No Classic

Rating: 5/10 (26 May 2007)

SPOILERS
I've heard some people call it boring, and they were railed on for being young and stupid- always a nice way to show you are an adult, attacking a young film-lovers age. As for my self, I don't know if I would call it boring, it did hold my attention, I did not fall asleep, even though I only slept 3 or 4 hours the night before, but I do think that the film is a failure on many fronts. I would rate it a 6 out of 10, and I'll tell you why.
First the film is slow, one of the very slowest films of that I have ever seen. There is no pacing, it never picks up at all, except at the end where it goes into second gear. The film is slow in every aspect, from the pacing to the camera movements and worst of all, is that this only hurts the film in times when it is supposed to be a moment of reflection in the movie- like Nicholson's speech on the bridge- but you hardly notice because it just continues the same pace as the rest of the movie. The action does pick up at the very, very end; but still not even at a level that John Ford would move at. Its just slow, and for no real reason. So much time is wasted in this film on nothing, and there is never any anticipation, except at the very very end, and it does not have nearly as dramatic an effect as it could have.
Secondly, in this movie, that runs at close to 3 hours, there are only 4 real characters in the movie. Nicholson, who only develops enough to come to a point where he wonders about his legacy. Saeto who becomes softer, though still undoubtedly a bad man. Shears, who becomes less of a whiner, and almost courageous at the end-at least enough to get himself killed. And of course Wardon, whose only change is physical-he'll probably end up losing his foot.
Not that a movie must have characters who grow to make it a good film, but if it doesn't have that than it better have other things. The photography was outstanding, but I am sorry to say that there was no cinematography in this film. The camera seemed like it never moved, and there seemed to be less than five tracking shots in the whole picture. I can watch this with Ozu, but not in an adventure/epic. Though I understand that the colors have become drained over time, I didn't see much there other than green, so I can't imagine the film being all that lush even on opening night, 1957.
It is plain to see that Lean did learn a few things from this film, and put those lessons to good use in the much better "Lawrence of Arabia". It still is a very long movie, with only one real character, whose development is rather vague, but at least it is sumptuous and colorful, and the supporting cast has personality and more talent. And LoA had action to pick the movie up a bit, though neither film contained much humor.
I must say that I haven't been this disappointed in a film in a long while. "The Bridge on the Rived Kwai" is a film that never once moved me in any real or even 'artificial' way. I never felt anything...oh except for the end, when something perhaps could have been resolved, but all we get is Nicholson Accidentally fainting and falling on the plunger. What kind of ending is that? The main character doesn't make a decision to blow the bridge or not, NO, he is given a pass, a scape goat and it is an accident, maybe if he would have blown it up or NOT the audience would have been forced to feel something-David Lean obviously did not want that.