Can Someone Explain This Movie's Appeal to Me?

The answer is already implied in the question and it is "No".

I'm 1.5 hours in and I'm bored *beep* I find it offensive and historically innacurate....and there's no real character development. The acting is really bad and none of the characters have any charisma. ..nothing at all that endears them to the audience.

As for the Japanese P.O.W camps...they were notoriously horrendous. Having studied them at university, this film doesn't even begin to show the horror of daily life in the camps; the human depravity and suffering.

The whole thing appears to be is just kind of insulting.

...can't imagine how the real P.O.Ws felt when they saw this tripe.

I find myself agreeing with the OP. This has to be one of the most over rated movies I have ever seen. Average rating of 8/10? I give it a 4/10. The portrayal of the Japanese POW camp is laughable which I won't go into because its already been stated by numerous people. Secondly the movie drags on unnecessarily with little happening and becomes dull and boring to sit through. It could easily have half an hour cut from its running time and not miss much. The direction, acting, script and cinematography are good, but admittedly nothing special. Hence it wasn't a total disaster, but still a flawed film that had the potential to be a great movie, but really missed the mark.

To each his own I guess.

Independently of historical inaccuracies, for me both Alec Guinness and Sessue Hayakawa delivered fine performances.

IMO, the story is endearing and there's plenty subtlety regarding the characters motivations, I actually found myself rooting for the bridge to not be destroyed out of sympathy for Nicholson and Saito. Both characters struck me as interesting individuals, driven by ego and culture-based commitment. I appreciated that this movie portrayal of Japaneses was actually carried out respectfully, in comparison with the usual formulaic depiction of "evil Japanese army". I know that, in real life, Japanese prison camp life was actually horrendous, so give artistic reconstruction some leeway. Just like occidentals think Lean was too soft on Japaneses' depiction, the Japs are mad to be portrayed as "incompetent" too, so we can all agree that there's much historical inaccuracy.

I actually found quite appealing that such a big blockbuster would revolve around the construction of a bridge basically, something daring and overall different relative to other war, P.O.W. films. Plus, the fact that a British officer was so willing to cooperate with Japanese agenda only for the sake of "soldier spirit" and for "patriotic pride" would seem naive, but it could actually fit in the "deranged Brit chief" mold. The film do has a very Britannic feel, despite the Brits claiming its too far off from reality.


I think the pacing was good and the showcasing of such beautiful landscapes was a great move, because it displays not only the ambition of the project bur also the depth of trouble Shears and his commandos are getting themselves into. The last act is quite suspenseful IMO, although it could have been managed a tad better. Apart from the "demolition scene" in itself, I think the part were Nicholson "realizes" what he has done is a bit spoon-fed, the final outcome of the story was managed better by the writer of the book.



now this is acting: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2458172160/tt1528718

I think that this movie is not really a war movie. You can criticize it for not being accurate etc. but you have to think about this as a drama. like a theater piece. Lean is always going deep into the analysis of human nature often hinting about homosexuality, sadism, masochism etc. All of this is present in this movie as well. As a consequence, this movie can be best enjoyed by people who are in an odd (sadistic?) way enjoying (immerse in) such suffering. That's why the length of the movie just underlines this, and for those who like it's a pleasure to see such a 'precise' depiction.

Besides all, you guys easily brush aside the things like cinematography and direction etc. which are most important in a movie. The whole setup is just full of delicate suspense, constant power struggle etc. I think it's just unfortunate if it doesn't resonate with you.

Well, for one thing Mitch Miller's great whistling "Colonel Bogey March" and orchestral "River Kwai"(see "Music Seems Dated.")1957/early 1958. Les Baxter's "The Poor People of Paris", amother whistling great with a very interesting history just like the River Kwai song, was a big hit in its own right two years earlier!! They're where I learned..how to whistle!!

The years haven't been kind to River Kwai. Okay, I admit that much. It's now a very old and mannered film from an era very different from today, and a somewhat betwixt and between time, not World War II or the Depression,--extreme hard times there--but the period of both postwar prosperity AND flux (yet to come, in the Sixties). At times, when watching the movie through modern eyes, as of the early 21st century, Kwai feels dated and didactic. It's neither dramatically engaging, except at the surface level (officer to officer and all that); nor is it, as you pointed out, exciting.

To be fair to David Lean and his (if you'll pardon the unintentional humor of my choice of words) collaborators, they were trying awfully hard to make a great film in the "modern manner" of postwar cinema, as films were often called back then, and I believe they were sincere. That's not the problem I have with Kwai. It's sincere and in its way it's deeply felt. What brings it down for me is its shallowness, emotional and intellectual. The movie is (again, "punnish" word usage) like a puddle, not a river. There's not much in it. Oh, there's a lot happening on screen, just not a lot to think about. That playboy William Holden's character has more depth insight into what's going on in the story than either of the two British "brain guys", as played by Guinness and Hawkins, is interesting, and not, IMHO, intentional irony. However that may be, Holden can't save the film. He's good. I like him and what he has to say. It just isn't enough to make me think a whole lot or respond to the movie as a Story About People & Ideas.

Also, to wind things up here,--or is it down?--the film is sabotaged by its own self-importance. Lean & Company were so self-consciously trying to make a masterpiece that they neglected,--and someone really ought to have reminded them about this--to make a good movie. Kwai isn't a bad picture by any means, but if offers itself as a masterpiece or nothing. It's like it can't be a good film; it has to be great; and therein lies the problem. Still, it gets its job done and is nice to look at.

I'd see no reason to really downgrade it from average, it is certainly average or slightly better ... at the very least 5/10, and I'd give it a 6. I am a tough rater of movies though. The hardest thing to do is to rate objectively after you see a movie. I always want to rate them higher or lower depending on if there was some aspect that appealed to me. I start at average 5, and look at the facts of my viewing. Did I finish the movie? Did it have some point or meaning? Would I watch it again? Would I recommend it to someone else? Would I have anything to discuss about it? Acting, scenery, directing, etc.