Jeff Evans I gave this film a 7 because it is still a great story about WWII on Guam. Having lived on Guam for 21 years I have known several of the people in the film and their families. Several have gone on to influential positions on Guam. The families are still there and are still prominent such as the Artero's, Nakumura's, Tanaka's, Perez' and more. There is a high school named for Father Duenas. George Tweed, who I had an opportunity to interview over the phone, remains a controversial character to this day. (Mr. Tweed was killed in a auto accident in 1989) Many feel that he cost the lives of many Chamorro's who helped him and that he was somewhat cavalier in his behavior while hiding out on Guam. It is a shame that the film was not shot on Guam and had Filipino's portraying Chamorro's but Guam's lack of film studios to run dailies and rushes along with it's military status in the early '60's is the reason, I'm sure. Tweed had no love interest on Guam as far as we know. There are no scorpions on Guam. The language being spoken by the Chamorro's is Tagolog (a Filipino dialect)and not the native Chamorro language. However, all this being said, it is still an enjoyable film that pays great respect to Mr. Tweed and the many, many loyal Chamorro's who helped him and eagerly awaited the liberation of their homeland by the Americans.

marcus-perkins-ctr Given that movies in the 50s and 60s were never meant to show the true life "grittiness" of war that we see in movies made today such as Saving Private Ryan, I was more turned off by the lack of truth to the story. As many others have said here, it's a great story worthy of a big budget production. I lived on Guam while in the Navy, and actually had the opportunity to go to what is called "Tweed's cave". Which by the way is located in the Northwest corner of the island on the Navy's Communnication station property. It's well worth the hike because you really get a sense of the life Tweed led in those 18month's. Watch the movie for it's own sake and not for the truthfulness of the story line.

reelguy2 No Man is an Island is best seen not as a war film but as one man's spiritual odyssey. I fully agree with rsoonsa's comments that the film suffers from shoddy production values and a serious lack of logic. But get through the first half of the film and you have a tremendously moving experience.Why should one man's life be spared when all of his comrades are killed? This is the question that the main character struggles with, and it's mainly through the local priest that he learns to accept the sacrifice of the people of Guam.Jeffrey Hunter understands that his role doesn't call for the tough, gritty approach that he essayed so brilliantly in Hell to Eternity. Rather, he calls upon his unique qualities of masculinity and sensitivity to suggest his character's growing spiritual awareness. Some of Hunter's closeups are of heartrending beauty, bringing a spiritual quality that no actor today could touch.There's a reason why No Man is an Island has been released on DVD - albeit in a misguided widescreen transfer that crops crucial information from the top and bottom of the frame. It speaks to a lot of people and transcends its various flaws through the sheer inspiration of its message.

mrbluto No man is an island could have a been a great movie. Hollywood took the true story of George Tweed and ripped it to shreds, leaving nothing but a fake story that has so many things wrong it is a crime. Someone in Hollywood should do a remake of the true story of George Tweed, they might have a winner on their hands. 3 out of 10 stars