This war Robinsonade is a quirky poem and a psychological essay, not of an unusual or twisted psychology, on the contrary, a raw one, the two actors were carefully chosen as types of ordinary guys, Mifune and Marvin, both awesome, with Mifune being the superior actor; it reminded me of Russian war movies, the Expressionism exchanged for '60s _avant-gardism and fanciness, where the playfulness, coldness and irony enhance the beauty and the absurd, the two styles resemble in some heartfelt sympathy, yet Boorman reveals a hopelessness and sense of dread and of the absurd. Think of it as of a poem, also because of its masterful unity.Two soldiers torture each other, then cook, then set up a raft and, toilers of the sea, leave the island, towards a larger world unable, unprepared to contain their comradeship, which was uncertain and shaky to begin with, and, born on a wild shore, breaks in the ruins of societal life. They rediscover comfort in a ruined military base on another island: cigars, a magazine, sake. But they drink too much. The drink, the magazine are enough to dispel their newfound, unlikely and strategic unity. They rejoice in the things they find, but foolishly, vainly.The '60s were eager for this naked psychology.They don't know each other's name. Sometimes, their relationship has the abrupt and dizzy quality, with sudden changes and outbursts, found in the '60s and '70s cinema inspired by the stage. Which on stage can look convincing and maybe lifelike, but in a movie looks abrupt, silly and almost contrived.The island, their 1st island, which they leave, is in itself Paradise, and the director is very aware of this pristine beauty.

It is an interesting movie that I have seen 3 or 4 times. The first time, I was enthralled. The second, entertained. The third, wondering what I would do better if I was on the island and the after that, you sort of wonder why two people in bad straights would make things worse. Between the two of them, they could eat, drink and have decent shelter. Think: Robinson Crusoe and how he turned lemons into lemonade. Actors held their own so that worked well. The ending was rushed and someone should have taken a nap, then had a good swim and then had a good BBQ...In other words...some time out to discover a decent ending to a decent movie. Tom Hanks did something similar with Castaway as well which is this movie but only with one guy. One more thing. Try to get you mind around how cruel the war was on both sides which helps you to understand why they were at heavy odds against each other in the beginning. Eat and drink during this move and you will really relate to the pleasures they were denied first hand.

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.

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")