Battle of Okinawa (1971) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Apocalypse Okinawa, not for the faint of heart
I have a desire to look deeply into films from 1971 and came upon this oddity which is on R1 DVD, but still pretty much unknown. It is directed by Kihachi Okamoto who was a versatile director, happy directing comedy alongside such far as Dai-bosatsu tôge / Sword of Doom (1966), perhaps the greatest chambara movie going. As well as that The Battle of Okinawa stars Tetsurô Tanba and Tatsuya Nakadai, the two most famous Japanese actors of a generation disregarding Mifune. No slouch at directing himself (Onibaba, Kuroneko) Kaneto Shindô was involved in writing the script. So there's pedigree aplenty for the movie.

The Battle of Okinawa ended very shortly before the atomic bombings ended the entire conflict in the Pacific. It was a battle of cataclysmic ferocity that accounted for the lives of a quarter of a million people, which included a third of the island's civilian population. It was almost the end of a civilisation and a way of life, Okinawans having a distinctive culture that was almost obliterated here. The Americans never left, almost a fifth of the island is still occupied by US military bases.

The movie is both educational on the tactical side of the battle, but also revelatory about Japanese culture of the time. The military triumvirate on the Japanese side consisted of General Ushijima, and his two subordinates Lieutenant General Isamu Cho (Tanba) and Colonel Hiromichi Yahara (Nakadai). Ushijima is an almost catatonic buddha who admits having inferior tactical knowledge and so chooses sides in arguments between Cho and Yahara. Cho tends to favour aggression, Yahara is always more moderate. Nakadai here wears the same expression on his face all the way through the movie, maybe he grimaced and the wind changed, for he wore it all the way through Hideo Gosha's great movie The Wolves, also released in 1971. Joking aside though it's an iconic expression, which is awesomely fatalistic, seeming in one go to express the sheer lunacy of the pro-imperial attitudes in the army, and the desire to die. Yahara's appears to be the greatest lunacy though, he opts to let the American forces land unopposed in order to conserve ammunition, which would be needed for later in the battle.

There are many terrible things that happened during the battle, so many families committed suicide in order to avoid contact with the American troops. It's still a point of controversy as to how willing they were, and how much they were forced to by the army. Families gathered round in circles and unpinned grenades, the survivors attempted to batter each other out of their misery. Quite spectacular suicide missions are commemorated. For example a plane landing in a US-controlled airfield (the rest of the squadron succumbing to anti-aircraft fire), troops disembarking and throwing grenades at the US planes, entirely without hope of surviving It's quite interesting to discuss whether the movie glorified the resistance, certainly suicide missions are shown as heroic, whilst entirely unpalatable to the Western eye, but also the movie does question whether there is more to life, a greater reason to live than merely to serve the Emperor.

Some disappointments from a cinematic point of view, firstly the archive footage that announces the film is shot in 4:3 but here massively stretched to 2.35:1, which looks pretty sloppy. Then the film is not very well budgeted I feel so the action often looks kind of fake, but also there wasn't enough cash in the kitty to get Americans over, so the American soldiers (who generally hide their faces, are seen from behind or in the distance) are played by Japanese as well. Luckily we don't see Americans very often, their presence is only known via artillery bombardment, and when we do it's not Thompson sub-machine-guns that they're carrying. Actual combat scenes are very stylised and reminiscent of jidai-geki such as Ran in the way that the platoons of soldiers behave. It's fortunate that the Americans don't play a part in the movie, to the defenders on Okinawa they may as well have been Martians, the issues here were all Japanese, about what attitude to take in the face of cultural destruction and overwhelming incursion. That's not to downplay the loss of American life, but that would simply be for another movie.

I felt in the end that the film was a fitting testament to the deaths of the defenders of Okinawa and the populace. The movie kind of captures an essence of bravery, lunacy and hollow childlike subservience, as well as the sheer devastating horror.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A tough watch, but an important film
Jeremy_Urquhart26 July 2021
Little known but impressively detailed and completely uncompromising depiction of the battle of Okinawa from the Japanese perspective. I think it deserves a rerelease or more exposure, because as an antiwar film, it's very impressive, and even ahead of its time.

American war films were still a fair way off from showing war in a truly hellish manner at this point in film history- there's a real misery in this one that prevents any battle scenes from being fun or exciting to watch, even if there is a degree of spectacle due to the relatively high budget.

That sense of doom and inevitable loss, coupled with the savage violence that pulls absolutely no punches (it's comparable to Saving Private Ryan, yet came out over 1/4 of a century earlier) makes it a tough but engaging watch, and it mostly earns its lengthy runtime of 2.5 hours.

And of course, a war film like this shouldn't pull punches. It's generally far better to show war on film as ugly rather than exciting, especially a conflict like the one on Okinawa.

Characters are simple but serviceable, and despite the limited character development, you can feel some sympathy for them as individuals stuck in a conflict, whilst still feeling angry at the whole institution of war itself. The way it occasionally checked in on how civilians were coping was particularly powerful and unique, too.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Ambitious film overhwelms filmmakers
harposkc6 October 2010
From the director of the terrific "Japan's Longest Day", this is an ambitious documentary-styled recreation of the battle for Okinawa, where hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians were abandoned by the Japanese military in order to better protect the mainland. The soldiers fortified themselves in caves and fended of an overwhelming American attack over a period of several months. Unfortunately, the filmmaker's talents don't match their ambitions. "Japan's Longest Day" was a fascinating film written by Shinobu Hashimoto about a little known military revolt at the end of the war. Okinawa is dramatically inept with misplaced bits of humor, and the crowd scenes never number more than 50, making it seem far less epic than it purports to be. The photography is bland and the blood very fake. The desperation never seeps in like it should, but the film does a good job of showing what they went through. It also shows that when the going gets tough, the Japanese commit suicide - according to this film it must have been the leading cause of death. The events depicted are similar to "Sands of Iwo Jima" - so if you like that you might like this. Okinawa is still occupied by American forces. Script by Kaneto Shindo ("Onibaba").
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great Film On A Horrible Battle
arbino-man25 October 2007
Battle of Okinawa is a film directed by the now legendary Kihachi Okamoto. It stars Tatsuya Nakadai and Tetsuro "I'm in every Japanese film" Tamba. Both show off their acting chops in this film and deliver outstanding performances. Don't get me wrong though, there are dozens of actors in this film with almost equal scream time as these two men. This is definitely an ensemble piece on one of the most gruesome slaughters on the Japanese armies front. This film is not easy to watch. It is much more violent than "Letters From Iwo Jima" and as in "Iwo" we see how fanatical the Japanese army was at this point in history. Being taken prisoner was not an option and losing meant death or forever living in dishonor. This notion is even implemented to civilians who in this move kill themselves in droves. Tatsuya Nakadai's character is one of the few characters who believes that suicide in not the only option in defeat. He is the western voice in the film for his character even studied in America. This is a hard core war film that takes no prisoners. I recommend you go out and buy this film for it is now available in R1 DVD thanks to the fine folks at AnimEigo.
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Everything a movie about a battle with 150,000 civilian casualties should be.
chaos-rampant23 September 2008
How do you go about depicting one of the largest and most violent battles of the Pacific Theater of WWII? Is it possible to capture the ugliness and gruesomeness of a battle with 150,000 civilian casualties on celluloid and most important can any depiction by one or the other side be really impartial? The Battle of Okinawa (BOO from now on) succeeds beyond all expectations on the first and better than it has any right to in the second - it doesn't resort to cheap flag-waving but it's not without a sense of patriotism either.

The first hour of the film is devoted to the strategic planning of the battle - Kihachi Okamoto however is smart enough to spice up what in lesser hands could have been boring exposition and setup with a breakneck pace that makes this first hour just whiz by. As is obvious from the title, the protagonist in BOO is the battle - and its victims. It's not a character-driven piece as all the main characters are painted in broad strokes but it's a sprawling war drama that takes us in a bloody tour through every pore, nook and cranny of Okinawa - from the shellshocked trenches and battlegrounds to the primitive hospital set up in a cave lacking all necessities and in itself an image of Dante-ish hell on earth, people screaming and passing out and others having their legs amputated with dull hacksaws and nurses trying to ventilate the place so the injured won't suffocate, to women and children and other civilians hudled together in a cave and gas bombed by American troops to the Army headquarters where officers argue for tactics. Nothing is spared by Okamoto's lens - this is literally the battle of Okinawa in all its morbid glory.

The credentials of the creative team should be the final guarantee that BOO is a movie well worth seeing. Directed by Kihachi Okamoto (SWORD OF DOOM, KIRU, RED LION) and written by Kaneto Shindo (ONIBABA, KURONEKO) and with Tatsuya Nakadai and Tetsuro Tamba spearheading the cast, you really can't go wrong here. It's as bleak and nihilistic as Okamoto's previous chambara output would suggest and not an easy watch for the squeamish - but therein lies the true power of the movie. Even when it resorts to images we might consider trite by now (a little child walking through dozens of corpses in the aftermath of the battle) it's still done with conviction that is true to story and setting.

If we have become jaded by all the images of war and suffering the news networks have only been too eager to churn out and exploit for our curious eyes, war and suffering has lost none of its potency. BOO is not an impartial depiction of the battle - how could it be? It's not a documentary anyway. The patriotism and self-sacrifice of Japanese troops (a form of seppuku in itself) must have made eyes in Tokyo, Hiroshima and Kyoto glisten with tears. Is it not understandable though? Okamoto is not carried away with sentimentality though - this is a slice of war brutality and comes with arms chopped and parents killing their children so they won't fall in enemy hands.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Okamoto pulls no punches
DanTheMan2150AD28 January 2024
Chronicling the bloodiest and most pointless last stand of the Pacific Theatre, The Battle of Okinawa is far more well-known nowadays for essentially giving Hideaki Anno his career. Told in a quasi-documentary-like format, with black and white newsreel footage juxtaposed with narration from Kiyoshi Kobayashi over the dramatic scenes, Kihachi Okamoto manages to expertly balance horrific authenticity with few artistic liberties taken along the way. It's a film that captures an essence of bravery, lunacy and hollow childlike subservience, as well as the sheer devastating horror that gets increasingly desperate and progressively violent the longer it goes on, the final 5-minutes alone comparable to the likes of Saving Private Ryan in its entirety; Okamoto pulls no punches in the graphic details with his cynical, dark sense of humour coming out in full force. With incredible performance from its cast, most notably Tetsuro Tanba and Tatsuya Nakadai, a fantastic if limited score by Masaru Sato and energetic direction, The Battle of Okinawa is an incredible epic, one of exhaustive and continual bombardment that takes no prisoners leaving the camera smeared with blood by its dramatic end.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Movie that tries to be factual ends up being borderline fanatic.
sandermack22 August 2016
I bought this movie for a higher price than i'd care to admit, expecting a interesting take on the Battle of Okinawa with real facts and maybe some cool battle scenes. I was extremely disappointed.

Over the entire movie we are presented with the spiritually pure Japanese angels desperately fighting against those American Yankee murderers that only win the battle because they have unlimited ammo hack Thompson's that they spray and pray without discrimination, as well as some obligatory war crime weapons like chemical bombs. Which as a reviewer before mentioned was not even in use during the Okinawa invasion. I at the same time understand and hate the decision by movie-makers to portray ones own side in a better light than the other. But deliberately making your own side seem so good as it was presented in this movie is borderline historical revisionism. Which is a curse word in my dictionary.

One thing that irked me: Okinawan's were treated like trash by the Japanese during the actual invasion, yet here we are presented with Okinawan civilians that gets denied the great honor of joining the mass suicide of the Japanese soldiers, but eventually after proving their spirit the Japanese soldiers kindly allow them to use one of their grenades to off themselves. I have no doubts that some Okinawan's wanted to willingly kill themselves, but mainly the Okinawan's actually wanted to surrender to the Americans due to how crappy the Japanese treated them, using them as human shields and deliberately forcing them to kill themselves.

Also the combat scenes themselves mainly consists of the Japanese soldiers trying to get stabby stabby while the Americans use 2000 bullets on each of the Japanese in return. There is a lot of gore and blood everywhere, but it comes off as fake and stupid with the bad fighting choreography and the random narrator commenting on how "glorious" the Japanese defenders were.

I suspect the Japanese ultra-nationalists welcome this movie's inaccuracy, but at the same time it also fails as a entertaining movie. The document mixed with the bad acting makes this entire ordeal seem like a lifeless propaganda film that i could easily imagine being created by the actual WW2 Japanese government. That this was actually created 20 years afterwards is astonishing to me.

The history is not actually completely wrong, it is just glaced with lies to make it seem factual. That makes this the worst attempt at propaganda i have ever seen. And i hope that whoever Japanese director that wrote the line "this is the best war movie ever made" which made me buy the movie will be forced to watch Fires on the plain, letters of Iwo Jima or Stalingrad so he can see an actual good war movie and how pointless war actually is.

Man i could go on and on about how bad this movie is To sum it up, this is a stupid jingoistic and historically wrong document movie with many horrible combat scenes.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Inaccurate and melodramatic
jeffrey-nimmo-120 March 2010
I'm really surprised at the positive reviews this film has received and the high IMDb rating. Reading them at times I wondered if we was watching the same movie. I'm going to have to disagree with the other reviewers and say that the film doesn't work, either historically or dramatically.

Historically, it's wildly inaccurate. The whole movie suffers from the need to portray the Japanese in the best possible and most heroic light. A few examples: by April, 1945, the Japanese pilot corps had been almost totally destroyed. The Japanese were unable to train new pilots at the rate they were being killed. This is one reason why they resorted to suicide attacks. And yet we are to believe that large air forces still exist and were not employed in Okinawa because the army was unwilling to attack the American forces and recapture the air fields to the north. Another example is the Yamato. The Japanese Navy in the north had been almost destroyed, and what remained lacked fuel, but the admiralty felt the need to make some sort of gesture and sent their largest battleship. The plan had always been to beach and scuttle the ship on Okinawa and use it as a gun platform, but instead we are told that it's mission was to bravely sail amongst the Americans and fight until it was out of ammo. Unfortunately before she could do that, she was attacked by those dastardly Americans who flew gigantic squadrons of planes against her (100 planes attacking a single ship at once?). What tripe.

Unlike movies like "Tora Tora Tora" or "Midway", there is no attempt to personalize or portray the other side as anything but mindless, bloodthirsty automatons. The Americans are shown as surprisingly weak, unable to cope with the Japanese in hand to hand combat, and most of the Japanese appear to die by artillery fire or mowed down by tanks. It's the kind of chauvinism one would expect from a John Wayne movie.

Now, I don't expect historical accuracy from a John Wayne movie, but I do expect it to be entertaining. However, this movie is just too confusing and poorly written. Worse of all, it resorts to melodrama. I lost count of how many times women and children were used to manipulate the audience's emotions.

All in all, I don't recommend it.
21 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It feels like a live-action Wikipedia page.
weirdquark17 November 2022
This is an exhaustive (and exhausting) account of events surrounding the Battle of Okinawa, beginning with pre-invasion defense preparations (starting in July 1944), then moving to the aerial bombardment, to the US invasion, and finally to ground combat. In its desire to be "complete" and thoroughly document the battle (from the Japanese POV, of course), it shortchanges story and characters. It feels like three hundred mini-vignettes rapidly spat out by a machine gun rather than a smoothly flowing, cohesive whole.

As for historical context and accuracy, others have already pointed out their reservations about the Japanese being framed as noble, even heroic, warriors fighting the good fight against overwhelming odds. This complaint about its narrative framing also applies to virtually every Japanese film about World War II. In the collective cinematic imagination of Japanese WWII films, the "war" is treated almost as a cosmic, non-human, event that simply happens TO them. Unlike in many German films where characters ponder "will the world forgive us?" or "now our chickens are coming home to roost. We will now reap what we have sown", in Japanese films, it is almost always "oh poor us. We are losing. It's so sad. Why must we lose? What about our honor? What about our children?"
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not very good
vargas-1629 June 2012
The film is pretty bad across the board. Even ignoring the poor special effects due to budget, the direction and editing is poor. A tighter script and decent editing would have done wonders for what could have been a good film. The story line is grim, of course, but is badly handled and is an emotionless tale of waste. To get an emotional response from an audience you need to care about the characters, and that empathy is what the movie truly lacks. The film is a docudrama, but lacks drama and the power of a documentary. It's worth a look, but is certainly not a good film. Compare BoO with Story of a Prostitute, Fires on the Plain, or The Burmese Harp, and you'll understand why it is a forgotten film.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed