Hiroshima (1995 TV Movie) User Reviews

A Nutshell Review: (DVD) Hiroshima (1995)

[DICK STEEL · 9/10 · 26 December 2006]

The closing stages of the Pacific Theatre of WWII are revisited recently by filmmaker Clint Eastwood, in his two movie compendium Flags of Our Fathers, and Letters from Iwo Jima, depicting the Battle of Iwo Jima from both perspectives of the Americans and the Japanese. Hiroshima, a made for TV movie in 1995 for Hallmark Entertainment, does so in one movie, clocking in at a massive 180 minutes.

But the running length is fully deserved, as this is probably as detailed one could get without boring the audience. Directed by Roger Spottiswoode and Koreyoshi Kurahara, they each take on their respective country's angle, beginning from April 12th 1945 with Roosevelt's death.

Spottiswoode focused on Truman's abrupt taking over the presidency, with a lot of catching up to do with regards to the war. As Vice President, he's kept largely out of the daily workings during Roosevelt's term, and suddenly is thrust into the hot seat with the passing of Roosevelt, making decisions that will affect countless of lives worldwide. Of note is the moral dilemma faced with the Manhattan Project, as well as looking into the inner circle's politicking of racing toward being the 1st nuclear power, and the demonstration of such a might with a public display of a detonation. You'll also see how the pilots train with mock bombs and mock targets during their countless drills just to get it right.

On the other hand, Kurahara was focused on the Japanese's lack of understanding and therefore deliberation on surrender, and takes a long hard look at how the Imperial Army dealt with impending invasion by the Allied forces. What's to note here is the portrayal of Emperor Hirohito, as he surveys his land bombed incessantly by B29s. Politics and bickering between politicians and the military take the spotlight here.

I'd bet most would find new nuggets of information from this informative dramatization of the events leading up to the detonation of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, like how Kyoto was deliberated over and spared, being the equivalent of a religious city, and a city with monuments worth preserving. I'd learn that the US actually had to call the bluffs, having only 3 bombs at the time, with Little Boy (Hiroshima's) made of uranium, and Fat Man (Nagasaki's) made of plutonium, and another plutonium one used as a test bomb, because the method of fission is slightly different from uranium's, and had to be tested first to ensure it works.

If technical details aren't your cup of tea, then perhaps cultural differences between the two countries, and the bridging of this understanding, might be of interest to you. It's equivalent to today's lack of understanding, and the lack of a well thought out strategy, that we see wars fought and degenerated into the issues faced today. It was interesting to note that prior to WWII, Japan had never lost a war, and therefore, doesn't know what defeat, nor surrender is, and hence, absolutely had no idea going about doing it. It could also be attributed to the Asian "face" value, that death always be a better option compared to a humiliating defeat.

Combined brilliantly with stock archive footage, documentary reels and interviews from veterans on both sides. Hiroshima is well worth the 3 hours spent watching it, unraveling itself like a history book. My only gripe was that the ending was abrupt, all over with the announcement of the Japanese surrender.

All Region DVD comes with no extras.

Hell on earth.

[michaelRokeefe · 8/10 · 11 November 2003]

Excellent. Recounted are the events leading to President Truman's decision to drop an A-bomb on Hiroshima in 1945 and its aftermath. Filmed primarily in "tinted" black and white with the weaving of newsreel and stock footage. Witness testimonials put the explanation point on the haunting depictions. Kenneth Welsh is uncanny in his portrayal of Truman. Other stars of note are: Richard Masur, Leon Pownall, Wesley Addy, Daisaku Akino, David Gow, Ken Jenkins and Naohiko Umewaka. A must for WWII and history buffs.

A quality film

[kaijuguy · 9/10 · 9 December 1999]

Hiroshima is a great film, originally made for cable, about events leading up to the A-bomb being dropped on Japan. It shows the Japanese perspective very well and is one of the better WW2 films of recent years. Surprisingly, it is mostly a Canadian production that is very accurate with the facts they put on screen. Very well done.

A Perfect 10

[rblayer · 10/10 · 21 April 2003]

Perhaps the best made-for-tv movie I've ever seen. Historically correct and blended with real footage and interviews of actual participants I was spell-bound for three hours. The haunting musical score only added to the emotional story telling of this significant historical event.

Intelligent and provocative and of highest quality

[amazme3 · 10/10 · 2 February 2002]

I found this masterpiece of a film by perusing the cable tv guide. Being a war history enthusiast, I was drawn to the content of the movie, only to realize that the production and actors and characters and images and storyline were equally well done. None of the performers are big celebrities, but that fact takes nothing away from their incredible performances and likenesses to the true people they portrayed. Kenneth Welsh as Harry Truman and Wesley Addy as Sec of War Stimson dominate with memorable renditions, but the entire cast deserves almost equal praise. I was not aware that President Truman was on a battleship when the uranium bomb descended on Hiroshima. The attitudes of American and Japanese leaders were nicely shown, and Truman's portrayed thoughtfulness and decisiveness were impressive. One of the infrequent 10's of my movie history. The docu-drama format gave the piece an even more realistic appeal.

excellent

[frankiehudson · 2 June 2003]

This is a brilliant, meticulous recreation of the events, both political and military, leading up to the tragic attack on Hiroshima in August 1945.

Brilliant performance by Kenneth Welsh as the Missouri haberdasher President Truman, strangely ill-dressed throughout this film in his trademark double-breasted suit and multi-coloured shoes. Here, Truman is a simplistic, Forrest Gump style president grappling with enormous moral issues about using the new ‘gadget'.

The excellent cinematography recreates the story in newsreel style footage, intercut with interviews with several people from the time. Also, shows the Japanese situation in Tokyo and the hardline military people on both sides.

Good, but for the lack of captions or English subtitles

[emuir-1 · 6/10 · 27 February 2013]

I found this movie in my collection yesterday and realizing that I had never watched it and having no idea where it came from, I decided to view it.

The depiction of the two sides, US and Japanese was impartial, both sides were dealing with similar issues, both sides had doves and hawks, although the Japanese were portrayed as quite good looking, tidy and well mannered, whereas the Americans were portrayed as cigar chomping, sloppy, loud-mouths swigging drinks as they advocated a 'kick ass' policy toward the 'Nips'. Easy to see this was not an American production. James F. Byrne in particular was shown to be a hawk in favor of showing the world that the US had the upper hand. Having spent a couple of billion on developing the bomb, the hawks wanted the taxpayer to see where their money had gone, every last dime. Equally, the Japanese military, having never lost a war, were against the very idea of unconditional surrender as they really did not understand what it mean. The politicians toyed with the dilemma of whether to sacrifice tens of thousands of people, and what the result might mean in the future, which I found rather strange given that 100,000 people died in one night in the saturation bombing of Tokyo, and that the Japanese had been responsible for millions of dead, not to mention the barbarity toward civilian internees in SE Asia. After Germany's surrender, the Americans were able to concentrate on very heavy bombing of Japan, which was on its last legs, but the military wanted to go out with a bang.

My biggest complaint with the DVD was the lack of captions which meant that I could not follow the English. Fortunately, half the film was in Japanese which was subtitled, so I could understand their point of view. The color was such that I kept wondering what was wrong with my TV set as it was coming and going, until I read later that it was in a mix of black and white newsreel footage, tinted black and white for the drama, and normal color for the interviews with survivors. I would rate the actual film higher than 6, but for the lack of captions and the awful color, which in my opinion was pretentious.

Outstanding

[karn · 10/10 · 12 July 2003]

This is an outstanding production. And I think it no coincidence that it wasn't produced in the US.

Over 50 years later, American emotions still run high about our use of nuclear weapons against Japan; the recent backlash against the Smithsonian exhibit is proof. This film is a nuanced, balanced, objective treatment with, as far as I can tell, remarkable historical accuracy. One sees just how simplistic and myopic the leaders of both sides were as they made (or avoided making) momentous decisions that affected the entire future of the human race. The one voice of reason, scientist Leo Szilard, is brushed off with hardly a hearing.

This film is an effective indictment of our human propensity to place enormous powers in the hands of just a few individuals. I doubt any American producer could have made it.

The film deftly mixes historical footage with re-enacted scenes using actors. Normally this sort of thing is rather jarring, but here it works. Even the transitions between the real Truman in newsreel footage and the actor playing him work well.

A Very Candid Look at the Monumental Decision

[pmcmurry · 10/10 · 6 October 2003]

First of all, it would have been absolutely impossible to find a actor who looked and acted more like Harry Truman that Kenneth Walsh. Second, the most fascinating aspects of this movie relate to what was happening in Japan at the closing of the war. The idea that a majority of the military officers would have rather seen Japan cease to exist as a people than to surrender really provides some counter-balance to all of the recent revisionist history that claims that Japan was in the process of surrendering and that the U.S. used the A-bomb simply to avenge earlier Japanese treachery. "Hiroshima" is historical film-making at its best.

damn good

[Ka Ru Fei · 9/10 · 23 September 2003]

Definitely one of the best historical movies I've seen. Doesn't cast political dispersions on the events or judge people in hindsight, simply gives a relatively even view of it from all sides (except for the Soviets, which would have been a good addition, if its ever even been discovered).

They did a really good job of mixing the B&W with color, old with new footage, etc. If you get a chance to see it, check it out.

God is in the details

[rmax304823 · 9/10 · 14 July 2002]

A very good docudrama. But you must be in the mood. It's a low-budget enterprise, talky, and with no bravura performances. Why is it good, then? I guess it's because it makes certain demands on the intelligence and moral concerns of the viewer that few other renditions of this story have bothered to even attempt. For many years, the United States mythos handled the issue in the most simplistic way. The Japanese were all kamikazes, an invasion of the Japanese homeland would cost untold thousands of lives, so we had to nuke them. Recent revisionist history has given us another version of what happened. The Japanese were on their last legs and they knew it. They were sending out peace feelers through Sweden, Switzerland, and Russia. The United States ignored these because we wanted revenge, so we had to nuke them, and fast.

This film illustrates exceedingly well both the Japanese and American sides of the issue, with restraint and intelligence. There are neither heroes nor villains here. And no easy shots are made at particular figures. We can often tell, in conventional flicks, who is good and who is bad by the simple expedient of seeing whether a given character is handsome or homely. We tend not to notice this casting sleight of hand in our own movies because the difference in appearance supports our own prejudices. (We want the villain to be ugly.) But if you want this trick to be in your face, take another look at "The Cranes are Flying," a Russian war movie in which the American officer looks and sounds like a fat bumbling idiot, while the Russian commander is ruggedly good-looking and wears a tolerant shrink-like smile. Such cheap symbolism certainly isn't committed here. The commander of the Japanese army, who wants to fight to the last man, is both attractive and highly principled. Truman may not be a brilliant thinker but he is down-home shrewd and up front about everything. (If there is a problem with the casting it is that the actor playing Curtis LeMay is too handsome and polite for the part. LeMay was a courageous, ruthless, cigar-smoking blowhard, whom no one but a mother would call handsome.)

So why was the bomb dropped? Evidently through a series of stochastic misunderstandings -- in intentions, exchanges, even in the translation of particular words. And ultimately in the rush of the United States to end the war -- for any number of reasons, including strictly political ones -- and in the desire on the part of the Japanese to find some sort of honorable peace in which their emporer retained his sanctity, leading to actions too deliberate to satisfy the Allies.

The film is at its weakest in posing a false dilemma. (Or maybe the historical characters were responsible.) (1) We invade the islands, or (2) we nuke them without warning. All the possibilities in between are dismissed for one reason or another. One of them, given short shrift, is the possibility of a naval blockade which would shut off all supplies and cancel all naval traffic from the islands. Japan having no natural resources worth mentioning, it would have been only a matter of time before it worked. Loss of life would have been minimal, and we would not have had to use the bombs -- plural, Nagasaki was destroyed only three days after Hiroshima. One of the reasons repeatedly brought up in favor of using the bomb is that the American taxpayer has put out two billion dollars for this gadget, and if it weren't used they would want to know why their money was spent developing it. (I don't know of any words adequate to describe this sort of logic.) A blockade, however, would have taken more time, which would have involved waiting, which is not our strong suit. Another weakness is that James F. Byrne was a personal friend of Truman's. Truman, uncertain and new to the presidency, looked at him as a font of wisdom. And Byrne was a devoted hawk. This isn't made entirely clear, but it was in fact the case.

Well, who knows what we and the Japanese should have done? Easy enough to make retrospective judgments. However, they should perhaps be made anyway. Maybe knowing what went wrong last time will help us prevent things from going so terribly wrong next time.

sobering

[eustfam · 10/10 · 11 June 2007]

So many others have given excellent comments about this made-for-TV film and so I shall not add any more to that except to say this is a very excellent film. Its use of historical footages add to the authenticity of its depiction. All i can say is that I found tears falling down my cheeks as the film ended--with the Emperor of Japan telling his military advisers that they too must endure the unendurable as he must. While I somehow felt some sympathy for him, I cannot understand why he did not use his imperial powers to stop these madmen from starting the war in the first place. The footage showing the soldiers with Gen. Wainwright need no words to describe the brutality of the Japanese occupation. Neither has Japan apologized for the atrocity done on so-called "comfort women." On the other hand, the photos taken right after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are too painful to look at. Dr. Oppenheimer was right in his assessment--(I paraphrase--)"We may developed a weapon that will put an end to all wars...but can man be trusted not to useit for evil purposes?" The good book tells us, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" I cried for all who suffered during the Bataan Death March, those who lived through the barbaric occupation of the Japanese Imperial Army but I also cried for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had to endure the unendurable. In war, everyone loses. This film did not glorify war but gave a factual presentation of the events that led to the bomb which changed the course of modern history...it showed both sides--good and bad...and so I gave it the highest rating.

A Realistic Portrayal of a Horrible Event

[Hitchcoc · 9/10 · 25 July 2014]

We viewed this docudrama at a book study on the acceptability of the Truman's decision to bomb Japan. I was expecting to see a presentation of the awful realities of the bombing and appreciated that it really got into what went on behind closed doors, leading up to August 6, 1945. We are allowed into the private discussions with Truman, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of State. Also, people like Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi make an appearance. There is a counter to these people as we watch Hirohito and the Japanese high command debate things like no surrender until the last Japanese citizen is dead. It is a little dry as these things must have been. For one thing, nobody knew exactly how much damage this bomb would do and whether it could even be delivered and armed. This is not preachy and I liked that. It showed nations under stress from the horrors of war, not knowing how many more of their loved ones would be lost. I spoke to several of my elderly friends and relatives who have continued to have no second thoughts about the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They lived in a frightening world. Still, the horrible implications of nuclear weapons cause us to think. While this film would never win an Emmy for its acting, it gives us a view of the way things were and does in a pretty effective way.

A quality film

[Rev-Maynard · 4 May 2001]

Hiroshima is a great film, originally made for cable, about events leading up to the A-bomb being dropped on Japan. It shows the Japanese perspective very well and is one of the better WW2 films of recent years. Surprisingly, it is mostly a Canadian production that is very accurate with the facts they put on screen. Very well done.

No holds barred view of what occurred prior to the dropping of the bomb.

[fred_simons2000 · 9/10 · 10 February 2006]

This is a thought provoking movie. If you want a movie that doesn't require thought, do not look for this movie. I guess the most important thing about making this movie is the statement used in the movie as motivation: "No more Hiroshima's".

I liked the idea that they weaved newsreel footage in with the movie. Casting was extremely done. Instead of the "Forest Gump" mode, they had actors look like the real life people. There was interviews from people fighting in the islands that was matter of fact. Truly showed the non-glamorous side of war.

Like in Tora, Tora, Tora you have two sides of the movie. Both done extremely well. Any war buff person should watch this movie. I think the directors and actors took particular pains in being as accurate as possible.