An epic film, a documentary or a public trial?

Rating: 4/10 (21 April 2020)

This film is one of many war films, based on World War II events and operations, that were made during the 60s and 70s. In this specific case, the film brings to the screen the famous Operation Market Garden, which took place in 1944, and that was a military disaster for the Allies.
The idea of this military operation was to conquer a series of bridges over Dutch rivers and canals, paving the way for the Allies through German defensive lines in the country. With the Dutch plains and the Rhine over, Germany was in sight. For this, large scale parachuting and armored troops were used in order to take full advantage of the speed and the element of surprise. However, the plans were based on a misconception of the true German military force stationed in the region. In fact, the Germans had far more troops in the theater than the Allies thought, so that the German reaction to the attack was faster and more energetic than expected, considerably delaying the Allies' progress, leading to more human and , ultimately compromising the success of the operation. For a better idea of what this failure was, the Allies lost more soldiers here than in the entire D-Day operation.
This film, like many war films of this time, has no script other than the military operation, which is a historical fact. Of course, the way some historical characters were shown is not accurate (General Browning is an obvious case, and the film makes a bad judgment on him) and the lives of anonymous soldiers are fictional. But this is a film by Sir Richard Attenborough, who was detailed and liked films with touches of realism - Gandhi is his most perfect example and looks like a documentary. Here it is the same: the film looks like one of those fictional recreations that are now common in history documentaries, only in epic proportions. This has a good thing: the details and production values were meticulous and everything seems extraordinarily real, from the sets to the costumes, from the sound effects to the special effects and combat scenes. Cinematography is equally good, although obviously dated, and it is clear that it is a film with several decades. But I handle it well. Worse was dealing with the length of the film: it had little script for a three-hour film.
Finally, one last word for the cast, where there are several actors that we know very well today. Movies like this are almost nests of stars, and that sometimes turns against the film itself. Sean Connery is one of the most resonant names and was already a renowned actor at that time. He did not disappoint, achieving one of the best performances in the entire film. Walter Kohut and Ryan O'Neal did quite well too. Dirk Bogarde was fine, but his character is totally ill-considered and does not correspond to reality. Gene Hackman, still relatively discreet, comes to us with a super forced accent. Michael Caine and Anthony Hopkins go relatively unnoticed among so many others.
Too long, this is a film with documentary ambitions, with many good actors appearing discreetly and some characters, based on real people, being the target of an authentic public judgment. It works, but there are better.