MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Bernachona Su *Analysis of the characters in the filmThe main point in the film was the conflict between Hearn and Cummings. Hearn was the representative of humanity and moral, and Cummings was the opposite against him. There were several events showing the conflict. Once Cummings summoned Hearn afterward and chastised him for the remark, then cautions him against treating the soldiers humanely and urges him to accept that war means killing and death. Cummings suggests that Hearn instill fear and hatred in his men, but the lieutenant rejects Cummings' notion as immoral. Second Cummings tells Hearn that in this moment of great destiny for America the only morality is power. There are also several branch lines about the platoon. Most of them are tragic. For example, Gallagher is devastated to learn that his pregnant wife has died in childbirth. Croft, who was painful because the infidelity of his wife, turn out to be calloused and brutal, and during the initial landing does not hesitate to personally execute a Japanese prisoner. Wyman, who is bitten by a poisonous snake and dies quickly at a river crossing. When Hearn's group is fired upon from the grove, Wilson is wounded. Despite Croft's protest, Hearn orders him to be taken back to headquarters, but the corporal dies moments later. Roth sprains his ankle during the dangerous climb and then later freezes in fear on a narrow precipice. Intending to spur Roth on, Croft calls him a "lousy Jew," causing the soldier to bolt and fall to his death. Fearing Croft will lead them to their deaths, Red challenges him but backs down when the sergeant threatens to kill him. At the peak, Croft investigates the other side of the hill alone only to be shot and killed by another Japanese patrol. What leads these people to the deathful disaster is not the cruelty of war, but the fear which is produced by people himself.At the end of the film, Cummings visits the recovering Hearn in the infirmary a few days later. Hearn tells the general that Ridges and Goldstein's dedication saved his life and bolstered his belief that man's innate decency will survive the viciousness of war. Maybe this is an optimistic expectation to reveal the commitment about humanity.*The theme of the novelThe story is not simply a narrative of a long war, but something deeper. It reflects a social and historical themes. The background of the story is a fictional and tropical island. There are two parallel clues: the war and the people in the war.The story takes place on an island in the South Pacific, allowing readers to see the relationship between officers and soldiers in the American army, which is also a microcosm of American society. Therefore, "The Naked and the Dead" is over the scope of war literature. It is a symbolic to the contradiction between barbarity and humanity. The meaning of "Naked" in the title is "unshielded" and "non-protection". It can also be understood as "the explosion of human". The thought behind the novel is realism and social criticism. It also has a strong naturalistic color. By using the behaviour out of fear and horror to describe the people as "the Naked and the Dead", Mailer seems to warn the public that fascism may revive in this century. This is an innovation to those regular war theme novels."They are always living in the wild and irrational ...... and I am lost in the kaleidoscope of death inside." Perhaps there are always only two characters in Norman Mailer's novel: "the Naked", who lose the conscience of humanity, and "the Dead", the shadow of death shrouded. *Differences between the novel and the filmWhen Norman Mailer saw the movie one night with his second wife, Adele, he complained to her that Hollywood "had ruined his story." Raoul Walsh, the director, is quoted in the article as saying the film would not stick too closely to the novel, as many of the incidents that were considered shocking at the time of the book's release had already appeared in other films. He had the script rewritten--often as the film moved through production--and added vivid battle scenes including flamethrowers and tanks, that were nowhere in the novel.The apparent differences between the novel and the film were the characters. In the film, Hearn was wounded, not killed as he was in the book. The flashbacks featuring Hearn also sharply contrasted his cavalier civilian playboy behavior with his serious consideration of moral issues.The ill-fated Sergeant Croft, who it was explained, was driven by an overweening urge to command because of the memory of an unfaithful wife. From his actions in the film, however, one was led to think that he just liked killing.Roth, the Jewish soldier who was accidentally killed on patrol. In the novel, Roth was drawn as an intellectual who is ambivalent about his Jewishness but is unable to escape anti-Semitism. The film portrayed the cruel anti-Semitism of Roth's fellow soldiers but ignored the complexities of his own personality.Wilson, a hard-drinking country boy who died in the book (but made it through the movie). Among the major changes from the book to the film, the ending of the film was the most affirmative. In the book, the idealist "Hearn" was killed and the sadistic "Croft" survived. Norman Mailer showed a pessimistic view of humanity, but the film weakened it. The film caught neither the spirit nor the intent of the original yarn and became just another war picture.Mailer was so disappointed that he filed suit against RKO Teleradio Pictures and Warner Bros in 1963, seeking reversion of all rights to "The Naked and the Dead". The suit was dismissed.*The film review"The Naked and the Dead" has resulted in a professionally but derivative action drama, which is no more memorable than similar sagas of strife that have preceded it. Director Raoul Walsh has filled the screen with striking vistas in beautiful color, the chilling sound and the fury of conflict, but the hearts, minds and motives of men exposed to sudden and often useless death, which gave the book its awesome power, serve merely as sketchy background to battle in this uneven picturization that was unveiled at the Capitol yesterday.The film was come up with an aspect recounted by a platoon, doomed to decimation in securing a small island in the Pacific in 1943. The resentment, passions, brutalities and backgrounds of the men were stated and restated but were generally left with the impression of actors' speaking lines. Here we can see the platoon is in brief and personal outline. They are lonely in a terrible world they never made. They are afraid, they hate the jungle, their rugged assignments, themselves and each other. They recall their sweethearts and wives often. Some are lucky and do survive but others not. It was nearly always as simple as that.Although the Sanders' dialog is plentiful but short of nuances, the platoon's stealthy trek, its skirmishes with Japanese patrols and the massive, climactic assault have been directed with the terrifying realism. It was a great war film. A viewer cannot help but recall scenes of the burning of enemy troops as the lush grass is ignited by the hidden G. I.'s; the death throes of a private bitten by a snake; the tension of the men as they try to scale a sheer cliff, the sounds and the look of the jungle, which have been beautifully captured in this color film. Director Walsh and his associates have carefully drawn an impressively stark face of war from "The Naked and the Dead" but only seldom do they deeply dissect the people involved in it.

verbusen The Naked and the Dead (1958), my rating 7 of 10. I see why this film has a middling score on IMdb after reading a synopsis of the book. If one comes to watch this film after reading the book and hope for it to be very faithful to the book such as a Cain Mutiny film did, you will not be happy. I watched the film without reading the book, which is considered by many to be one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, so I had no preconceptions of how the tale should unfold. For this reason, I'm happy I was able to enjoy the film on its own merits, I give it a decent score of 7. After reading a synopsis of the book, it contains much more personal information about the characters, especially pertaining to anti-Semitic bigotry and homosexual tendencies. Written in 1948, I bet this book turned some heads, it seems ahead of its time. 10 years later, America has fought in yet another war, and its appetite for war action dramas was changing to a more cynical side. The book mainly focuses on Aldo Ray's character along with some lurid domestic scenes involving soldiers and cheating wives and strippers. Aldo Ray is portrayed as a functioning psychopath, not really all that crazy but definitely a murdering sadist as he cold blooded murders a Japanese prisoner. Besides the Lieutenant/General conflict of Robertson and Massey's characters, two action supporting characters I personally like to watch had some decent screen time, LQ Jones and Robert Jaeckel. LQ's character is married to a stripper who sends him money (silly premise), I thought of a Z budget war film LQ was in, "Iron Angel" where he is in a strip club in Asia and there is a stripper there on the main stage up close and personal, with a very noticeable appendectomy or caesarian scar. Now that's a really good setting of a raunchy strip bar (although I think it had more to do with the film's low budget)! Richard Jaeckel gets some good screen time and shows his "I'm devastated" face he is usually called to perform in his films; hey he was a B movie action film guy and one of the few who consistently was called upon to show some emotion other than being angry. This was made by RKO Radio Pictures who was going out of business soon but the production values are decent. We see large military formations in the film, not just a squad. Perhaps the end footage was lifted from another film but I doubt it as the end says it was filmed in Panama and probably used our Canal Zone military units at the time for the large scenes. Purists may be dismayed that not much of the tank hardware is accurate but it looks better than the Battle of The Bulge and their newer tanks. Based solely as a war action drama and nothing more I am giving the film a 7 out of 10. If you are coming here after reading the book you may get about 40 percent of the character development (guessing) and I'm sure would not enjoy it as much. It should be remade now!

drystyx This movie seems like one made because of a much hailed and overrated author, in which the director has the nerve to actually make changes to give a novel look at war and life.The book is exactly like a Hollywood movie. Bullets cannot find bad guys, and if you're evil enough, you live forever. We get this from 99% of films. No wonder Americans bend over backwards to be sadistic. In short, that's about all the book is. Very Hollywood.This movie gives a fresh look for the viewer. Instead of the mass depression we're used to, we get an intelligent look at war. The hero is caught between two equally vicious men, one higher in rank, and one lower. Much of the rest of the movie deals with the characters, like in the older war movies.Not to give away the ending, but you will be shocked and surprised. The film still shows the horror and depravity of war without getting preachy, as many later films did.

Dan1863Sickles I saw this movie after reading the book and my jaw was on the floor after about the first five minutes. They made a tough, subversive book into the most lame, formulaic, boring action movie ever! Every fuggin guy in the fuggin squad gets changed from an all right guy to some kind of fuggin robot.HEARN -- in the book he's tough as hell, a Harvard football star and intellectual cynic with high society education who's used to fighting back and challenging authority. In this movie he's like Andy Hardy half the time, going "gee, General Cummings, let me just shake your hand!"CROFT -- in the book he's ice, a stone killer like Tom Berenger in PLATOON (really just a hippie flavored remake of Mailer's book.) In the movie he actually gets weepy in front of the men of recon crying over his wife Janey! The real Croft would have shot himself first.GALLAGHER -- in the book he's an ugly, stupid, cowardly anti-Semite who hates Jews and behaves like an Archie Bunker prototype. In the movie he's just a clean-cut guy with a pregnant wife.BROWN, Wilson, MARTINEZ, ROTH -- in the book they all have rich pasts, complex characters, and they make believable soldiers and human beings. In the movie you can hardly tell one from another.I cannot believe Hollywood did this to Mailer. I cannot believe Mailer let them do it! James Jones wasn't half the writer Mailer was, but FROM HERE TO ETERNITY looks like Shakespeare compared to this. Maybe the lesser books always make the best movies!