A Bridge Too Far

A pretty effective war film. Sean Connery is excellent playing a military man, strong tough yet witty too. The production values in this are high, the story is easy to follow, it was made in a time when war movies were starting to transition in how they were made and it was possible to get a bit more graphic and real. The film is told not just from the allies side but also the German's and how they set up to defend their positions and regroup. The effects are all very good, Antony Hopkins is here too in an early role, Gene Hackman though is miscast. The production values I thought were superb and it's refreshing to see so much shot for real, I really did feel this was 1940s Holland I was seeing. Saving Private Ryan is now considered the gold standard but this is not too far behind. I can't comment on exactly how accurate it was but it does capture all of the glory and sacrifice and danger and folly of war pretty perfectly.

Quite a few bad things have been written about A Bridge Too Far. Richard Attenborough's elephantine recreation of the battle for several strategically valuable Dutch bridges in the winter of 1944 is a star-studded, lengthy and exhausting film (and many critics at the time seemed to be of the opinion that it collapsed beneath its own weight). Almost thirty years on, the film is now viewed somewhat more favourably. It may feel 30 minutes too long, and the need for so many stars in so many tiny parts is questionable, but A Bridge Too Far successfully shows a fierce episode of the Second World War in all its chaotic glory. Incredibly, there's no use of the computer generated effects during the big battle scenes that it is relied upon in modern films like Gladiator and Troy. The scenes in this film were shot pretty much as you see them - so the 35,000 parachutists storming Holland, the river crossing led by Robert Redford under intense enemy fire, and other such staggering combat sequences were filmed with thousands of extras and a good deal of meticulous planning and preparation.

The film is based upon Operation Market Garden, an Allied plot hatched towards the end of 1944 with the intention of ending the war in Europe. The concept behind the plan was to drop 35,000 soldiers into Holland approximately 60 miles beyond the German lines, to seize six vital bridges, and to reinforce the paratroopers by sending in thousands of ground troops. However, various mishaps jeopardised the mission and eventually the Allies were cut off and had to withdraw, suffering severe losses.

As stellar casts go, A Bridge Too Far still takes some rivalling. Among the many famous actors involved, these are just a few: Sean Connery, Robert Redford, Laurence Olivier, Dirk Bogarde, James Caan, Ryan O'Neal, Gene Hackman, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins and Elliott Gould. It seems pointless for some of the actors to be cast in these roles - true enough, Connery, Bogarde and Hopkins get decent roles and a fair bit of screen time, but was it really worth paying Redford $2,000,000 for his ten minute heroics? Could a decent actor have not handled the role for a fraction of that amount? Is Gene Hackman really the correct choice for Polish officer Major General Stanislaw Sosabowski? Should a light comic actor like Elliott Gould be doing his cigar-chomping "fun" turn in a movie as serious as this?

Luckily, the film is a big success on other levels. The cinematography is extraordinary; the music is suitably stirring; the potentially confusing story is handled with clarity and true-to-the-facts sensitivity; and amid the chaos a number of very memorable scenes emerge. A Bridge Too Far is a very good war film - maybe the biggest war film ever conceived (The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan included) - and I feel that, although it has a few casting flaws, it is in almost every other department a great, great achievement.

I'm not a fan of hyperbole but this may be one of the greatest war movies ever made. It works on a number of levels. While being historically accurate it shows individual and group heroism without glorifying war. The players, German and Allied, are presented as human beings caught up in something bigger than themselves. No attempt is made at "jingoism" or gratuitous flag waving. It seemed to me to be refreshing free of moralistic or political statements. It simply let what happened speak for itself. For a history buff like myself it spoke volumes.

The movie is flawless. As mentioned above, it is surprisingly accurate. As one would expect from the cast, acting is first rate. Not a single scene is wasted.

This is a "must see" movie for anyone who appreciates movie making.

The movie is a cut above most cinematic portrayals of historical events, likely due to it's being based on historian Cornelius Ryan's excellent book, and it's not as overproduced or staged as the film version of another of his books, The Longest Day. The producer admits to crediting one assault to the Americans, when in the event the British were first to attack, but overall the movie relates a good sense of history and geography, and respects the timeline of the actual events. It shows the national and class tensions affecting the Allied leadership, and gives a sense of the character of the participants. The writing gives the plethora of good actors something to work with despite no single leading role (and it's fun to watch so many actors in a single film.) Relevant information is included in the character's dialogue rather than through narration. The editing adds to the flow of events, balancing the suspense borne by the individuals involved with interest and action for the viewer. Add in the Intelligent direction by Richard Attenborough, and it makes this one of my favorite World War Two films.

Even a relatively bad Richard Attenborough movie is a classic.

The final scene with Liv Ulman and Lawrence Olivier evacuating their estate turned into a graveyard is practically worth the price of admission by itself.

This is a sweeping, big budget epic movie with a star-studded cast. Definitely unfocused, but Attenborough pulls it off with considerable historical accuracy and his signature deft touch retelling of this sprawling military debacle. He makes excellent use of his tremendous cast, instead of just having them making appearances. He has plenty of subtle touches like that final scene.

The reception of the movie was hurt I think by its proximity to the Vietnam war. But it has aged very well.