To End All Wars (2001) User Reviews

powerful story

[FilmLabRat · 8/10 · 6 March 2004]

In a Japanese POW camp, a Scottish band of soldiers learns about a very different culture - the hard way. They also learn from the more refined and educated among them the meaning of serving each other and their enemies, to the point of self-sacrifice.

The film begins rather slowly (and overly-sentimental) but becomes an incredible story with great acting and characters, powerful philosophy and imagery. Many gripping moments of self-realization, facing reality and appreciation for life and death. The depth of relationships, self-sacrifice and lessons learned leaves the audience with a lot to process. Overall, very inspiring and well-made.

Deeply absorbing tale of the power to forgive

[emuir-1 · 8/10 · 23 October 2005]

It was not until the end of the film that I discovered that this was a real life account by Ernest Gordon of the horrors suffered by the allied POW's building the Burma Railroad.

No film can ever show how terrible it was, despite the attempt to film in sequence with the actors dieting in order to lose weight as time went on. The actors would have had to do three years manual labor in the jungle heat for 18 hours a day on 1,000 (or less) calorie meatless slop, while suffering dysentery, beri beri, pellagra, tropical ulcers, regular beatings and other cruelty, all the time unaware of what was happening at home or how the war was going. They lived under the constant fear of being killed once they were no longer useful. By the time they were liberated the survivors were walking skeletons. Why the filmmakers could not find more skinny extras among the thousands available always puzzles me. When the men were lined up for roll call they could have put the emaciated looking actors at the front, and kept the well built lads at the back, dressed in rags to hide their muscular bodies.

I deducted two stars for the aforemention goof, and for the liberation in August 1945, appearing right after the dedication ceremony for the completion of the railroad in October 1943, at which the men were told they would be moved to other camps. Perhaps it was an editing slip up, but the B-24s arrived to bomb the camps, after which another flight arrived dropping leaflets immediately after.

It is a credit to the filmmakers that this relatively low budget movie conveys this terrible period so well. Although few, if any men, who were prisoners working on the Burma Railroad are still alive, despite the disbelief of several commenters this actually happened and should not be forgotten. This should be a "must see" in school history classes.

Wow! Totally surprised that this slipped by my radar

[andrewwolfson · 8/10 · 22 July 2005]

After repeated watchings my rating may go up. I love the movie THE THIN RED LINE and this movie reminded me of it strongly except it did not have the excellent cinematography that film did.

I watched it because I like Robert Carlyle a lot and was not disappointed by his performance or any other of the actors on both sides of the war. The pacing was perfect and the violence was very brutal and sometimes unexpected but effective.

The message it delivered to me made the movie for me. Loving thy enemy. Just realizing that we are all just humans caught up in something we didn't start. I highly recommend this movie if you like a film made with compassion.

The powerful, true story of what REALLY happened on the River Kwai during WW2.

[mcnulty · 24 April 2002]

THROUGH THE VALLEY OF THE KWAI, the story of British POW's forced to build the Japanese jungle railroad, was my favorite book when it came out in 1962. Thus I was a bit apprehensive at what filmmakers would do to it when I heard about TO END ALL WARS, the title itself being changed. The film is different in many ways from the book, but is so powerful that the addition (apparently for dramatic excitement) of fictional characters bent on staging an escape can be forgiven. Agnostic Ernest Gordon's story of his being nursed back from the brink of death by Christian friends, thereby starting him on the road to faith--and incredibly, understanding and then forgiveness of the harsh brutality of his Japanese captors--raises this film far above any other WW2 films that I have seen (except perhaps the under-rated THE THIN RED LINE, like TO END...also filled with philosophical questions and ruminations). Although the brutality of the Japanese bushito system is shown in all its horrific brutality, some of the Japanese, especially the young man who serves as interpreter, are depicted as having touch of humanity. The film's central thesis seems to depict the affects of clinging to anger and vengeance versus seeking to be able to forgive and reconcile. The latter is shown at the end of the film when, similar to the scene in SCHINDLER'S LIST, the real Capt. Ernest Gordon and Japanese interpreter Nagase, now old men, meet and shake hands in Thailand at a memorial to those who died building the railroad. The creativity of the men, forming a Jungle University where Plato and Shakespeare are taught, is celebrated, calling to mind the inspiring film of women POW's, PARADISE ROAD.

When this thought-inspiring film finally is released to theaters or video, don't miss it. It can serve as an antidote to the dozens of mindless, vengeance-based flicks cluttering up the screens of our cinemaplexes.

Stirring and strong movie about Allied prisoners at a Japanese concentration camp in the Burmsese jungle

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 8 October 2021]

An intense and moving Concentration Camp picture with a lot of disgusting and violent incidents, based on the true story of Ernest Gordon. Regarding a Japanese Concentration Camp in which prisoners are submitted to severe tortures , punishments and grisly executions by beheading. It is set during WWII taking place at a concentration camp located in Burma where life is brutally harsh . On the Asian mainland , Japanese troops had overrun much of the southeast Asia . They had conquered what is now Malasya and Burma . The British defenders and their allied had retreated north and west into India . The bridge of the River Kwai was placed on the so-called ¨Burma road¨ stretched north from the Burmese , Rangoon , into southern China . It combined a railroad with a winding track through the high mountains near the Chinese border . There had many valuable natural resources , including large large oil fields , and Japan's victory in 1942 cut off the only land route into China from outside. The mountain and jungle of Burma were some of the most demanding environments for fighting in the whole war . Burma and Thailand was strategically valuable , however , it guarded the supply routes to China where were a million Japanese troops, but in such a huge country even that number could not win a decisive victory over the Allied . There are POW's, mainly from a Scottish regiment, they must build part of the enemy's supply railroad trough the ever-inhospitable jungle and working for building a bridge over the River Kwai were a group of war prisoners . A true story about four Allied POWs who endure harsh treatment from their Japanese captors during World War II while being forced to build a railroad throughout the Burmese jungle. Cruel conditions in the concentration camp make life very difficult and the climate also had a significant impact on the prisoners . In war, you have to survive. A True Story About The Will To Survive And The Courage To Forgive . In a jungle war of survival, they learned sacrifice. In a prison of brutal confinement, they found true freedom. The war has ended.. now the slaughter begins !

A moving film about the prolific sub-genre of Concentration Camps with usual ingredients as sadistic commandant , ominous wardens , heinous soldiers carrying out barbaric orders and inmates suffering savage punishments and ultimately they find true freedom by forgiving their enemies . A cruel film dealing with the ruthless , brutal truth about the most barbaric prison camp in the annals of warfare . Being allegedly based on facts , authenticated by the very few who survived the massacre in this terrible camp .The film boasts of a good plethora of British , Japanese and American actors , giving decent acting such as : Ciarán McMenamin , Robert Carlyle, Kiefer Sutherland , Mark Strong, Yûgo Sasô, Sakae Kimura , James Cosmo , Greg Ellis , among others. It belong to a sub-genre about prisoners imprisoned in Japanese concentration camps such as : ¨The Camp of Blood Island¨ (1958) with Michael Goodliffe , Michael Gwynn, Carl Mohner by Val Guest , ¨Bridge on the river Kwai'¨by David Lean with William Holden , Alec Guinnes , Jack Hawkins ,¨Return to River Kwai¨ this film is supposedly the following to classic with Crris Penn, Nick Tate , Timothy Bottoms directed by Andrew McLagen .And this ¨To end All Wars¨ (2001) motion picture was professionally directed by David L. Cunningham.

Too formulaic and overdone.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 20 April 2007]

No wonder that this movie became nowhere a success. It was made at a time when dozens of war movies were being made every year. This movie adds very little extra to the genre and offers few surprises or insight information about things we didn't knew yet.

Also problem is that the movie just isn't much interesting because very little is actually happening in it. Just analyze this movie for a moment. Is it really the interesting story approach of the prisoners starting a school and start learning about so called 'deeper' philosophies. And here also lays a problem. The movie is toward the end trying to get philosophical and with deeper meanings in it but due to the way of film-making it feels too forced and because of that it gets overdone and works ineffective.

All of the genre clichés you could expect from a movie like this are present here; A mean camp commander, a more friendly guard, escapes and escape plans, one group of people who wants to escape and others who want to stay put and the list goes on. Of course I understand that its hard to be original with a concept of a movie set entirely in a POW-camp but they at least could had put in some more surprises and less formulaic characters.

Also the casting didn't helped much. Whose bright idea was it to cast Ciarán McMenamin (who?) as the main character. The movie is further more filled with some well known actors such as Robert Carlyle, Kiefer Sutherland and James Cosmo but it all makes you wonder; wouldn't they characters be just as effective and good if they were being played by lesser known actors? The actors performances just don't add enough to the characters and their development. You can see that this movie is a waste of such a fine cast.

The characters are also one of the problems I had with this movie. They don't ever fully get developed and you just never feel close or attached to any of them. I once again results in the fact that the emotions of the movie don't work out because you quite frankly just don't care.

The movie also isn't very effective with showing how brutal and hopeless the situations in the camps were. The lacks a certain atmosphere of danger and perhaps even is too light on the subject, despite having some violent and cruel sequences in it. But all of those moments are rather predictable and you can sense them coming from miles away. It makes them ineffective and also makes the movie feel all the more formulaic and forced.

The movie doesn't look cheap but it feels like a cheap one nevertheless, due to some lame camera-positions and editing techniques at times. Also the fact that the movie begins almost immediately set in the POW camp just doesn't work out effective. It just makes you feel cheated that you missed out all of the action, which obviously occurred but wasn't shown on screen. Lots of cruel things are happening to the characters but problem is that we don't know them yet, so to say it boldly, why should we care what happens? The directing and choices they made just aren't much good and I doubt we'll ever hear some big things from director David L. Cunningham in the future.

But obviously this movie is of cause much better than just your average B-war movie. It's definitely a watchable movie but really not deserving of the high rating and praise it is currently receiving on here. It's a watchable but above all a very redundant movie that adds nothing new to the genre.

I just don't see how this movie does do any justice to the real POW, by the Japanese during WW II. This movie offers nothing more than formulaic entertainment with drama that feels too forced and overdone to find this movie ever credible or powerful, despite it all being based on true events.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Worth watching

[toddinvestor · 7/10 · 4 December 2004]

"To End All Wars" may not be a classic or a great war film. It starts slowly, and the numerous characters make it a bit confusing. This is not "Saving Private Ryan". However, the movie gets more interesting, intense and meaningful as it goes along and concludes with a satisfying ending. "To End All Wars" is a film worth hanging in there past the first half hour to get to the more involved parts of the plot and characters. There is more than just a POW camp war tale here. There is an entire subplot about the prisoners motives, character growth, attitudes and eventual heroics that is worth waiting for. Most war films start and end with shooting and battles. "To End All Wars" looks at the human side of conflict. Add to all of this the basis on a true story, and this film makes for a worthwhile two hours. 7/10

A "War" Movie That's About Values, Not War

[rsimanski · 9/10 · 5 July 2005]

I am a serious film lover who keeps up with the best new films. I stumbled across To End All Wars when it was shown recently on one of the Starz/Encore channels. At the end, I kept asking myself why I had never heard of it. The film is nowhere to be found in Roger Ebert's reviews or Leonard Maltin's annual guide, and yet I suspect that Ebert, at least, would rate this film very highly.

I like films that are about something that is important, at least to me, and not just pure entertainment. Not that I don't enjoy a good action-adventure film or light comedy from time to time, but most of the time, I prefer to spend my time watching films that make me think and perhaps even ask questions of myself.

To End All Wars is one such film. The Bridge on the River Kwai, which deals with the same historical events, is not, despite its many strong points. In this respect, To End All Wars is the better film, and the one that I am more likely to watch frequently.

Despite its title, the film is not really about war. What it is about is the efforts of a small group of men, and one man in particular, to maintain their faith, their sense of values, and their very sanity under horrible, murderous conditions that would drive most men to insanity or to become murderers themselves.

The film forces me to ask myself whether I could have done the same under those conditions. To be honest, I'm afraid to ask the question because I may not like the answer.

Although the film depicts many horrible things, it is not a depressing film, at least for me. Rather, it's a positive, hopeful film, in the same way that Schindler's List is a positive, hopeful film. If one man, in the case of Schindler, or a small group of men, in the case of the ones in this film, can maintain their sanity, faith, and values in a world that has gone insane, then there is hope for mankind.

As for the references to their Christian faith, it is not laid on with a trowel, as it might be in a lesser film. It is simply there as an important part of their lives. Whether or not we share that faith is beside the point. What is important is that they shared it, and that faith helped them to survive.

Could the director and the writers have made their points even more effectively? Probably. Would I have liked to have known more about the individual characters? Definitely. Would the film have benefited from a larger budget? Possibly.

All of these questions are moot, however. Every film deserves to be judged on its own terms, on the basis of what it is and not what it might have been. Not every film can be another Citizen Kane or Rules of the Game, nor should it be.

Taken on its own merits, To End All Wars is an excellent film that I expect to watch many times and recommend to my family and friends as well. The fact that the film never got proper distribution, at least in the United States, and therefore never got the recognition that it deserves, shows just how shallow and superficial the Hollywood film industry has become. Thankfully it is available on DVD.

Excellent themes, skilled acting. Yet it's pretensions offend the discerning.

[chandos49 · 6/10 · 1 August 2006]

"To End All Wars" came to my attention via a friend in Youth With A Mission, the organization that is a major player behind it's making.

The first half of the narrative is well done, as are many aspects of the latter half. Unfortunately, the screenwriters don't give their viewers enough credit. No one with the savvy to appreciate, or at least recognize, the comparison of Jesus' ethic of unconditional love to the ideals of Bushido needs bludgeoning with a recapitulation of the Gospel as was done in the coda to this film.

The story is so well done, the themes so clearly delineated, the principal roles so thoroughly identified with those themes - let the story tell the story! It's not hard to draw any conclusions for those so inclined.

There is a line in one of the letters from the Apostle Peter: Be ready to answer anyone who asks about the hope you cherish in Jesus Christ. One of the great themes (if not the foremost theme) in this film was that of earning the right to be heard.

I wish the screenwriters paid closer attention to their craft and followed suit. This could have been a great film.

Powerful in the way that Schindler's List was powerful

[John K.-2 · 9/10 · 14 January 2005]

Most of the reviews I've read of this film use the word "powerful" to describe it, and I will too. It's powerful because it's realistic; no stereotyped good guys or bad guys here (it's based on a true story, after all), and yet plenty of cruelty and some kindness, which leads to an exploration of themes such as justice and mercy in a way that (at last) doesn't lead to boredom or cynicism. It's *not* a light relief to watch this -- but nor was Schindler's List, possibly the only other prison-camp movie which matches this one for exploration of human motivation and hope.

Oh, and it stars a crop of very respectable (and largely British) actors. Why, oh why has this never had a cinema release in the UK?

Deeply Themed and Brutally Honest

[emeriboy · 7/10 · 15 August 2006]

Starting with their capture, this story pulls you through World War II in the eyes of Scottish POWs in a Japanese POW camp in Thialand where they triumph and succumb to the Japanese, nature and themselves.

--- Well first of all, I should say the title is misleading, "To End All Wars" is by no means a war movie -- it's a POW movie and a very different one at that. There's no grand escape plan or revolt, instead it chooses to concentrate on the mental and moral aspect of being held against your will, facing punishment, torture and having no idea what will happen tomorrow or how long you will stay alive.

The plot is expertly put together and deeply rooted around the question: Should you turn the other cheek or have your revenge, do you have it in you to forgive your enemy? There are plenty of characters involved in the movie and each one, from the main character to the smallest part, has to ask themselves that question, and by the end of the movie you will too.

The biggest drawback is that the movie is drawn out a little, much like Fargo seemed to me, but by the end I was so involved I didn't even notice. Other than that it introduces you to the violence that went on in this camp fairly early on in the movie, and it's exceptionally violent (and not for the faint of heart). It easily exceeds the level of violence in Saving Privite Ryan in some of the parts. Yet for all the violence, it does not glorify it at all. And that's where the plot comes in, "can you love your enemy?" After all they did to you? That's the question consistently asked.

The acting is fairly well done for both sides. Robert Caryle plays the part of Devil's Advocate, wanting revenge for most of the movie and Kiefer Sutherland portrays a loner who for part of the movie tries to survive on his own until he realizes he won't be able to get through this without friends. The main character, Ernest Gordon, is inspired by a religious Dusty who's presence boosts moral throughout the whole camp. There are plenty of other smaller roles both POW and Japanese, and at times it may get confusing but this does not hinder the movie.

The music is aptly used only in the most dramatic and vital parts. And in some scenes is really well done. The tracks themselves are enjoyable, except for one or two (Although to be fair some of them were unoriginal).

To End All Wars, although slightly slow and violent is surprising good for a movie most people have every heard of. It's definitely not a light-hearted movie, but if you ever get a chance to see it you should.

Seriously powerful and well done.

[the_eef · 10/10 · 7 July 2004]

I have never had a movie have the effect this one had on me. This movie makes other movies look shallow and weak in my opinion. It made me really think about life, and the acting was so good. Not just another war movie, To End All Wars takes the true story of Ernest Gordon and veteran Argyle soldiers to the screen in a way that will turn your heart inside out. I honestly can't explain the effect this movie had on me, me and my friends sat silent as it ended out of astonishment. I recommend this movie to everyone I talk to about movies. It's a breath of fresh air because it makes some strong statements about morality and forgiveness, and is written beautifully.

Out of a Heart of Darkness . . .

[kevharmal · 7/10 · 3 March 2003]

. . . comes a ray of light.

More an event than a motion picture, "To End All Wars" touches the mind as well as the heart. Powerful performances and a timeless message of hope in an age of suffering. You've never seen a war movie like this before.

Winning game plan, losing execution

[bomi-1 · 5/10 · 18 March 2005]

The material with which Cunningham et al were working with in this film was tremendous; unfortunately, their handling of it was not. Part "Bridge on the River Kwai," part, "The Great Escape," part "The Passion of the Christ" (heavily sanitized), the film probably suffered from trying to live up to the mastery of its predecessors.

To begin with some positives, though: the photography is very good. Although some of the shots do a poor job of creating a sense of visual rhythm, each frame can stand alone as a still photograph. The shots are nicely balanced, and the lighting is rarely amiss. The acting also leaves little to be desired. This is one area in which Cunningham succeeding as a director: he really did a nice job of fostering an actor-friendly atmosphere and brought out the best in the respective players.

However, as successful as Cunningham was in directing the shooting and acting, he was equally unsuccessful with the rest of the film-making process. To begin with, there is a comic litany of unlikely objects magically appearing in this remote Japanese prison camp. From a set of bagpipes, to a collection of clean dress uniforms, to a violin, to a wheelchair that would have made FDR envious, some of the decisions that were apparently made to enhance the dramatic effects of certain scenes stretched the imagination more than a little bit. It was also remarkable how well-shaven the POW's remained during their two-and-a-half year imprisonment.

But those are relatively minor issues, I suppose. More damning is the general lack of perspective that the film provides, both narratively and spatially. For example, there is no feeling as to how long the march from the battlefield to the camp was, although I assume that it was supposed to be a long, arduous ordeal. Cunningham's issues providing narrative perspective were perhaps the most important flaw in the film. As a viewer, I was never able to grasp the difficulties that these men had in this camp. While the narrator (I believe the presence of the narrator to have been a mistake to begin with for this particular film) kept making references to the precariousness of their hold on life and sanity, the film never visually or narratively reinforced the grinding-down provided by the everyday reality of the camp. There are a handful of exceptional instances of oppression shown, but nothing that leaves you feeling the physical and mental exhaustion the prisoners faced every day. Instead, you see a lot of scenes of the prisoners as they perform Shakespeare, or discuss philosophy. On an intellectual, rational level, it is apparent how important these activities could have been to the prisoners, but this importance is never captured aesthetically.

There is also precious little character development. Firstly, too many characters are important for all of them to be sufficiently developed in a feature-length film. There are too many stories to tell, without enough time to tell them all. The characters ultimately remain relatively static, in spite of the wonderful potential supplied by the plot to turn any one of these men into a compelling portrait. This lack of character development also saps the strength of many of the philosophical/religious overtones. Because it is difficult to connect to many of the characters, their sacrifices and transgressions mean much less than they should.

Finally, as I hinted at before, the presence of the narrator eventually undermined any subtlety that the film may have had. While is some places the narrator's comments merely cheapened the "showing" (as opposed to "telling") of important thematic elements in the film, in many places the narrator's comments completely replaced any attempt to "show" the reality on which he was commenting upon, including his comments on the hardships of the imprisonment.

While I have heard/read many people who have responded very emotionally to this film (in a positive way), I have a hard time understanding their sentiment. The film simply relies too heavily on abstraction rather than visual/narrative demonstration of the reality it is trying to depict to inspire any strong emotions in me. While the plot and characters contain a true treasure trove of potential, I feel like most of the potential was wasted on this particular film-making team.

wow!

[nathan-1 · 25 April 2004]

I was expecting just another 'Rambo' or 'Platoon' but instead got a 'Schindler's List' or 'The Pianist'. At the start of the film, I was all for Robert Carlyle to go on a rampage and kill the POW guards (or 'nips' as they are referred to in this film, and were during WW2). But as the story progresses, it turns into a story of self-sacrifice with Christian ethics. I must say, during the crucifixion scene, I shed a tear (which is VERY rare for me, and even more so since this is a low-budget film). This film is very moving, at times it can be hard viewing, but if this film does not move you then you have no soul - it's worth watching!!! Some of you might feel revenge, or (like me) forgiveness after watching it. The end message of the film is to test the viewer and ask them a question: Can you forgive your enemey and love and help them like a friend, no matter how much hurt and pain they cause you and your loved ones and to forgive them? I would highly recommend anyone with a human soul to watch this film, but if you like all the CGI, blood-for-fun, violence and drama of 'Saving Private Ryan' then you're not welcome here...

Solid drama taken from real life experience

[ckmate23 · 7/10 · 9 June 2006]

"Bridge Over the River Kwai" meets "Stalag 17" meets "Dead Poets Society". Gripping performance worthy of the heroism of the real-life experience. Challenging on many levels. Like the best of dramas it poses more questions than answers. Probes the human condition on the most basic levels from "Why are we here?" to "What is justice?". Not for every audience. I would caution viewers from exposing the film to younger audiences because of the graphic depiction of the cruelty of the Bushido captors. Nonetheless, as the viewers come of age, it is an important historical lesson that answers many questions as to the whys and wherefores that precipitated the Second World War.

The not so cheerful bridge over the river Kwai

[Tcarts76 · 7/10 · 2 October 2012]

This movie totally slid by me when it came out and I am usually pretty good at spotting good war movies. It was a really well crafted movie that kind of felt like a realistic version of the factually flawed movie "The Bridge over the River Kwai. No catchy whistle tunes, just the cold harshness of the non Geneva convention signing Japanese Imperial Army.

The story follows a group of British soldiers as they surrendered to the Japanese and came to suffer the war as slaves in a POw camp. It illustrates the cold, in human treatment they suffered and how they survived in the face of such adversity and evil. It is a great tale, as gut-wrenching as it is, of both the evil humans do to each other and the strength that we can have to survive.

The movie was filmed pretty well, and the actors, especially Robert Carlyle gave strong performances. As good as it was I still do think there was room for improvement, and it was still a somewhat sanitized version of what life in these camps were really like. Perhaps that was to get through the censors or the just didn't want to create a controversy or face a backlash for being to grotesque, such as the controversy "Saving Private Ryan," received for being to realistic in regards to it's D-Day scenes.

I do think it is a movie worth watching for the history alone.

Like my reviews, hate em? Comments, hate mail, or have a DVD you would like reviewed? send me an e-mail at : [e-mail]

Infamous story, lacks strong emotion

[CrazyArty · 6/10 · 9 December 2021]

The true story of Allied POWs captured by the Japanese in Asia during World War 2.

The prisoners were subjected to brutal conditions and treated as forced labour building a railway through the dense jungle.

This is now an infamous story about the Death Railway in Thailand. The film has a strong cast (Kiefer Sutherland, Mark Strong, Robert Carlyle) but somehow 20 years later it has aged badly. It's an important story but not sure this film does a very good job of conveying that. It comes across as a made-for-TV movie and lacks real emotional punch, despite the brutal events. Something is missing and I think it's the upfront character development which was very light.

haunting and powerful story

[luvvbuzz54 · 9/10 · 20 January 2005]

i saw this film as i tend to like films of this type about humanitarian stories, the fact that this one is true actual events made it even more powerful for me. it truly does bring home the facts of what the men from ww11 endured to make our world today as free as it is, and it is films like this one that should be shown as part of history curriculum in high schools. the film was brilliant, brutal, honest, extremely well acted, filmed and managed to touch me to the point of tears. Robert Carlyle was fantastic, as were the rest of the leads, i would give this film 9 out of 10 simply because 10 out of 10 would be perfection and perfection does not exist.

Why war is not fun.

[backbone-2 · 7/10 · 16 June 2004]

I am always wary of war films that say they are based on a true story. But this film is obviously very close to the facts because of the way in which it does away with the superficial and goes for the "guts' of living out of forgiveness above the typical revenge and hate films. The dirty, stinking and constant cruel circumstances of these Allied POW's make you wonder how the heck they could do it. War is not fun and being in a Japanese prison in a sweaty jungle with extreme inhuman treatment must be no fun at all. I was glad to see the script of each character was real not just some grunt from a super-human killing machine who kisses all his enemies goodbye. Kiefer Sutherland was the American trying to make the best of a very bad situation but faced with the responses of indifference and hate that all war victims seem to experience. The strong performance by Robert Carlyle as Campbell should have had the Scots applauding and won a number of Film Awards. However Ciarån McMenamin as Ernest Gordon strengthen the film with his honest narration leading to the last part of the film where the truth of war and the suffering involved is squarely faced. This is a haunting and truthful film with great scenes but please be warned those who have experienced war and its cruelty you will be crying at the end. I give it 7

Amazingly complex and thought provoking

[donal-5 · 9/10 · 17 November 2004]

As a Pagan, I half expected the overt Christian themes of forgiveness and redemption to make me slightly uncomfortable, but such was not the case. The entire family applauded the end of the film, not wildly but slowly, with thought and deliberation. Quite frankly we were blown away! Kiefer Sutherland is one of my wife's favorite actors and was, frankly, the only reason I rented it. I am SO glad I did! I remember the moment, when they helped the injured Japanese, when I realized that "To End All Wars" was not so named as reference to the WWI slogan, but as subtle hint that the only way we, as a race, will ever outgrow war is when we all realize that we are truly killing our brothers and when we understand that the wars will cease. To kill the enemy you must hate him. If you can love your enemy you cannot kill him. More, if you can love you enemy more than yourself, he cannot kill you.

A miss

[dndcullens · 6/10 · 11 July 2006]

This movie should not have been a miss but a hit. An up-lifting story, a goodish cast and some excellent drama but it fails miserably. Why? I don't know! Most good movies try and show both sides of an argument however wrong and this one attempts to give the Japanese as well as the Allied side to the brutality suffered by the prisoners in the hands of the Japanese. It almost succeeds but doesn't quite get there. As with any true story it is difficult to make it dramatic without, well, being econimical with the truth. But we have seen this work before in other movies so why not here? I know the history of the British regiments that fought in the second world war and their traditions but it is never made clear that the Argyles did not surrender but were forced to stop fighting on orders from High command. In Bridge over the River Kwai", Alec Guinness's character makes it clear by saying "we were ordered to surrender". For such a proud set of soldiers to put up with what they did in the camps was even more humiliating then even the Japanese thought. The movie has some good moments but never really gets above average which is a pity because the story deserved better.

A Remarkable Picture About the Cruelty of War and Forgiving

[u-fessler · 9/10 · 26 August 2006]

I've just seen this movie on television and just had to make a comment about it. It has been the second or third time I've watched it and it never got boring even though I knew the scenes.

To not spoil this movie for people who haven't seen it, I won't go into detail. Anyway, there has been written a lot about it on the internet. You do get to see a lot of cruel scenes in this movie but never find any scene inappropriate. Anyway, the things in this movie have really happened as it is based on a true story. It is the story of a handful of soldiers from the 93rd division of the Scottish "Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders". They had been imprisoned as POWs by the Japanese during WW II. While they were in the prison camp the Japanese decided that they had to work on a railway between Burma and Thailand. This railway, part of it being the infamous "Bridge over the River Kwai", is still best known as the "Death Railway", since approximately 150,000 POWs and native workers died during its construction.

What makes this movie so brilliant is the moving portrayal of their characters by Carlyle and Sutherland, who both deserved at least an Academy Award nomination for their efforts, in my opinion. The directing is very nicely done as well, I cannot tell of any flaw witnessed.

Being based on the true story of Ernest Gordon, one of the few survivors, this picture is simply a must-see. It shows without any restraint the way war really is and what it was like to have to suffer being a POW in this prison camp. Additionally, it also shows the only way of surviving mentally the things you were to experience there. And that is forgiving your enemy.

A Disappointment

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 27 April 2004]

There`s no such thing as a Scot who isn`t a fan of Robert Carlyle so I`m one of nearly five million people who has followed his career with some interest and vaguely remembered in 2001 he was starring in a POW drama called TO END ALL WARS but didn`t hear much else about the movie and after seeing it on TV a couple of nights ago I can certainly understand why it disappeared without trace . It is a very disappointing film

First of all I confess that movies set in Japanese POW camps deserve to be seen by everybody , unlike post war German society Japan never ever refers to the atrocities committed by their side during the second world war . Japanese history books are devoid of entries involving the invasion of Manchuria , the rape of Nang-King , the Bataan death march , Korean " Comfort women " and the Burma railway . Of course Japanese text books do mention the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that seems to be the only referrences to the second world war which is a bit like present day Germany claiming the war started with the bombing of Dresden and finished with the Red Army invading Berlin and raping the local women . So any movie that portrays the Imperial Japanese Army in a bad light is okay in my opinion

But the problem with TO END ALL WARS is two fold . First is the totally unfocussed characters . When the film was completed much was made that it " Starred " Robert Carlyle and Kiefer Sutherland but after seeing the movie it`s obvious that neither Carlyle`s character Campbell or Sutherland`s character Reardon is the main character - It`s Ciaran McMenamin`s Ernest Gordon the original author of the book and seeing both Carlyle and Sutherland are far better known faces than McMenamin the three characters compete for screen time in a rather uneven manner . Perhaps it would have been better if a fairly big name had been cast as Gordon with Campbell and Reardon being played by unknowns ? Especially since much of the tale is carried by Gordon`s narration . Secondly as several people have already pointed out much of the story feels like cliche . It`s probably not the fault of this production but why does every Japanese POW camp have to feature a loud brash American running a scam ? Both BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI and KING RAT feature similar characters . There`s a few other cliches along the way too

As I said this is a disappointing movie and due to the subject matter a rather depressing one too

Uplifting

[Mr Toad · 9 December 2002]

To End All Wars is a remarkably bold--almost brazen--film that deserves a wider distribution. As far as war movies go, it is much better than Thin Red Line, which tries to be thoughtful but only achieves a meaningless ambivalence. To End All Wars conveys its message in a clear yet profound way.

As a Christian film, it shines as the boldest offering I have ever seen. Whereas popular depictions of religion (Seventh Heaven, anyone?) might mention an unspecified god every now and then, this film uses unmistakable metaphors and symbolism that blur the line between analogy and reality. It is one thing to put a cross in a shot. It is another thing completely to depict someone making sacrifices for his friends.

Ultimately, To End All Wars makes no compromises, neither to those who think its rating does not match its message nor not to those who think it is too preachy. Some things need to be preached.