A Bridge Too Far (1977)

I love this movie so much

Admirable film.

A different way of telling a story

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Record breaking war movie, in sheer size of the production. Biggest production ever in movie history. "A Bridge Too Far" tells the true story about the invasion of Holland during WW II, which was bigger in size than D-day in France and which caused more casualties. Greatest cast of movie stars ever ensembled in any movie in the entire seventies, featuring an incredible number of 14 oscar winners: Sean Connery, Robert Redford, Gene Hackman, Michael Caine, Laurence Olivier, James Caan, Anthony Hopkins, Dirk Bogarde, Liv Ullman etc. Acting performances are excellent. How could it have been otherwise, with such an unique cast of movie stars from the seventies. Everybody who was famous at the time played in it. Steve McQueen was the only star that refused to take part, because he wanted a bigger paycheck. Since this huge war movie production was already crumbling under a huge financial burden, Steve McQueen's paycheck demands were rejected.This war movie became the biggest grossing box office hit in Europe, but it didnt do well in America. The film received generally positive reviews from critics, but the film was completely ignored at Oscar time for daring to expose the fatal inadequacies of the Allied campaign. Almost 3 hours long, this movie is a slowburner though, but enticing from beginning to end. Never bored me for a minute. On the contrary, even though I have seen this movie dozens of times I still get excited by it. But I am from the older generation, therefore speed is NOT a necessity for me to enjoy a movie. Young people however may find it a bit long drawn, because there arent Star Wars explosions every 10 minutes. There isnt a happy ending. Therefore lots of people WONT like the ending. The ending is true to life though, because everything is as has happened during World War II. War aint fun, but this movie is still very charming and even very funny at some other moments though. Glorious and suspenseful too. Director Richard Attenborough made a movie that is enjoyable for the entire family, but he also clearly stated that he didnt want to make a movie that glorified the war. The ending of "A Bridge Too Far" is a big downer. You wont feel cheery at the end at all. And that is the explicit intention of the director. War isnt supposed to be an uplifting or feel good experience. Ofcourse not. But movies wont sell if they dont have a hapyy ending. This movie finds a good balance between entertainment and true to life depressing devastation. I must confess that I regularly watch it only for the first 2 and a half hours which are very glorious and suspenseful and even funny. But I do skip the downer part at the last 30 minutes, because I have already seen it so many times and just as everybody else I dont like downers at the end of a movie...Endnote: there is an excellent additional bonus DVD which features hours of real life war footage from World War II including a short documentary about the making of this biggest war movie of all time. The production of this movie was truly insane. But so is war...

Extremely bad plot. Ryan O'Neil is a full general at maybe 30 years old? Impossible to believe. No overview of the ultimate objective. The movie focuses on many lesser scenes--like Sean Connery running from a tank in an alley--that have nothing to do with the plot. Scenes that could be a part of any movie and do not relate to the objective of the bridges. Too many big-name stars that dilute their roles to supporting and nothing more. No coherence between the scenes. The plot is completely lost in all the small scenes and scenarios. Well acted by the stars, but I'm sure they knew it was a horrible script. It's just a disaster of a movie. If you like war scenes, you'll like it, but as a historical story of Montgomery's failed plan to capture these bridges and shorten the war, it completely misses the point. Also, where is Montgomery...the British general who thought up the operation? We need a foil to blame not only the failure of the operation on, but also the failure of the film. The film is as disastrous and expensive as the actual operation.

We begin with what looks like archival World War II footage. After D-Day, the Allies have turned the tide. Now, they expect to defeat the Germans. In September of 1944, with the war's end presumably in sight, American and British forces embark on a mission they hope will win the war by December 1944, so everyone can be home for Christmas. Being home for Christmas is a righteous goal. The mission involves Allied troops going into Dutch territory held by the Germans and gaining control of strategic bridges. History, the title, and tone of this production leaves little doubt about the mission's outcome...Knowing how it ends doesn't always mean a story can't engage. Some stories are so engaging, you can watch them over and over again. We know Superman and Batman will return, but seeing their lives put in danger can still excite. Good story-telling qualities always help. Joseph E. Levine and his director Richard Attenborough are trying to make "A Bridge Too Far" work, but the film is quite exhausting. There is simply not enough story for the length. Back in the 1970s, Mr. Attenborough could not say, "Save it for the director's cut." So, we have excess in effective acting and explosive production scenes...The basic story, of a failed mission, isn't even properly presented. One gets the feeling the Allies should only try to blow-up the bridges. Simply infiltrating German-held territory is a good way to get killed. With great gusto, Edward Fox outlines an impossible mission. Later, poor Dirk Bogarde nonchalantly explains it away. We're not sure if it was a suicide mission. The original "I'll be Home for Christmas" goal is forgotten. The subplots involve an all-star cast, but their characters have little substance. The better performances are given by lesser names, who blend into their undeveloped roles more successfully...Arguably, the leading man is Sean Connery (as Robert Urquhart). He seems to be around most often and appears in command. Like several of the big names in the cast, he is always the Actor in his Role. Even more obvious are Ryan O'Neal and Robert Redford, implicitly and explicitly giving "Hail Mary" passes. Elliott Gould finds his character swinging on a cigar. Gene Hackman ventures into a Polish accent. James Caan shows muscle. The non-Americans are better, with Laurence Olivier blending best into his civilian character. Olivier perfected his movie camera acting in the late 1930s and never looked back...As yet unmentioned are Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins and Maximilian Schell. All are dependable performers and succeed by not sticking out like money-making box-office movie stars. Always good, Liv Ullmann appears later in the running time. There is a distinct line of Swedish acting excellence, running from Greta Garbo through Ingrid Bergman and Ms. Ullmann. They rarely, if ever, give bad performances. Geoffrey Unsworth photography is fine, as expected, but John Addison's music really needed a better story. The production costs are obviously high. But the causalities are even higher.***** A Bridge Too Far (6/15/77) Richard Attenborough ~ Sean Connery, Ryan O'Neal, Robert Redford, Laurence Olivier

A Bridge Too Far is a war film obviously a product of 70's cinema, in that it takes a decidedly uncelebratory route in telling its story. The very fact that it focuses on a famous Allied military disaster is an immediate pointer. Set during the final stages of World War II in 1944, it finds the Allied command in over-confident mood on account of their recent advances on D-Day. The top brass devise a knock-out punch where troops will pierce through Holland from the air and from the ground, taking advantage of low demoralised German numbers. The key being the taking of several bridges, culminating with a crucial one in Arnhem. The problem is that some early warning signs are ignored, which report a much heavier German presence in the area, the operation is given the go ahead regardless only to discover that area is swarming with crack SS troops.Directed by Richard Attenborough, this is an example of a type of film that they simply cannot afford to make any more on account of its ludicrously high calibre ensemble cast. We have Sean Connery, Ryan O'Neal, Anthony Hopkins, Edward Fox, Michael Caine, Dirk Bogarde, Laurence Olivier, Robert Redford, Gene Hackman, Maximilian Schell, Liv Ullman, James Caan and Elliott Gould. It's an unbelievable set of actors to have at its disposal and the film does, for the most part, make good use of them. Not only this but it's visually a treat with beautiful photography and great on-location sets, particularly in Arnhem. The battle scenes were well recreated and it did overall give the feeling of a commendably balanced portrayal of events. This extends to the way that the Germans are depicted, where we have SS men shown in ways that didn't have them as utterly sadistic and evil as is usually the way. This overall measured approach is one that serves this material well in that this is pretty far from jingoistic stuff. It's a pretty doom-laden film in actual fact but I like the fact that it is unafraid to pull its punches and be like this. For this very reason, coupled with the great production values and direction, this remains one of the all-time great war movies for me.