You have to realize, this is history...

Rating: Null/10 (6 August 2003)

I just finished watching "A Bridge Too Far" for the first time, and got on here to check out if that was, indeed, Gene Hackman, and a less-than-glamorous remark was under user comments.
Let me remind you that, being a student of history, especially WW2 history, the movie is rather accurate. It does involve a bit of speculation, of course, and the screenwriter did take the usual poetic license with character development. But as far as I can tell, the big names were not just stuck in there "to make a boring movie appealing". If I remember correctly, those "characters" (the generals/soldiers portrayed) actually did exist and play major roles in the battle. And hey, if you're making a movie that has six or seven large roles, why not try to get the biggest names for those roles that you can?
You have to realize, this is history. As one writer commented, yes, after a while the audience might feel battle weary... but how do you think the GI, the British soldier, felt after almost two weeks of constant, intense battle? I did, personally, feel as weary as Sean Connery near the end... or how about the officer who cracked his spine in the jump? Don't you think he felt weary?
Attenborough did an excellent job, I felt, of portraying the battle. It was a perfect example of how General Montgomery often reached past what was reasonably possible, and in this case, it was particularly disastrous. Caen on D-day... HA! But in that case it didn't result in such terrible losses.
While you shouldn't watch this unless you have almost three hours to spare, it is a good portrayal of the battle, and remains the single most glaring demonstration that you should never plan a battle by relying on a single road.