An epic that is largely character driven and that actually works to its detriment. Minister Max von Sydow and his New Englander wife Julie Andrews head for mission work in Hawaii and face storms at sea, fires, disease and some very sexually free natives. Director George Roy Hill assembles a staid adaption of the James A. Michener novel and though the production values are all first rate, the script stagnates to the point of being sleep inducing when it should be sweeping. The acting is good, though there is probably one too many scenes of von Sydow in full on fire & brimstone mode. He's really annoying. Andrews is very restrained, so much so that it's difficult to believe she would have stayed with such a block headed husband. Richard Harris, Gene Hackman and George Rose are in it too. Jocelyne LaGarde, an Oscar nominee for her only film appearance, steals a number of scenes as the very bossy Malama Kanakoa.

I first saw this movie (in snatches) when I was about 10 years old. I was totally captivated by the love story, because I could really relate to Max Von Sydow's performance as the stern, lonely Puritan Minister Hale. I got his anguish, his conflicting feelings, and his total inability to share. When Mrs. Hale (a prim but fetching Julie Andrews) gives birth and he starts sobbing and admits that he loves her more than God, I felt it like a punch in the stomach.On the other hand, I couldn't help admiring the bold whaling captain played by Richard Harris too. When the minister falls in the water and the devilish whaler shouts, "shark! go get him, boy!" that really tickled my funny bone. I was ten years old, of course, but I totally understood what an amazing love triangle this was.Well, the other day I finally got this movie on videotape, and after nearly forty years I was really curious to see if it would live up to my memories. I have to admit that there are some very, very long dull patches in this movie. Richard Harris never really cuts loose. Julie Andrews keeps slipping away just when she most needs to shine! So much of the movie is like a costume party, or a drinking game. Guess which famous character actor will bop in next wearing whiskers and a frock coat? There's Lou Antonio -- he played Coco in Cool Hand Luke! There's John Cullum! There's Gene Hackman! There's Carroll O'Connor! All these guys have major, major stories that have nothing to do with Abner and Jerusha. And the love story totally gets lost for about two thirds of the movie.On the other hand, now that I'm grown up, I really appreciate what a classic American hero Abner Hale is, and how authentic Max Von Sydow makes him. You could teach a whole college course on American literature just with his influences! One moment he's Ahab, forging ahead with ruthless fury. Then he's Ephraim Cabot in Eugene O'Neill's Desire Under The Elms, mixing Puritan rage with burning lust. Then he's the young doctor in Hawthorne's story The Birthmark, shutting out happiness and totally ignoring his angelic, suffering wife. And then at the very end (this is spoiler territory) he finally gets his act together -- and suddenly he's doing a letter-perfect Mr. Scrooge.It's amazing the way Hale's character evolves. When you watch him calling down God's wrath on the Hawaiians, it's almost dreamlike, like a silent film showing an Old Testament prophet. And you hate him so much. Yet at the end, when he *finally* gets how wise his wife really is, and how much she means to him, you want to stand up and cheer. And the fact that it's really too late only makes it more poignant.You can't really call this movie a masterpiece -- but it's much more than just another overblown dud.

I watched Hawaii to see Max Von Sydow. I was surprised to see that he seemed as miscast in Hawaii as Gregory Peck was in Moby Dick.Yet it seems an absurdity to have a 'miscast', because a good actor should be able to play any part. I guess it wasn't truly a 'miscast' but more of a 'why the heck did Sydow take that part?!".Sydow's pedigree is beyond the scripted Abner Hale. The part of Hale was shallow in its overbearing nature, lazy in its development, basely barking unrealistic condemnations, and lacking any human substance---and in effect, overplayed. Sydow had fewer than 10 "human" lines in the entire film, leaving viewers to listen to elementary prattle. Abner Hale had the potential to be a very powerful character. The writers simply failed to provide dialog with depth.Comparing Hawaii to Capote where the viewer is allowed to freely dislike Truman Capote because of his nature, the words spoken by Hoffman were believable giving depth to his character and grounds for the viewer's emotion. That depth was never achieved in Hawaii, offering instead preposterously hollow, ridiculously vacant lines. Directing Sydow to play Hale in an exaggerated fashion only made it worse. His religious fanaticism was not buy-able; he appeared more of a lunatic.Having seen Sydow's acting in numerous works, he has proved capable should he be given something to work with. But the script is dull, reads like a dime-store children's novel, and in effect lent nothing to play.Julie Andrews stayed in the shadows the entire film, suggesting that was also her role in the church/relationship, but she was the only character that had any depth. Her lines were few but solid and she had a believable countenance.The Hawaiian characters were written stereotypically, speaking w/ broken English but apparently understanding all of Hale's embellished sophisticated condemnations. The Queen seemed jovial and bossy; she was the most natural of the Hawaiians on camera, earning LaGarde the only acting award for the movie. The rest of the Hawaiian actors (both speaking and extras) seemed stiff and comparably makes Keanu Reeves look like a Larry Olivier.I can appreciate the attempts to keep the natives natural (and by default, topless) but because the movie lacked substance not provided by the script, the semi-nude natives are reduced to gratuitous fodder. It's as if the producers knew the movie was a stink-bomb and put a lot of breasts on camera to distract the viewer from the stench. The cinematography of Hawaii was very basic and this movie was one of the last of Russell Harlan's career. Though the movie is credited as being filmed in Hawaii, most often the scenes looked like they were shot on sets. Interior ship scenes were done cleverly and the editing was tight. The musical score was sterling. Though I have enjoyed George Hill's later directorial efforts, I believe that problems with the script and loss of the original director resulting from such problems left Hill with less to work with than what he should have had. Comparably, Val Lewton's films often have better screenplays and believable characters, tighter shooting schedules, lack of lush locations, and they are done on inconceivably low budgets.As for the religious theme and the resulting troubles the Hawaiians ensued as a result, the theme is interesting and worthy of exploration. I do understand the nature of the missionaries giving up their lives and going away possibly never to see their families again, as my father was a minister. I understand the fanaticism implied by Hale's character, as well as his close-mindedness to the concept of God being not only a vengeful God but also one of love, patience and understanding. But my understanding of the concepts of the movie do not excuse the fact that it was very poorly written.I, for one, do not believe that I should have to read the book to make allowances for a poorly made movie. The movie should be strong enough to stand on its own. It isn't necessary for one to read Gone With The Wind to understand why Scarlett will never go hungry again, nor any of her folk.

I was originally attracted to this film by the magnificent sets. I have always been fascinated by the islands of Hawaii, by their music, their women, their vegetation and would one day like to visit them ! Unfortunately, at present, that is a privilege reserved for very rich people ! I read and found most amusing and predictable some of the comments in IMDb about the film written by politically correct, holier-than-thou people, who are trying to pretend to be shocked by they way that missionaries from USA spread Christianity across the world, and of course making innumerable references to racism ! Of the Christian religion myself though far from devout, I have nothing but admiration for these missionaries who helped to spread our religion across the world in savage places and under conditions which cannot have been easy. Since time immemorial religions of all sorts have been spread across the world in this fashion, you have to show that your religion is better than the one already in place in order to convert the locals. So what's new. Obviously there are bound to be frictions and the film shows up this very well. But we see there were evil practices of incest and killing babies which the natives found normal but which Christianity tought them was wrong, fortunately !Von Sydow's character may come over as a little austere in some fields, but true religious talents sometimes require hard-headedness and not-always-popular stances. Julie Andrews comes across as milder and not so austere, but I question her religious integrity. She seems to put love for her husband more important than love for God which seems strange ( but will no doubt satisfy the anti-religion crowd !! )Away from the politics of the film, she music and shots are superb. I did find it a little overlong and the last half hour or so a little botched. I loved the performance of the Hawaian queen Malama, I thought she was superb !! The film has strenghthened my desire to know this people but unfortunately in Europe we don't see any of them. I suppose that the isolation of their islands precludes them from being able to travel easily.So all in all a reasonably good film. WHen I saw Dalton Trumbo ( subversive communist ) in the line-up, I did have some doubts prior to viewing but his views don't seem to have rubbed off too much on the film.