A Bridge too Far review

 Number 886 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Attenborough's 1977 epic war film 'A Bridge too Far.'

A Bridge too Far tells the true story of the Second World War operation Market Garden - an ambitious, if ultimately failed, attempt of the allies to create a salient in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands. The large ensemble cast includes James Caan, Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Olivier, Gene Hackman, Robert Redford and Maximilan Schell. 

Would it be fair to say that this film goes a "bridge too far?" At three hours long, some would probably have that judgement. It is a fair judgement to make. However, I think that compared to most three-hour long films it is paced incredibly well. Compared to some three-hour films, *cough cough* Gone with the Wind, it was engrossing from start to finish. 

Anybody who knows military history knows that Operation Market Garden was a massive failure that extended the war by another seven or eight months, yet it was still interesting seeing how the Allies' overconfidence proved to be their ultimate downfall.

One common flaw I find in war films with large ensemble casts is that the characters become indistinguishable from one another. They are all soldiers dressed in the same uniforms so they all look the same. things can become confusing after a while, but that wasn't the case here.

I think that was because the three-hour run time gave the film the time it needed to breathe. We didn't get any rushed character development. Instead, each character was given the time they deserved. And that allowed the actors to do the best they could. Also, let's talk about the incredible cast. There were no less than seven Oscar winners including Anthony Hopkins, Sean Connery, Michael Caine and Gene Hackman. And there wasn't a weak link in the cast. Gene Hackman was particularly good as the cynical and jaded Polish Major General Sosabowski - we just won't talk about his accent.

Only six years Richard Attenborough won an Oscar for directing Gandhi, but A Bridge Too Far displayed his early promise as one of the best film-directors of his generation. Contrary to many film critics, I quite enjoyed A Bridge too Far. I didn't find it too long or lacking at all.

Elizabeth review

 Number 763 on the top 1000 films of all time is Shekhar Kapur's 1998 biographical period-drama 'Elizabeth.'

The year is 1558, and following the death of Mary I (Kathy Burke) Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) becomes the queen of England. However, her early days are met with many obstacles, least of all, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston) plotting to overthrow her, as well as pressure from her advisors Francis Wolsingham (Geoffrey Rush) and William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) to marry.

For this film, Cate Blanchett was nominated for her first of eight acting Oscars. She ultimately lost out to Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love. Many people thought Blanchett should have won instead. I haven't seen the latter film, so I can't comment, but Blanchett was impressive in this film.

It was a nuanced performance showing the slow transformation from a weak-willed queen into a powerful force of nature. When Mary of Guise stations four thousand French troops in Scotland, Elizabeth allows Norfolk to bully her into sending a conscript army of peasants to stop the French. Of course, they are all massacred.

But by the film's conclusion, she is strong enough to execute all those plotting her downfall. That isn't a spoiler by the way. Like many historical dramas, Elizabeth plays fast and loose with history, but it sticks to the fact that Elizabeth was not overthrown.

Shekhar Kapur intended the final scene of Elizabeth's would-be assassins being put to death to mirror the end of the Godfather where Michael Corleone orders for his enemies to be killed. I would also argue that in some ways Elizabeth's transformation mirrors Michael Corleone's.

Furthermore, I think that Blanchett gave a great performance in an otherwise average film. I have never been a fan of period dramas, and Elizabeth did little to move the needle. I certainly didn't find it that engaging or easy to follow. It wasn't very interesting either.

While the supporting cast were good - it was fun seeing Vincent Cassel in a more comedic role - the narrative didn't match up.

But, as is often the case, with period dramas, Elizabeth just wasn't for me.

Gandhi review

 Number 217 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Attenborough's epic biopic 'Gandhi.'

This biopic focusses on the life of historical figure Mohandas 'Mahatma' Gandhi - the man who led India to independence from the British Empire. Ben Kingsley plays the man himself from his humble beginnings as a lawyer being thrown off a train in South Africa to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre to gaining Indian independence to his eventual assassination.

This was a difficult film for me to review. While I'm no expert on Gandhi, I certainly know his reputation. He is a veritable hero in India - well not to everybody, but we won't get into that now - some will go so far to call him the Father of the Country. There is no denying that Gandhi tackles the important subject matter of what was in effect the beginning of the end of the British Empire. For his expansive and comprehensive perspective, Richard Attenborough won the Best Director and the Best Film Oscars. This is no surprise really. The Academy loves a biopic, especially an epic biopic. 

Through his direction and Ben Kingsley's Oscar winning performance, they helped to demystify the legendary figure of Gandhi. Gandhi kicks off with the titular character being racially discriminated against. Despite having a first-class ticket, he is kicked off a train in South Africa for no other reason than the colour of his skin. This injustice ignites a fire inside of him and he starts non-violent protests for all Indians in South Africa. His protests win many important rights for his compatriots and later he heads home to join other Indian revolutionaries in gaining independence. 

Despite its significant subject matter, the film struggled to hold my attention. And that isn't a fair criticism of the film itself, but it's my own personal preference. I don't care for period dramas. And I certainly don't care for epic period dramas that exceed three hours. They don't grip me and they don't hook me in. There's no denying that Kingsley isn't a talented actor. There is a reason he won the Oscar. But perhaps Attenborough could have been a bit choppier with the pacing. I think it was a little inconsistent. At times, it blistered along, most notably with the Jallianwala Massacre, but at others it was slow especially toward the ending. 

I think everything came a bit bogged down in the denouement. Gandhi is building toward Indian independence. But when India gets its independence, there are further problems with the Partition of India. While this is important to set up, Gandhi's death, I think it could have been shortened and simplified.

So, like I said, I had trouble in reviewing this film. I think I should have liked it more than I did. There's no doubt that it tackles difficult subject matters, I just bloody hate three-hour long period dramas.