The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

Director: David Lean

Starring: William Holden, Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins

British POWs are forced to build a railway bridge across the river Kwai for their Japanese captors in occupied Burma, not knowing that the allied forces are planning a daring commando raid through the jungle to destroy it.

I’ve been wanting to see ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’ for a while. Having seen it now, I’m a bit disappointed. Make no mistake, this is a very well made film, and yes it is a good film; it is just not what I expected.

I think the problem lies in my preconceived idea of what the movie was about. I expected a war movie. This is set during the war, but it is not entirely a war movie. In fact, the first gunshots are only fired around the 1 hour 50 minute mark. That’s a long time to wait for a film running almost 3 hours long. There’s no further gunshots or explosions of any kind until the finale. I suppose in that regard I was disappointed.

But if you don’t have a preconceived idea of the movie and you follow it for the drama it is, you might enjoy it more. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: these older films are destined to loose its appeal with newer generations. The new generation likes things faster; and films like these running for almost three hours with quite a bit of talk and little action will bear the brunt.

Prisoners of war lead by Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) arrive at a Japanese camp commanded by Colonel Saito. From the onset there is friction between the two leaders. Saito wants the soldiers to build a bridge over the river Kwai, while Nicholson refuses for his soldiers to do hard labour. The Japanese are building a railway from Bangkok to Rangoon, and Saito is faced with a deadline.

Nicholson finally agrees to help on the condition they design the bridge. Meantime, the British are making plans to destroy the bridge. While an interesting enough premise, I found there to be way too much talk for my liking and eventually became bored. I even found the climax a bit bland.

‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’ was a big success, earning $30.6 million on a $2.8 million budget. It received 37 award nominations, winning 30 including Oscars for Best Picture, Best Lead Actor, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, and Best Score.

Would I watch it again? No.

Ikiru (To Live) (1952)

Director: Akira Kurosawa

Starring: Takashi Shimura, Nobuo Kaneko, Shin’ichi Himori

A bureaucrat tries to find meaning in his life after he discovers he has terminal cancer.

What would you do if you only have 6 months to live? ‘Ikiru’ explores this theory.

Kanji Watanabe (Takashi Shimura) is the Section Chief at Public Works who has never been absent from work in nearly 30 years. He does a monotonous job and has an equally monotonous life one can hardly call living. And then he discovers he has stomach cancer. He only has 6 months to live, but he doesn’t know this.

Kanji’s wife passed away 20 years ago, and he reflects on his life with his son, Mitsuo. When Kanji overhears Mitsuo talking to his wife about his money, he decides to spend his money. First, a young man shows Kanji ‘how to live’ by taking him for a night on the town – from gambling to a strip club.

Then, Kanji hangs out with a bubbly young girl from work, and his family believes her to be his mistress. All the while they are only concerned about his money. According to the film, we only realize how beautiful life is until we face death. I believe this to be a sad fact.

There are valuable lessons here, but to sit through an overlong, slow and boring movie is not my idea of being entertained. For most parts, Kanji was sitting hunched in a chair, hardly saying anything at all, and looking miserable. As much as the film tried, there was very little character development concerning the protagonist – or any of the characters for that matter.

The film blatantly attacks the Government and their procedures and could be seen as propaganda. The film’s final 35 minutes (!) sees Kanji’s colleagues sitting eating and drinking whilst talking about his life, and getting drunk. In their drunk state they vouch to change for the better, but – coming from a bunch of drunk men – this meant absolutely nothing to me. As we could clearly see thereafter, nothing changed anyway, so what was the point?

This is yet another highly acclaimed, high rated movie I found boring. When it comes to entertainment value, I enjoy a movie that’s fast-paced, or – if slow paced – to at least be interesting. I didn’t find ‘Ikiru’ interesting enough to be entertained…and…just…way…too…slow… Yawn.

In Japanese.

Would I watch it again? No.

The Swimmer (1968)

Directors: Frank Perry, Sydney Pollack

Starring: Burt Lancaster, Janet Landgard, Janice Rule

A man spends a summer day swimming as many pools as he can all over a quiet suburban town.

In a plush neighbourhood where everyone has sparkling beautiful pools, Ned Merrill (Burt Lancaster) impulsively decides to ‘swim’ home – as a matter of speaking, off course. The idea is to go to every house on his way home and swim in their pool.

As he does so, we meet many characters along the way. With each character, we learn more about Ned, who he is, and who he might have been once. At first glance, he comes across as a happily married family man, who looks after himself. He is fit and athletic and in excellent shape for his age. With every character, though, we realize there is more here than the carefree façade.

There are also many heartaches along the way, which in fact increases as he gets closer to home. Once he gets home, we finally discover the truth behind the man. The film does not spoon feed the audience, so you have to read between the lines to understand the situation Ned is in. The ending was heartbreaking in many ways.

But let’s talk about Burt Lancaster. Man, he was perfectly cast in this role. With his great physique and those muscular long legs, he was the perfect candidate to portray Ned. Hell, this man is absolutely yummy! From beginning to end he wears nothing but tight swim trunks – well, and nothing at one stage! He is a feast to the eyes and the film is worth watching just to drool over that body!

Would I watch it again? Yes!

Freaks (1932)

Director: Tod Browning

Starring: Wallace Ford, Leila Hyams, Olga Baclanova, Henry Victor

A circus’ beautiful trapeze artist agrees to marry the leader of side-show performers, but his deformed friends discover she is only marrying him for his inheritance.

‘Freaks’ is a film that was so controversial at the time of release that it was banned in some countries – calling it grotesque. But what made the film so controversial?

The ‘actors’ in the film referred to as freaks, were in fact people with real disabilities. There are dwarves, conjoined twin sisters, a legless man, the stork woman, a bearded lady, an armless woman, a man with a spinal birth defect, a man with a smaller head, etc. It wasn’t make-believe, and this is what made the film all the more disturbing.

The film revolves around circus performers. Hans is a dwarf, who is in love with trapeze artist Cleopatra, who in turn is really in love with Hercules – a beef hunk of a man. However, when she learns Hans is the heir to a fortune, she is willing to marry him, after which she plans to kill him so she can inherit the money and be with Hercules.

Everyone is making fun of Hans behind his back, and this saddens his one true love, Frieda, who is also a dwarf. (Hans and Frieda are portrayed by real-life brother and sister Harry and Daisy Earles, and I thought they were both excellent in the film. Although Harry looks like a young child in the film, he was already 30 at the time.)

‘Freaks’ is a unique film – especially for its time! It didn’t look or feel like a film made more than 90 years ago, so I can imagine what it must have been like back in 1932. (I’m just wondering whether ‘The Greatest Showman’ drew its inspiration from ‘Freaks’…?)

Would I watch it again? Maybe.

Fame (1980)

Director: Alan Parker

Starring: Eddie Barth, Irene Cara, Lee Curreri, Gene Anthony Ray

A chronicle of the lives of several teenagers who attend a New York high school for students gifted in the performing arts.

Before talent shows, there were auditions for the School of Performing Arts. Ambitious young hopefuls auditioned hoping to fulfill their dreams. If you’ve been to drama school, you’ll relate. If you haven’t, you might find the film wild and noisy. But that’s what it was like back then. Each hopeful created a character in their mind and became them. That inner ambition which became the driving force of those longing for a moment in the spotlight.

‘Fame’ explores this, and we meet a bunch of young people hoping to materialize their dreams. The film takes us on an educational journey, a learning process, and shows how each character acts and reacts to what they learn – as they learn it. This, off course, allows for good character development.

We meet interesting characters: a dancer with an attitude problem, an actor who struggles with his homosexuality, an actress who is not confident enough…

Irene Cara stars as the film’s lead and protagonist, Coco. She is young and beautiful and will do (almost) anything to succeed. As the film takes us from auditions to graduation, we learn so much about each character, and realize just how different we all are. And there’s also the sad fact that there simply is not enough room for everyone with dreams. ‘Fame’ is an emotional and sometimes funny coming of age story. The film also has a great original soundtrack.

‘Fame’ was a box office success, earning $42 million on an $8.5 million budget. It received 24 award nominations, winning 8 including Oscars for Best Original Score and Best Original Song. It also received Oscar nominations for Best Writing, Best Sound, and Best Film Editing.

Would I watch it again? I don’t think so.