User reviews

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")

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.

A Japanese naval officer and an American pilot find themselves stranded alone on a desert island during WWII. How would you react to being marooned with a dangerous enemy? This film is an obscure treasure that should be better known. I suspect that people are put off by the cheesy and unsuitable title. The film explores the evolving relationship of two men from different cultures as they each struggle to find the best way to survive. Their collective fate is an exploration of the human condition.

One outstanding feature of this film is that it is in both Japanese and English, intentionally without sub-titles. An American or Japanese audience could watch this film and appreciate its message. This duality serves to heighten the cultural differences between the two men, and it is cultural bias that is the true enemy.

Buy it, it's a keeper!

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.

Nice and well executed film set during WWII,containing a brief anti-war declaration . It deals with an American pilot (Lee Marvin who sings a song) and a marooned Japanese navy officer (Toshiro Mifune , only speaking in his native language) are deserted on a tiny island in the Pacific , as they confront each other in a violent mini-war . There, they must cease their hostility and unite themselves if they want to survive until a disappointing and unexpected ending .

Straightforward and gripping movie with magnificent acting by only two protagonists ,the dynamics Marvin and Mifune , fighting all by themselves , as playing American and Japanese soldiers coming to terms with each other on an uninhabited island in the Pacific Ocean, both of them stranded together . However , the movie sometimes lapses into tedium and slowness , though contains striking images with moments of great power and wonderful scenarios . It's one of the sharpest and cleverest war film of the 60s masterfully and stylishly realized. The handsome cinematography by Conrad L. Hall does full justice to the varied settings on the Pacific ocean , bursting into the colour . Imaginative and haunting score by Lalo Schifrin.

The motion picture is well directed by John Boorman . He's a real professional filmmaking from the 6os, though sparsely scattered and giving classics as ¨Point Blank¨ . His film are without exception among the most exciting visually in the modern cinema as he proved in ¨Deliverance¨ , ¨Excalibur¨,the best of them, , a rare Sci-Fi titled ¨Zardoz¨ , ¨Emerald forest¨ with a ecologist denounce included and of course ¨Hell in Pacific¨.

During the Second World War, on a small, inhospitable island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, two men are stranded. One is an American Pilot, the other a Japanese Naval Captain. When they become aware of each other's presence, their military training kicks in, and the two begin to battle. However, it soon becomes painfully clear that neither man will survive the island without the other's help. Whether or not they are able to set aside their differences and work together, or destroy one another for the glory of their nation, remains to be seen in John Boorman's powerful anti-war allegory, 'Hell in the Pacific.'

Boorman's third feature film, 'Hell in the Pacific' tells a relatively simple tale- arch-enemies forced to unite under circumstances beyond their control- in an astute and subtle manner. It is a quiet movie featuring characters given to introspection- often there is very little dialogue. A lot is said in that silence however, through the striking visuals, with the thick atmosphere, and by the presence and physicality of stars Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune. There are moments of levity, and it's a very suspenseful watch; but at its heart 'Hell in the Pacific' is a barbed treatise.

Through the understated story- written by Reuben Bercovitch, Alexander Jacobs, Eric Bercovici and Shinobu Hashimoto- a clear, humane message about the indignities and pointlessness of war emerges, and no side is given preferential treatment, no bias is injected into the screenplay. 'Hell in the Pacific' is a masterful war film- or anti-war film, one should say. For that is the crux of the narrative and the center of the allegory that 'Hell in the Pacific' is: war is hell, and there's no war when rivals unify; an aphorism bordering on the trite, but one that is apt nevertheless.

A highly visual experience, 'Hell in the Pacific' features fine, striking cinematography from Conrad Hall. Hall's work lends to the film something of a dream-like atmosphere, though is still firmly rooted in the naturalistic tradition. It is dramatic camera-work that lingers in the memory long after the film has ended. Boorman's films are always visually stimulating affairs, and 'Hell in the Pacific' ranks as one of his most rich, stylish and gritty.

Thomas Stanford's editing is sharp, establishing the film's pace, which is steady and smooth; though not overly brisk or without moments of sedation. Many critique the unexpected abruptness of the ending, but it is in keeping with the tone and themes the film tries to explore. Lalo Schifrin's muted, melodic score contributes to this tone, bringing to the film additional beauty, as well as additional devastation and impact.

'Hell in the Pacific'- for all of the merits listed above- could easily have faltered had casting gone in a different direction. Thankfully, Marvin and Mifune were secured, and deliver performances of incredible intensity, humor and depth. Marvin is too often remembered as an action star or a heavy, when in reality his talents extended far beyond that. He brought a charm and sense of purpose to every role he played, as well as an ease of performance that makes him mesmerizing on screen. His performance in 'Hell in the Pacific' is up there with his equally powerful one in 'Monte Walsh'; work of extreme emotional perspicuity that is most underrated.

Any film fan knows of the immeasurable talents of Toshiro Mifune. He could play any kind of character: drunkards, gangsters, fools- all with Shakespearean intensity. He also possessed masterful comedic timing, as well as being one of the most skillful expressionistic figures to ever grace the cinema screen. His performance in 'Hell in the Pacific' is understated, captivating and powerful; probably the best he ever gave in a production outside of Japan. He and Marvin share an electric chemistry that makes watching them on screen a real pleasure.

'Hell in the Pacific' is a masterful movie, a subtle story told with verve and intelligence. Deftly directed by John Boorman, beautiful in terms of visuals and featuring a fine Lalo Schifrin score, the film is utterly unforgettable. Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune deliver two brilliant performances that are highlights in both their careers. Hard-hitting and containing allegorical depth; there are few anti-war films as impactful. In short, 'Hell in the Pacific' is heaven in the cinema.

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!

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.

Watching Hell in the Pacific may force some people to give up certain notions about going away to a tropic isle to get away from it all. Even if Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune were the best of friends, cast away as they are on that tropical Pacific island, it's anything, but paradise.

But they've got World War II going against them also. A Japanese captain and an American flier stranded on a small island and having to survive. It's an interesting premise, that would have been better served in a half hour television drama. NOT Gilligan's Island though.

The film was shot on the actual locations in the Pacific where both American and Japanese lost a lot of members of one generation fighting for these coral reef lined shores. And Lee Marvin of course was one of thousands who survived on the American side.

Even for two players as capable as Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune can't keep the interest from flagging in spots.

Anti-war movies have come in many shapes and sizes – from the shocking to the satirical, from the blunt to the oblique – but few are as simply effective as Hell in the Pacific. At turns suspenseful, mysterious, cartoonishly funny and touchingly human, it boils the conflict down to the adventures of two men on opposite sides forced to share an island, but rather than just being a trite allegory, it convincingly demonstrates the benefits of co-operation over competitiveness, and shows that mistrust and enmity are not necessarily innate.

Ignoring the ridiculously abrupt ending, Hell in the Pacific is excellent in its structure. Considering that the target audience is going to be English-speaking (although the experience would not be too diminished for a Japanese audience) the story is told in the beginning from the perspective of the Japanese man. The American character is a mere presence amid the trees, and the fact that we can understand him is of little consequence because he doesn't say much of relevance. The Toshiro Mifune character is more loquacious, even though most viewers won't know what he's saying, and Lee Marvin's relative quietness emphasises the wordless savagery of the first half. It's only as the picture progresses and the men become more amiable towards each that they become recognisably human characters. But even this is done more through imagery than words, giving us an equally good impression of the two of them despite the language barrier.

This telling from the Japanese point-of-view is also reinforced in the methods of director John Boorman, who often makes the camera Mifune's eyes or keeps him up front while Marvin lurks in the background. Other than that, Boorman's style as a director is like a love letter to Akira Kurosawa and Sergio Leone, the latter especially. He gives us gnarly close-ups, a dynamic rhythm and eye-catching tableaux such as the shot of Marvin and Mifune as they arrive on the second island, like statues about to leap into action. It is all very overtly stylised, but it is a pretty neat way of keeping this story of such simple elements constantly interesting and engaging.

Toshiro Mifune is well-known to even the most casual of foreign cinema buffs, being the favourite star of the aforementioned Kurosawa. It's nice to see him used well in this less familiar context. The only other non-Japanese picture I have seen him in is a bizarre British-made Western called Red Sun, which is incidentally one of the worst films I have ever seen. You notice, seeing him here opposite Lee Marvin, he is not a tall man, but he makes up for this with his strong presence and irascible energy. But it's not all about the rage. I like here his passively bemused responses when Marvin is ranting at him. Lee Marvin shows his easy capacity for turning a serious-sounding performance into something surprisingly comical, such as his acting out of throwing the stick and picking it up.

Appropriately for a movie of few words, music plays a big part in Hell in the Pacific. The Lalo Schifrin score is by turns haunting, playful, and sometimes teasingly melodramatic. It is an unusually big score for a movie that is otherwise so minimalist, but its constant variation and inventiveness suits the action very well. And, aside from the power of its message, this is part of what makes Hell in the Pacific so appealing. It is all of a piece, a mesmerising tone poem on a the fate of humanity.

Hell in the Pacific (1968)

A great concept--two men are lost together on an island in the Pacific. The war is over, but prejudices remain, and one man is Japanese, one American. They don't share a language, so there is basically no dialog. There is only survival.

How do you make a feature length movie about this without stretching the idea thin, without boring the viewer, without resorting to clichés of makeshift boats and coconut to eat? You don't. The movie is ambitious over very little, and if it seems impressive in some isolated, focused way, it is still a slow go.

And you kind of know what the progression of events is going to be, as common human needs rise above nationalist myopia. What keeps it afloat at all is the odd combination of the quirky boorish stereotype American thug, Lee Marvin, who is not his best in this situation (but who has his own following--I like him in his crime films a lot) and the most famous Japanese actor of the period, the Kurosawa standard bearer Toshiro Mifune (who is an archetype of the vigorous, smart Japanese male).

I have to admit I didn't really like the most recent parallel production, "Castaway," at least not the island parts (which everyone I know loved). In all these cases you depend on the acting, the actors themselves, to make it special. And for some that might be enough. It's a unique movie, for sure, a kind of old Hollywood hanger-on in the new Hollywood era. John Boorman had just finished the remarkable "Point Blank" with Marvin, and would soon work on "Deliverance," and all three have a masculine quality of rising about a hostile world and making it on your own terms.

Finally, if you do get through it all, the last five minutes is important--clumsy and improbable and sensationalist after all that preceded, but important. It tries at last to talk about the difficulty of really understanding someone else, personally and culturally, and about the madness and indifference of war. It's 1968, after all.

"Hell in the Pacific" is a magnificent movie, with only two actors - but two of my biggest favorites. I watched it without subtitles and I couldn't understand Mifune and I often didn't here what Marvin said either. The best way to appreciate it is to not know English or Japanese, because you will understand it anyway. A film almost without dialog, a very interesting experience. Surely one of director John Boorman's most memorable movies, with flawless direction. The end is a "surprise" which fits in well. A must see!

Rating: 10 of 10.

Hell in the Pacific is directed by John Boorman and stars Lee Marvin and Toshirō Mifune. It's written by Reuben Bercovitch, Alexander Jacobs & Eric Bercovici and the music is by Lalo Schifrin. During World War II, two men, one American and one Japanese, are marooned on an uninhabited Pacific island. In order for them to survive they must find away to co-exist and maybe, just maybe, forget the War and find a way off the island.

Intriguing premise and two watchable stars not withstanding, Hell In The Pacific is not a particularly great film. Decent? Yes! But the novelty value of a two actor piece, with sparse dialogue, soon wears thin. The central idea of two racially different characters forced to come together, is hardly a new one. It's been done considerably better before this film with the likes of The Defiant Ones in 1958. But Boorman's movie does not lack for invention or trying to veer from the norm. Neither character speaks the other's language, so with no dubbing or subtitles, the viewers are forced to be part of the unique situation; sharing in the frustrations of two people unable to communicate verbally. That both Mifune & Marvin are fine actors physically and with their faces, also benefits the piece and the viewers. With both men ex-servicemen of their respective countries also a notable plus point.

The film was entirely shot in the Rock Islands of Palau in the north Pacific Ocean, near the Philippines in the Philippine Sea. Visually it is a treat with the blues and greens offering up a beauty that battles the harsh like atmosphere for supremacy. It's impact being that of throwing up a heaven and hell comparison. Yet this pleasing aspect of the film is almost ruined by Schifrin's score. In a piece awash with loneliness, suspicion and borderline hatred, we really don't need evocative and perky, we want threatening and sedate. Which brings us to Boorman's direction, which is choppy and unsure what tones work best within the story. It's no surprise to find that the producers wanted to fire him off the project; his bacon saved by Mifune's insistence that Boorman stayed on. There is also some consternation with the ending(s) of the film, where both available endings have actually caused disapproval in equal measure. In truth neither ending fully rewards the viewer for having spent over 100 minutes with these two men. But for the record I personally like the "abrupt" one better.

Its intentions are honourable, and for trying something different it deserves a pat on the back. But too many itches exist within; and thus the film is scratchy and never able to achieve allegorical greatness. 6/10

Fans of Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune failed to turn out for this financially-unsuccessful but not uninteresting two-person island adventure from director John Boorman. Filming in the scenic islands of Palau, Boorman dispenses with the preliminaries and gets right down to business. Two men during World War II are marooned on an island in the Pacific: Marvin, an American pilot, is pitted against Mifune, a Japanese Naval Captain. Neither man speaks the other's language, yet they end up striking a truce of sorts after torturing each other for almost an hour, the result being a raft made out of bamboo that will carry them out passed the reef into open water. Screenwriters Alexander Jacobs and Eric Bercovici, working from producer Reuben Bercovitch's story, were not able to supply their actors with much verbal interaction, and yet Marvin and Mifune are entirely capable of creating sound characterizations by just their expressions and their actions (they do superlative work). Boorman doesn't get too heavy or contemplative (a plus with only two people on the screen); however, he loses his assured footing in the final reel. The picture doesn't just go off the track, it literally explodes. No one who worked on this film could have been satisfied with the clumsy conclusion (reportedly, Boorman was shut out of the decision-making by the executives). Still, the film's better moments of drama and humor and survival stay in the memory, and Conrad Hall's cinematography is wonderful. ** from ****

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.

Hell in the Pacific

The worst part about conducting a war on a South Pacific beach is trying not to step on any of the sunbathers.

Fortunately, the warring factions in this drama are the only people on the island.

Amid the dogfights of WWII, an American pilot (Lee Marvin) is shot down over the Pacific.

Deserted on an islet, the pilot discovers he's not alone - a Japanese Navy Officer (Toshiro Mifune) is also marooned there.

Instinctively, the two immediately try to kill one another with their limited weaponry.

Overtime, however, the pair must learn to cooperate in order to survive.

But is there enough room on the atoll for the Japanese castaway's honour and the Yankee castaway's bullheadedness?

With only two stars, minimal dialogue and an exotic setting, Hell in the Pacific breaks war down to its basics, and dissects.

Furthermore, this island coupling led to the creation of Japanese-American fusion cuisine.

Green Light

vidiotreviews.blogspot.com

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!

Not much more can be said about this outstanding film that hasn't already been said. It really is one of the finest meditations on war and the nature of men ever made. Boorman's direction is amazing, Conrad Hall's cinematography is luminous, and Mifune and Marvin are forces to be reckoned with. I did notice however that some of the reviewers had some issues with the ending. I thought I might just pop in here to let those of you who don't know, the DVD of "Hell in the Pacific" features an alternate ending that may be a bit more easily digestable, yet is no less powerful than the original ending. In fact in some ways it may be better. Watch the movie with both versions of the ending for an interesting example of what a difference the conclusion of a film can make. Viva Lee Marvin.

I would suggest this movie my not suit a younger, contemporary audience as the film is more nuanced in its delivery than millennials may have the patience for.

The first half drags a little but is necessary, I felt, to provide the power and energy of the second half. Lets be clear this isn't Die Hard!

The acting is really cool with both men creating an emotional landscape.

Very worthwhile movie :)

With a cast consisting of Mifune and Marvin-two of the coolest and greatest actors ever and the keen eye of director John Boorman, it would be hard to miss. And for about 97% of the film it doesn't. But what the hell happens at the end?

You certainly don't have to be a fan of these two actors to fully enjoy this classic struggle of war at the lowest commom denominator - hand-to-hand, one-on-one, the only 2 people on a desert island being mortal enemies.

The protagonists progress through wartime's high-alert state of mind of "kill or be killed". Then, after apparent days and weeks of slowly realizing the futility of hunting each other, just as slowly begin to cool off and begin to understand each other's communication. This leads to cooperation which liberates them from their "hell in the pacific". It does end abruptly, which further comments on the insignificant role of these 2 in the wider war still in full array. It's an 8.