IN: Review: This is an excellent movie. The cast is a great mix of characters and the story is decent. The movie is basically about a well-accomplished doctor stealing the bodies of dead brides and taking them to his home. Once the bodies are at his home, he removes stuff (i hate to use such a general term, but i forget what it was he removed) and puts it into his wife to retain her youth. Then a reporter, Patricia Hunter, investigates the situation and begins to find answers on why the brides were dying. She takes a trip to the doctors house and the interesting things begin to take place. Definitely watch this oldie, but goodie if you can.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: It's hard for me to assign the "fair" number of stars to this film, but I settled on 8 because of its high production values and what was, in 1968, an innovative approach to the war film. Remember too that I haven't seen it since 1969. But it did make a strong impression.

The Long Day's Dying must be one of the most vivid antiwar films ever made. It achieves this simply by portraying in extremely realistic terms the actions of a handful of soldiers in Northwestern Europe in 1944-45. No film before this one showed war at the infantry squad level with so much brutal detail, and all in a coldly dispassionate way that lets the actions speak for themselves. There is no preaching, no sentimentality, no comic relief, no complicated scenarios.

Unfortunately, there's no subtlety either. Partly because of their situation - trying to stay alive - the characters come across as flat, familiar cliche's. As "entertainment," the film doesn't make it, though it was clearly not intended to "entertain." It was intended to slug you over the head with the misery and horror of World War II and modern war in general. This was twenty years before Platoon and thirty before Saving Private Ryan, both of which are far more "watchable" films. Here the flat and generally disagreeable characters, the lack of an actual plot, and the realistically unpleasant images (including what may be the first on-screen vomit in theatrical history) make the film hard to sit through, though it is only 95 minutes.

So, 10 stars for production and realism, 4 stars for the feeling you'll have when it's over, a bonus star for having its heart in the right place. Average: 8.

Like Carl Foreman's underrated "The Victors," an equally downbeat but more interesting and thought-provoking film, The Long Day's Dying seems not to be on DVD. Why not? Both films have been on cable a number of times.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Apparently most viewer knows nothing about the history of Europe, including Germany, Hungary and the whole Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Hitler and Stalin Era. Nuremberg (and a lot of forgotten trials all over Europe) was a revenge and injustice of the winners. What do you think, why were not any American, British, French or Soviet defendants after the WWII? There were no American, British etc. war crimes? There were no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Tokyo, no Dresden, no Hamburg, no Berlin, no Katyn and so on? The Germans had war crimes too, but in Nuremberg the justice was not a real consideration. The main point was: Vae victis! Germany must perish! (That was also a book title in America, 1941.)

This film is an awful, ignoble American brainwashing instrument, full of error, lie, propaganda, prejudice and injustice. And first of all: full of hypocrisy. But not surprisingly... Why wasn't enough the Nuremberg process itself? This film is a nightmare. Total darkness after 60 years! This darkness (and hate and narcissism and lack of self-criticism) is the real cause of the massacres in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq and so forth. And there are no American war criminals... Bravo, America! Very clever. Even Stalin would become envious of it...
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Every second of the film is gorgeous. And that's why it earns a 7, because the plot is not especially devious, and thinking back over the last 90 minutes I never really felt any excitement or investment in the characters. If anything, the luxurious graphics and framing have made certain scenes (the car chase, for instance) more pedestrian than they ought to be - not that they don't look lovely and have some very original design and occasionally novel camera angles - but they are missing the kinetic movement and close-up shots that are part of the language for any normal action/thriller. The first hour plods along, and the dialogue feels very edited and a bit stagey - people wait for each other to finish and don't always react in a natural cadence, which would be a problem of recording each individual's dialogue separately. On rare occasions the emotions in the voices don't quite match those on screen; something that should really have been avoided. The futuristic architecture is very attractive (lots of glass walls/ceilings/screens, lovely smoke/mirage/special effects) and nice-looking cars, but again - it's more an exercise in graphic design, having no real impact on the story. I'd argue that the whole point of using drawn animation (instead of actors/CGI) is to really push the limits of imagination and design; to do that which is too difficult/impractical in other mediums. Although the animation in Renaissance is certainly stunning and incredibly well-accomplished, I never felt like I was seeing something that hasn't been done before.

Immortel, another French CGI film, also suffers from an imbalance of beauty over story & pace. To be fair, some marvellous and engaging French movies also have a languid pace, and lingering shots of the look in someone's eyes or the rain on Paris cobbles can evoke great emotion - but animators need to understand that while animation brings unique strengths, it also has weaknesses when compared to real-life technique. Perhaps it would break from the 'noir' rules that the film wants to stick to, but I think the film-makers also missed a glaring opportunity to explore their future society a bit more - the social strata, the fascistic grip of the corporations etc.

I have no problem recommending Renaissance to anybody who enjoys stylistic design and/or animation ('Manga' fans in particular), but I wouldn't make my other film-loving friends sit through it. Take away the sumptuous visuals and it's a barely average film.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive