Watch D-Day the Sixth of June For Free

Just perfect...

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

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

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

In my opinion the movie has some strong acting and is good entertainment. The casting was successful as the characters worked well with each other. The action was powerful and, for the time, realistic. For a movie solely for entertainment, I would definitely recommend it.However, personally I was using it as part of a movie analysis project about D-Day and WWII. This is where I would agree with other comments saying that it is misleading and has little to do with the history of WWII and D-Day. In fact I have had trouble even locating any historical information surrounding the Special Force Six raid at all.Thus, this could have been set during any event in WWII and still have been been a successful movie for entertainment, but nothing your history teacher would show in class.

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.

Another big-budget WWII adventure, filmed in color and widescreen by Fox in the '50s - and a misleadingly titled one, as it barely concerns the crucial 1944 Normandy invasion it references (not surprisingly Fox returned to this subject, and tackled it much more comprehensively, in THE LONGEST DAY [1962])! As a matter of fact, the film's one genuine battle sequence, while quite well done, occurs only after having gone through some 80 minutes of incessant talk; the bulk of this footage is devoted to a romantic triangle, told in lengthy flashbacks, which comprises American Robert Taylor and Brits Richard Todd and Dana Wynter, plus a rather irrelevant subplot involving maverick Colonel Edmond O'Brien! That said, the film is glossily proficient and remains highly watchable as the kind of unassuming entertainment turned out on a general basis by Hollywood in its heyday...

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.