To End All Wars: Director's Cut - Award-Winning WWII Drama Film | Historical War Movie for History Buffs & Film Enthusiasts | Perfect for Movie Nights & Educational Screenings

I came across the wonderful masterpiece by happenstance of "surfing" lists on Amazon. Seeing that the vast majority of the reviews were five stars and the film had Kiefer Sutherland, I decided to purchase "To End All Wars." I am so glad I did.In preparing to write this review, I read the other reviews, starting with the one star reviews, to see what had already been emphasized--both positive and negative. I was taken aback at many of the comments made, and the "controversies" many viewers had with "To End All Wars." Call me jaded, or anything else, but I do not see why this film has been criticized and/or labeled for being: 1) an anti-war movie; 2) a graphically violent or gory film; 3) an "unfaithful" rendition of the book (an aspect I cannot comment on, as I have not read the book); and 4) a movie that has--depending on the reviewer--to much or too little of a "Christian message." Moreover, I have found my self challenged by the intriguing question: Why do I watch a movie? Entertainment? If entertainment, what is entertainment?What I see in "To End All Wars" is a brilliant presentation, on a "limited" budget, concerning a part of World War II that many people do not like to "think about." I see a semi-autobiographical account as seen through the "eyes" (and memories) of one survivor. I see a film that details the fact that the story teller, along with a few other other prisoners of war (POWs) survived an amazing feat; (nearly 50% of the Asian and 25%--16,000+--of the Allied prisoners that worked on the railroad died). "To End All Wars" brilliantly captures the nature of this horrendous experience, to the degree that an "R" rating would allow. What I do not see is a movie debating "Vengeance or Forgiveness," "Pain and Pleasure," "Redemption, Forgiveness, Brutality," "Sadism," or "Christianity." And to find "To End All Wars" boring, is to find life and drama boring.I have not read the book that the movie is based upon, so I cannot comment on how much detail Ernest Gordon goes into with regards to the treatment of the prisoners (or comment on the films "faithfulness" to his book). But I have seen other testimonies and pictures, and I can safely state that the movie is "soft core" with regards to the treatment, conditions, interactions, and violence endured by the POWs--"To End All Wars," as far as I am concerned, is NOT graphically violent or gory--especially for an "R" rated movie. Despite this, I feel the film gets the point across, just as it makes clear why any attempt to escape would be futile, why so many were suffering, and why the author's decision to "teach" was so helpful to the survivors.In deed, I would argue that it is the fault of our own "arrogant" and "prudent" denial of reality, as found in our educational systems and other social organizations, that prevented "To End All Wars" to truly portray what happened. Why does the movie not show more of what happened to the Asians working on the railroad? Why does the film not address the gruesomeness the people sent to work on the Burma/Death Railway endured just to get to the camps? Why does the movie not address what happened to the Japanese who were involved in these "war crimes?" Why does the movie not tell what happened to the other POWs? I am guessing, one reason is that movies today cannot go over two hours; but, I suspect the greater reasons are that viewers don't really desire to know "the bald facts," and because showing everything would have resulted in some form of "Adults Only" rating. With that in mind, if "To End All Wars" had been able to truly portray what happened, then I would agree with those who call the film an "anti-war" movie, because it just might have had such an effect upon the viewer.But I do not believe that the makers of "To End All Wars" were overtly trying to make an anti-war movie; (if they were, they failed). Nor can I believe that someone as noble and brave as Ernest Gordon (based upon my research for this review) would be totally "anti-war." I believe he would think more along the lines--as he clearly did when he enlisted--that war is sometimes a necessary evil. And the "message" I got from "To End All Wars" was: Honor those who fought/fight--regardless of their beliefs or which "side" of the war they were serving. If this is a "Christian message," then it is; but, it is, more importantly, a human message understood by all who have endured many forms of violence--war in particular.As for the language, I think that the director did an incredible job of "covering up" the dialog that would have been/is used on a daily basis by people caught in such an environment. If the viewer is so easily offended, they should stick with "fantasy" films. Even more germane to this film, is if Ernest Gordon did not use the vernacular of the everyday soldier, let alone that of prisoners under extreme duress, in his book, then I say the makers of "To End All Wars" were obliged to ignore Mr Gordon's prudence. The fact that Ernest Gordon "started" a school to help keep moral up, and that one of the books available was the Bible never once lead me to the conclusion that this was a "Christian" movie. Indeed, what I remember most is: 1) that the thoughts of Shakespeare and Plato were integrated with those of the Bible and the Japanese "bushido" ideologies; and 2) how these ideas impacted upon the men involved. Perhaps even more impressive was the presentation of how the "refreshed" attitudes (from their "schooling") of these few men influenced the attitudes and lives of the rest of the camp--including the Japanese.For me, the role of "faith," was not that of Christian faith, but of human faith. Again, without having read the book, I have no idea to what degree Christian faith influenced Ernest Gordon before his camp experiences, but as a sociologist I do know how individuals who have been around Christian thinking will quickly turn to the Bible--or their "remembrance" of the Bible--when they find themselves in situations they cannot fathom; just as individuals of other religions "turn" to their "remembrances" of whatever source of "faith" they have encountered. And there in-lies one of the beauties of the "school:" "faith" was found by some POWS in the Bible, by others in Shakespeare, yet other POWs took faith from Plato and other writers, and other POWs discovered faith in music and drama. Others turned to the darker side (brought out so well in "King Rat") for their faith, as aptly found in an American POW--portrayed with greatness by Kiefer Sutherland as Lt. Jim Reardon--selfish materialism; albeit, Sutherland's character undergoes a transformation that is both longer and greater--and less appreciated and understood--than many of the other POWs."To End All Wars" walked a hard line, and in the final analysis, I truly believe it did a wonderful job. All of the performances were superb. I found myself involved with the characters, and living their lives (or at least feeling like I was). The script, direction, and production are all stellar. When a film, such as "To End All Wars" draws the viewer into the world they are portraying, I think that is what entertainment is all about.Please Note: If this review was not helpful to you, I would appreciate learning the reason(s) so I can improve my reviews. My goal is to provide help to potential buyers, not get into any arguments. So, if you only disagree with my opinion, could you please say so in the comments and not indicate that the review was not helpful. Thanks.