One of the best ever

Rating: 10/10 (19 February 2002)

I'm pleased to add my name to the chorus of praise this film has garnered here. It is truly one of the best films of all time, and I never tire of seeing it.
I'm actually a little surprised, though. I was expecting to see far more negative comments about this film. Of the comments I read, the only negative ones were from due to historical inaccuracies. I've said before, the historical accuracy of an historical film has no bearing whatsoever on my judgment of the film, but I understand where these people are coming from.
But anyway, I kinda thought there would be a minority of people chiming in claiming the film to be boring. Don't get me wrong, I personally find it riveting. But, as I watched it the other day, it occurred to me that a lot of modern viewers might indeed find it boring, especially if they've been told things like "It's the best war film ever!" and are walking into it with visions of "Saving Private Ryan" in their head.
Because, regardless of what the people here say, this is NOT a war film. It takes place during a war, and includes characters who are fighting a war, yes. But that's all. War is a setting for the dramatic conflicts of the film (and there are many). But the conflict of the war is not one of the conflicts of this film.
We've got Saito vs. Nicholson, Shears vs. Nicholson, Clipton vs. Nicholson, Shears vs. Warden, Warden vs. Nicholson. These are the conflicts. Conflicts between men, not armies or nations. Sure, the war is an everpresent element in the background of this film, but that's all it is. The fate of the bridge is not the meat of this movie. The important thing here is the conflicts between the characters. Nicholson's dignity vs. Saito's authority. Shears's pragmatism vs. Nicholson's duty, or Warden's grim heroism. And each of them, in their own way, vs. Clipton's simple human compassion. That's what the film is about. The bridge provides a focal point. It is a motivating factor to all of the characters, in one way or another (except Clipton). It is a metaphor, a visible, tangible representation for the various struggles at work between the main characters.
The film's only major weakness is in the performance of William Holden, which is simply not up to the standard of the others. I honestly am not familiar with his work (this is the only film of his I have seen), but in this movie he is poor. He sticks out like a sore thumb... the Hollywood star amid a company of actors. Unfortunately, much of the film rests on his shoulders, especially in the second half, and he just can't carry it. In a lesser movie, you'd never notice, but in one as excellent as this, it's a crippling weakness. And it's such a shame.
Nevermind. This is still an excellent movie, a timeless classic that deserves to live forever. 9.5/10