Modern"-era film? To me, the critical years are 1939-1941, and the two films I am going to reference from that period are Gone With the Wind (GWTW), and Citizen Kane. Before Kane and GWTW, film was in its infancy; afterward, anything seemed possible.

Now, this is not entirely true, of course. Those of you who have seen Intolerance, Greed, The Last Laugh, and Abel Gance's Napoleon know of the power and glory of silent films. But when talkies became de rigeur in the late twenties, all of a sudden the medium was constricted by the limits of sound recording. The camera stopped moving for a time, and all people did was talk and talk and talk--it's probably no coincidence that there were more screwball comedies in the 30's than sweeping epics (Mutiny on the Bounty is about the only memorable one from that time).

And then, 1939 and GWTW. As an effort in film-making and story-telling, it's just as entertaining today as when it was released. The performances have aged well; the photography is gorgeous; the music stirring; and Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable simply captivating. If one could forgive the occasional racist portrayal (as in Prissy), it would still be well received if released sight-unseen today. And what a year for director Victor Fleming! People forget that he did not only GWTW, but also the Wizard of Oz both in the same year. Wow--imagine Spielberg completing ET one month and starting Schindler's List the next. It's that impressive.

In 1941 came Kane. Sometime I'll dissect it in greater detail (because modern audiences seem not to understand what the big deal is about) but here was a tale from Orson Welles and screenwriter Herman Manckiewicz that revolutionized the potential of film: 1) It established non-linear story-structure as a viable medium 2) It utilized the camera to its fullest capacity (must recognize the great Gregg Toland here, for he was the DP on it) 3) It succeeded on multiple, multiple levels: As a roman a clef bio of W.R. Hearst, as a mystery tale (almost film noir), as an acting vehicle for the 25 year old (!) Welles, as a debut directing vehicle for the 25 year old Welles (!!), and as a damned good and enjoyable picture that still entertains sixty-five years later.

Without Kane, there's no Pulp Fiction; without GWTW, there's no Titanic. Before 1939 films often seemed stodgy and stagey; after 1941, the medium was thrust into its maturity.

If you doubt this, watch the Best Picture winners from 1935, 36 and 37, and then watch the ones from 1948, 49, and 50. The difference in acting and film-making prowess is astounding, beyond any other 15 year period of motion picture history since the advent of talking pictures.

So the next time Kane or GWTW come on the tube, show a little respect. They laid a lot of groundwork for some great familiar films to come.

What's so awful about KING KONG?

Don't get me wrong--I'm a big Peter Jackson fan. Loved LOTR--especially Fellowship. I even enjoyed The Frighteners.

But Kong left me cold. And one word explains it all: Editing. Or maybe Pacing, which is a function of Editing.

The original Kong was barely 100 minutes long. And it moved--fast. No wasted shots (not when each effects sequence took weeks to film in stop-motion!) No superfluous characters. And what you got is a classic that inspired more film-makers than almost any other (it's continually mentioned by directors).

The new Kong was three hours--almost twice as long. The initial NY sequences were great--the zoo, the Depression-era allusions--but it took much to long to get on the boat. I believe Skull Island was reached in about 45 minutes at the earliest. So, when two hours later Kong is scaling the Empire State Building, I was fatigued; I was tired--and wishing Kong could climb a little faster.

A bunch of over-wrought, overly-lengthy sequences come to mind: the slow typing of the words "Skull Island," the endless slo-mo of the natives, the endless falling of the Brachyosaurus's, the truly endless V. Rex (yes, not a T. Rex but a V. Rex) fight, the incredibly endless chase through NY after Kong escapes (which includes an odd little skate on a Central Park pond!).

It all made for a 3 out of 5 star, 3 hour film that's still pretty good despite its faults (I've watched it twice). And yet to this Peter Jackson fan it was a disappointment, for I wanted to love this film, buy the multi-DVD set, watch it a time or two a month for a year. It was not to be, however.

But you know what? I think it's salvagable. Somewhere there's a 5 out of 5 star film lurking within that 3 hour one. Only this one's only about 2 1/2 hours long. And Jack Black isn't a cynical SOB but a hypo-manic, overly optimistic sort like the original Carl Denham was back in '33. There are so many stunning sequences and shots in Jackson's film, I don't understand how it could have been so misassembled and mis-directed; for one, I don't see how Naomi Watts could have been so damn good but Adrien Brody so damn dull. Was PJ blinded by the effects shots? Was it too much for him--had he gotten to close to the material, having worshipped at Kong's alter since he was a child?

In my personal film disappointment history, it is exceeded only by Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. And that's sayin' somethin'!

Let's hope he doesn't tackle Godzilla. Oh wait--Roland Emmerich already butchered that one.