From the meaning of the title to the failure to attach the narration voices to the correct characters and to the overall themes of the film, it seems to me that so many that complain about this film just don't get it.
It seems many go into watching this film thinking it is a typical war/action movie and base their response on that perception.
Well, Guadalcanal is depicted as practically Paradise until the horrors of war spoil the place...Americans and Japanese alike were poleaxed by tropical illnesses, with the Japanese getting the worst of it due to poor medical supplies and logistics. A Japanese patrol is practically begging Pvt. Witt to surrender towards the end of the movie...the Japanese were in retreat by that time and could hardly take care of themselves let alone prisoners (if they even wanted to bother taking any). The attack on the village is useful for showing that Americans could behave just as barbarously as the Japanese, but the Japanese extras mostly do stuff in that scene that their grandfathers were taught was disgraceful.
shareWhat sort of things did the Japanese military abstain from out of restraint or conventional decency ? I didn't get that memo.
shareThe Japanese are shown in the village attack doing things like running (probable if they were unarmed), trying to surrender, or sitting quietly waiting to be killed when mostly they'd either fight to the death or commit suicide. And that they don't gun down Pvt Witt on sight towards the end, instead of most of them wanting him to surrender wasn't exactly Japanese behavior towards Americans (or vice versa). Incidentally, by that point in the Guadalcanal campaign, the Japanese could barely feed themselves, let alone POWs they'd just torture for information and then kill anyway. There are mutilated American corpses shown fairly early on.
shareYes, obviously.
This film is a masterpiece.
It's a litmus test for filmmaking: you don't get it, you should stick to something else.
It's half a great movie.
The location setting and cinematography is spectacular. It's makes the drab Saving Private Ryan look like dreary dog shit by comparison.
Likewise the cast, which is an unbelievable ensemble. Pretty much every great actor from the 70s-80s golden age is there. You even get to see that dick Jared Leto get gunned down for having the audacity to be in the same film as all these legends.
The problem is the film is far too up its own ass. They needed to get rid of the flashbacks and the singing with tribes, and focus on some kind of a story or plot instead. If they had done this, then you'd have one of the greatest war films of all time.
As it is, we are left with half a masterpiece.
Don't be that person...
shareI think the film is merely "good" with a few scenes that could be considered "great." It's too long by about a half hour, the story isn't too gripping or interesting, and some of the dialogue and how it's delivered is at times bad. But it's also very well shot and gets better as it goes along.
I can see what the film was going for, an examination of death and the paradise that we hope comes after under the guise of a WWII war film, but it doesn't quite get there. Maybe 50% of the way. 60% if I'm being generous. Still, it tries, and it definitely reaches something unique, so A for effort. This isn't the easiest thing to try to capture on film, it may even be impossible, but a lot like The Tree of Life, though it may fail, at least it's trying to say something that is rarely touched on by this medium.