Un pont trop loin

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.

A Bridge Too Far (1977)

Plot In A Paragraph: The story of the Battle of Arnhem during World War II.

Connery has one of the more substantial roles in Richard Attenborough's all star cast. (Said to be the most expensive cast in living memory) Thwre were famous actors everywhere. Gene Hackman, Michael Caine, Robert Redford, James Caan, Elliot Gould, Anthony Hopkins, Edward Fox, Laurence Olivier and Dirk Bogarde amongst others. Connery was General Urquhart in his first combat drop, and again he delivers a solid performance.

Like watching Saving Private Ryan, all I think watching this movie is what a waste of human life. The amount of soldiers whose lives were lost in this operation due to bad planning based on poor intelligence and faulty radios leading to a complete breakdown in communication is staggering!! When told his superior was "proud and pleased" Connery growled that he went in when 10,000 men and came out with less than 2,000.

In a year dominated by the first Star Wars ($300 million) and Smokey & The Bandit ($127 million) A Bridge To Far still managed to gross $50,000, despite being in direct competition with them, to become Connery's biggest hit outside of the Bond Franchise. It ended 1977 as the 7th highest grossing movie of the year. Another best for Connery as no movie he started in outside of the Bond moves had broke the Top 10 grossers of the year.

I applaud Attenborough for having made this movie. What a headache its filming must have been. It's accurate in a sense both material and overall.

His P 47s may be mock ups, but he used genuine World-War-II era M-4 "Sherman" tanks. (God knows how he managed to muster them.) I can't vouch for the German tank -- there is only one shown on screen and it could pass for a Panther. I also admire him for having the daring to make a movie about an unmitigated Allied defeat. As a whole, movies in this genre depict a victory on the part of the nations producing the movie in the first place.

"The Enemy Below," "Zulu," "Torpedo Bay," "Die Brucke," just to give American, British, Italian, and German examples. The list goes on. About the only time we're permitted to witness defeats for "our side" is during a heroic last stand against overwhelming odds ("Bataan") or when the defeat is the result of dirty pool ("Pearl Harbor"). But here, with no excuses, Attenborough delivers a different message entirely.

The performances are as good as can be expected from actors who have so little time to develop their characters. The battle scenes are realistic enough, without their shoving our noses into spilled intestines.

Attenborough is not a splashy director but he has a couple of things go on that are worth noticing. The Dutch citizens who first greet the Allied troops joyfully as liberators wind up being slaughtered and their cities destroyed by the war that is thrust on them. Civilian suffering tends to get short shrift unless one of them is Sofia Loren or somebody. Another worthwhile touch, a small one. The British politely take over one of those large super-scrubbed middle-class Dutch homes as a hospital -- "just for the slightly wounded, Ma'am." And as the first soldiers enter they step over two kids playing with a toy train on a thick creamy rug -- and a few drops of blood sprinkle the carpet.

Two other observations. "The Longest Day" is sometimes compared unfavorably to this film for a number of reasons, many of them justified. But "The Longest Day" was made under restrictions that had been lifted by the time this movie was produced. Zanuck wanted to show more of the slaughter at Omaha Beach but was prevented from doing so. He was similarly prevented by prevailing folkways from showing Allied troops as more brutal. And he originally filmed the closing scene of the movie not with a triumphant parade of victorious infantrymen marching up the slopes to a peppy military tune but with an forlorn, exhausted, empty grunt, sitting at the water's edge and listlessly tossing pebbles into the waves. The scene had to be deleted. A bothersome thing about "A Bridge Too Far" is that, at least as I've seen it on TV, I can't easily tell who is where. In Ryan's book it's easy enough to follow events and characters but, as edited, this movie is pretty confusing. When five of the major actors all show up together on a balcony, it came as a big surprise. I thought Connery and one or two of the others were still trapped behind German lines! I don't know whether this confusion is due to poor editing or a ministroke.

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.