Duello nel Pacifico

Isolation in extreme conditions allows for very telling studies of human beings, and potentially unpleasant philosophical conclusions. Marooning a character on an island will get you some dramatic results, and the only way to take it a step further is to maroon that character's worst possible enemy with him. That's what Hell in The Pacific proposes.

This is not Cast Away Meets WWII. For one thing, it has a much tighter focus, completely losing anything beyond the island's horizon. It is admirable in its bloody-minded focus, and, with only two actors to cast, it's hard to imagine how it could have been any more perfect that pitching wild-man extraordinaire Lee Marvin opposite Kurosawa favorite Toshiro Mifune. A genius idea, but one that could have failed with a more conventional approach.

We are introduced to both antagonists in a neutral way, free to prefer which ever one we choose, though that is hardly the point, and director John Boorman makes it both easy and at times hard to sympathise with either in equal measure. Both actors do a fine job, playing mostly emotional and physical roles with great restrain and intelligence.

Boorman's direction is perfect, rejecting excess stylization in favor of a subtle approach, aided by superb photography. You have got to see this at least once, simply because, for all its visceral thrills, it is quite profound without ever trying to be. Because it boasts top performances from two of the last century's greatest leading presences in action cinema. Because, though frustrating at first, the ending is, for once, the smartest one that could have been chosen. Humanity is on trial and the judges choose to be honest and pragmatic, thus delivering something that combines greatness and very thoughtful substance.

We need more films like this!

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.

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!

Not only is this film a fascinating account of survival against odds, its a reflection of cultural differences within a crucial historical timeframe. Its narrative may be flawed, a little too stylized, but it features two of the greatest faces of 60s cinema history: Marvin and Mifune. Looking back on the second world war, it seems ironic that the Japanese believed their culture was superior in warfare, and the Americans believed theirs was superior for peace. In the end it will turn out to be the other way around. This film touches on that subject, highlighting Marvins aggressive, loud, and brutal behavior, and Mifunes quieter, more methodical survival methods. But in their battle to survive, the two men become almost indistinguishable. The most touching scene in the film: Both men collapsed in their sinking raft, dejected, exhausted, dehydrated, totally at their mercy of nature, a symbolic scene for human life. The DVD i saw contained both endings, the original, never seen in TV prints, much more believable and satisfying.

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.