Die Hölle sind wir

Strangely if you watch this on Blu Ray the director's ending is the 'alternate' ending. Somehow the producers altered this upon the film's release and their edit became the standard ending. Does the last 1-2 minutes impact the film that much? I would say it's a 7/10 film with the director's ending, and at best a 6/10 film with the butchered producer's ending. The producer-altered theater released ending is a head-scratching, mind-boggling catastrophe and unsatisfying to say the least. You will literally sit there saying to yourself "uh... what???" for 30 seconds when the film concludes. I even rewound it to see if I completely missed something. I did not. Yes, there is that much of a difference and impact on quality between the two endings.

If you are one of the producers responsible for this theatrical release ending and are somehow still alive and reading this I can only ask WTF were you smoking? We invested two hours into the relationship between Marvin & Mifune for that??? It may be the worst ending I've ever witnessed in a decent movie. On the bright side for you, I may keep the blu ray for that reason alone!

In World War II, a shot-down American pilot (Lee Marvin) and the marooned Japanese Captain Tsuruhiko Kuroda (Toshiro Mifune) are stranded in a small island in the Pacific. When they find the presence of each other, the American tries to steal the water provision of the Japanese that protects it, initiating their personal war. After a period fighting each other, they decide to join forces and build a bamboo raft to seek a larger island.

"Hell in the Pacific" is a good movie about how struggle to survive supersedes any other feelings even in times of war. The Japanese and the American soldiers find how pointless is their fight and resolve their situation joining forces and learning to accept and respect their culture differences despite the language barrier and warfare. Surprisingly they also become friends but the abrupt conclusion is too stupid and meaningless, apparently imposed by the studio. The alternate ending is also terrible but better then the original one. In 1985, Wolfgang Petersen used the same idea in a futuristic environment in "Enemy Mine". My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Inferno no Pacífico" ("Hell in the Pacific")

Was there a better hard man in the 70's then Lee Marvin ? I don't think so. Team him up with Toshiro Mifune (yojimbio, Seven Samurai), gorgeous scenery (Paulau islands) under the light hand of John Borman (Deliverance) and watch as a simple story grows and develops into a visual feast. There is no lead-in to the film, all we see is a lone Japanese soldier on a tropical island spotting a life raft and realising he is suddenly not alone, and worse, his company is an enemy soldier. The initial confrontations are tension filled as the two chase each other around and around their new home in a battle of wits and cunning. Eventually the inevitable happens and they are forced to start living together. Rather than a Disneyish style 'lets all learn to live together because we are all really the same under the skin' co-operation, the two have as little to do with each other as possible, unless arguing about possession of driftwood (in a scene that left me in tears of laughter). Eventually they do co-operate through necessity to leave the island and develop a bond of friendship through adversity, only to have this challenged when exposed to the realities of the world outside their desert island refuge. A bitter but unavoidable ending reminds us of the insanities of war. I loved this film because it was totally gripping in a way few movies are, I genuinely cared about the characters. It was in some ways like watching 'survivor' in the way the relationship changed-only in reverse- so naturally did it happen on screen. Bormans direction was great, more of a fly on the wall perspective that made the story all the more involving. This movie deserves to be seen.

What I would give to know only Japanese and watch this movie. You don't have to understand what Toshiro Mifune is saying to understand this movie.

Does war extend to the individual? Trained to kill or be killed, two adversaries face off. Each with his own fear that the other will succeed. Why didn't they kill each other when they had the chance? Because man is a social animal and he needs the company of others. To use a cliché - No man is an island.

And in the end conflict erupts. Not because of any innate difference between the two men - but because of how they define themselves in a greater scene. I am Japanese - you are American (and vice versa). Throw in the element of non-communication (neither spoke any of the other's language) and you have it.

Two great actors, a great script, a grand theme.

I only discovered Hell in the Pacific after searching for Lee Marvin films as I have become enamored with his work as of late. I thought this was going to be a war movie from start to finish, which I'm not always a big fan of. I am glad to say I was surprised and very pleased with this film.

This is a rare work of film that uses two actors, limited dialog(half of it in Japanese), and only one location. There have been many attempts at making movies about people stranded on islands, but this one pulls it off in a way no other has.

Thsi is a film about not only survival, but overcoming prejudice towards ones sworn enemy in a time of war. It is about moving past the fears of what you do not know, and using what you do know and the basic need to survive to pull through and band together.

I was more enthralled by this movie with almost no dialog, than I have been with movies that have won screenplay Oscars. To me, this is an example that if you have the right actors, the right story, and the right setting, dialog is not always necessary.