Okay, I just have to post again. I have not read either of the books the film was based on and I can still tell you what's wrong with your critique. The movie was a dramatization, not a documentary. Filmmakers make choices in presenting a historical subject. In the movie Patton the general is shown saying things at different times and places than he really made them, and there were actually two, not one soldiers he slapped. But does that detract from the film? Not really, since it showed the man and his achievements in their proper light.
So what if there was a love story? My wife hates war movies. I made her go anyway. She was as moved as I was, but I'm sure she'd be thinking about all the wives and girlfriends who lose lovers in war, even if there was none shown on screen. This element was added to diversify the audience, and perhaps to represent all the loved ones lost, and the general sense of sacrifice experienced in WWII. The tone and outcome of the relationship was perfectly in keeping with the film. It was not a melodramatic PEARL HARBOR style love triangle.
The conflict between Prince and Mucci is called dramatic tension, You've got to give the audience a reason to think the raid will fail. Will the troops overcome their personal conflicts and the Japanese to save the prisoners? That sort of thing. As for the Filipino guerrillas, perhaps the writer wanted to use them to symbolize the somewhat second class treatment they have gotten after the war, as some have been denied the US citizenship they were promised.
So what if prisoners weren't killed right before the raid. Enough were throughout captivity that showing the brutality of the guards is not out of place. I suspect that using "special police forces" was a sop to the Japanese to try and imply that the worst treatment did not come from regular Japanese soldiers. Complain if you like about that one, but it did not hurt the film to me.
Finally, I suspect that the lack of enough explosives to destroy the bridge again was symbolic of the Filipinos having to fight an enemy they could not destroy, but could harass and obstruct.
The movie was a very, very good film. Not great as in all time best, but I think it was a fine piece of filmmaking. Again, if you haven't seen it, go do so!
But this is HISTORY. What you're saying is that Oliver Stone did nothing wrong with his "JFK" or "Alexander." Someone compared this to LOTR, but LOTR is fiction. A lot of people, and most kids, get all their history from the movies. I agree the ending with the film footage was terrific, only two people out of about 150 left before that ended. But history is history.
As far as the women go, there WAS a woman at the center of the underground. Her name was Claire Phillips (nicknamed "Highpockets") and she took great risks for the prisoners and was ultimately captured and tortured by the Japanese. Why not stick to THAT story? Sorry. Historical fiction is OK by me, but not fictional history. The movie was OK but could have been much better.