Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Edgar Soberon Torchia I understand very well the value war veterans or many military persons can give to their memories of what they experienced while being in battles or accomplishing missions during war at different fronts. But cinema is something else, and depicting them on screen with fine results from both the artistic and commercial angles is not an easy task. More often than not the products resemble a long recruitment ad, an exaltation of a warmongering spirit, or a justification of actions which are ethically questionable as violating the national autonomy of a foreign country under the guise of "fight of democracy", no matter how realistic or vivid these products seem, and make these men and women revive their past experiences. Some are expensive productions, many are low-budget, some are very good and some are very bad. This American-Filipino co- production is a good example of cheap, proto-fascist cinema, with a formula script supposedly inspired by soldier George R. Tweed's "heroics" during Japanese invasion in Guam, turned into adventure non-sense, loaded with bad dialogue and "exotic" touches by the Filipino actors. Unfortunately, the make-up department had no pancake for them, so while Jeffrey Hunter sports a glorious tan, the others are all made-up with obvious powders intended for Caucasians. Add the U.S. Army propaganda, the scratched war footage, the shaky sets, and a score that goes from pompous to soapy, and you have a dreadful product. And it's true, maybe this story deserves a good remake.

Jeff Evans I gave this film a 7 because it is still a great story about WWII on Guam. Having lived on Guam for 21 years I have known several of the people in the film and their families. Several have gone on to influential positions on Guam. The families are still there and are still prominent such as the Artero's, Nakumura's, Tanaka's, Perez' and more. There is a high school named for Father Duenas. George Tweed, who I had an opportunity to interview over the phone, remains a controversial character to this day. (Mr. Tweed was killed in a auto accident in 1989) Many feel that he cost the lives of many Chamorro's who helped him and that he was somewhat cavalier in his behavior while hiding out on Guam. It is a shame that the film was not shot on Guam and had Filipino's portraying Chamorro's but Guam's lack of film studios to run dailies and rushes along with it's military status in the early '60's is the reason, I'm sure. Tweed had no love interest on Guam as far as we know. There are no scorpions on Guam. The language being spoken by the Chamorro's is Tagolog (a Filipino dialect)and not the native Chamorro language. However, all this being said, it is still an enjoyable film that pays great respect to Mr. Tweed and the many, many loyal Chamorro's who helped him and eagerly awaited the liberation of their homeland by the Americans.

drystyx This is an excellent war movie based on a true story. The action is great, and the characters very identifiable. There is one really mean character, but his character does ring true for the times, and he reveals a prejudice that was present. In fact, as a historical adventure based on true events, certain liberties are taken to show higher truths. That is what this movie does. Characters will often be composites to show the events in a condensed version. Otherwise, the movie would be forty hours long. This movie centralizes on Tweed and four other Americans trying to escape occupied Japanese territory. They are aided by natives, and that is what the movie is about. Modern audiences won't like the fact that Tweed is a likable character. One of the advantages of older movies is that they didn't present all lead characters as ridiculous stereotypes and homicidal maniacs. Also, some puritans insist that every action be historically beyond doubt. To read some of the reviews here, you would think that they couldn't show Tweed eating rice without having a receipt for the rice in the Smithsonian Institute. Just enjoy a well done movie with great actors. Remember, who did the studio get to play the son of God in a later movie?

mrbluto No man is an island could have a been a great movie. Hollywood took the true story of George Tweed and ripped it to shreds, leaving nothing but a fake story that has so many things wrong it is a crime. Someone in Hollywood should do a remake of the true story of George Tweed, they might have a winner on their hands. 3 out of 10 stars