User reviews

Last week I saw American HUSTLE and couldn't understand why the critics have so raved about it. Yesterday I saw THE RAILWAY MAN and can't understand why the critics have been so dismissive. It's a tense story about one of the great horrors of World War Two. Based on a true story, it's also a tale of love and redemption, two of the cinema's (and literature's) greatest themes. And it serves up a vivid reminder that the Japanese of the 1940s were, like the Nazis, from a different generation, almost from a different race.

David Lean's BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI casts a huge shadow over this movie. THE RAILWAY MAN lacks the "majesty" of Lean's famous epic, but I suspect that Alex Guinness's performance would seem very theatrical by the standards of screen acting today. If anything, Colin Firth gives a slightly under-powered performance (and Nicole Kidman's part gives her too little to work with), but Jeremy Irvine is intensely believable as the wartime Lomax, geeky and quietly heroic. The horrors of the forced labour that built the railway and the relentless brutality of the Japanese soldiers are both vividly conveyed, and the ending manages to be poignant without trespassing into mawkishness.

This is a strange movie, grim but highly watchable. Arguably, it could have been tougher, more savage, but then it might be harder to sit through.

Saw this as a test screening some time ago but wasn't allowed to post until it was released, consequently I've not seen the finished film but the test version affected me quite a bit. Based on a true story - Eric Lomax (Firth) - was building the Thai/Burma railway WWII as a POW. The conditions were horrific, treatment atrocious and Lomax clearly suffered PTSD, although it wasn't diagnosed yet - the film was set in the 70s. In an attempt to lay ghosts of his past to rest he travels back to revisit the sites of his incarceration and comes face to face with a Japanese officer from that time who was central to his torture.

It's a grey, period-style, sombre film, there's little in the way of humour and the only colour at the beginning is Nicole Kidman's (more or less extraneous) role as the "love interest." Her role was apparently meant to be played by Rachel Weisz and I think that would have been a better choice, and it bugs me that Kidman is first listing on the credits when Lomax' role is the titular role, and it's HIS book that the film is based on. However, the synopsis puts emphasis on her standing by her man and seeing him through his adversity and she does, and is good in the role she is given, and in that she was well chosen played down in her looks to given some small-town glamour.

It's a slow pace and if you like bells and whistles and CGI rather than real life and emotions then don't bother with this... it's a gripping, sad, heartbreaking and heartwarming tale or triumph over adversity, courage and strength of spirit with an ending that if you don't have a tear in your eye then you are dead inside.

Colin Firth, I think, is well cast and plays stayed, rather eccentric and dull due to his brokenness extremely well. He is fascinated by railways and trains (which is surprising) since his experiences and we meet his love interest on a train. His emotions turn erratically and he suffered terrifying nightmares, working through the pain/suffering of his character with a quiet studied grace. The star turn in my opinion... and all at the test screening agreed... is Hiroyuki Sanada who played Lomax' nemesis as an adult. He had a very challenging role and was superb. He played his role with so much calm that you could believe his conversion experience and he made the tale come alive and be very believable. Nothing he did was superfluous and even the tiniest nuances of his actions were obviously deliberate and perfect, his facial expressions were... oh enough to make me weep in places. I'd like to see him get applauded for it - and will look out for him in other films (eg 47 Ronin). Stellan Skarsgard (always excellent) was good in the role he played but at the test screening we all questioned why someone without a heavy English accent was cast for the role of an English soldier in his middle age when in his young scenes the actor who played Finlay was quintessentially British with no explanation as to why he is suddenly Swedish, "After the war he went to Sweden and has lived there" would have done - maybe they've done that now. His character too was a tragedy, also not coping at all with life after war.

The young actors playing the tough scenes in Japan building the railway had the hardest roles and Jeremy Irvine and Sam Reid did their older selves proud in some quite harrowing scenes, and oftentimes they really did look emaciated, thin and on their last legs. The film pulls no punches but does leave the terrible experience that Lomax suffered as a cliff-hanger to the last.

A powerful film, not for the feint or lighthearted, I fear, but certainly if you are interested in history, and enjoy good performance led character pieces you will find this an excellent cinema-going experience. I do recommend taking something to dry your eyes with and stay to the end to learn about Lomax and Nagase - the real people. The truth in the story adds so much more to the film.

"The Railway Man" is a sober restrained film for much of its running time. Its low key approach makes the torture scenes and the depictions of Eric Lomax's searing post-war nightmares all the more horrifying and unforgettable. The acting is uniformly excellent. The direction and all the technical contributions are admirable. I normally never consciously notice the sound design, but here it contributes intelligently and gently to several episodes. I was particularly fascinated to see Eric and the other signals staff emerging into the sunlight from the underground "Battle Box" headquarters in Fort Canning Park, Singapore. I toured it in 2007; it is now a museum peopled by realistic waxworks of the soldiers, senior and junior, who were there on surrender day, 15th February 1942.

Yet the film has several irritating shortcomings. The title character, Eric, was 61 at the time of the scenes set in 1980. Good as he is, Colin Firth is visibly too young. Perhaps it shouldn't matter, given the power of his performance, but it gets in the way if you try to make sense of the time lapses.

The very down to earth portrayal of Eric's lonely life is immensely touching, as in the scene where his new love Patti wants to scrub clean the cooking pot in his grubby bachelor kitchen. But such practical matter of fact detail inevitably invites down to earth speculation such as "Where does the characters' money come from?" This tiresome little problem hardly matters in more fantastical Hollywood sagas where everyone is filthy rich or in possession of superpowers. Eric is shown to drive a Triumph 2000, a car typically owned by the affluent middle classes of that time. (I have not seen one for years. The Triumph marque disappeared long ago along with much of the British car industry. The equivalent British middle classes now drive BMWs, Mercedes and Audis). This fine car and his neglected house are the only signs that he had a successful and productive working life between 1945 and 1980.

His tormented friend at the veterans club notes how the survivors of the 1940s horrors are now bank clerks, teachers, engineers, retired people; honest productive citizens, whose unsung post war endurance is as admirable as their war time survival. (One of my teachers around 1969 had been a Prisoner of War at Changi Prison in Singapore, but you would never have heard it from him.) Presumably many of these gentle heroes were married, as was Eric. But his failed post-war marriage and two children are unmentioned in the movie. As are Patti's three children. Somehow, despite a failed marriage, she has the cash to tour Britain. The fact that she had been married is barely hinted at (she describes herself as single again). The fact that the real Patti lived in Canada for many years is unmentioned.

Even a passing mention of the characters' histories could have considerably enriched the film. As it stands, it feels as if they were dropped into the story from Mars.

In his book "Hollywood vs America", the critic Michael Medved noted the inviolable barrier between Church and Studio in most Hollywood films. The same deep rooted reluctance to mention spiritual matters, even when they are relevant to the characters, is very evident in this film. The only sign of the prisoners' religious leanings in this real Valley of the Shadow of Death is the recitation of a Psalm in one scene. Eric's deep Christian faith helped him through the nightmare and perhaps lead to his forgiveness of his tormentor decades later. He carried a Bible for decades during and after his imprisonment until it was utterly worn.

You can get the background story from the book. For the price of a cinema ticket, it is much better value for money. You get at least a limited sense of the vanished Britain of the 1920s and 1930s when Eric grew up. The lovingly described details of the social and industrial environment that formed him make sense of how this man came to be a survivor. A new preface in the movie tie-in edition describes how Eric did not want to see the finished film; he died before it was released. If he had seen it, he might have pointed out, in the most polite manner, how much of the really important story had been left out.

The Pacific theater of the second world war is often characterized by a number of such decisive battle fields as Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. The Railway Man is a reminder of the madness of war that reached beyond those well-known battle fields and the profound effects it had on individuals who fought in the Southeast Asia region.

Colin Firth embodies the suffering of Eric Lomax, a veteran who still experiences post-traumatic nightmares decades after the war. Nicole Kidman plays his wife Patti with utmost grace and compassion, and Stellan Skarsgård's portrayal is nothing short of perfection as he plays the fellow veteran who is also torn by his friend's immeasurable pain. Rounding out the strong performances is Hiroyuki Sanada's Nagase, a former translator of the Imperial Japanese Army who took considerable part in Eric's torture.

While the flashback scenes led by younger actors (Jeremy Irvine and Tanroh Ishida) could use some improvements, the current post-war scenes are recreated to near perfection with mature performances from the more experienced cast members. It is also noteworthy that the film does not hesitate for a moment to refute the wrong notion associated with "tragedy of war," a term often misused to make a war sound as if it were a mere chance event and not a product of malice. The film makes it clear the pain inflicted upon Eric Lomax is nothing but an act of crime, and from that accord comes an unusual relationship between two former enemies that only a film based on a true account can deliver.

Had the opportunity to see this at its world premiere in Toronto tonight, where we were joined not only by the stars, but also by Patti Lomax, the wife of the real-life Eric Lomax, on whose autobiography this film was based.

The story is unique and interesting, and is told with a series of flashbacks to Eric Lomax, our protagonist's (Firth), experiences of WW2. As the film is set in fairly dreary locations (prison camps and drab apartments), it's not the most visually exciting thing to watch, and the edit/pacing leaves a bit to be desired - at several points, we find the present-day Eric Lomax (Firth) suddenly transported back to his POW camp in Asia without anything to clue us off as to whether he travelled there (a single plane shot would've done it) or, as in at least one case, is hallucinating.

Still, a good story and well acted by Firth with support from Nicole Kidman as his wife - although the real show-stealers are Jeremy Irvine as young Lomax, and Hiroyuki Sanada as Nagase, the Japanese translator and Lomax's tormentor.

All I can say is that it's a nice historical representation of a time not so long ago. Some of the torture scenes were very well done and quite graphic but the majority of the movie was more timid. My biggest problem with the movie though was that it didn't tear at my heart. My grandma initially told me about this movie and the story surrounding the young men but when she told it I felt the emotion coming from her words. This movie didn't give me the same reaction. Colin Firth and young Eric seemed to be the only ones putting their soul into the performances.

Maybe the story was too proper. Or perhaps it needed a little more edge. Unfortunately there are so many sad stories in our history that it's hard not to feel like I've seen this story or at least something like it. A sad story is not enough anymore and personally I wanted and was expecting more.

The scenes during the war are very realistic and Jeremy irvine gives a fantastic performance.

Being middle aged i recognised the 1970's and that is also portrayed very well.

The acting overall is very good (partiularly Irvine)

Where the film was weakest is with Firth and Kidman . I didn't feel they had the connection and it seemed a bit 'flat'.

Perhaps because Irvine gave such an amazing performance presenting the trauma of captivity so vividly. Anything after this was going to be a tough act to follow.

Perhaps the script didn't give them much to work with either.

These are minor criticisms .

Very realistic war movie and from a perspective not often portrayed.

Solid 7.5/10 Would I watch again ? Yes.

Words cannot do this film justice. There are no words to describe how amazing the true story of Eric Lomax really was, and I do not want to give away the entire story here. But suffice to say that I was fully engrossed in the film throughout its entirety. From the moment we see Eric and Patty meet to the emotional ending,I could not bring myself to look away or even to reach down for my drink in the cinema. Be prepared for some harrowing and intense scenes. But bear in mind that these are required for us to understand completely the dilemma faced by Eric at the end of his story. The actors portray their characters beautifully, with so much angst and emotion that I found myself empathising with them all the way through. If you are interested whatsoever in stories of war, survival, trauma, revenge, forgiveness and the ethical dilemmas wrapped up in them all, then this is a film you should definitely see. Tears rolled down my face as the credits rolled, and I found myself thinking about the movie long after watching it. Highly recommended.

Given the nature of the material, it seems rather churlish to criticize THE RAILWAY MAN. Based on Eric Lomax's autobiographical reminiscence, the film chronicles his experiences of working on the notorious Burma railway as a Japanese prisoner-of-war, and how such experiences continue to blight his existence, thirty-five years after the war has ended. Colin Firth gives an intense performance as Lomax - someone who tries his best to sustain a facade of respectability, but is basically unable to cope with life. His face screws up with pain; on other occasions it is almost expressionless. It is only when he plucks up the courage to return to Japan to confront the Japanese interrogator who tortured him all those years ago (Hiroyuki Sanada), that Lomax can work towards some kind of recovery. The film does an effective job of juxtaposing past and present: some of the sequences set in wartime are very difficult to watch, especially when the younger Lomax (Jeremy Irvine) is being tortured. Having said that, Jonathan Teplitzky's film is very slow- paced; there are too many redundant close-ups and/or pans of the Scottish landscape that impede the development of the plot. As Lomax's wife Patti, Nicole Kidman has an insignificant role; although she played a large part in helping her spouse on the road to recovery, we do not get this feeling in the film. On the contrary, she appears rather reticent, as if believing that to involve herself too much might worsen Lomax's condition. However the final confrontation between Lomax and his Japanese ex-captor is highly dramatic and well worth waiting for.

I read the short storyline of the film before viewing and it had intrigued me. I came into it with an open mind - at first romance and then the inescapable drama. The acting by Firth was amazing. I was mesmerized. It may be slow (to some of a lesser attention span) at first, but eased into a psychological drama that holds on tight and will not release until the finale. Spectacular cinematography, the scenes are beautiful and real. It is a wake up call to those who have not/do not understand the great span of WWII - brings much needed insight into the history of this particular banker's war. Ultimately, this film beautifully portrays the ultimate power of forgiveness. Which brought tears to my eyes, in the panic and hysteria that the world now feels due to war and terror, it is good to know that there is some shred of humanity that exists and has hope to exist in the future.

It's 1980. Eric Lomax (Colin Firth) is still haunted by his war experiences. He is prone to violence and is a train fanatic. He tells his war buddy Mr. Finlay (Stellan Skarsgård) that he has fallen in love with Patti (Nicole Kidman) after meeting her on a train. He would marry Patti. During the war, Eric (Jeremy Irvine) was forced to work on the Burma railroad construction after the fall of Singapore. He heroically accepted the blame for building the radio and was brutalized by a particular Japanese secret police officer. Patti and Finlay find the feared Japanese officer (Hiroyuki Sanada) is still alive.

The later time period has the better actors. The acting in the modern era is superior but the story drags at times. The earlier war period has the more compelling prisoner experience. Both have deficiencies. The movie switches back and forth to keep the story going. When the two men finally meet, the movie feels like it stalls. Originally I would say the movie needs to compress the ending. However I've come to the conclusion that the problem is a lack of tension. At no point did I expect Eric Lomax to kill the man. The movie needs to set up the tension or else the drama isn't there.

This is arguably one of the best WW2 films I have ever seen. There aren't many films that tell the story of the situation outside of Europe and this tells it brilliantly. Collin Firth portrays the emotional struggle of a man plagued by the war extremely well, and I was gripped from start to finish. I've been to Thailand and this was possibly why I was so affected by the film, but I thought it was extremely touching and thought provoking. The story affected me to the point of tears (as no other film has ever done). There is so much depth and beauty to the film and characters and I think it's a shame it hasn't been rated higher.

War casts long shadows over both nations and individuals and, when the fighting stops, the pain remains. This is the remarkable story of a British officer who became a prisoner of war when the Japanese took Singapore in early 1942, worked on the infamous Burma-Siam railway, and suffered terrible torture for constructing a radio receiver.

Eric Lomax is played by Jeremy Irvine (wartime) and Colin Firth (post-war), while his lead kempei torturer Takeshi Nagase is portrayed by Tanroh Ishida and then Hiroyuki Sanada. Nicole Kidman sports a good English accent (as she did in "The Hours") as Lomax's (second) wife, but the casting of the Swedish Stellan Skarsgård is odd.

This is not a easy film to watch but tells a moving real-life story that is ultimately up- lifting. In the central role, Firth is impressive. Like a good wine, this is an actor who improves with age.

First off i enjoyed the film as a whole, Colin Firth is....well he is Colin Firth; he's a great actor, always is. And he plays his part well, just as Jeremy Irvine does as the young Eric Lomax. Everyone plays their parts well. Now there is a lot of back and forth between wither the film is accurate or not. People say Nicole Kidman's part as Patricia has been tampered with and documentaries and such back that up, and then Patricia Lomax herself comes out and says it's accurate so the argument is lost in the shuffle.

Wither it is truly accurate or not it is still a good film. There are parts where it loses your focus and becomes rather dull and whilst it tries to stay on track it does become derailed slightly. You find yourself on the same journey as Lomax, what would you do it that circumstance? could you forgive someone who stood by and watched you being tortured at their order? I'll leave out the outcome as some may not know the story and wish to find out for themselves.

It is a good film and worth the watch.

Lacks real conviction. Patchy. I got interested in the modern characters and then got taken back to WW2 and Burma. Acting is good - problem is with screenplay and direction.

Based on a true memoir of survival, love, retribution, and forgiveness, "The Railway Man" sets off from Edinburgh at a leisurely pace. The film slowly unfolds through flashbacks as layer upon layer of a World War II veteran's repressed memories are stripped away. A brutal, less spectacular cousin to "The Bridge on the River Kwai," the film centers on events that followed the British surrender of Singapore in 1942 and the subsequent Japanese use of British prisoners of war to construct a railway line from Thailand into Burma. Hidden secrets erupt from a rumpled domestic scene and unfurl in a bleak and monochromatic Scotland. However, in flashback, the cinematography shifts to warmer hues that imbue the tropical prison camp scenes shot around Kanchanaburi, Thailand, and the actual rail line that crosses the River Kwai.

The film's outer layer is a love story between an aging unkempt railway enthusiast, Eric Lomax, and a younger woman, Patti, whom he meets during a train journey. Once wed, Eric's suppressed demons from his war experiences surface, and Patti attempts to unravel her husband's mysteries and reclaim the man that she loves. Colin Firth portrays Eric in a restrained internalized performance that simmers with efforts to suppress harrowing memories, pent-up anger, and a thirst for vengeance. Unfortunately, Nicole Kidman's perfect complexion and carefully made-up demeanor work against any verisimilitude as Patti, the loyal, loving wife of an introverted man with dark secrets; once beyond her looks, however, she does an earnest capable job in the undemanding role. The rest of the film's cast is also fine; Jeremy Irvine does well as the young Eric, who convinces viewers that he could age into Colin Firth. Stellan Skarsgard has a short, but effective role, as Finlay, the mature version of Lomax's prison mate, who helps Patti delve into Eric's past. Tanroh Ishida and Hiroyuki Sanada are excellent in key roles as Japanese guard and interpreter.

Unlike the David Lean classic, "The Railway Man" is no action thriller, but rather a psychological examination of the lingering effects of war's brutalities on the survivors, both the victors and the vanquished. Colin Firth gives another powerful, if underplayed, performance in a still rising career of memorable roles; Firth alone is reason enough to see the movie. At times, director Jonathan Teplitzky is a bit too arty for the film's good; his wide-screen images are sometimes self-consciously composed; and holding the camera on static shots of characters thinking or remembering may be mesmerizing for some viewers, but tedious for others. However, despite pacing issues, most evident early in the film, patient viewers will be rewarded with a powerful heartfelt closing that should stimulate the tear ducts.

It begins like a poorly executed romantic movie, too fast and a little messy. Then when we get to the thick of it, the heart of the story and Eric Lomax's history starts to make sense a little bit, but again it's executed poorly. The photography is good, the actors gave a decent performance, so it must be the script or the director.

Since the film is based on a true story, it's a shame that there's such a lack of emotional involvement. It's not as gruesome as it could have been for movie War movie, the torture is kept to a minimum, so they could have pull on the audience's heart strings and play on the emotion card more. I needed to care, to feel for Eric Lomax but I never really did.

As I mentioned the cast gave a decent performance, they were good maybe not great but they were sensitive and raw. Jeremy Irvine is unrecognizable in this film but it feels like he was barely there. Kidman is graceful and reeks of devotion while Firth wears his heart on his sleeve for the audience and Sanada is just sort of impressive.

Although the film did not work for me, I recognized that Eric Lomax's story is inspiring but the movie failed to help me connected with his amazing story. I feel this is a hit or miss situation depending on who you are.

@wornoutspines

Just when one thinks this is just another love story, this movie actually is much more than that. It's about dealing with your past in the present. It's also about fighting your (inner and outer) demons. Very nicely portrayed. Though the resolution might not feel right to some, this movie is consistent in what it is doing.

The performances are really great and the flashbacks flesh out what and why the characters are in their current state. There is still a lot of in between the lines you can read and some things might feel either too much or too little (is it rough edges or soft edges?), but that will depend on your personal view of certain things. As it is, it portrays a battle (literally and metaphorically speaking), that is tough to fight with ...