Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) User Reviews

Very Personal

[deenying · 9/10 · 20 December 2006]

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.

Courage and horror war with a Japanese point of sight

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 28 October 2008]

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.

Iwo Jima From The Japanese Perspective

[sddavis63 · 8/10 · 2 December 2012]

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)

Excellent movie

[sford-20 · 10/10 · 6 January 2007]

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.

One of the Greatest War Films Ever Made

[billybobwashere · 10/10 · 31 December 2006]

In the second half of "Letters from Iwo Jima," a group of Japanese soldiers find an American who has been badly wounded and take him into their cave. Their general speaks English, so he begins talking to this soldier, whose name we later find out is Sam. Although the two men should be sworn to kill each other, they are able to have a connection in the one conversation they have. A while later, the general comes back into the room only to discover that Sam's wounds have killed him. He searches him for a while and discovers a letter written by his mother. The letter is full of words that truly come from the heart of this kid's mother, and by the time the general finishes reading the letter, every soldier in that cave has realized that Americans aren't these savages; these hate-driven murderers. No, they all realize that Americans are exactly like they are, and that they don't want to be there and want to return home safely just like their enemies. I believe the point that Clint Eastwood is making with his Iwo Jima saga is just this: these two enemies were far more alike than they had imagined and they were both fighting only in hopes of returning home safely to their family.

As for the specific film itself. In just about every way imaginable, this absolutely brilliant film is a step up from "Flags of our Fathers" (which is not something I say easily, as "Flags" is a terrific film in my opinion). From the acting of the incredible ensemble cast (most notably from Ken Watanabe's Oscar-worthy performance), to the film's delicate but powerful script, to the beautiful imagery of the film (the color distortion could not be any more brilliant than it is here), to Clint Eastwood's absolutely perfect knowledge of film and what works in a film like this.

Many people are wondering whether this will be able to compete for Best Picture at the Oscars this year. It is true that just about all of the film is spoken in Japanese, but the truth is that Eastwood has created nothing short of a masterpiece with this work, and a foreign language doesn't even come close to making that extremely obvious. I think that this film is very comparable in quality to Steven Spielberg's (who is one of the producers of the film) "Saving Private Ryan." Although Spielberg's film has more entertainment value (as it features more action) and has an opening scene that cannot be contended with, Eastwood sends out an even more powerful message about war than Spielberg did, as it turns out that watching soldiers battle with no way out makes you feel the pains of war more than watching the soldiers on the invading side of the army. The fact that "Ryan" was able to strongly compete for Best Picture (and just about win the award) makes me very certain that this film has great chances, even if Martin Scorsese seems to be tough to beat at this point. What I think allows this to compete with "The Departed" is the fact that this film doesn't take the "cool" route that Scorsese took, which isn't something that the Academy has honored in the past.

The score, written by Kyle Eastwood (Clint's son), captures the feel of the movie better than any score written for any movie this year. It is very quiet music, but listening to it makes you think about all the people that die as victims of war.

To sum it all up, "Letters from Iwo Jima" is one of the greatest war films ever made, and is easily does the best job of depicting war as something that harms all involved that I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has, with this achievement, engraved his name as one of the greatest American directors in film history.

Great movie!

[movieguy23 · 10/10 · 12 January 2007]

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.

Outstanding!!

[max-745 · 10/10 · 15 December 2006]

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 film hits in almost every aspect, except it misses in

[majd_selbi · 7/10 · 26 August 2011]

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

unlike 'Flags', this time Clint Eastwood's war epic has more cohesion in its complexities, and a stronger punch with its theme

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 14 January 2007]

It was worth it for producer/director Clint Eastwood to tackle on a second part to his now two-part duo of Iwo Jima movies. With Flags of Our Fathers Eastwood tried for very ambitious ground in covering what it's like for Americans to fight a war worth fighting for but with life's value undermined in the scope of preserving the 'grander' scheme of things like the flag on the mountain. Unfortunately, the screenplay with that film was also muddled and denied Eastwood's usually assured hand as a storyteller and conveyor of proper moods. But with Letters From Iwo Jima, a slightly radical departure from the usual American-directed war picture by showing the action totally from the side of the "other", there's a stronger sense of what it meant for the Japanese to fight this war, and the nature of sacrifice and what it means to oneself in relation to one's society, national pride, and to one's mind-set. And, this time, the screenplay doesn't do TOO MUCH of a jumping-around method with the narrative. It's visceral in scope and personal in tone, and there's always an assured hand in dealing with the performances and characters.

We're also shown, unlike in other war films, how the home-field advantage doesn't always yield positive results. Even though the Japanese had Iwo Jima, and had the capabilities to defend it for a little while, without reinforcements it would be all for not (this is compounded with some of the most tragic irony when towards the end the General Kuribayashi listens to a radio broadcast of children singing a song meant for hope of success in a battle that those on the mainland have already abandoned). No matter what though Kuribayashi believes in his men, no matter how in spots morale is already low when the digging on the beaches begin. Saigo, a lowly peasant, is a part of the fight, and for chunks of the film we see the battle from where he stands, even as he doesn't look on it too optimistically. Plans are made, the General orders for tunnels to be dug in the center of the island against advisement (though under good thought to do so), and then even before the ships and huge fleet of troops land comes the bombs from the air. The desperation, as the battle continues and trudges on, becomes almost too crushing for the weakest of the soldiers, and soon all thoughts of cohesion within the ranks breaks apart.

It's in many of these scenes that Eastwood garners his most dramatically charged moments in either one of the Iwo Jima movies. Maybe it's almost too easy though- when seeing this movie, taking out of context what was shown in 'Flags', one might think that the Americans had the battle on a silver platter. But taken back into context there's a greater sense of loss on the enemy side, not just of life but of what it means to fight for a cause that is never totally explained, to an Emperor practically all of these soldiers wont see or meet, and that to kill oneself is a brave act against the odds. The scene where many soldiers in the cave kill themselves with grenades- and then with two of the soldiers finally deciding that this is insanity and fleeing from the bodies- is very affecting. Then added to this, we see the letters being written, how the humanity of these people can never be denied no matter how hopeless their situation seemed to get. Sometimes we're also provided with flashbacks for some of the characters (some, like a man talking to his unborn child in his wife's womb, are too atypical, but there is one that leaves a very lasting impression involving the murdering of a dog- a scene that left people in the theater gasping even after so much battle carnage already happened).

Though mostly we're stuck in these caves and tunnels with these soldiers- one of the exceptions of this, Shimizu, was in said scene with the dog- there are other small vignettes, like the lieutenant who decides to break away to strap some explosives on himself to blow up an enemy cannon, only to fall asleep, and once awakened forgetting the whole act. And, of course, the ones who could not think of any other way- in fact seeing it treasonous otherwise- than to not sacrifice oneself for the homeland. All the while the acting is always competent, sometimes even ranging into the brilliant, and with Ken Watanabe delivering some of the finest notes of emotion (and also holding back emotion or hiding a real emotion) that I've seen from him thus far. And as far as the technical side, Eastwood and his crew have created an appropriately very dark looking picture, with the color desaturated so as to look like it's not really black and white but as if the life has been sucked out so as to look terminally gray (if that makes sense), with the battle footage somehow even more convincing than in 'Flags'.

So in the end, the two Iwo Jima movies bring up a lot to ponder about what it is to fight in war, what it means to be akin to the varying degrees of nationalism, and how it affects the psyche of people who were plucked from very normal lives into circumstances of perpetual death and, if one lives, the memories. While one doesn't really need the framing of it being 2005 at the end and beginning of the film, there's enough here to mark it as a significant, fascinating achievement for the filmmaker.

If the rating was based just on historical accuracy, it would be a 10

[Edzovski · 7/10 · 30 July 2019]

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.

An absolute must see, simply tremendous

[mOVIemAN56 · 10/10 · 4 June 2007]

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

Impressive and mature war film

[bob the moo · 16 November 2007]

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.

After the telling of the raising of the flag, comes the tail of the falling of the island; Eastwood delivers within the war genre, once again.

[johnnyboyz · 7/10 · 7 February 2010]

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.

Enemy Mine

[elcopy · 3/10 · 13 January 2007]

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.

The landscape of war

[BroadswordCallinDannyBoy · 9/10 · 28 December 2006]

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

Brilliant - A must see movie

[freemondo92 · 10/10 · 16 December 2006]

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.

Deeply Moving

[cloudsponge · 9/10 · 22 January 2007]

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 things—a 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.

Kuribayashi's Character is Nailed

[sshort-4 · 10/10 · 25 January 2007]

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.

The Japanese story of Iwo Jima.

[TxMike · 7 July 2007]

In our country the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima is immortalized in the famous photo, and in a large sculpture in Northern Virginia, in the D.C. area. This movie tells the story of the Japanese men who were on the island, waiting for the inevitable attack. We know it came, we know the outcome, as history tells.

The movie depicts the Japanese soldiers as not very different from the American soldiers. In the slow character development we learn that some were bakers, others store owners. One was exiled from an elite branch because he refused to shoot a family's dog that was barking too much back on the mainland.

We see that the men preparing for the invasion by the American troops were under-supplied in food, water, ammunition, and air support. Disintery was so bad that some died of it. Most of them knew that they would never go home again.

While most of the movie is told in 1944, in Japanese with English subtitles, short scenes in present day, 2005, begin and end the movie. We see Japanese exploring one of the caves that had been used for refuge 50 years earlier during the American bombardment. A buried sack is found, and in it a large number of "letters from Iwo Jima", never having been sent home. Presumably the contents of these letters formed the basis for the story in the movie.

"Do not expect to return home alive."

[classicsoncall · 10/10 · 14 February 2007]

I'm trying hard to recall the war movies I've seen that offer a balance between the humanity and atrocity of two opposing sides the way "Letters From Iwo Jima" does, and I can't think of one. That is where the film excels, and if one has trouble calling it an anti-war movie, at least it's a pro-life one. The film surpasses Eastwood's tandem effort, "Flags Of Our Fathers" in my estimation, but then, they are two quite different films, even though they have the same historical battle at their core.

What's difficult to understand, even as the movie makes clear, is the average Japanese soldiers' willingness to die in battle for honor and duty to the Emperor and homeland. My summary line above was spoken by a Japanese officer, stated without reservation or with intimation of victory or defeat, but as a matter of fact. It's hard to imagine that an entire nation operated on that principal just a little over a half century ago.

The vignette pieces of Eastwood's film serve the story well, as the backdrop of the invasion creates a realization that Iwo Jima will fall without additional Japanese troops or air cover to provide reinforcement. Perhaps wisely, the statistics of the thirty six day battle in March, 1945 are intentionally left out. They are grim, of twenty two thousand defenders on Iwo Jima, only 217 prisoners were taken, the rest fell in battle or to suicide to avoid the humiliation of capture by the enemy. American casualties topped six thousand, with another nineteen thousand wounded, requiring the use of whole blood and plasma on a scale never utilized in combat before. Reflecting on those numbers is a totally inadequate exercise and virtually impossible to comprehend, and yet this was a single battle field in the Pacific theater.

If you care to learn more of this battle and the war in the Pacific, an excellent resource is the documentary series "Crusade In The Pacific", utilizing film footage from cameramen on both sides of the War. One of the episodes deals with "Bloody Iwo", and the viewer will be stunned as I was to see how closely Eastwood's depiction of the landing, invasion and ensuing battle resembles the real thing. Both the documentary and "Letters" will leave you with the impression that our global leaders still haven't gotten it figured out yet, that war is devastating and senseless, and we never truly learn from the mistakes of the past.

Saddening War Story/look into humanity

[pc95 · 7/10 · 3 June 2007]

One of the good things about Letters from Iwo Jima is that it's not trying to glorify the horrors of war - Rather it's trying to show that despite all the propaganda and the like, both sides of war are human beings, not savages or beasts. The movie does a pretty good job(although I'm not sure how authentically) at giving us a perspective of a common Japanese conscript fighting for his life against American Forces at Iwo Jima. One of the central themes for the Imperial Japanese Forces it seems was to die with honor. This presents a paradox between basic self-preservation and group social pressures. It's easy to relate to the main character's drive for survival while harder to see the reason for dying with honor and dignity in suicide. But then, war doesn't seem to be an honorable, reasonable, or dignified situation in any case - and maybe that's part of the point. This was a sad movie perhaps meant to emphasize the human costs of war relevant just as much now as it was in the time it depicted. Especially good was Kazunari Ninomiya as the main character whose frightful expressions of pain, surprise, horror, and sadness were believable. Pretty good, but definitely leaves you disquieted.

Another Perspective of the Same Battle

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 16 January 2008]

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")

I'm surprised Flags of Our Fathers got such mixed reviews and Letters from Iwo Jima only got raves

[zetes · 7/10 · 15 January 2007]

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.

Pseudo-liberal Revisionist Whitewashing

[Rathko · 5/10 · 29 August 2007]

With 'Letters from Iwo Jima', Clint Eastwood, and writers Paul Haggis and Iris Yamashita, becomes a kind of Japanese Leni Riefenstahl – turning a blind eye to the horrors perpetrated by the Japanese Imperial regime to focus on the humanity and stoic pride of the individual soldiers.

Several thousand Japanese were tried, convicted, and executed for war crimes following WW2. The Japanese army was responsible for the targeted killing of millions of civilians throughout South East Asia, appalling medical and surgical experimentation on prisoners, the use of chemical and biological weapons, the widespread use of torture and forced labor, institutionalized rape, and sex slavery. The Japanese perpetrated acts that equaled those of Nazi Germany in their cruelty and wanton disregard for international standards. Of course there were Japanese soldiers who were scared, just as there were those who acted courageously, but it should never be forgotten, when viewing these sympathetic characters, that in realty, they casually supported horrifying and truly outrageous abuses of basic human rights in the service of the Emperor. Yes, at Iwo Jima they were defending Japanese soil, but only after having invaded Korea, Taiwan, China, Singapore, and Indochina while launching unprovoked attacks on both Australia and the United States.

'Letters from Iwo Jima' is a very well made movie. Its looks beautiful, being crafted with precision and real artistry, and the performances are universally excellent. But there is something decidedly unsettling about writers who, through ignorance or naivety, turn a blind eye to the atrocities carried out by the Japanese army and try to paint the Japanese military as the moral and ethical equals of the Americans. It's a dangerously inaccurate comparison. Despite the subsequent use of the atom bomb on Japan, and the resulting death toll, the United States military in WW2 never made it official policy to rape, torture and execute millions of innocent civilians.

It's little wonder that the film has been so popular in Japan, who has long struggled to truly acknowledge their acts during the war, and in Eastwood and co, have found the one-time-enemy white-washing their culpability far more effectively, and to a far larger audience, than they themselves ever could. 'Letters from Iwo Jima' is an excellent movie, but the writers' pseudo-liberal revisionism makes the whole thing more than a little unpalatable.

I couldn't talk for an hour after seeing this movie

[sthorson-1 · 9/10 · 25 January 2007]

My family went to the movies every week back in the 1940's when I was a young kid. Before each movie there was a newsreel. One newsreel which made an indelible impression on me contained footage of the battle on Iwo Jima. It showed terrifying images of U.S. soldiers using flamethrowers, aiming them in the caves the Japanese soldiers had hidden in. When a Japanese soldier ran from the cave, his hands up, his whole body engulfed in flames, the audience in our theater applauded and cheered. I was horrified and have never forgotten the awful feeling I had then. I was only nine.

When I saw the same scene enacted in "Letters from Iwo Jima", I was taken back to that time so long ago and I relived the extreme sadness I felt then, but even more so. Tears flowed during the rest of the movie. I couldn't talk for an hour afterward as I was grieving so.

This movie is honest and truthful, a must see for those who feel that war is the answer to anything.

I used to think Clint Eastwood was a "crybaby" when I watched Rowdy Yates in the first episodes of "Rawhide". Now, I believe Clint is one of the best things to come out of "Hollywood" ever!