I really enjoy war films- The Great Escape, Stalag 17, Paths of Glory, Guns of Navarone, Valkyrie- all exceptional examples of what a war film could, and should, be. But today's film discussion deals with a film that, unfortunately, is not.
So many people put Bridge on the River Kwai on best all-time lists for war films. And many even consider this 1957 production as one of the greatest films ever made. I have no idea why. It suffers from some of the same shortcomings as one of the films considered the best sci-fi film of all time: 2001, A Space Odyssey. The cinematography is amazing (with an Academy Award that it did deserve), but like Odyssey, that's where the spectacle ends. The plot slogs through the 160 minute runtime, making the film seem much longer than it is. Compare that to Guns of Navarone (made in 1961) with approximately the same runtime. Where Navarone seems like the film is only about 80 minutes long, River, like 2001, is mind numbingly slow.
The plot concerns British POWs at a Japanese prison camp in Thailand. The British commander of the POWs, Nicholson, forbids any escape attempts because they were ordered by headquarters to surrender, and escapes could be seen as defiance of orders. I guess this is one of my first issues: soldiers being ordered to be submissive pansies. Compare that to Stalag 17 or The Great Escape, where the POWs tried to make things as difficult as possible for their captors.
Colonel Saito, the camp commandant, informs the prisoners they will all work on the construction of a railway bridge over the River Kwai that will connect Bangkok and Rangoon. Even the officers are ordered to work. The remainder of the film concerns the building of the bridge, the compliance of the prisoners, the rebellion of the prisoners, the progress of the bridge, the sabotage of the bridge, and on and on. Its supposed to be a character study on the human condition, framed within the difficulties of war, and people being held as captives of others. It's not.
The film is flat and uninteresting. The Japanese commandant is characteristically evil (remember in the original Batman serial from 1943 where the narrator actually said: Since a wise government rounded up those shifty-eyed Japs...? Ah, gentle, inclusive Hollywood). And the entire film is peppered with that annoying whistling of Colonel Bogey March.
The Bridge on the River Kwai won 7 Academy Awards including 1957 Best Picture. Again, I have to wonder why. This film was a poor choice considering that "12 Angry Men" was also on the ballot. History has clearly shown that the choice should have been otherwise. Best Actor for the year also went to Kwai, with Alec Guinness taking the honors, with not a single entry from "12 Angry Men" for best actor. Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb should have both been in the running. At least Sidney Lumet got a nod for Best Director, but lost to David Lean for Kwai.
IMDB says 8.2/10. Not even close. It's ugly. If 7 is the threshold for good movies, I'd give this one about a 6.5. It's beautiful, but so slow, terribly pedantic, and largely uninteresting.