SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

gkeith_1 Seems like Marlon Brando should have been in this film. I don't know what part he could have played, but maybe a part (only a major part for my Marlon) could have been made up for Marlon. At any rate, I would not have wanted him to portray Abner Hale or any of those other stodgy, uptight ministers, lol. Maybe Marlon's character could have gone for Julie Andrews, then killed Hale the ignorant preacher-man. I have read the enormous novel upon which this film is based. This movie seems long, but the novel is gigantic. The beginning of this book goes on forever in describing the history of Hawai'i, before the white man ever arrived. It also tells lengthy litanies about the origins of the native gods and indigenous beliefs. The missionaries wanted to claim these islands for their religion. This film goes to great lengths to illustrate that. I have been to Hawai'i. I saw their beautiful beaches and exotic plants. The weather is breathtaking. I visited Honolulu, and toured a beautiful museum wherein were displayed artifacts from the lives of late 19th-century Hawai'ian royalty. It seems that by that time, in real life, the royal family of Hawai'i had intermarried with white business and political figures. The white people were building agricultural empires there, for example enormous pineapple production (famous canned pineapple brand names you have heard of). The British also were interlopers in the islands. The Hawai'ian royal family seemed to like the British 19th Victorian fashions and polite manners more than they liked the Americans and their less elegant ways, but the island nation eventually became an American state. The last queen of Hawai'i had been forced to abdicate. She had been married to a white man. I also saw a display there of a life-size figure of James Michener, sitting in a white tent and typing the novel "Hawaii" on his manual typewriter. Did white people ruin Hawai'i? I hope not. It is a beautiful place. I hope to visit there again soon. Observations: Malama (Alii Nui) stole the show, in this film. 10/10

vincentlynch-moonoi My first bit of critiquing hit me within the first 20 minutes of this rather long film. They could have made Max von Sydow's character appear awkward. Unfortunately, they overdid it made him appear oafish. Come on fellas...a little restraint.A warning -- if you're the evangelical type, you're not going to like this film. Its entire purpose seems to be to put down evangelizing...and rightfully so. There is a very powerful, though brief, scene where 2 ministers (including Gene Hackman) are disrobed from the ministry; it sums up in just a couple of minutes the sentiment of the overall film. Make no mistake, there is a theme of racial prejudice throughout the film. And, in fairness, the film does show the weaknesses of both cultures.Overall this is a rather lushly filmed epic. An exception is the very fake appearing sailing though a straight (at the tip of South America?). They sure saved money in that segment! Julie Andrews is superb here; it is a part that fits her well.Even beyond the previously mentioned comment about Max von Sydow, I have a bigger problem with his role here as Reverend Abner Hale. Don't misunderstand me; Von Sydow is a wonderful actor, and I have enjoyed a number of his performances in other American films. But here, he seems to have no sense of subtlety at all,, and thus the role becomes one of constant excess. His fault? The director's fault? I have not noticed such excess in other Ggeorge Roy Hill films, so I will have to place the responsibility here on con Sydow.Jocelyne LaGarde, here as an Hawaiian queen, made only this one film, though she lived until 1979. She was Tahitian and spoke no English, and learned her lines phonetically. It's a remarkable and entertaining performance.Gene Hackman's role is not large (as another minister), but it is interesting to see him at age 36. This was his first significant film role.Richard Harris is here as the sea captain who once was in love with Julie Andrews' character. His role here -- as a seaman -- is to cause trouble. You know what they say about sailors! A major plot point is how far Andrews' character will fall again.Carroll O'Connor has a small role here as Andrews' father. Nothing notable, although he was well into his career at this point.Manu Tupou Despite the issues mentioned, this is a fine and entertaining film. There are many touching scenes, as well as many powerful scenes. Were it remade today, it would be a very different film; I think I'm glad it was made nearly half a century ago.

oceanchick I watched Hawaii to see Max Von Sydow. I was surprised to see that he seemed as miscast in Hawaii as Gregory Peck was in Moby Dick.Yet it seems an absurdity to have a 'miscast', because a good actor should be able to play any part. I guess it wasn't truly a 'miscast' but more of a 'why the heck did Sydow take that part?!".Sydow's pedigree is beyond the scripted Abner Hale. The part of Hale was shallow in its overbearing nature, lazy in its development, basely barking unrealistic condemnations, and lacking any human substance---and in effect, overplayed. Sydow had fewer than 10 "human" lines in the entire film, leaving viewers to listen to elementary prattle. Abner Hale had the potential to be a very powerful character. The writers simply failed to provide dialog with depth.Comparing Hawaii to Capote where the viewer is allowed to freely dislike Truman Capote because of his nature, the words spoken by Hoffman were believable giving depth to his character and grounds for the viewer's emotion. That depth was never achieved in Hawaii, offering instead preposterously hollow, ridiculously vacant lines. Directing Sydow to play Hale in an exaggerated fashion only made it worse. His religious fanaticism was not buy-able; he appeared more of a lunatic.Having seen Sydow's acting in numerous works, he has proved capable should he be given something to work with. But the script is dull, reads like a dime-store children's novel, and in effect lent nothing to play.Julie Andrews stayed in the shadows the entire film, suggesting that was also her role in the church/relationship, but she was the only character that had any depth. Her lines were few but solid and she had a believable countenance.The Hawaiian characters were written stereotypically, speaking w/ broken English but apparently understanding all of Hale's embellished sophisticated condemnations. The Queen seemed jovial and bossy; she was the most natural of the Hawaiians on camera, earning LaGarde the only acting award for the movie. The rest of the Hawaiian actors (both speaking and extras) seemed stiff and comparably makes Keanu Reeves look like a Larry Olivier.I can appreciate the attempts to keep the natives natural (and by default, topless) but because the movie lacked substance not provided by the script, the semi-nude natives are reduced to gratuitous fodder. It's as if the producers knew the movie was a stink-bomb and put a lot of breasts on camera to distract the viewer from the stench. The cinematography of Hawaii was very basic and this movie was one of the last of Russell Harlan's career. Though the movie is credited as being filmed in Hawaii, most often the scenes looked like they were shot on sets. Interior ship scenes were done cleverly and the editing was tight. The musical score was sterling. Though I have enjoyed George Hill's later directorial efforts, I believe that problems with the script and loss of the original director resulting from such problems left Hill with less to work with than what he should have had. Comparably, Val Lewton's films often have better screenplays and believable characters, tighter shooting schedules, lack of lush locations, and they are done on inconceivably low budgets.As for the religious theme and the resulting troubles the Hawaiians ensued as a result, the theme is interesting and worthy of exploration. I do understand the nature of the missionaries giving up their lives and going away possibly never to see their families again, as my father was a minister. I understand the fanaticism implied by Hale's character, as well as his close-mindedness to the concept of God being not only a vengeful God but also one of love, patience and understanding. But my understanding of the concepts of the movie do not excuse the fact that it was very poorly written.I, for one, do not believe that I should have to read the book to make allowances for a poorly made movie. The movie should be strong enough to stand on its own. It isn't necessary for one to read Gone With The Wind to understand why Scarlett will never go hungry again, nor any of her folk.

bkoganbing From the day Captain Cook arrived on those beautiful islands, Hawaii like Poland was cursed because of geography. Poland situated between two gigantic European powers just became a pawn in the eternal military and diplomatic chess game.Hawaii located where it is between North America and the Orient, when sea travel improved it was only a matter of time before the big powers came a-callin'. And they came from both directions. Not shown in the time frame this film covers, but soon after, waves of Japanese and Chinese immigrants landed on the shore. Hawaii was coveted by all and America got it.Max Von Sydow plays a young New England minister out to bring the gospel to the heathen as he sees them and has been taught to see them. His church won't send him out to the south seas without a wife, lest he be tempted by sins of the flesh, so on a short acquaintance he marries Julie Andrews. She in turn has been home pining away for whaling captain Richard Harris. When Von Sydow and Andrews get to Hawaii over the course of their story Harris would reappear.Naturally its quite a culture shock for the New Englanders when they get to Hawaii. The film's story covers about a quarter of a century of Hawaiian history and the history of the changing attitudes of Andrews and Von Sydow. James Michener's original novel was of War and Peace duration and I suppose the final script was as best they could get it and cover what he was trying to convey. Despite the obvious racist feelings that Von Sydow has, he's a basically decent man who does do some positive good.His problem is that everything with him has to be filtered through the Bible. There's a lot of incest going on in Hawaii when he lands there. Reason being is that these are islands with a limited number of mating partners. Now incest is bad as we know because it does eventually weaken the gene pool. But Von Sydow hardly takes a scientific approach, how could he, he doesn't know it, he hasn't been taught it.Julie Andrews is a far cry from the perky Mary Poppins. She develops quite an attachment to Hawaii and its people and her approach with them is fundamentally different than her husband's. It's not a bad performance.Richard Harris is the lusty whaling captain of Andrews previous affections. I tend to think his part might have been edited down. In a recent biography of Harris, it was stated he and Andrews did not get along at all on the set. Harris in those days was a whole lot like the characters he played like this one in Hawaii.Of course when you've got Hawaii as a subject for a camera, the photography could not be anything but gorgeous.Hawaii covers a period not well known to most Americans except Hawaiians. And indeed they are Americans and have been since 1959. I think people could learn something from this film even with the script flaws.