Not worth the time, very disjointed

Rating: 3/10 (8 May 2000)

I went into this film expecting to enjoy it. I like thinking films, I like war films, I enjoy philosophy. Seems like a match made in heaven, from all that I had heard. I only wish it were so. In all honesty I must say that I have not seen the entire film.
After 2 years I finally borrowed a DVD from a friend and sat down to watch it. After 2 hours of this meandering drivel I found that I could not bear the idea of watching the remaining hour. So, I may have missed something important, but I doubt it. Why? For one, I couldn't relate to any of the characters. Each of the characters seemed insipid and 2 dimensional. The flashbacks were confusing and didn't successfully reveal anything about the characters of the film. It seemed that the characters tended to think and speak in fragments rather than complete sentences and thoughts. There wasn't enough context or character development for me to understand why a character was saying or thinking something. Over and over, I found myself asking "Who is this person?" , "Why should I care about this person?", "What the heck was that about?" Characters uttered odd out-of place philosophical and sweeping statements. They mouthed cliches and said nothing when explanation was wanting, but kept talking when there was nothing to say. Nothing was making sense to me in the way of character development. I found the characters to be inconsistent, non-sensical, unbelievable, and, well, pointless. Which may have been part of the point. One of the themes of the film seems to have been (mind you, I am not certain of this) that war is awful and destructive, pointless even, and nature is serene and beautiful. But even a character in the film points out that such a statement is false. If that was the theme, it failed. As for plot... well, if it hadn't been for the theme of the battle, there wouldn't have been one. We skip around, lighting on this character or that, with seeming randomness. Very disjointed. Very tough to follow. I must also say that the directing was a disappointment. The characters seemed aimless and unmotivated. The entire film seemed listless and petty. The only character with any energy, Nolte's Col. Tall seemed very small-minded and selfish. No adequate contrast to his character was made to make any sort of statement, only a succession of weak and half-hearted protests to his personal quest. Also, though I may be on a limb here, I have read a bit about WWII, and in the Pacific in particular. If I recall correctly, Guadalcanal was early enough in the war that the Japanese forces were still highly motivated and organized. Even when obviously defeated, accounts I have read suggested that the Japanese forces were highly tenacious in defense. Not the desultory and leaderless bandit types that our heroes (and I use the term loosely) seemed to be facing. The Japanese army, especially early on, was well equipped and acknowledged as a skilled fighting force led, particularly on a small unit level, by able and driven (often brutal) commanders. So, to me, the historical accuracy seemed to be lacking a bit.
However, I will say that the cinematography was excellent. Stylized in a way that I did not care for, but excellent. Also, the scenery was very nice, and provided an excellent visual testament to the horrors of war.
I gave the film a 3 out of 10, and almost gave it a two. It is rare that I cannot watch an entire film, but having wasted utterly two hours of my life on this film, I couldn't bear that loss of another hour.