Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Detailing the battle on the South Pacific Island of Guadalcanal in 1943 and the Americans' final success over the Japanese, this is a most poignant and underestimated war film. Seen through the narrator, one of the American soldiers, the film's strength lies in its depiction of the harshness, misery, madness, and yet also the depth of humanity, on both sides. There are no winners here. Superb acting all round from the plethora of well-know actors, this extraordinary film leaves you pondering about life long after the credits have rolled on by. It reminds me how fortunate I am not to have been forced to be a soldier as I could not do what so many have been, are still in parts of the world, made to do on behalf of their governments, or renegade armies. May we be forgiven for all the suffering humankind has meted out on other fellow human beings.

When you wanted to portray toughness, the late Jack Warden was one of the first actors who came to mind. He often played persons in authority positions, as in the TV series "N.Y.P.D." and "The Wackiest Ship in the Army" (in both, a captain).In this movie he plays a top sergeant in the Army, the man who will keep you alive no matter how ruthless an enemy you will face. He's no sweetheart. He's nobody's buddy but he is cool under fire, wise, experienced and no mean player at psychological games. When some green and incautious solders in his platoon want to pick up some war souvenirs at the start of the film, it is the sergeant who casually demonstrates that the soldiers have come within an ace of getting themselves blown up. The "souvenirs" were booby trapped by the cruel, clever Japanese! In counterpoint is the character of Pvt. Doll--young, delicate looking, self-contained, and determined to survive. The casting of Kier Dullea with his expressive eyes was spot on. When Guadalcanal is mentioned most people think of the Marines. The Marines did fight a tough and heroic campaign on that island. However, the Marines were eventually relieved by the Army. The Army was left to clean out what remained of the Japanese on Guadalcanal, particularly a strongly held natural feature: Mt. Austen, called the "Dancing Elephant" in the movie but in history the "Galloping Horse" because of its shape.The story centers on the taking of Mt. Austen by the Army, with the full horror of facing for the first time an enemy determined to fight to the last man.No movie I have ever seen captures so perfectly the grimness of war, its squalor, occasional moments of exultation and the byplay of men at different levels of command but all trapped in an essentially insane situation.

Like some other commenters, I saw the 1998 version before seeing this version. I had expected a somewhat jingoistic war film, but was surprised that this turned out to be superior to the 1998 remake in every way but one. Of course the one aspect that was lesser was the depiction of graphic violence, and that was only due to the changing times and audience, and modern film effects that can show things more realistically in graphic fashion. However, I do not consider this a positive, but only stating that the technical ability to show graphic violence has improved. I would say that the story in this one is more engaging, more concise and without losing the effect of alienation that both try to convey, and in fact that effect is much more visible here in this depiction. I found the acting to be solid and less melodramatic than the 1998 version, and the soldiers actions all ring true to what would have been going on in WW II at Guadacanal, without hystrionics. It's quite interesting that this version, coming right before the Vietnam era would be cynical about war but also considerably mindful of the necessity of the particular war it depicts and of the need for the soldiers to do as they did. Whereas the post-Vietnam 1998 version is also cynical, yet much more so, showing the military as a bumbling bureaucracy of sorts and attempting to depict the battle as pointless, extending that depiction to the war in general, and it actually is an unstated allegory about Vietnam. I would say that the 1998 film boasts a production group fairly unaware of the overall reality of WW II, and still stuck in the miasma of Vietnam.

I will write another comment after seeing the more recent version of this movie, but it seems it will be hard to beat. The film doesn't seem to follow the book all that well, but is an excellent movie. It is well directed, and very well acted, and yes younger people, black and white is a valid medium. I imagine Malick will use lots of special effects, but I'll reserve judgment until I see it.