Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

drystyx This is actually two plots as I remember it.I saw it in the days of antenna TV, when we were lucky if we could make out faces. Antenna TV was why it was necessary to make TV shows and movies (which would eventually go to TV) with very different looking actors, unless it was a plot device to cause confusion.It had a style to it. And I didn't become annoyed by the Ursula character, probably because while the title suggested her character was the forefront, she was actually just the backdrop.Her story about the soldier who may die a virgin, and other soldiers who are constantly near her, is the weaker story here, and is downplayed, despite the title.The strong story, which really became the forefront story, was the one about the loose cannon soldier.The loose cannon soldier dominates the story, especially in a scene where he gives an account of how he destroyed an enemy unit, and is ridiculed by those he gives the account to, until he shows them the proof.It probably would have been a much better film without Ursula in it, although she is talented, and does her best. The fact is that her part is just not really a part of the story here.

kuciak I first heard about the film, in a book by Danny Peary called Guide For the Film Fanatic. The question he seemed to ask was, How someone like John Derek could have made such a good film? Having seen this film on TV, I have to agree with him.While John Derek may have made many bad films, and I can't say they were all bad, because I have not studied his work. However, I wonder if those other reviewers who hated this film so much just hated John Derek.When I watched this film, I couldn't help but feel that Derek was influenced by the Polish Films of the 1950's by Wajda, particularly CANAL. While filmed in color, this film has that despair of war. Considering that most of television, and some movies portrayed World War II as something heroic, this film was ahead of its time. It shows war as very ugly, almost a warning about the Viet Nam conflict that the US was just getting involved with. I also enjoy his shots of other people who inhabit the scenes, as if they have stories to tell themselves, particularly the native population of the Phillpines. It is a use of the camera I believe called 'foregrounding', something that was used in the Cuban film THREE JULIAS, which I think was made later. Another person, not on IMDb, mentioned that he felt this film had an influence on Appocolypse Now, especially if you see the Redux version.His use of Freeze Frames was ahead of it's time, though occasionally it looks cheesy, and may have helped keep the budget down. Also, with John Derek as the star of the film, he does have some surprises in the story, something that has been copied in later films, which I will not name. Finally the Use of Mrs. Andress in the film, may have helped get more financing for the movie. While some of you might look at her as only eye candy, I would suggest that her performance and presence does not distract from this film, and is not wrong. The final image of her on the screen, with the beautiful song, is a haunting image.

frankfob John Derek has never made a good movie in his life. He's been IN some good ones, but he's never MADE a good one, and there's no better example of his almost complete lack of talent as a filmmaker than this. He takes a potentially interesting story--the guerrilla war waged against the Japanese after their takeover of the Philippines in World War II--and for some reason turns it into a game of who's going to nail Ursula Andress before the Japanese kill everybody. Derek apparently thought that the sight of Andress, his wife (or girlfriend, or whatever she was) at that time, in various stages of undress was enough to draw people into the theaters (it wasn't). Because of that, he obviously paid no attention whatsoever to minor things like having a coherent script, directing the other actors, maintaining a semblance of continuity--trivial matters like that. The only saving grace (professionally, that is) is Richard Jaeckel's performance as a soldier eventually driven insane by the fighting. Jaeckel was always one of the most watchable actors around; he had that cockiness and explosive quality that Cagney had, and no matter how lousy the movie was (like this one), he always pulled it up a couple of notches. Unfortunately, he wouldn't have been able to pull this thing up with a crane. Its infuriating pretentiousness is its main undoing. The dialogue is so Ed Woods-ian in its rambling, nonsensical "what-the-HELL-are-they-talking-about?" absurdity that you finally find yourself wishing that the Japanese would come in, whack everybody and put the cast--and the audience--out of their misery. An absolutely painful experience that makes you wonder, "How in God's name did he get anyone to put up the money to make this thing?" Skip it.

4-Eyes There was an interesting tension between Andress as the life force and the fate each of the men met after they became involved with her. Moths to the flame. I wish the film had made more of this theme (and been better in general).