380 reviews
Did it really last two and a half hours? It felt felt a lot shorter than that.
No, this is not an action war film with nonstop blood baths. It is a film that pulls the humanity out of the monster that is war.
This is one of, if not the best, movie ever directed by Clint Eastwood. I usually have a hard time following plots with many characters because they make me lose focus on the general story, but this one is done well. Not only am I engaged, I also become attached to every character and feel and understand their conflicts.
It does not matter who fights on the right or wrong side of WWII. This film goes beyond that. It is about what is right or wrong for the individual human being. It excels as a story about the human heart.
No, this is not an action war film with nonstop blood baths. It is a film that pulls the humanity out of the monster that is war.
This is one of, if not the best, movie ever directed by Clint Eastwood. I usually have a hard time following plots with many characters because they make me lose focus on the general story, but this one is done well. Not only am I engaged, I also become attached to every character and feel and understand their conflicts.
It does not matter who fights on the right or wrong side of WWII. This film goes beyond that. It is about what is right or wrong for the individual human being. It excels as a story about the human heart.
The film concerns about General Kuribayashi(Ken Watanabe)who takes command of the troops on the island of Iwo Jima, he's responsible for the defense of the island from the US army , one of the most difficult campaigns of the Pacific theater. While a young soldier named Saigo(Ninomiya) faces the war horror. When the battle starts , both Kuribayashi and Saigo encounter courage, bravery, and honor.The picture is magnificently directed by Clint Eastwood(Flag of our fathers), and his son Kyle Eastwood realized an atmospheric musical score. Appropriate and colorful cinematography by Tom Stern. Spectacular production design by Henry Bumstead in his last film , he usually worked for Alfred Hitchcock and Clint Eastwood. Splendid screenplay by Paul Haggis(also producer along with Steven Spielberg). Rating : Above average, well worth watching.
Adding more details over the largely described on the movie, the events happened of the following manner: Iwo Jima is a tiny island of volcanic rock and black sand. It has no natural water supply and covers just 8 square miles. Its capture was vital to the US war effort , however. It was one of the inner ring of islands protecting mainland Japan. It also lay almost halfway between the Japanese home island and the Marianas which had been occupied by US forces in mid-1944. The island was defended by 21.000 Japanese. The commander , Major General Kuribayashi had worked hard to add to the natural defenses , especially around Mount Suribachi and in the North. He had built one of the most formidable defensive complexes of the war. It had miles of tunnels and trenches , hundred of underground emplacements, antitank ditches and mini-fields. Kuribayashi knew that the garrison had no hope of any outside help and could not withdraw from the island. He ordered his men to fight and die in their trenches. They should kill as many enemy as possible, using the network of tunnels to get destruction squads, joining a squad meant almost certain death. Kuribayashi chose not to oppose the initial landings on the beaches. He would lure the US troops inland into the web of defensive positions in the interior. The US invasion was code-named operation detachment. When US bombers began attacking was bombed every day in what was the longest and heaviest aerial bombardment of the whole Pacific war. The landings involved 800 warships, manned by a total of 220.000 crew. About 110.000 troops were to take part in the initial assault of follow-on landings. The landings themselves were responsibility of three Marine Divisions under the command of Major General Harry Schmidt. US Marines took cover from Japanese fire on a beach of volcanic sand, March 5,1945 and Mount Suribachi rises behind them. The island was declared secure on March 26, the 36 days of fighting had taken a terrible toll on both sides. Some 5.931 Marines had been killed and 17.372 wounded. There were also about 2.800 naval casualties. The precise number of Japanese dead is not known. Only 216 men surrendered during the fighting, although another 900 or so surrendered later. The rest of the 21.000 troops died. The intensity of the fighting for Iwo Jima worried US commanders and politicians. The Japanese had been willing to die almost to a man to protect a tiny part of their homeland. They had inflicted severe losses on the US forces.
Adding more details over the largely described on the movie, the events happened of the following manner: Iwo Jima is a tiny island of volcanic rock and black sand. It has no natural water supply and covers just 8 square miles. Its capture was vital to the US war effort , however. It was one of the inner ring of islands protecting mainland Japan. It also lay almost halfway between the Japanese home island and the Marianas which had been occupied by US forces in mid-1944. The island was defended by 21.000 Japanese. The commander , Major General Kuribayashi had worked hard to add to the natural defenses , especially around Mount Suribachi and in the North. He had built one of the most formidable defensive complexes of the war. It had miles of tunnels and trenches , hundred of underground emplacements, antitank ditches and mini-fields. Kuribayashi knew that the garrison had no hope of any outside help and could not withdraw from the island. He ordered his men to fight and die in their trenches. They should kill as many enemy as possible, using the network of tunnels to get destruction squads, joining a squad meant almost certain death. Kuribayashi chose not to oppose the initial landings on the beaches. He would lure the US troops inland into the web of defensive positions in the interior. The US invasion was code-named operation detachment. When US bombers began attacking was bombed every day in what was the longest and heaviest aerial bombardment of the whole Pacific war. The landings involved 800 warships, manned by a total of 220.000 crew. About 110.000 troops were to take part in the initial assault of follow-on landings. The landings themselves were responsibility of three Marine Divisions under the command of Major General Harry Schmidt. US Marines took cover from Japanese fire on a beach of volcanic sand, March 5,1945 and Mount Suribachi rises behind them. The island was declared secure on March 26, the 36 days of fighting had taken a terrible toll on both sides. Some 5.931 Marines had been killed and 17.372 wounded. There were also about 2.800 naval casualties. The precise number of Japanese dead is not known. Only 216 men surrendered during the fighting, although another 900 or so surrendered later. The rest of the 21.000 troops died. The intensity of the fighting for Iwo Jima worried US commanders and politicians. The Japanese had been willing to die almost to a man to protect a tiny part of their homeland. They had inflicted severe losses on the US forces.
I was not one of those who was really taken with "Flags Of Our Fathers." I thought the story was rather lacklustre and lacking to be honest, and so had little interest in "Letters From Iwo Jima." This is the sort of sequel to "Flags" - or it might be better called a companion to "Flags." Both were directed by Clint Eastwood and "Letters" shows the story of the Battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective - and much to my surprise I liked this movie very much. It was, I thought, by far superior to "Flags."
Most American movies dealing with World War II in the Pacific do so from a specifically American perspective that portrays the Japanese in an unflattering light. That's understandable. In the context of World War II, after all, Japan was the enemy. But "Letters" takes a very personal and human look at the Japanese soldiers assigned to Iwo Jima's defence. To me, the point that was being made was how much alike the Japanese and the Americans were. Both were fighting for their countries; both had little knowledge of the other, and therefore had distorted views of the other; both were doing their duties as they understood it. And, of course, the movie is based on letters supposedly written by Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima - addressed to wives and mothers and other family. This is a surprisingly sympathetic look at the Japanese, something I really wasn't expecting from Clint Eastwood.
The story focuses on Japanese General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, who commanded the Japanese defence of Iwo Jima. Kuribayashi was a man well acquainted with the United States, having lived there for two years on a military exchange, and he had no illusions about Japan's ability to win the war, largely seeing Iwo Jima as a suicide mission from which he wouldn't return. He's portrayed very well here by veteran Japanese actor Ken Watanabe. The movie is almost entirely in Japanese (except for some brief scenes that feature American soldiers) with subtitles, but - although I'm usually not big on subtitles - this didn't really distract me. They were appropriate to this movie and provided a sense of authenticity.
This isn't a "war movie" in the normal sense of the war. Although there are battle scenes (and some of it is mildly graphic) it is for the most part the personal stories of the Japanese soldiers that dominate. It's extremely well done, and deserves a lot of credit for showing a side of the Japanese soldier in World War II that's rarely shown. (8/10)
Most American movies dealing with World War II in the Pacific do so from a specifically American perspective that portrays the Japanese in an unflattering light. That's understandable. In the context of World War II, after all, Japan was the enemy. But "Letters" takes a very personal and human look at the Japanese soldiers assigned to Iwo Jima's defence. To me, the point that was being made was how much alike the Japanese and the Americans were. Both were fighting for their countries; both had little knowledge of the other, and therefore had distorted views of the other; both were doing their duties as they understood it. And, of course, the movie is based on letters supposedly written by Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima - addressed to wives and mothers and other family. This is a surprisingly sympathetic look at the Japanese, something I really wasn't expecting from Clint Eastwood.
The story focuses on Japanese General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, who commanded the Japanese defence of Iwo Jima. Kuribayashi was a man well acquainted with the United States, having lived there for two years on a military exchange, and he had no illusions about Japan's ability to win the war, largely seeing Iwo Jima as a suicide mission from which he wouldn't return. He's portrayed very well here by veteran Japanese actor Ken Watanabe. The movie is almost entirely in Japanese (except for some brief scenes that feature American soldiers) with subtitles, but - although I'm usually not big on subtitles - this didn't really distract me. They were appropriate to this movie and provided a sense of authenticity.
This isn't a "war movie" in the normal sense of the war. Although there are battle scenes (and some of it is mildly graphic) it is for the most part the personal stories of the Japanese soldiers that dominate. It's extremely well done, and deserves a lot of credit for showing a side of the Japanese soldier in World War II that's rarely shown. (8/10)
I was very disappointed to learn that this movie was only going to have a limited showing in the US, only one or two theaters on either coast. My wife and I both enjoyed "Flags" and were pleased when we learned that Clint Eastwood made a second movie, this time telling the story from the Japanese perspective. As luck would have it, we going to Japan for the holidays so we decided to try and see the movie in Tokyo during our trip. We went to the Ginza area of Tokyo and, to our surprise, the movie was completely sold out. We needed to buy tickets at least one day in advance. Further, we learned that the movie was currently number 1 in Japan. Wow that's impressive that an American made movie would become number one in Japan! Way to go, Clint! After a little extra planning and some adjustments to our schedule, we bought advance tickets and came back the next day.
We completely loved it. We were moved and stirred with many emotions including anger, anger over the horrors of war. We actually liked it better than "Flags of our Fathers". The movie was in Japanese and, as near as we could tell, Japanese appears to be the native language of the film. There were brief moments of English, American solders talking, one flash back scene before the war during a foreign dignitary dinner, and of course the credits at the end. The movie would have to be translated and/or sub titled to English in order to have half a chance in the US. Frankly, I think translation would take away from the movie's beauty and meaning. I understand a limited amount of Japanese so I could follow most of the story. The theater was very big and packed. I was a little uncomfortable at first; I may well have been the only American in the place. My wife (who is Japanese) and I sat next to an older couple. At several points during the film, I thought I noticed the man from the couple crying. When the film ended, my wife talked with the couple and learned that the old man's father died in Iwo jima. Later during the trip, speaking with Japanese friends and seeing the Japanese news, stories of lost loved ones from the war were common and this movie for the Japanese people has brought many of these memories out in the open.
To the Japanese, Iwo jima was a part of their homeland where a foreign invader was going to land and begin its invasion on Japanese soil. Throughout all of recorded Japanese history, never had a foreign invader prevailed in war against the Japanese on Japanese land. The imperial Japanese government of that time used this when they sent fighters to Iwo jima. These fighters were to ordered to "fight to the death" defending their country. That to loose and not die fighting would bring disgrace to self and family. They knew that America was planning to send an overwhelming force and they knew that they were being sent to die. For Americans, Iwo jima was just another far away place and different point in time where American boys were sent and where, unfortunately, some lives were lost fighting for freedom. My god, have we become that blasé about the wars our sons and daughters are being sent to fight in? My wife and I are unique, not typical American movie goers. I'm American, my wife is Japanese. Together, we've visited and cried together at the A-bomb Dome in Hiroshima, and again at the Arizona Memorial in Hawaii. I have relatives who fought in the Pacific, she also has family who fought in the war and who lived in Hroshima. I have two sons now serving in the US Marines. Together my wife and I watched and enjoyed both movies. The movies really didn't bring anything new, historically, to us about Iwo jima. But, the movies did do an excellent job reminding us that the ones who pay the price for war are normal everyday people. People who really don't understand the reasons or the politics behind why they are being sent to die. People who live, love, and are loved by family and friends. People with dreams and ambitions. But, for some reason when called by the leaders of the time, they go forward, obey orders, and do their duty. Sometimes, paying the ultimate price.
I've grown up with Clint Eastwood and it has been a wonderful entertaining journey. These two movies are, in my opinion, his best. Not because of the action, or the drama, or any of the other things that Clint Eastwood is known for, but because he's given us two interlinked stories about the affects of war on the people who are called to pay the ultimate price people like you and me. We may be from different cultures, eat different food, speak different languages, prey to God differently, but we all have things in common. We all live, love, want to be loved, and we dream about and long for peace. And, sometimes we are called to serve and pay for the opportunity. Thank you Clint.
We completely loved it. We were moved and stirred with many emotions including anger, anger over the horrors of war. We actually liked it better than "Flags of our Fathers". The movie was in Japanese and, as near as we could tell, Japanese appears to be the native language of the film. There were brief moments of English, American solders talking, one flash back scene before the war during a foreign dignitary dinner, and of course the credits at the end. The movie would have to be translated and/or sub titled to English in order to have half a chance in the US. Frankly, I think translation would take away from the movie's beauty and meaning. I understand a limited amount of Japanese so I could follow most of the story. The theater was very big and packed. I was a little uncomfortable at first; I may well have been the only American in the place. My wife (who is Japanese) and I sat next to an older couple. At several points during the film, I thought I noticed the man from the couple crying. When the film ended, my wife talked with the couple and learned that the old man's father died in Iwo jima. Later during the trip, speaking with Japanese friends and seeing the Japanese news, stories of lost loved ones from the war were common and this movie for the Japanese people has brought many of these memories out in the open.
To the Japanese, Iwo jima was a part of their homeland where a foreign invader was going to land and begin its invasion on Japanese soil. Throughout all of recorded Japanese history, never had a foreign invader prevailed in war against the Japanese on Japanese land. The imperial Japanese government of that time used this when they sent fighters to Iwo jima. These fighters were to ordered to "fight to the death" defending their country. That to loose and not die fighting would bring disgrace to self and family. They knew that America was planning to send an overwhelming force and they knew that they were being sent to die. For Americans, Iwo jima was just another far away place and different point in time where American boys were sent and where, unfortunately, some lives were lost fighting for freedom. My god, have we become that blasé about the wars our sons and daughters are being sent to fight in? My wife and I are unique, not typical American movie goers. I'm American, my wife is Japanese. Together, we've visited and cried together at the A-bomb Dome in Hiroshima, and again at the Arizona Memorial in Hawaii. I have relatives who fought in the Pacific, she also has family who fought in the war and who lived in Hroshima. I have two sons now serving in the US Marines. Together my wife and I watched and enjoyed both movies. The movies really didn't bring anything new, historically, to us about Iwo jima. But, the movies did do an excellent job reminding us that the ones who pay the price for war are normal everyday people. People who really don't understand the reasons or the politics behind why they are being sent to die. People who live, love, and are loved by family and friends. People with dreams and ambitions. But, for some reason when called by the leaders of the time, they go forward, obey orders, and do their duty. Sometimes, paying the ultimate price.
I've grown up with Clint Eastwood and it has been a wonderful entertaining journey. These two movies are, in my opinion, his best. Not because of the action, or the drama, or any of the other things that Clint Eastwood is known for, but because he's given us two interlinked stories about the affects of war on the people who are called to pay the ultimate price people like you and me. We may be from different cultures, eat different food, speak different languages, prey to God differently, but we all have things in common. We all live, love, want to be loved, and we dream about and long for peace. And, sometimes we are called to serve and pay for the opportunity. Thank you Clint.
- billybobwashere
- Dec 30, 2006
- Permalink
Don't listen to the people who call this movie inaccurate or revisionist history.
The movie is accurate. There were people on both sides of the war who at times showed kindness.
Labeling all the Japanese soldiers as people who tortured POWS would be like saying all American soldiers in Vietnam killed and rape innocent Vietnamese. Or all American soldiers in Cuba tortured POWS from the wars in the Middle East. You can't group people together like that.
This movie shows better than any other film that there's really no good guys or bad guys when it comes to war. War is just pointless.
The movie is not supposed to be a documentary so the people who bash it for little details should go rent a documentary if thats what they want to see.
Also, Clint Eastwood deserves major credit for telling both sides of the war. Too many war movies always show the enemy as "heartless monsters" when it reality its never like that.
This is without a doubt the best movie of the year. Make sure you go see it.
The movie is accurate. There were people on both sides of the war who at times showed kindness.
Labeling all the Japanese soldiers as people who tortured POWS would be like saying all American soldiers in Vietnam killed and rape innocent Vietnamese. Or all American soldiers in Cuba tortured POWS from the wars in the Middle East. You can't group people together like that.
This movie shows better than any other film that there's really no good guys or bad guys when it comes to war. War is just pointless.
The movie is not supposed to be a documentary so the people who bash it for little details should go rent a documentary if thats what they want to see.
Also, Clint Eastwood deserves major credit for telling both sides of the war. Too many war movies always show the enemy as "heartless monsters" when it reality its never like that.
This is without a doubt the best movie of the year. Make sure you go see it.
- movieguy23
- Jan 11, 2007
- Permalink
I have watched this film twice already this week (first week of release here in Japan). I am an American living in Japan for the past twenty two years and have yet to see such a strong performance from an (almost) all-Japanese cast. This movie draws you into the caves and makes you a part of the Japanese soldier's life. The main characters all have an interesting story to tell. But in the end the message is clear. War is futile.
The strangest part of all. Clint Eastwood has made a Japanese movie that the Japanese should have made. There is almost no way to tell it was a "foriegn" production until you see the credits.
The strangest part of all. Clint Eastwood has made a Japanese movie that the Japanese should have made. There is almost no way to tell it was a "foriegn" production until you see the credits.
the entertainment aspect.
While "Letters from Iwo Jima" is truly a great achievement is several ways, the script is powerful, the production is superb, all the technical departments almost perfected their jobs, there is some really good acting as well, and Eastwood's touch as a director is very visible, and its beautiful, it flaws almost flawlessly in this regard.
Well, what's wrong then? It simply lacks what makes it a really interesting movie. "Letters" starts with a present day scene of excavators digging up remains of the war in Iwo Jima, and finding letters in a cave that were written by Japanese soldiers and officers during the war on Iwo Jima island, it then travels back in time to WWII and story revolves around those whom their letters were found during the dawn of the American invasion on that island. Slowly, the movie loses its grip over its audience, becoming something closer to an audio book, and survival becomes a repetitive process!!!
Everyone seem to be praising the film for being told from the other side, and its true you don't see that many American film makers do that, and although the film didn't just speak Japanese, it lived and breathed Japanese, it couldn't escape the limited framework of Hollywood, this is very visible through the "good" characters, all the good, honest or lovable Japanese characters were either American sympathizers who lived in the US for a while and kept saying how a great nation the US is, or are Japanese people that do not care for the Imperial system and would not mind handing over the island to their rival Americans. On the other hand, all Japanese loyalists were mean American haters. Even the resolution of the strict Imperial soldiers was that the Americans were not as evil as they were told. But still, everyone was very fond of the fact that the movie was told completely from a Japanese point of view. However, just because Eastwood is an American film maker making a Japanese-point-of-view movie, doesn't make the film any better than what it really is, the film's ratings seem to be getting higher just because there is an American film maker behind it and I disagree, it is what it is regardless who the people behind it were.
The film was also highly praised as a companion film to "Flags", and while together they form a great duo, on its own, "Letters" does not achieve greatness.
Why did Eastwood and Spielberg decide to make "Letters from Iwo Jima" this calm instead of making an adrenaline-pumping film? My guess is that they did not care about the average audience and the commercial success as much as they did care for the story's integrity.
Majd Selbi
While "Letters from Iwo Jima" is truly a great achievement is several ways, the script is powerful, the production is superb, all the technical departments almost perfected their jobs, there is some really good acting as well, and Eastwood's touch as a director is very visible, and its beautiful, it flaws almost flawlessly in this regard.
Well, what's wrong then? It simply lacks what makes it a really interesting movie. "Letters" starts with a present day scene of excavators digging up remains of the war in Iwo Jima, and finding letters in a cave that were written by Japanese soldiers and officers during the war on Iwo Jima island, it then travels back in time to WWII and story revolves around those whom their letters were found during the dawn of the American invasion on that island. Slowly, the movie loses its grip over its audience, becoming something closer to an audio book, and survival becomes a repetitive process!!!
Everyone seem to be praising the film for being told from the other side, and its true you don't see that many American film makers do that, and although the film didn't just speak Japanese, it lived and breathed Japanese, it couldn't escape the limited framework of Hollywood, this is very visible through the "good" characters, all the good, honest or lovable Japanese characters were either American sympathizers who lived in the US for a while and kept saying how a great nation the US is, or are Japanese people that do not care for the Imperial system and would not mind handing over the island to their rival Americans. On the other hand, all Japanese loyalists were mean American haters. Even the resolution of the strict Imperial soldiers was that the Americans were not as evil as they were told. But still, everyone was very fond of the fact that the movie was told completely from a Japanese point of view. However, just because Eastwood is an American film maker making a Japanese-point-of-view movie, doesn't make the film any better than what it really is, the film's ratings seem to be getting higher just because there is an American film maker behind it and I disagree, it is what it is regardless who the people behind it were.
The film was also highly praised as a companion film to "Flags", and while together they form a great duo, on its own, "Letters" does not achieve greatness.
Why did Eastwood and Spielberg decide to make "Letters from Iwo Jima" this calm instead of making an adrenaline-pumping film? My guess is that they did not care about the average audience and the commercial success as much as they did care for the story's integrity.
Majd Selbi
- majd_selbi
- Aug 25, 2011
- Permalink
- Quinoa1984
- Jan 13, 2007
- Permalink
We start out with a 10 - The historical accuracy of the events. The battle scenes. The captivating portrayal of General Kuribayashi by Ken Watanabe. Seeing this battle from the japanese perspective felt very fresh and actually made me research a bit more about the Japanese during WW2 (for example - I heard for the first time about the thousand-stich belts or senninbari) Not to mention sets, costumes and the poetic flow of the script, handled gracefully by Clint Eastwood - truly this film has a lot going for it, and I recommend it, but...
We go down to a 9 - The budget of this film was only 19 million dollars. Some commercials have cost more. I have to say - the team did an excellent job making a two and a half hour long war film on such a tight budget, but there is an aspect which has suffered because of that - the CGI. It has not aged well at all. Some scenes get away with it, but when the American fleet shows up and when Marines land on the beach... it's bad. Maby with a bigger budget they could've done it practically instead of relying on CGI.
Even still - down to an 8 - There's a lot of cheesy moments. Maby that's subjective, but I really felt like some scenes lost their purpose in emotions. Maby it just me, but there are 4 motivational speeches to the troops, and 2 are from the same guy. It just got a little repetitive, and "banzai" didn't have the same impact second time around.
We hit a 7 - the whole letter thing feels forced. There's actually a sizable portion of the film, where I forgot that there even are letters. At times the flashbacks also seemed a bit too cliche or cheesy, or just uninspiring. Towards the end of the film they get a lot more emotional which I liked, because they seemed to match the overall poetic doom of the script.
At the end - it's a 7 for me - Historically accurate, beautiful language throughout, production is excellent despite limitations. Disregarding minor flaws and dated CGI, it's a good film, but at times I got the feeling it could be better. I recommend you to see it for yourself.
We go down to a 9 - The budget of this film was only 19 million dollars. Some commercials have cost more. I have to say - the team did an excellent job making a two and a half hour long war film on such a tight budget, but there is an aspect which has suffered because of that - the CGI. It has not aged well at all. Some scenes get away with it, but when the American fleet shows up and when Marines land on the beach... it's bad. Maby with a bigger budget they could've done it practically instead of relying on CGI.
Even still - down to an 8 - There's a lot of cheesy moments. Maby that's subjective, but I really felt like some scenes lost their purpose in emotions. Maby it just me, but there are 4 motivational speeches to the troops, and 2 are from the same guy. It just got a little repetitive, and "banzai" didn't have the same impact second time around.
We hit a 7 - the whole letter thing feels forced. There's actually a sizable portion of the film, where I forgot that there even are letters. At times the flashbacks also seemed a bit too cliche or cheesy, or just uninspiring. Towards the end of the film they get a lot more emotional which I liked, because they seemed to match the overall poetic doom of the script.
At the end - it's a 7 for me - Historically accurate, beautiful language throughout, production is excellent despite limitations. Disregarding minor flaws and dated CGI, it's a good film, but at times I got the feeling it could be better. I recommend you to see it for yourself.
After much anticipation I was finally able to see Letters from Iwo Jima. I had left Flags of Our Fathers with a smile on my face saying now that was a great war film and it would be hard to match. Letters from Iwo Jima not only matches Flags of Our Fathers but also surpasses it and went on to tie Saving Private Ryan as the greatest war film I have ever seen. I sat numbed after viewing this film and look forward to watching it again.
Unlike its predecessor, Letters from Iwo Jima follows one story line set on the island of Iwo Jima. Saigo is a baker who was recruited into the Imperial Army of Japan and is stationed on Iwo Jima. General Kuribayashi soon arrives and takes command of the poorly fortified island. Tensions develop between army commanders and Kuribayashi as he fortifies a plan to defend the island. Soon the battle begins when a massive American Fleet arrives planning to take the island within 5 days. Kuribayashi is determined to inflict as much damage and loss of life upon the American's before he will give up the island. The whole while Saigo and his comrades write numerous letters home in the hopes of getting some sense of what home is.
The film is terribly realistic and loaded with violence. However, in no way does Letters from Iwo Jima glorify warfare. Eastwood portrays battles for what they truly are bloody and horrific. We are shown everything from men being lit on fire to being blown to bits to suicides by grenades. We are shown the true futility of war and how each side understands so little about the other. The film is a great message of anti-war just through showing what war truly is: bombardments, death, destruction, and bloody.
Kazunari Ninomiya to my big surprise is a member of a Japanese boy band. When I went to read through the profiles of some of the actors I expected to see a long list of films but was amazed to only find a few films and the bit about him being a member of Arashi (the band). Ninomiya does a fantastic job. We really feel for him but he is not made out to be entirely sympathetic. He shows much disdain for some people around him and occasionally runs his mouth toward fellow comrades, especially Shimizu. Saigo is a very believable character and Ninomiya portrays him quite well. I applaud his performance.
Ken Watanabe gives perhaps the performance of his career. His stunning deliverance of lines and the sheer look of him on the screen is enough to make a viewer sit up and listen to everything he has to say. He gives off the true sense of a man who is a great military commander but also a human being. We are shown him writing home and also told of some of his past. It is quite moving to hear his views on the war, the battle, and of his men. Kuribayashi is one of my favorite military men in history and Watanabe did a great portrayal of him.
Ryo Kase closes out the lead actors. He is a silent fellow who is looked on with much disdain from Saigo. Saigo believes Shimizu to be a member Kempeitai (the very strict and often corrupt military police of Imperial Japan). This story is eventually expanded on later in the film. I felt the most sympathy for Shimizu for he had no intention of coming to the island, is not liked by anyone for an assumption by two fellow soldiers, and represents some of the ignorance that was put into soldiers back in World War II, viewing the enemy as savages though he later states "he knows nothing of the enemy."
What the movie does so well is its portrayal of humanity and the ignorance that is at the root of international conflicts. The film portrays both the good and the bad of the Imperial Japanese Army. The good side being Lt. Col. Nishi and the bad being Lt. Ito. We come to realize that most Hollywood films that make the Japanese Army out to be savages are dead wrong and that both sides on a war are very much human. The most poignant scene by far involves this when Nishi cares for and speaks with a dying Marine. It shows that understanding must occur for anyone to have peace with another in the world.
Letters from Iwo Jima is a powerful film. We are shown the good and the bad of both sides. The film is about 98% in Japanese with three or four scenes spoken in English. The cast is all Japanese which was a must for the film giving it a more authentic feel to it. The battles are gritty and real and will shake you up. By far a tremendous film with an amazing message of humanity and survival. The one message I got from it the most was, as spoken by Lt. Col. Nishi: "Do what is right because it is right."
5/5 stars
Unlike its predecessor, Letters from Iwo Jima follows one story line set on the island of Iwo Jima. Saigo is a baker who was recruited into the Imperial Army of Japan and is stationed on Iwo Jima. General Kuribayashi soon arrives and takes command of the poorly fortified island. Tensions develop between army commanders and Kuribayashi as he fortifies a plan to defend the island. Soon the battle begins when a massive American Fleet arrives planning to take the island within 5 days. Kuribayashi is determined to inflict as much damage and loss of life upon the American's before he will give up the island. The whole while Saigo and his comrades write numerous letters home in the hopes of getting some sense of what home is.
The film is terribly realistic and loaded with violence. However, in no way does Letters from Iwo Jima glorify warfare. Eastwood portrays battles for what they truly are bloody and horrific. We are shown everything from men being lit on fire to being blown to bits to suicides by grenades. We are shown the true futility of war and how each side understands so little about the other. The film is a great message of anti-war just through showing what war truly is: bombardments, death, destruction, and bloody.
Kazunari Ninomiya to my big surprise is a member of a Japanese boy band. When I went to read through the profiles of some of the actors I expected to see a long list of films but was amazed to only find a few films and the bit about him being a member of Arashi (the band). Ninomiya does a fantastic job. We really feel for him but he is not made out to be entirely sympathetic. He shows much disdain for some people around him and occasionally runs his mouth toward fellow comrades, especially Shimizu. Saigo is a very believable character and Ninomiya portrays him quite well. I applaud his performance.
Ken Watanabe gives perhaps the performance of his career. His stunning deliverance of lines and the sheer look of him on the screen is enough to make a viewer sit up and listen to everything he has to say. He gives off the true sense of a man who is a great military commander but also a human being. We are shown him writing home and also told of some of his past. It is quite moving to hear his views on the war, the battle, and of his men. Kuribayashi is one of my favorite military men in history and Watanabe did a great portrayal of him.
Ryo Kase closes out the lead actors. He is a silent fellow who is looked on with much disdain from Saigo. Saigo believes Shimizu to be a member Kempeitai (the very strict and often corrupt military police of Imperial Japan). This story is eventually expanded on later in the film. I felt the most sympathy for Shimizu for he had no intention of coming to the island, is not liked by anyone for an assumption by two fellow soldiers, and represents some of the ignorance that was put into soldiers back in World War II, viewing the enemy as savages though he later states "he knows nothing of the enemy."
What the movie does so well is its portrayal of humanity and the ignorance that is at the root of international conflicts. The film portrays both the good and the bad of the Imperial Japanese Army. The good side being Lt. Col. Nishi and the bad being Lt. Ito. We come to realize that most Hollywood films that make the Japanese Army out to be savages are dead wrong and that both sides on a war are very much human. The most poignant scene by far involves this when Nishi cares for and speaks with a dying Marine. It shows that understanding must occur for anyone to have peace with another in the world.
Letters from Iwo Jima is a powerful film. We are shown the good and the bad of both sides. The film is about 98% in Japanese with three or four scenes spoken in English. The cast is all Japanese which was a must for the film giving it a more authentic feel to it. The battles are gritty and real and will shake you up. By far a tremendous film with an amazing message of humanity and survival. The one message I got from it the most was, as spoken by Lt. Col. Nishi: "Do what is right because it is right."
5/5 stars
- mOVIemAN56
- Jun 3, 2007
- Permalink
With the turning of the war, the island of Iwo Jima becomes of key significance for both sides. As the US forces approach the island, General Kuribayashi rearranges the tactics to hold them off. Predicting the point of attack for the US, the Japanese forces forgo the usual beach trenches and instead bed down within caves and tunnels to draw the enemy in and engage in such a way to reduce the advantage they have in numbers and fire power. The men prepare for attack and, as they are pushed back, become increasingly desperate.
Along with Flags of Our Fathers, I had intended to watch this in the cinema but missed it due to the speed it passed through. This is perhaps understandable due to the lack of awareness of Iwo Jima in the UK but perhaps it was also the same factors that saw it struggle in the US having subtitles, being a war movie and being from the point of view of "them". I suspect it is simply the lack of taste for any film that would not "support the troops" or a public that has enough war on its news without having more in its cinemas. Either way, it is a shame because this is a quality film and in many ways is stronger that its companion because it jumps around a lot less and focuses more on the conflict and less on the wider issues.
It is not an easy watch because it doesn't race along there is action but it is not exciting so much as it is numbing. Without a lot of emotional hoo-ha, Eastwood simply shows us men dying for what appears to be very little but yet he does this without portraying the losses pointless or worthless. The characters are as well developed as one could expect given the scale and they do provide a personal hook to draw the viewer in. Eastwood directs with respect and a refreshing lack of bias, the slow pace was not a real problem for me as the material was more than able to hold it up. The cast react well to this as well Watanabe enjoys his character a lot more than his other recent Hollywood outing in Last Samurai. The ensemble cast around him sees solid performances from Ninomiya, Ihara, Kase, Matsuzaki, Nakamura and pretty much everyone else.
Understandably not the film that the Saturday night crowd flocked to but it is an impressive and engaging film. In the material, performances and direction it is roundly solid and lacking needless flair or spectacle and the film is better for it emotionally even if it does contribute to the slow pace. An engaging war film then and yet another impressive directorial outing from Clint Eastwood who just seems to have gotten better with age.
Along with Flags of Our Fathers, I had intended to watch this in the cinema but missed it due to the speed it passed through. This is perhaps understandable due to the lack of awareness of Iwo Jima in the UK but perhaps it was also the same factors that saw it struggle in the US having subtitles, being a war movie and being from the point of view of "them". I suspect it is simply the lack of taste for any film that would not "support the troops" or a public that has enough war on its news without having more in its cinemas. Either way, it is a shame because this is a quality film and in many ways is stronger that its companion because it jumps around a lot less and focuses more on the conflict and less on the wider issues.
It is not an easy watch because it doesn't race along there is action but it is not exciting so much as it is numbing. Without a lot of emotional hoo-ha, Eastwood simply shows us men dying for what appears to be very little but yet he does this without portraying the losses pointless or worthless. The characters are as well developed as one could expect given the scale and they do provide a personal hook to draw the viewer in. Eastwood directs with respect and a refreshing lack of bias, the slow pace was not a real problem for me as the material was more than able to hold it up. The cast react well to this as well Watanabe enjoys his character a lot more than his other recent Hollywood outing in Last Samurai. The ensemble cast around him sees solid performances from Ninomiya, Ihara, Kase, Matsuzaki, Nakamura and pretty much everyone else.
Understandably not the film that the Saturday night crowd flocked to but it is an impressive and engaging film. In the material, performances and direction it is roundly solid and lacking needless flair or spectacle and the film is better for it emotionally even if it does contribute to the slow pace. An engaging war film then and yet another impressive directorial outing from Clint Eastwood who just seems to have gotten better with age.
- bob the moo
- Nov 15, 2007
- Permalink
I just finished watching this movie and I read a couple comments on here. It was a movie to show the other side of the war and it felt like an authentic experience with the all Japanese cast and the Japanese communication. However, I was not very impressed. I didn't feel very inspired or motivated or felt deep emotions watching this movie. Now, I haven't seen Flags of Our Fathers, so I don't know if that should really affect my opinion.
I've seen many old school WWII films from the Japanese perspective. They are heartwrenching. And I can feel the pressure and intensity. In Letters of Iwo Jima, I felt they started many stories about the individuals and they were not really resolved or they were prematurely finished. I was not sure of the focus either. Since it's called Letters of Iwo Jima, I thought it was their story told through letters. But not really. I see the reality that there's no possible way it could be expressed like that, but then it was told by Saigo, then Kuribayashi, then characters who seemed to have an important role but not really (Shimizu, Nishi) and then Kuribayashi and Saigo again.
I'm a second generation Japanese person and I watched it with my dad who is a definite WWII fanatic. But both of us were not very impressed. It seems it missed a lot of cultural aspects that should've been included. I felt like it was mostly a movie to show that not all Japanese soldiers were gung-ho about committing suicide for the sake of the country.
Anyway, I don't recommend this movie. Watch The Burmese Harp instead. That movie is worth your time and tears.
I've seen many old school WWII films from the Japanese perspective. They are heartwrenching. And I can feel the pressure and intensity. In Letters of Iwo Jima, I felt they started many stories about the individuals and they were not really resolved or they were prematurely finished. I was not sure of the focus either. Since it's called Letters of Iwo Jima, I thought it was their story told through letters. But not really. I see the reality that there's no possible way it could be expressed like that, but then it was told by Saigo, then Kuribayashi, then characters who seemed to have an important role but not really (Shimizu, Nishi) and then Kuribayashi and Saigo again.
I'm a second generation Japanese person and I watched it with my dad who is a definite WWII fanatic. But both of us were not very impressed. It seems it missed a lot of cultural aspects that should've been included. I felt like it was mostly a movie to show that not all Japanese soldiers were gung-ho about committing suicide for the sake of the country.
Anyway, I don't recommend this movie. Watch The Burmese Harp instead. That movie is worth your time and tears.
- redcrow_reddragon
- Jan 20, 2007
- Permalink
The companion film to "Flags of Our Fathers" shows the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese point of view. Starting with the building of fortifications, hiding from relentless bombardment, and fending off an equally strong attack as American troops land on the island.
"Letters from Iwo Jima" just like "Flags of Our Fathers" is a first rate war movie with a relevant message with its critical nature. "Flags" showed the selling of war and "Letters" does the same, albeit with a different mind-set. Japan was an empire governed by a monarch back then so the military mentality was quite different, but it is also important to note the similarities. Especially at the base of the social pyramid where it is quite apparent that people are people no matter where you go.
Virtually all of the uber-patriotic tendencies that were rampant in Imperial Japan during WWII were also in Nazi Germany and, as both "Flags" and "Letters" demonstrate in the United States as well. People were used for the purpose of the government and were fed propaganda just the same. Maybe a different in a different form, but in the end it is all the same.
Ken Wantanbe is the film's highlight as a military man torn between his sense of duty and his inner feelings. As commander of the island he sees amongst his men the fanaticism, the pacifism, the "just do our job" crowd, and many other configurations of thought in between and mixed with the others. Even strange that some men initially want to fight and are proud to serve in the military and what's shocking is that some of their wives and mothers believe the same.
That paints a landscape of war as something amidst all of the stereotypes that have been made of it. Since that is where the truth usually lies, amidst all the gray matter. --- 9/10
Rated R: war violence/carnage
"Letters from Iwo Jima" just like "Flags of Our Fathers" is a first rate war movie with a relevant message with its critical nature. "Flags" showed the selling of war and "Letters" does the same, albeit with a different mind-set. Japan was an empire governed by a monarch back then so the military mentality was quite different, but it is also important to note the similarities. Especially at the base of the social pyramid where it is quite apparent that people are people no matter where you go.
Virtually all of the uber-patriotic tendencies that were rampant in Imperial Japan during WWII were also in Nazi Germany and, as both "Flags" and "Letters" demonstrate in the United States as well. People were used for the purpose of the government and were fed propaganda just the same. Maybe a different in a different form, but in the end it is all the same.
Ken Wantanbe is the film's highlight as a military man torn between his sense of duty and his inner feelings. As commander of the island he sees amongst his men the fanaticism, the pacifism, the "just do our job" crowd, and many other configurations of thought in between and mixed with the others. Even strange that some men initially want to fight and are proud to serve in the military and what's shocking is that some of their wives and mothers believe the same.
That paints a landscape of war as something amidst all of the stereotypes that have been made of it. Since that is where the truth usually lies, amidst all the gray matter. --- 9/10
Rated R: war violence/carnage
- BroadswordCallinDannyBoy
- Dec 27, 2006
- Permalink
Not since Akira Kurosawa's "Rashômon" has anyone attained such exquisite insight into the human condition, having read "Flags of our Fathers" and growing up, having veterans tell me of their experiences on Iwo Jima,I would look back at them in awe at the fact that they were here sharing their very own story,and many times they to could not believe they were alive.It is amazing to see the sensitivity that Mr.Eastwood imbued into both tales. The scriptwriter Iris Yamashita brought me to tears only at the end of the film with the conundrum we still live with today.Peoples dreams are both sacred and profane and lives are cheap.
- freemondo92
- Dec 15, 2006
- Permalink
At the conclusion of the film a person behind me said, "Incredible," twice. Another person followed with, "A masterpiece." I would concur. Perhaps it isn't a perfect film but it is a movie with great impact. I find that it is a testament to the skill of Clint Eastwood as a director and Iris Yamashita as screenwriter that some of the scenes that had the greatest impact were of minor thingsa letter read out loud, the way someone saluted, a tear, a song...
There were no clear cut heroes or villains beyond "war" itself. I'm reminded of that saying, "No one wins a war. One side simply loses more than the other." War diminishes us all. We must learn to turn our backs on such endeavors even if it means that the military/industrial death merchants take a cut in profits or that they truly learn to hammer swords into plow shares.
If the film were to depict the battle in a manner that was realistically experienced by the soldiers the film would be unbearable to any viewer. One must see the battle and history as a kind of allegorical backdrop to a story about the utter inhumanity and futility of war. As a film it had to illustrate the overall societal insanity of war through a human lens, and it did this in a deeply moving way.
There were no clear cut heroes or villains beyond "war" itself. I'm reminded of that saying, "No one wins a war. One side simply loses more than the other." War diminishes us all. We must learn to turn our backs on such endeavors even if it means that the military/industrial death merchants take a cut in profits or that they truly learn to hammer swords into plow shares.
If the film were to depict the battle in a manner that was realistically experienced by the soldiers the film would be unbearable to any viewer. One must see the battle and history as a kind of allegorical backdrop to a story about the utter inhumanity and futility of war. As a film it had to illustrate the overall societal insanity of war through a human lens, and it did this in a deeply moving way.
- cloudsponge
- Jan 21, 2007
- Permalink
Because my late father fought on Iwo Jima, I have always been a student of the battle. I've studied the character and tactics of General Kuribayashi since elementary school and Eastwood's film and Ken Wanatabe's portrayal have embodied every notion I ever had of the general. I loved "Flags of Our Fathers" and plan to own it when it becomes available, but "Letters" is a better film. In spite of the English subtitles, "Letters" flows on screen more evenly than "Flags" and exhibits an equal dose of individual human emotions. The plight of the individual soldier in war is universal regardless of the evil or good his leaders exhibit. While some soldiers are unusually cruel, most just want to go home in one piece. This film teaches that beautifully.
Under a watchful eye of grim, bleak cinematography as soldiers initially sit; dig; bicker and wait, Clint Eastwood delivers his-then second war film in as many years in Letters From Iwo Jima, 2007's follow up to the equally as bleak, but more-so by way of the results of warfare from a propagandist driven viewpoint, Flags of Our Fathers. In providing a dim, looming and cloudy feel about things, something that balances that sense of dread and prolonged fear born out of the potential of warfare, Eastwood has given us something common-place but easy to be affected by. This, as well as tapping into both some pretty familiar and basic character archetypes plus respective point-in-life situations, but presenting them in a way that'll see us come to care about them.
The film begins in a similar manner to the 2005 South Korean war film Brotherhood, in the sense an archaeological dig at a site, this time on the island of Iwo Jima located in the area of the Pacific, leads those partaking to uncover an item that might lead to answers from war-torn days of old. From this brief contemporary day setting, the film shoots back to the very island of Iwo Jima in latter-day World War Two as Japanese soldiers wait and do their best to set up able defences of the island to halt the Americans, whom are due an attempt to try and invade it. While the films are not be linked in any form of physicality, such as the case of a bother on one side and a brother on the other in Brotherhood, the American-perspective-Pacific-theatre-set Flags of Our Fathers was produced in such close proximity to Letters From Iwo Jima that it links the two pieces by way of taking something ugly and getting two different viewpoints of it, just without the immediate blood bond. These soldiers are all linked to one another by way of fear, raw human emotion and the victimisation they must suffer through instigated by hierarchy.
Most of Eastwood's films have an odd, nostalgic aura to them – perhaps born out of the fact most of them take place in the past. They don't revel in obligatory scenes nor pour on sentiment, rather, Eastwood is able to deliver dramatic films by way of the studies he makes of his characters and their arcs. Rather a few of his films revolve around the victim of whatever piece, usually a character or collection of characters whose lifestyle has been so dominantly one thing up until a point in which the conditions of their living and the very world around them dramatically changes; thus rendering them an outsider on their own turf.
Examples of this would include Gran Torino, Changeling and the first part of this World War II double-header Flags of Our Fathers; powerful stories were delivered about an elderly man; a middle aged woman and a group of everyday American soldiers, respectively, whose place in the world around them changes when the world itself undertakes a strange transition. Changeling's lead dominated single parenthood and the working life they lead, but their world took a turn for the worse once their son was kidnapped. Flags of Our Fathers sees a group of American troops taken to a propaganda-strewn dystopia in the time it takes to capture a photographic image, while in Gran Torino, the transition of the lead's surroundings has been all of around thirty years in the making, before this equally wired and wonderful world opens up all sorts of new social dangers and delights.
Letters From Iwo Jima sees Eastwood rather impressively transfer this technique he has of delivering these somewhat basic, somewhat generic conventions plus familiar character arcs into this film; here rendering certain front-line individuals in the Japanese Army, circa 1944, the central focus. In avoiding a deliberate stone wall protagonist, but opting for the sort of content that might be perceived as otherwise melodramatic, what with the situation back home for a specific private in which he has a happy marriage; his own business and a first-born on the way, Eastwood projects a somewhat overly familiar heart-tugging character devise onto a character, but it sort of works. This, as we observe what are essentially victims we know are in a win-less and desperate situation play out whatever anger-infused and futile actions they partake in.
Most of the opening hour is dedicated to soldiers sitting around, bantering with one another; digging trenches and generally getting ready for what they'll estimate to be a long, bloody battle. The realities of war in the treating of fellow human beings by those of a higher rank is put across by way of a drill Sergeant who punishes those for stepping out of line. The privates write back to their wives and relatives; they feast on whatever small rice meals exist; they talk to the ones they entrust most about how much they hate doing menial tasks and that general feeling that moral is low is got across. Most of the opening is all non-eventing and foreboding, as a general arrives and points out numerous flaws in the present soldiers' defence strategies, this before a higher-up is relieved of his command thus placing the platoon into an array of disruption; whilst systematically foreshadowing the disarray and chaos that'll unravel on the battlefield within the Japanese ranks.
When the first glance of the Americans within general proximity of the island occurs, the instance is cruelly juxtaposed by a private charged with emptying a makeshift toilet over a cliff edge; with promise of wrath if he looses the crude tin pot. There are scenes of warfare, sure; and Eastwood provides us with some harrowing instances of death and despair, more disturbing than most in the form of Japanese suicides and Japanese-on-Japanese killings. Eastwood additionally makes the rarefied presence of the American troops throughout the film a frightening presence, which I wound perturbing. The film is quite the little war genre achievement.
The film begins in a similar manner to the 2005 South Korean war film Brotherhood, in the sense an archaeological dig at a site, this time on the island of Iwo Jima located in the area of the Pacific, leads those partaking to uncover an item that might lead to answers from war-torn days of old. From this brief contemporary day setting, the film shoots back to the very island of Iwo Jima in latter-day World War Two as Japanese soldiers wait and do their best to set up able defences of the island to halt the Americans, whom are due an attempt to try and invade it. While the films are not be linked in any form of physicality, such as the case of a bother on one side and a brother on the other in Brotherhood, the American-perspective-Pacific-theatre-set Flags of Our Fathers was produced in such close proximity to Letters From Iwo Jima that it links the two pieces by way of taking something ugly and getting two different viewpoints of it, just without the immediate blood bond. These soldiers are all linked to one another by way of fear, raw human emotion and the victimisation they must suffer through instigated by hierarchy.
Most of Eastwood's films have an odd, nostalgic aura to them – perhaps born out of the fact most of them take place in the past. They don't revel in obligatory scenes nor pour on sentiment, rather, Eastwood is able to deliver dramatic films by way of the studies he makes of his characters and their arcs. Rather a few of his films revolve around the victim of whatever piece, usually a character or collection of characters whose lifestyle has been so dominantly one thing up until a point in which the conditions of their living and the very world around them dramatically changes; thus rendering them an outsider on their own turf.
Examples of this would include Gran Torino, Changeling and the first part of this World War II double-header Flags of Our Fathers; powerful stories were delivered about an elderly man; a middle aged woman and a group of everyday American soldiers, respectively, whose place in the world around them changes when the world itself undertakes a strange transition. Changeling's lead dominated single parenthood and the working life they lead, but their world took a turn for the worse once their son was kidnapped. Flags of Our Fathers sees a group of American troops taken to a propaganda-strewn dystopia in the time it takes to capture a photographic image, while in Gran Torino, the transition of the lead's surroundings has been all of around thirty years in the making, before this equally wired and wonderful world opens up all sorts of new social dangers and delights.
Letters From Iwo Jima sees Eastwood rather impressively transfer this technique he has of delivering these somewhat basic, somewhat generic conventions plus familiar character arcs into this film; here rendering certain front-line individuals in the Japanese Army, circa 1944, the central focus. In avoiding a deliberate stone wall protagonist, but opting for the sort of content that might be perceived as otherwise melodramatic, what with the situation back home for a specific private in which he has a happy marriage; his own business and a first-born on the way, Eastwood projects a somewhat overly familiar heart-tugging character devise onto a character, but it sort of works. This, as we observe what are essentially victims we know are in a win-less and desperate situation play out whatever anger-infused and futile actions they partake in.
Most of the opening hour is dedicated to soldiers sitting around, bantering with one another; digging trenches and generally getting ready for what they'll estimate to be a long, bloody battle. The realities of war in the treating of fellow human beings by those of a higher rank is put across by way of a drill Sergeant who punishes those for stepping out of line. The privates write back to their wives and relatives; they feast on whatever small rice meals exist; they talk to the ones they entrust most about how much they hate doing menial tasks and that general feeling that moral is low is got across. Most of the opening is all non-eventing and foreboding, as a general arrives and points out numerous flaws in the present soldiers' defence strategies, this before a higher-up is relieved of his command thus placing the platoon into an array of disruption; whilst systematically foreshadowing the disarray and chaos that'll unravel on the battlefield within the Japanese ranks.
When the first glance of the Americans within general proximity of the island occurs, the instance is cruelly juxtaposed by a private charged with emptying a makeshift toilet over a cliff edge; with promise of wrath if he looses the crude tin pot. There are scenes of warfare, sure; and Eastwood provides us with some harrowing instances of death and despair, more disturbing than most in the form of Japanese suicides and Japanese-on-Japanese killings. Eastwood additionally makes the rarefied presence of the American troops throughout the film a frightening presence, which I wound perturbing. The film is quite the little war genre achievement.
- johnnyboyz
- Feb 6, 2010
- Permalink
- classicsoncall
- Feb 13, 2007
- Permalink
I had previously watched the violent battle of Iwo Jima in two good movies: 1949 "Sands of Iwo Jima" and more recently in "Flags of Our Fathers". In both features, we see very well-choreographed battle scenes disclosed from the North American point of view, with the "heroism" of the American troops and the personal drama of a couple of soldiers and families, in the usual unilateral formula to reach great box offices in USA. Further, in these two movies, the enemy is nothing but evil and threatening one dimension shadows, using weapons to kill the brave marines.
However, "Letters from Iwo Jima" gives a totally different approach of war, unusual in Hollywood: it shows the human side of the enemies. In this film, the Japanese are also human beings, with different culture where they are prepared to die with honor, but people that love and are loved by someone, have families, wives and children, and fear and suffer with the insanities of war. In this aspect, I liked very much the pacifist perspective given by Clint Eastwood for the same battle, opening the eyes and hearts of viewers that probably were not able to understand this side of the Japanese (and other people) in a war. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Cartas de Iwo Jima" ("Letters From Iwo Jima")
However, "Letters from Iwo Jima" gives a totally different approach of war, unusual in Hollywood: it shows the human side of the enemies. In this film, the Japanese are also human beings, with different culture where they are prepared to die with honor, but people that love and are loved by someone, have families, wives and children, and fear and suffer with the insanities of war. In this aspect, I liked very much the pacifist perspective given by Clint Eastwood for the same battle, opening the eyes and hearts of viewers that probably were not able to understand this side of the Japanese (and other people) in a war. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Cartas de Iwo Jima" ("Letters From Iwo Jima")
- claudio_carvalho
- Jan 15, 2008
- Permalink
After Clint Eastwood's American version of the Iwo Jima story, Flags of Our Fathers, premiered, it was met with surprisingly indifferent reviews. A lot of Eastwood lovers and WWII buffs were gravely disappointed. The followup, Letters from Iwo Jima, was due in February, but Eastwood bumped it back so it would come out in 2006. It, on the contrary, got rave reviews. I'm at a loss. I thought they were both of about the same quality: they are respectable but unremarkable WWII films. Letters is notable, I suppose, because it tells the Japanese side of the story, and humanizes an American enemy to a pretty much unheard of degree. But that's not enough to win me over by itself. It's been a long enough time where I don't think anyone would think the Japanese were all inhuman monsters. The story follows a young soldier, Saigo (well portrayed by Kazunari Ninomiya, a relative newcomer), who begins the battle inside Suribachi Hill. In Flags of Our Fathers, the vast majority of the war story took place on this hill, on top of which the American soldiers raised the titular flags. Letters covers the entire battle, which, if I remember right, lasted over a month. Much to Saigo's commanders' dismay, Saigo doesn't quite feel like sacrificing himself in this impossible battle, and he narrowly escapes death several times. Another prominent character is General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, played by Ken Watanabe. Unlike most of the commanding officers under him, he is completely sympathetic with the underlings' anxieties, and he also acknowledges his enemies as human beings. It sure is frightening to experience the losing side of a battle (though I don't see much difference either way if you die, or even if you witness dozens of your friends die), but I didn't really think Letters from Iwo Jima broke new ground. There are plenty of Japanese movies about the war that are far more powerful, especially Kobayashi's The Human Condition, which I think is probably the best WWII film (or series of films) ever made. Frankly, I was frequently bored by Letters from Iwo Jima. It does have some great moments, but I don't at all feel it's essential.
Make no mistake: This movie stars Japanese actors and it's spoken in Japanese, but it's still an American movie. A Clint Eastwood movie. You can see that in the pace, the way the characters are laid out and the story itself. Unlike war movies made by Americans, with American's point of view, there's an emotional detachment palpable in this movie. It's hard to understand, and I know soldier's both sides have similar values. It's just the values of the soldiers on this movie seemed to me... American. The straightforward thinking, the subtle cockiness, the lack of comfort with silence of these soldiers is something I've never seen in any Japanese film. Again, the pace it's pure Eastwood. The brutality we're used to see in war films since -this film's producer -Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" is absent. It's less action, more character. Very Eastwood. But in the end, this is how I imagine a war movie, where the Americans are directed by a foreigner.
- sthorson-1
- Jan 24, 2007
- Permalink