/ choiboone952's Library/ Notes/ Fmovies new site, watch free movies on Fmovies: I watched the film "The Bridge over the River Kwai ".I can't, of course, say the film is a whole nightmare and If only I had never seen it.
Fmovies new site, watch free movies on Fmovies: I watched the film "The Bridge over the River Kwai ".I can't, of course, say the film is a whole nightmare and If only I had never seen it.
from web site
The film has its own pluses: It's very interesting, you can not take that far from it, I was serious about watching the circumstance, the characters. Also, best of all in films, and in books, Everyone loves high-quality dialogues, and in this connection, this film satisfied me; It was a pleasure to be handled by the arguments with the heroes about their position and what are the absolute goal is incorporated in the war.
I watched this excellent film during one well-known site, this is a url to it fmovies new site - I propose watching new films and TV series here, because they are all in premium quality and check within the network once release.
But, Could not say that I liked the film, because it provides a range of shortcomings.
By far the most essential could be the absurdity and unrealism of the scenario. What is this fact anyway? The English Colonel Nicholson is outraged how the Japanese Colonel Saito does not abide by the Geneva Convention and therefore won't work. Is it English colonel so naive? Apparently for him, war isn't killing people, not destruction in the category of victory, for Nicholson, war is a child's game, by which you will find rules that, comparable to children's game, cannot be broken or: "I really don't play like that." Who's the boss on maui: Japanese or English prisoners of war who set their very own rules?
.jpg)
Plus in general, types of nonsense is this fact - "the rules of war"? Maybe let's go further, "the guidelines of conducting genocide", according in which it can be impossible to exterminate greater than 1000 representatives of just one ethnic group at one time; "Rules of terrorism", according in which it is impossible to make use of fragmentation explosives in explosions.
I ponder how Nicholson got through this war at all. Really, during 5 a great deal of war, all his enemies always observed the conventions, fought like good soldiers and in general would not overstep the bounds of what is permissible? And in what way did he, together with his super-keen sensation of discipline and duty, get to the colonel if he only follows the foundations?
Throughout the film, I wondered: "Can you would imagine this happens here?" to ensure Andrei Sokolov (the hero of Sholokhov's "The Fate of your Man") told the Nazis inside of a concentration camp: “You're revealing the convention, you should not involve individuals such difficult working conditions without appropriate insurance. My comrades and I refuse to work, ”but they also might have been shot to the spot. Or, visualize that within the Gulag on the construction of the White Sea Canal, convicts declared they would not work because they're scientists, not builders, along with general that is contrary to international norms? They also might have been shot for the spot. Because war is actually a cruel phenomenon, when folks are killed, prisoners are tortured. But apparently the British have their unique ideas with regards to the war, for them it's child's fool around with the rules, who should work and who is in the "house ".
Secondly, Nicholson knew perfectly well that he was developing a bridge for the requirements the Japanese army, that's, he deliberately helped the enemy, and as a consequence none of his excuses like: "This will strengthen the discipline of my soldiers" is just not suitable. The entire world is in war by using these Japanese, along with the English colonel is building bridges to them. Yes, from the Soviet Union he would have been repressed simply for the belief that he surrendered being a prisoner, of course, if they had found he was deliberately boosting the enemy, they could have been destroyed. But, again, apparently for your British this can be self-evident.
Thirdly, I was confused by way of the ending. I didn't see the last actions of Nicholson, why he doesn't desire to help his very own people, why after a second he changes his decisions, and then finally, exactly what does the cry of one of many soldiers mean: "Madness, madness", I don't have a crazy situation, with the exception of what the heck is happening, there wouldn't see.
I watched this excellent film during one well-known site, this is a url to it fmovies new site - I propose watching new films and TV series here, because they are all in premium quality and check within the network once release.
But, Could not say that I liked the film, because it provides a range of shortcomings.
By far the most essential could be the absurdity and unrealism of the scenario. What is this fact anyway? The English Colonel Nicholson is outraged how the Japanese Colonel Saito does not abide by the Geneva Convention and therefore won't work. Is it English colonel so naive? Apparently for him, war isn't killing people, not destruction in the category of victory, for Nicholson, war is a child's game, by which you will find rules that, comparable to children's game, cannot be broken or: "I really don't play like that." Who's the boss on maui: Japanese or English prisoners of war who set their very own rules?
Plus in general, types of nonsense is this fact - "the rules of war"? Maybe let's go further, "the guidelines of conducting genocide", according in which it can be impossible to exterminate greater than 1000 representatives of just one ethnic group at one time; "Rules of terrorism", according in which it is impossible to make use of fragmentation explosives in explosions.
I ponder how Nicholson got through this war at all. Really, during 5 a great deal of war, all his enemies always observed the conventions, fought like good soldiers and in general would not overstep the bounds of what is permissible? And in what way did he, together with his super-keen sensation of discipline and duty, get to the colonel if he only follows the foundations?
Throughout the film, I wondered: "Can you would imagine this happens here?" to ensure Andrei Sokolov (the hero of Sholokhov's "The Fate of your Man") told the Nazis inside of a concentration camp: “You're revealing the convention, you should not involve individuals such difficult working conditions without appropriate insurance. My comrades and I refuse to work, ”but they also might have been shot to the spot. Or, visualize that within the Gulag on the construction of the White Sea Canal, convicts declared they would not work because they're scientists, not builders, along with general that is contrary to international norms? They also might have been shot for the spot. Because war is actually a cruel phenomenon, when folks are killed, prisoners are tortured. But apparently the British have their unique ideas with regards to the war, for them it's child's fool around with the rules, who should work and who is in the "house ".
Secondly, Nicholson knew perfectly well that he was developing a bridge for the requirements the Japanese army, that's, he deliberately helped the enemy, and as a consequence none of his excuses like: "This will strengthen the discipline of my soldiers" is just not suitable. The entire world is in war by using these Japanese, along with the English colonel is building bridges to them. Yes, from the Soviet Union he would have been repressed simply for the belief that he surrendered being a prisoner, of course, if they had found he was deliberately boosting the enemy, they could have been destroyed. But, again, apparently for your British this can be self-evident.
Thirdly, I was confused by way of the ending. I didn't see the last actions of Nicholson, why he doesn't desire to help his very own people, why after a second he changes his decisions, and then finally, exactly what does the cry of one of many soldiers mean: "Madness, madness", I don't have a crazy situation, with the exception of what the heck is happening, there wouldn't see.
