User reviews

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.

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.

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.

"Quite frankly," observes 'Boy' Browning, "this kind of thing's never been attempted before." But it has. In 1962, "The Longest Day" gave the epic star-studded treatment to the D-Day landings, and here we are, 15 years on, doing the same for the Arnhem debacle. It has to be said, the film looks great. From the gently-tinkling light fittings in the Dutch resistors' home to the beauty of the tank tracks in perspective, this is a gorgeously-photographed movie.

In 1944, the German armies were being pushed back across the Low Countries. The Allies' great strategic problem was the Rhine, the wide river which formed Germany's western border. A daring plan was conceived which would overcome the Rhine obstacle and open the road to Berlin. 'Market Garden', as the plan was codenamed, involved parachuting spearhead units onto the great bridges over the Rhine and securing them for the critical few hours it would take for an armoured column to drive up and relieve them.

It is easy now to point to the flaws in 'Market Garden', but at the time it looked like a daring and viable alternative to slogging it out against the Siegfried Line. No-one had anticipated that the Dutch people would pour out onto the streets in throngs, thinking that they had been liberated, and thus bog down the armour. The intelligence indications of heavily-equipped German units in the zone were ignored because they were inconvenient. Critically, the plan allowed for only one solitary road to be available to the Irish Guards for the all-important northward thrust. The film illustrates very effectively the way in which a plan can develop its own momentum, regardless of the shortcomings which riddle it.

The sequence of the boarding and dropping of the paratroops is a thrilling spectacle, shot on a colossal scale. The German ambush which delays the rolling of the armoured column is another terrific action sequence. Attenborough keeps tight control of a big, complex story, and interlards the large-scale stuff with 'human scale' passages, like James Caan's rescue of his buddy (incidentally, the tracking shot which follows his jeep through the forest is quite remarkable).

The fighting at Nijmegen is brilliantly-filmed. Note how the street on the British side grows increasingly littered with war debris as the battle rages. Robert Redford's assault across the river is a symphony in olive drab, leading to a wonderful moment of exhilaration.

Whether the viewer finds the singing of "Abide With Me" moving or grossly sentimental will depend on personal taste, but the subdued ending is very satisfying. 'Market Garden' may have helped shorten the war and may have achieved most of its immediate objectives, but it has to be seen as a tragic mistake.

The film is slick, professional and very pleasing on the eye. One can't help wondering, however, if this kind of 'tank opera' was worth the effort, given that "The Longest Day" had done it all so splendidly a generation earlier.

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 couple of the comments I've read here are mistaken. For a start,

the film wasn't a flop at all. Producer Joseph E Levine, who used to

finance films out of his own pocket in the days when that was still

possible, spent $22 million on it and saw it earn $4 million profit

before it was even released! (Don't ask me how - something to do

will selling to distributors country by country.)

And to those who say there are inaccuracies, don't tell that to the

screenwriter, William Goldman. He says he researched the story

meticulously and had to leave stories out because there was so

much more he could have written about.

How do I know this? From his marvellous book Adventures in the

Screen Trade and its sequel, Which Lie Did I Tell?

When A Bridge Too Far was released in America, a lot of the US

critics questioned its veracity: for instance, in the scene where

James Caan threatens the doctor. Some also remarked that Ryan

O'Neal was too young to play a general, when in fact he was the

right age for Brig Gen Gavin. But if Goldman had written dialogue

into the script to explain that Gavin was the Allies' youngest

general, it would have been like saying "don't think of pink

elephants". In other words, viewers would have assumed he'd put

it in to explain away O'Neal's casting.

For anyone who loves movies these books are required reading. If

you can, also check out Hype and Glory, half of which is about

Goldman being a judge at the Cannes Film Festival.

"Private Ryan" may have served up more blood and guts, but it had a fanciful plot and it didn't really tell audiences anything about D-Day. By contrast, "A Bridge Too Far" is like something the History Channel would produce; it's full of maps and narration and endless tactical discussions that, amazingly enough, really held my attention - and really enlightened me about the battle of Market Garden.

It helps that the ensemble cast is great - perhaps the best ever assembled - and the characterization, though a bit thin (as in most war movies), is certainly good enough considering how heavily the plot dominates. The film's one major weakness is that it telegraphs the battle's result from too early on; all the smart characters think that the operation will be a disaster, and lo and behold, it's a disaster.

I love this movie anyway, maybe because of the production style, which is more realistic than the cornball war films of previous decades but not quite so over-the-top as "Private Ryan." The battles are both thrilling and terrifying, a nicely struck balance. When the end credits roll, I always feel tired - like the characters - which is a testament to how involving (and effective) the movie is.

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.

Movie is a spectacle on the production levels with set design to buildings being destroyed a soldiers the goal and all the high value actors they have in it.

Movie has is incredible actors in the youth of their careers doing incredible stuff. I think about the scene with the soldiers on the river bank, the British soldiers fighting in the streets slowly being destroyed.

All of the practical effects people falling from sky , buildings being destroyed I think this movie is amazing when it comes to showing the aftermath and the destruction that war brings.

And soldiers are wonderful they have been giving an impossible task and they are still trying to fill it even if there have been given to little resources to do it. The soldier still giving it their Alle even if it is a poorly made plan.

The thing I didn't like about the movie is its length. I think it's a bit too long and editing is confusing sometimes. I don't know where I'm supposed to be in these 3 to 4 different places.

It is always interesting seeing parts of the second world war that is less explored and this is certainly one of those good times.

Realistic or not, the director/producer/whomever is responsible for this movie wallows in long, drawn out scenes. If it's blood, it's bloooood. If it's rain, it's raaaaaaaaaaain. None of that moves the plot along. It only serves to drag out the film. They could easily cut an hour, maybe more, and still tell the story with respect and honor to those who were involved in the actual mission. The movie The Longest Day was far and away a better use of time, even at the length it is.

Although A Bridge Too Far, the story of the Allied failed offensive operation in the Netherlands known as Market Garden is based on a book by Cornelius Ryan who also wrote The Longest Day, it doesn't quite reach the classic heights of that film. Maybe because the Allies don't quite reach their objective and pay a terrible price.

I'm not quite sure that Dwight D. Eisenhower did not leave World War II with the biggest migraine headache of all time, having to contend with all the egos he did there. You can read the various memoirs and books about his subordinates, both British and American and the common thread that runs through all of them is how if Ike only listened to me, the war would have been over six to nine months earlier in Europe. And the sad thing is he had to balance military with domestic political considerations for both countries.

The events of September 17-25 of 1944 are what A Bridge Too Far depict. The idea was for Allied Airbourne Divisions both American and British to take a series of bridges in the Netherlands to facilitate the Rhine crossing into the Ruhr Valley of Germany. This was and is Germany's industrial heartland. Imagine if you will an operation to take bridges across the Ohio River to invade the industrial mid-west in the USA and you have some idea. Then the ground troops would invade and link the various isolated airborne troops and everybody go across the Rhine and into Germany.

In his memoirs one the best British commanders of World War II, Sir Brian Horrocks said that if the Allies had known that the Germans had mined the Schelde estuary leading to the port of Antwerp, Market Garden might have been feasible. If they had the use of Antwerp, because they had taken it at considerable cost, a steady supply line might have been available and half of what you see in A Bridge Too Far wouldn't have happened. The other big failure of Market Garden was the lack of usable roads to get the Allied tanks over. Horrocks is played by Edward Fox in the film and he's in command of ground troops. The Airborne Commander is Frederick 'Boy' Browning played by Dirk Bogarde.

The best role in the film is that of Sean Connery as the Commander of the most forward of the Allied Airborne armies playing General Roy Urquhart. It's quite true as depicted in the film that Urquhart was prone to airsickness. Urquhart spent nine days at the bridge too far as it turned out at Arnhem. He very nearly became a prisoner of war as his very graphically shown. Had the Germans captured Urquhart he would have been the highest ranking Allied General taken prisoner since General Richard O'Connor in the African desert in 1940.

Lots of American and British name players populate director Richard Attenborough's cast. Ryan O'Neal is General James M. Gavin a hero at D-Day whose 82nd Airborne was put under British command and did their job. Robert Redford is a major who makes a heroic attempt to rescue Connery's forces. James Caan has a nice part as an Army sergeant who forces a tired army doctor played by Arthur Hill at gunpoint to operate and save his lieutenant's life.

One of the best scenes in the film is Laurence Olivier as a Dutch doctor who is treating Allied wounded at Liv Ullman's house who goes and asks for a truce to get his wounded into the tender care of the Nazis. S.S. General Hardy Kruger would just as soon kill them all, but Maximilian Schell as German commander Bittner allows the truce.

One thing I loved about A Bridge Too Far is John Addison's music score for the film. It's right on par with the theme from The Longest Day that Paul Anka wrote.

Military historians will love A Bridge Too Far, it's a great example of one of the 'what ifs' of history.

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.

Director Richard Attenborough's ambitious WWII drama is the last of the real epics. There would never again be a big-budget Hollywood re-creation of an actual campaign with as many international stars and colossal battle scenes. As a critic, I don't know whether to be disappointed or thankful.

This is a really fine film. Despite its lengthy running time, it's historically accurate and loaded with amazing performances. If you're a history buff, the length shouldn't bother you; but if you enjoy typical Hollywood heroics, don't even bother picking this one up.

In the fall of 1944, Montgomery devises a plan to bring an end to the Second World War swiftly. The plan requires Allied paratroopers to drop 300 miles behind the German lines in Holland, where they will secure three important brides. Then, armored units will punch through, linking up the three brides and providing a stable route into the heart of German's center of manufacturing. As the Allied forces launch their attack, Attenborough fills the screen with amazing wide shots of tanks, planes and parachutes. The execution of the plan is a beautiful affair, and at first it's hard to believe that this operation would turn into one of history's biggest disasters. As soon as the first parachutist lands, things begin to go wrong.

Performances are stellar all-around. On the British side, Anthony Hopkins is a standout as Colonel Frost, whose paratroopers capture the end of one bridge but get more than they bargained for. He and his men hold out despite overwhelming assaults by the SS and Panzer units. Dirk Bogarde ("The Password is Courage") makes Lt. Gen Browning despicable jerk, as he sneers at anyone who criticizes Montgomery's plan; he says with self-assurance "We shall seize the bridges… with thunderclap surprise and hold them until they can be secured," as if nobody stands in the way. Sean Connery ("The Longest Day") and Michael Caine ("Zulu") turn in fine performances as well. Gene Hackman ("First to Fight") is a Polish Colonel who is skeptical of the plan, and easily the best performer among the large ensemble. Attenborough also pays tribute to the Americans, although Ryan O'Neal, Elliott Gould and James Caan ("Submarine X-1") are all limited to cameo roles. Robert Redford ("War Hunt") is a standout in a short segment as Major Cook, whose men have to make an assault on a German garrison in small rubber boats under heavy artillery and machine-gun fire. The Germans are portrayed as humans, not demonic Nazis: Maximilian Schell ("Cross of Iron") is a dedicated officer who is merciful to prisoners; Hardy Kruger ("The Battle of Neretva") is dedicated to holding his bridge; and Wolfgang Preiss ("Anzio") gets to do a bit of Hitler-bashing near the film's opening.

Attenborough places his characters in the midst of huge, chaotic battle sequences. The camera captures hundreds of planes, tanks, vehicles and extras, but also goes into the trenches with the grunts. Both the spectacle and personal struggle are emphasized. The best of these sequences, hands-down, is the aforementioned river crossing. An American battalion must cross the Rhine in flimsy rubber rafts, while German fire rains down; once they get across the river, they have to punch through the German lines and then move onto a bridge rigged for demolition. This sequence is intense and magnificently shot, with a great concluding scene.

There are two major thorns in the side of this film, though, which hampers it's effectiveness from the first scenes until the conclusion. It's frustratingly slow-paced, and seems to take days to slog through a three-hour running time. The plot is about planning a mission, sitting around and waiting to execute it, then executing it and having to wait some more for information, reinforcements, supplies… the movie about waiting for things to happen, not about things happening.Roughly the first third of the film is spent clarifying who the main characters are and what they will do. Since the actual campaign was so massive, the film has to be massive to cover all of the details… too massive, in fact. The other flaw is that there are so many characters, and so much going on, that you can't really appreciate the sacrifices made because before there's a chance for an impact to be made, the actors are shuffled offstage to make room for the next big cameo appearance. The three aforementioned massacre sequences, Caan's one big scene in the hospital and Hopkins' character are the only ones who make any major impact.

Still, one can't help but enjoy a movie like this, at least to an extent. It's got some of the biggest and best choreographed battle scenes ever shot and contains some of Hollywood's biggest stars of the 1970s. It may look and sound like a history lesson, but it's an interesting and exciting lesson to learn.

A Bridge Too Far was the last of a long line of the "General's" war-films that came out of Hollywood since WWII. Afterwards, the production for these films wavered, probably because of the fact that A Bridge Too Far did not fare so well in the box office.

One of the main reasons A Bridge Too Far did not succeed as it might have was because of the American audience. The film was a) targeted towards a British audience and b) made very soon after the end of America's involvement in Vietnam. The combination of time and subject killed the film. But anyone can tell you that every time this film is shown on a TV broadcast, the ratings are quite high.

The film itself, contrary to what many would claim, IS NOT another glorification of American heroism. While there is a certain American involvement which is rightly due, the film is very much centered on the Brits at Arnhem. Afterall, they were the ones that got massacred, right? Adding to that, the initial setup of the operation (which the film took surprisingly long to cover, and probably killed off the interest of the average movie-goer/critic) was almost solely concerned with the British planning, with one or two references to the American G.I. (I guess they had to put in those mini-episodes of American servicemen to attract the American viewing public).

But enough about the bad side of the film, now onto the amazing part:

This is the first film I have seen from that generation to create a realistic picture of what the setting was like (down to the very streets and houses of Holland, which, for comparison, The Battle of the Bulge managed to get ALL wrong --- as a sidenote: if you have seen the aforementioned film, have you noticed how during the climatic battle, tanks drove across a DESERT? The battle took place in January during the WORST winter storm of Europe in Belgium... and how they managed to convince the public that if a tank is painted with an iron cross, even though it's an American M48 main battle tank built in the late 50's, that it must be a German Tiger tank... sorry for the rambling). I am most impressed by the Arnhem bridge itself (sadly, they dedicated much too short a sequence of cheering soldiers to the bridge at Grave, which is probably one of the greatest Allied success EVER for a bridge assault, up there with Remagen and Pegasus), which is shot on location with probably the most accurate feel of just how desperate the situation was (and none of Private Ryan's heroism/John Wayne-invincibility either).

Characters are excellently portrayed, although how they really acted historically might be somewhat different. Camera-work was phenomenal, given the difficulty of shooting on scene (they couldn't close down the Arnhem Bridge for extended periods of time, one must realize). The most dramatic sequence was probably the launch of the planes and the subsequent breakout by XXX Corps, which to this day remains my favourite battle sequence in any movie (yes, even when compared with the Omaha scene from Saving Private Ryan).

Like the movie, my review has become unnecessarily long. But to conclude, this film deserves a good watch, or maybe even a couple of viewings, for any serious history/war-film lover or those who just want to learn more about those who have sacraficed so much for us. 9/10.

If the Joseph Levine hadn't been obsessed with making this movie, I doubt it ever would have ever existed. The material was fascinating, the acting first rate, direction flawless and the overall production values top flight. But, at 3 hours and a few hundred characters, it was just too long. Watching the movie, it seemed obvious to me that there was just no way to cut the movie down and maintain the integrity of the story and moral. It is a shame that it is difficult to watch since the potential impact is very affirming.

'A Bridge Too Far' was never a blistering success at the box office when it was originally released in 1977. People felt that World War II films were a little 'old hat' by then, so there wasn't as much interest in it as there possible could have been if it was released a couple of decades earlier.

Plus, when the history textbooks are studied, you hear a lot about the D-Day landings, the Battle of Britain and so forth. However, 'Operation Market-Garden' rarely gets a mention. It was an audacious plan by the Allies to take four bridges in only a few days time in the middle of German-held Europe, thus ensuring a vital route of supplies is maintained to the Allied forces fighting on the frontline.

A plan of this magnitude and intricacy could only be done justice on an epic scale. And, to the film's credit, it does just that. It has a stellar ensemble cast, including such greats as Sean Connery, Anthony Hopkins and Michael Caine, all of which play different Allied military personnel at various points of the mission.

Without wishing to give too much away, perhaps one aspect of the film's success may be down to the fact that the 'goodies' don't necessarily win. It's unlikely that most of us would appreciate a World War II film where the Germans come out on top, however, history was not kind to Operation Market-Garden. It went ahead and, in one Allied General's own words "Was over 90% successful." Unfortunately, a catalogue of errors – some manmade and others beyond the Allies' control – contributed to it being labelled one of the biggest mission failures of the latter half of the war.

If you like your war films, you should love this. It's big, powerful and doesn't pull many punches when it shows the horror of what soldiers on all sides went through. You need to be okay with ensemble casts. There could probably be a film made about every character featured in this film. But there isn't enough time for that, so we do have to sacrifice a little character development in favour of condensing the mission down into a watchable viewing.

'Saving Private Ryan' may have a better budget, but A Bridge Too Far has a raw, epic feel that really makes it come across like a history lesson which more battles and stars.

I loved THE LONGEST DAY when I saw it as a child in the mid 1970s but have gone off it over the years because the characters are more like carichtures rather than real people and the dialogue sounds more like thought processes rather than spoken speech . I guess this is down to Cornelius Ryan not understanding the difference in writing a book and writing a screenplay . The film version of A BRIDGE TOO FAR the second of Ryan's trilogy giving the definitive account of the last year of the war in Europe is superior to THE LONGEST DAY simply because William Goldman has written a superior script than the one Ryan wrote . I can only fault Goldman's script for two things

1 ) Some obvious exposition throughout the first 45 minutes , though this probably isn't a fair criticism unlike .....

2 ) The Monty bashing . Along with SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BAND OF BROTHERS this movie doesn't fail to put the boot into General Bernard Law Montgomery with a bunch of German Generals stating " Not even Eisenhower would be stupid enough to use Montgomery " and you do get the impression some people who get their history via war films will quickly come to the conclusion that Monty was the worst commander in human military history , never mind British military history . If Monty had a fault - And the only time it showed itself was during Operation MarketGarden - it was that he was too cautious but it should be remembered that he spent several years fighting on the Western front during the first world war . The likes of Patton , McArthur and future US president Harry S Trumann also fought in that conflict but America didn't enter WW1 until the spring 1917 and didn't contribute to any significant fighting until almost a year later . Unlike the British the future American commanders didn't experience a slaughter house like the Somme which had a profound effect of on Monty's psyche . It should also be remembered that no Western leader was better for turning a holding action into an offensive as seen at El Alamein and there was no better Western leader than Monty for a defensive holding action as seen at operation Goodwood in June 1944 . The problem with operation MarketGarden was logistics , intelligence reports , communications and just plain bad luck , not leadership

That criticism aside Goldman' script is a good one . Of course some facts and figures have been changed or omitted but the script does point out that great courage was shown by both sides and Goldman must be congratulated for including a scene where a Waffen SS trooper dies in a brave but vain attempt to save his commanding officer who is burning to death . The Waffen SS committed countless atrocities during the war but they were Nazi Germany's elite fighting force also capable of extreme bravery under fire so it's good to see a more balanced view of history , something not seen in more critically aclaimed productions like BAND OF BROTHERS and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

It's a shame A BRIDGE TOO FAR didn't do all that well at the box office or receive the critical acclaim it deserved , but STAR WARS came out at the same time thereby destroying the popularity of historical blockbusters with all star casts . It should also be pointed out that the anti-war sentiments of the film are surpassed by Vietnam movies like APOCALYPSE NOW and PLATOON but how do you make an anti-war film featuring the second world war as a backdrop unless you're a German ? I remember talking to my schoolmates in 1982 after this was shown on TV the previous night and we all agreed at the time this was the best war movie ever made . Looking back now it's not , but it's still a very good account of men in battle

Footnote : Check out Ryan's book THE LAST BATTLE , the final - And best - book in the trilogy that tells of the last months of the second world war

A Bridge Too Far is impressive in scope and scale, but the remarkable pieces don't come together in one cohesive whole like I hoped they would. This is a series of battle vignettes with a bunch of characters that you don't really get a chance to relate to because they're only on the screen for a few moments before their cameo is finished. The war scenes are well done, but the story-like the actual events this movie is based on-could have benefited from better planning.

This is a very waterlogged war film, notable today only for its mammoth star line up and for being a rare war film in that it depicts a German victory. The director has attempted to make the film as comprehensive a telling of Operation Market Garden as possible, but has instead (or because of this) left us with an over-crowded and at times heavy-handed mess.

The film starts out well, conveying well the war-office politics which, borne out of an arrogant zeal to end the war swiftly, ended up dooming the entire operation. Pointing out sound reasons to delay the launching of the air drop, which would save thousands of lives, was regarded as 'rocking the boat.' Notable was the character of Fuller, who saw the presence of German tanks as a good reason to call off the mission. When he pushed for this, he was forced to take 'some leave' for exhaustion. The mission went ahead - straight into a few German Panzer divisions. Following Fuller's advice (based on sound intelligence), would have saved a few thousand men, and probably the mission; but Allied command wanted the boys home for Christmas, and Fuller was rocking the boat - touché.

Indeed there are also some fine battle sequences incorporating great special effects. But these are few and far between in this three hour movie. These good points, including the wonderful cast and a brilliant score, are just not enough to make this film worthwhile as anything but a curio. The rest is all downhill.....

The screenplay is simply awful - there is just too much going on in the events which are the subject of the film, and this muddles the movie. Even if you are following the film closely, at times you are left wondering if you've in fact missed something when a quick rewind to recap shows that you haven't. A lot of self indulgent, meandering direction from Attenborough doesn't help the matter either. He also seems to enjoy over-exposing the film in many scenes, so that sunlight glows in a blurry manner, creating a sepia kind of image. This looks terrible, and is reminiscent of some dreadful films by Tony Richardson.

The star line up, though magnificent is ultimately unnecessary. It only ends up distracting the audience from the film's plot. Sundry big names appear in totally unnecessary cameos, most of which simply detract from the main plot; this, I feel, adding to the confusion of an already muddled screenplay. Laurence Olivier and James Caan appear in two completely pointless almost-cameo roles. Both the roles are completely beneath these actors, and the pretentiousness of the director to include these scenes (especially Caan's) is clearly evident in their suplerfity. The dialogue between James Caan's character and the field doctor was simply inane, and should have just been cut.

The scene towards the end, in which the leading officers of the operation stand atop a bell tower and contemplate why the mission failed, is simply a straight rip-off from the ending of The Charge of the Light Brigade in that each tries to blame some other aspect of the planning which led to their own section failing. The actual final ending of the film was bland, and very heavy-handed. Totally unsatisfying - especially after three hours.

And all through the film the national-specific clichés of the characters was abysmal. The two American leads (Ryan O'Neal and Elliot Gould) were just cardboard-cut-out US stooges - cigar chomping, loudmouths always rattling on about 'American ingenuity' and the need 'to try', and wishing to emulate George Washington in battle. The British were no better - if not worse. There was just so much 'Chin up laddy', and 'better luck next time old boy - eh' going on that the film began to play like a parody of a war film; so much so, that by the end of the film you are relieved that the Nazis have won the day - if, of course, you are still awake to care by this stage.

This film requires patience, as most films with such run time do; but most other long films have the virtue of being able to hold your attention by providing a solid evening's entertainment. A Bridge Too Far doesn't have this virtue, because it has attempted to crowd too much into its clumsily handled screenplay. It is a worthwhile film for war buffs, as there are a few rewarding battle scenes; but one has to wade through veritable spools of self-important and confusing - sometimes down-right boring - celluloid to get to them. To the casual viewer this is not an enjoyable prospect, and not even the star power of the film can make such a task worthwhile.