None But the Brave

source: None But the Brave

No one really doubts Sinatra's prowess or talents as an actor. When he got a part he could sink his teeth into ("From Here to Eternity") or one that fit him like a glove ("The Detective") he could be brilliant. At other times he could just walk through a part ("Ocean's 11") or be actually lousy (the "Tony Rome" series). There are flashes of all these facets of Sinatra in this movie, and the premise of the film itself is a good one, but Sinatra's shortcomings as a director pretty much torpedo whatever chance this movie had to stand out as something really different. Obviously the film meant a great deal to him, as it was the first time he decided to direct a movie himself. The three scriptwriters (two Japanese, one American) put together a good story about two groups of opponents stranded on a deserted island, who must at least tolerate each other in order to survive, and soon realize that not only must they tolerate each other, but they actually have to depend on each other. Part of the problem is in some of the performances. Clint Walker is OK, a bit better than in many of his films, but not especially noteworthy. However, he is Laurence Olivier compared to Tommy Sands. Sands, who plays an inexperienced lieutenant, hasn't the slightest inkling of what he's doing; his idea of exercising authority among his men, for example, is to thrust forward his jaw, lower his voice, look angry and bark. It's an entirely one-note performance, and that note is off-key almost beyond belief. He is so unalterably, unbelievably bad that your first reaction is, "Where's a sniper when you need one?" I don't buy the theory that Sinatra directed Sands to act that way as revenge for his having divorced Sinatra's daughter. The other performances range from adequate to quite good (especially the lead Japanese actors), so it looks like Sands' performance was entirely his own idea. That explains why he only made one more movie. Sands just wasn't a good enough actor to make a go of it, as a perusal of any of his other movies will attest, especially 1958's "Sing Boy Sing", where his performance is almost as jaw-droppingly awful as it is here, showing that he had learned absolutely nothing in the seven years between that picture and this one. The film starts out well, gets a little sluggish in the middle, and has a bit more pontificating than is really necessary, but overall it's not really a bad picture (even though you could see the ending coming a mile away). It's just that if the film meant so much to Sinatra, he should have hired an experienced director suited to this kind of picture--John Sturges comes to mind--and concentrated on his performance, which is, frankly, uneven. This was actually an innovative idea for its time (1965); offhand, I can't think of any other film of that period that portrayed the Japanese as even remotely human (Cornel Wilde's "Beach Red" did, but that came two years later). Sinatra had a good idea in this film. It's just too bad that he really didn't know how to get it to come across.

A very different type of war or in this case, anti-war movie. Effective plane crash at the beginning, I wonder if this is where the current TV series 'Lost' got some of its insperation. This is a cleverly written piece, with the similarities between sides and the appreciation of command and position brilliantly observed. I think Frank Sinatra was hugely underrated as a movie star. However, I found him disappointing here. Sure, he can play a drunk with his eyes shut, but the doctor is a complex and excellent potential character role that we never saw explored. Sinatra looked as if his mind was elsewhere and probably as director, it was and his character was totally unbelievable. This is not to distract from an original, well acted and in truth, touching piece that has a very strong message to deliver.

One of those bizarre, counter-intuitive Hollywood films, in which Sinatra directed (and partially bankrolled) a morality tale about the futility of war and the obscureness of its causes. Narrated through a voiceover from the Japanese commander's perspective -- and there's a twist at the end -- we see the escalation of violence between a stranded planload of Marines (Sinatra is the salty Navy corpsmen who wants to be above it all) lead by a gung-ho but green lieutenant and the forgotten garrison of Japanese holding the island. There's a subtext here which sometimes is not so subtle, as the various bones of contention -- and violence -- between the two groups range from a water hole that neither group can get to without being shot at by the other, the means of escape from the island (a wooden boat, if you want your biblical symbolism), and ultimately meaningless concepts of honor. The film falters a bit at the end and is occasionally ham-fisted, but given the year (1965, well before the anti-war film had made a comeback in the US) and the social atmosphere of the times, it's a pretty remarkable little flick of its type. That it's Sinatra's only directorial effort will make it a must-see for his cinematic fans.

If any one know where I can get a copy of this on laser or dvd, please let me know. This is a very good anti war movie that I am sure that any one watching it will understand the message that this movie is trying to get across to the audience

Just caught this one again recently. It's difficult to write an honest, objective review of a movie that's this bad. Hard to believe that anyone remotely connected to the military had anything to do with the script or direction of this turkey. Ever war movie cliché ever uttered turns up here somewhere. Hard to decide if Tommy Sands' performance as the hard-as-nails rookie lieutenant is howlingly funny or just outrageously bad. This is Hollywood's version of war. It's watchable only if you don't mind being clubbed over the head with the "message" every few minutes (that being "why can't we all just get along?") As a lifelong fan of Sinatra, I'm hugely disappointed.

I saw None But The Brave first run when it came out. It has to stand out in the WWII genre as one of the few that see the Japanese as human and show just a little understanding for their point of view. The Japanese author constructed a Japanese unit mirroring an American one: replete with the tough sergeant and a bunch of kids too young to die, adding to it the buddist monk who wound up in the Imperial Japanese Army for praying for peace at the wrong time. "I don't suppose," the Japanese LT asks the American Captain (Clint Walker), "you can just forget we're here." The enemy no matter how much you hate him/her has a story worth telling. Only a fool in blind self-righteous fury can think otherwise. The American cast Clint Walker, Frank Sinatra, Tommy Sands, and Sammy Jackson (later to play the stereotype of the US GI in the TV version of No Time For Sergeants)rendered a bravura performance. The anti-war tone is as subtle as it is convincing with realistic scenes of firefights. The Japanese even with the odds against them are tough fighters to the bitter end. It's an excellent film well worth revisiting. Comparable films include WE WERE SOLDIERS, THE ENEMY BENEATH, ALL'S QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, BREAKER MORANT and PRISONERS OF THE SUN.

Twenty years after the Japanese surrender, Frank Sinatra and other Hollywood empty-heads decide to create this dreadful movie which dishonors all the wonderful Americans who fought in the war, as well as their families and other Americans who worked tirelessly to keep our country together during the double-war with Japan and the Nazis. NOBODY EVER WINS is the message. Imperial Japan was the moral equivalent of America; as were the Nazis. Who thinks up this crap? I saw this anti-American junk movie in 1965 and forgot how awful it was, recently watched it again 07/04/11. I'm sorry; I ought to have remembered and not disrespected our dead hero's.

I was very impressed with this movie. The Technicolor was amazing and Frank Sinatra was good in it. The movie was basically about a bunch of Marine's that crash onto an island in their plane. Once they are there, the Japanese start to attack them at every opportunity. The lieutenant was over the top. He would yell stuff like "I AM TIRED OF THE WAY YOUR ARE RUNNING THIS PLATOON! ARE YOU QUESTIONING MY AUTHORITY?" He would open his mouth literally as WIDE OPEN as it could go with EACH AND EVERY WORD. I am not kidding either. In once scene he said "I AM GOING TO KILL ME SOME DIRTY JAPS" to which Frank Sinatra replied "Dirty Japs lieutenant? Why they invented the bathroom!" Anyway, the Japs and the American's eventually discover that nobody will come to rescue them from the Island so they decide to have a truce and become friends. There was this one FAT Japanese soldier that looked like the guy from Gilligan's Island (round glasses). It was quite funny. Also, the Japanese in this movie were not as ruthless as they were in reality. Another unrealistic scene was when this Japanese fisherman was being held at gunpoint by a Marine. So, the Japanese fisherman starts laughing. The Marine instantly started to laugh as well and traded a few cigarettes for some fish. The ending was very violent and unrealistic as well. However - the highlight of this movie was definitely the lieutenant. I have tried to imitate him and it's literally hard on the jaw muscles to talk that way.

In the midst of WWII, a pair of American transport planes (each full of Marines) is shot down. One (piloted by Walker) manages to crash land on a nearby uncharted island which happens to be inhabited by a small contingent of Japanese soldiers. Directed by Sinatra (in his one and only try), the film demonstrates the parallels and differences between these small units of soldiers on opposing sides and with varying backgrounds. Much of the film is devoted to the Japanese point of view as they are led by Mihashi (and most of it is presented in their native tongue with subtitles.) The rest concerns Walker, who takes charge of the remaining men, Sinatra, a boozy medic, Sands, a hopelessly eager upstart and Dexter, a grizzled Sergeant. Hostility between the enemies finally gives way to a sort of truce, or at least a cease-fire, until finally the men must live up to their country's expectations of eliminating each other. There's a lot of good in the film. It was an early example of showing more than one perspective with regards to enemies of America and it demonstrates, at times rather well, the ultimate futility and wastefulness of war. However, Sinatra, as a director, is in a bit over his head and the film is often static or choppy in it's narrative. There are also a ridiculous amount of scenes in which characters stay alive simply because either the enemy stops shooting (for no reason) or else misses by a mile. A lot of this could have been rectified in the staging of the battle sequences. Sinatra's role in the film is actually a supporting one, mostly consisting of one queasy, unbearably nerve-tingling sequence in which he is traded to the Japanese in order to perform surgery on one of their men. Otherwise, he is just onhand to provide the occasional snarky remark. Walker is a tower of virility and quiet strength. NO ONE wore a helmet like him or filled out their fatigues with more monument-like beauty. His enthralling baritone voice and piercing, ice-blue eyes make sitting through this film a little more enjoyable than it could have been without him. Sands is so unintentionally hilarious and so jaw-droppingly bad that his scenes ascend into some crazed, parodic comic stratosphere! WHAT was he thinking? It's like some teenage punk decided to portray a soldier the way he always dreamed of when in his sandbox as a child. His jaw, his posture, his accent.....all combine to create a memorably uproarious caricature. Dexter (the always-forgotten member of "The Magnificent Seven") has a couple of decent moments, notably in a conflict with Walker. Other soldiers are portrayed by healthy-looking, earnest actors who fit their roles well, though most of them don't get a chance to really shine. There are two very brief flashbacks by Mihashi and Walker that present the lady loves of their lives. Walker's is played (with hair and make-up that are about as 1940's as Sharon Tate in "Valley of the Dolls"!) by Stephens in her film debut. Though uneven, the film succeeds in presenting the enemy as human and in promoting the power of goodwill. The fact that Walker, in every frame, is breathtakingly handsome is gravy. (Oddly, he is pictured NOWHERE on the video box even though he is actually the leading man of the film!)