davidcarniglia This is kind of a 'split decision' for me: the second part of the movie is much better than what comes before. In fact, it might've been better to tell the lead-up to the fateful patrol in flashbacks. What we get in the Hearn vs. Croft vs. the Japanese vs. the terrain plot strands is a taut, captivating plunge into hell and back.It's interesting that at the time that Hearn is injured, Croft has the men almost completely in his corner; but the tables turn quickly. The men detailed to take Hearn back to the beach grow to respect him; whereas Croft's men completely lose respect for him. In a way, Croft is a sort of low-life version of the general. Both men think they're always right, dominate those around them, and use the war to enhance their egos.Both are shown to be essentially weak men. Hearn seems hapless, and almost everything goes wrong for him; but he perseveres, coming out of his experience stronger, and more self-assured. In short, his character changes, unlike the robotic general and sadistic sergeant. There's quite a bit of chatter about the absurdity of war: the unexpected success of the patrol shows how chance plays such a significant role. Oddly enough, the very messiness of the patrol confuses the enemy into making a critical mistake; and encourages the colonel to mount the decisive attack. By being absent, the general was shown up by a subordinate. And Croft, giving in to his reckless impulses, was eliminated. I'm aware that Mailer's story was altered significantly for the movie, which makes me want to re-read the novel. The movie stands on its own nonetheless.Strictly as a war movie, The Naked and the Dead is very successful. The battle scenes are tense, exciting, and realistic. Ok, we have post-war tanks in several scenes, and the Japanese show up with our period-correct Shermans, but most war movies make-do like this. I'll probably skip through the first part when I watch it again, but the second part is not to be missed.

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!

moonspinner55 From Norman Mailer's celebrated book about kill-happy Army sergeant in the Pacific, 1943. In the lead, handsome Aldo Ray gets a chance to show his swagger portraying a man doing battle with the enemy as well as with himself and his own men; otherwise, this glum effort is War-is-Hell routine. Bernard Herrmann's score sounds suspiciously like the one he turned in for "Taxi Driver" in 1976. Hmmm....

Evilmike I saw this movie on a local PBS station about the same time I was writing a Term Paper on the novel. I have already read the novel several times, but I still thought that the movie perspective might be helpful. Needless to say I was wrong. The movie turns a book about the futility of the individual's role in war into a boiler plate feel good war movie w/ a happy ending. One of the most important parts of the novel, where Hearn is betrayed despite his best efforts to be a "good" leader, is scrapped. Hearn not only survives, but the movie goes on the kill the ass hole, Sgt Croft. In the book we see a group of individuals who all want to singlehandedly make a difference and who all end up failing because modern war has grown beyond the control of the individual. In the movie we see a division of good guys and bad guys where where good guys win and the bad guys get what's coming. Finally I would like to point out that this movie is a waste of time or unpleasant to watch. If its going to be on TV by all means watch it, but if you've read the book brace yourself to be VERY disappointed.