i got the moive bridge to far ist really cool.
i did not know this moive was based on marekt garden.
till i saw the mrket garden web site.
what a great moive

I've got nothing to add to that !

I'll second that, my only complaint is that sometimes when it comes on the telly some of the scenes are "cropped" and you can't see the characters at the edge of the screen. Especially annoying when they are involved in the conversation. I'd prefer if they "letterboxed" these scenes.
I remember as a kid this movie caused a bit of anger among the XXX corps veterans on its release as they felt it was unfair in depicting the advance's slowness to their lack of drive. If I remember rightly the scene where Redford berates the tankers for stopping for tea after the bridge capture caused them a lot of resentment.

Good movie, one of the first DVDs that I bought. As far as XXX Corp not being in a big hurry, well, I can understand why that would be offensive. Looking at some pictures of XXX Corp in Eindhoven they don't look like they are in a big hurry to me. Hind sight is 20-20... I think, having read a lot about it due to the RMG campaign, the whole enterprise was pretty much doomed from the outset.

Shaun

Hi Good movie, for Hollywood, that is. All in all pretty accurate, except for the actor who payed Fiedl Marshal Walther Model. Ths man was not a person simply concerned about his own safety and his cigars. He was a very tough commander, who earned his laruels on the Eastern Front. And he didn't ear the nick name "Hitler's fireman' for nothing. But then again, as I said, that's Hollywood.

Take care, sgirty

I read the book A Bridge Too Far many years ago and I can't remember if Ryan made the claim that XXX Corps being slow due to lack of drive. I'm pretty sure though that the movie used Stephen Ambrose as a consultant and he makes that claim about ALL British or Commenwealth troops in his book D Day, that I just finished reading. It really bugged me that Ambrose said not once, but several times, how the British would stop to brew up tea at every opportunity, something that sounds very much like what Redford's character in the movie says.

Hi I think one of the main problems with the British was Montgomery. Never have seen much in him as a commander. He's always had a reputation as not being a general who moved unless he had absolutely everything ready and in order. Plus he, like a lot of the other Allied commanders at this stage of the war, figured that the Germans were pretty well whipped and they could basically do just about anything they wished to do and get away with it. (A good example of this is trying to move an entire corps, plus supplies and whatever else was needed down just ONE road! ) And when these commanders would get caught with their 'pants down' , so to speak, they were kind of at an immdeiate loss as to what to do. They made one very serious mistake concerning their enemy: In war you never take anything for granted, esp. about the enemy. General Lee, during the Am. Civil War, taught this time and time again to the various Union commanders all throughout this particular conflict.
Only thing that saved Montgomery butt with a lot of this battle, and the other Allied generals just a couple months later in the Ardennes, was the fighting spirit and 'know how' of the common ordinary soldier, be it American or British, and front line officers who commanded them.

Plus, to me, the whole Market Garden battle showed the German military training and combativeness in its best light. Most of the men who fought on the German side were just ad hoc strangers and stragglers being pulled together from wherever they could be found behind the lines, and literally being thrown together into various combat groups, with absolutely no previous experience of working together as a team before. So I would say they did a remarkable job, considering what they had to fight with and all.

Take care, sgirty

As an aside, anyone that hasn't read "It never Snows in September" really ought to. Really good book. Gives the German side of OMG. Sgirty is absolutley right, according to the book.

Shaun

One thing I'd like everybody to remember about D Day and Market Garden, by this time the British had been fighting for FIVE YEARS. The Americans were relative newcomers. Also the Americans had a huge number of men compared to the British, who were really getting pretty close to the end of their rope as far as replacements. The losses the British, and Commonwealth, troops had suffered over 5 years, and their relative lack of replacements, must have had some impact on the willingness of commanders to take losses. Wasn't the whole idea of Market Garden to end the war as soon as possible?

One other general who seems to be shown in a bad light in the movie is General "Boy" Browning. He is protrayed as not letting anything get in the way of the operation, regardless of how many Germans were in the Arnhem area. I read that shortly before MG he had threatened to resign if ordered to take part in an earlier planned operation because he deemed it too rushed and dangerous. Hardly smacks of someone without any regard for his troops. One real ctiticism I would level at him was the use of valuable glider assets to lift his headquarters into the 82nd airborne area early in the operation. There were no decisions he could take from there that he couldn't take from England in the opening days and if the advance had been on schedule he would have come under the command of General Horrocks within a couple of days anyway. I guess he wanted to lead his men into combat so to speak.
I think the criticism of the speed [or lack of it] of the British forces was one which had been building for a while, since D-Day. The Americans would say "How slow can the British advance?" and the British would counter with "How fast can the Americans advance, forwards AND backwards?"

What gets me is the fact that the last low level photographs did show an armored presence, yet the operation proceeded without that information being shared. Could it be that this was conjured up for the film? Surely command would not have ignored such a thing.

Patrick

HI.. You'd be surprised what the 'command' in all countries tends to ignore some times, esp. if there's politics (money and power) involved at a higher level.

General's reputations are build on the blood and gore of those who do the fighting under them. And the common soldier's life is worth just about as much to most of them as the common civilian's lives are worth to politicians. Once again, in all countries.

Take care, sgirty