Directed by:
Clint EastwoodScreenplay:
Iris YamashitaCinematography:
Tom SternCast:
Ken Watanabe, Kazunari Ninomiya, Tsuyoshi Ihara, Ryō Kase, Shidō Nakamura, Takumi Bando, Yuki Matsuzaki, Takashi Yamaguchi, Nae Tazawa, Lucas Elliot Eberl (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
In an effort to explore an event that continues to resonate with both cultures, Clint Eastwood was haunted by the sense that making only one film, Flags of Our Fathers, would be telling only half the story. With this unprecedented dual film project, shot back-to-back to be released in sequence, Eastwood seeks to reveal the battle of Iwo Jima - and, by implication, the war in the Pacific - as a clash not only of arms but of cultures. Sixty-one years ago, US and Japanese armies met on Iwo Jima. Decades later, several hundred letters are unearthed from that stark island's soil. The letters give faces and voices to the men who fought there, as well as the extraordinary general who led them. The Japanese soldiers are sent to Iwo Jima knowing that in all probability they will not come back. Among them are Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya), a baker who wants only to live to see the face of his newborn daughter; Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara), an Olympic equestrian champion known around the world for his skill and his honor; Shimizu (Ryo Kase), a young former military policeman whose idealism has not yet been tested by war; and Lieutenant Ito (Shidou Nakamura), a strict military man who would rather accept suicide than surrender. (Warner Bros. AU)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (9)
I've read the book that Clint and the writers were inspired by, and I have to say that I imagined everything the way it was eventually presented to me in the film. Letters from Iwo Jima is undoubtedly one of the best "modern" war films I have seen.__P.S. Be sure to get the soundtrack - but be warned, it's terribly addictive and you won't be able to get it out of your head!
()
I don't understand how this Clint Eastwood war flick completely flew under my radar. It is a very decent affair from the viewpoint of the Korean people, where Clint beautifully shows that not all the soldiers were fanatics of the Emperor, but there were people with hearts who felt fear. The film has decent war scenes with no shortage of gore and features some very powerful moments (the shooting a family's dog and a mass sacrifice). 85%.
()
A much more sincere and stronger war film than the tearful and extremely pathetic Flags of Our Fathers. Clint Eastwood really stepped up his game in the second film, which, in contrast, shows the conflict from the other side and tells an excellent story full of Japanese traditions, customs, and tactics. How accurately it reflects reality can only be judged by eyewitnesses and war experts, but I dare say that the film was presented to the audience in a very bearable way. Thank God it doesn't just show the Japanese as suicidal lunatics and heartless killing machines, but also portrays them nicely from the other side right from the beginning. From young boys separated from their families to high-ranking officers with connections to the West, who are willing to proudly sacrifice their lives for their country. Watanabe is excellent, the action is decent and the non-combat scenes are very impressive. This solid film is worth watching if inly for the fact that we may have the opportunity to see a comprehensive view of an event in the war from this different and culturally distinct perspective, despite some minor flaws and a slightly excessive runtime (or rather, some unnecessary scenes).
()
Without a doubt one of the best anti-war films ever to grace cinema screens. Eastwood is not playing "soldiers" or "good guys vs bad guys", his view of war is much more complex. His film is one of the few that looks at the soldiers of the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis from the human side (in this respect, of the few cases before him, I remember Vilsmaier's Stalingrad, or the emotional ending of Riders in the Sky) and demythicizes the conventional view of ordinary Japanese soldiers as heartless war creatures with heads full of kamikaze. No matter which side of the conflict you are on, talking to a friend about family, making jokes, fearing death and questioning the meaning of war are all human feelings that are the same for everyone, regardless of the uniform they wear. Eastwood tells the story sparingly, but every minute has its place, and some scenes – the mass suicide, Baron's conversation with the wounded American soldier, the shooting of the prisoners, even the scene with the dog – are very memorable. And why not admit it, reading a letter from the mother of a deceased prisoner of war brought tears to my eyes, and in Eastwood's masterful rendition such moments are simply hard to resist. And if you think they are all made up, you are a lost cause. It is quite clear from the film that the greatest enemy in a war conflict is not a combatant from the enemy side, but the nonsensical orders of a moron in a superior uniform. Otherwise, the fight scenes have verve, although Eastwood commendably doesn't try to be as spectacular as possible (unlike, for example, Spielberg in the final battle in Saving Private Ryan) and the charismatic Watanabe is growing into a great actor in my eyes from film to film. With all due respect to my favorite Marty and his The Departed, the clear Oscar winner in my eyes is once again "Iron Old Man" Clint and his sensitive, empathetic masterpiece. The average rating on IMDb, 8.3/10, says much more about its real value than here on FilmBooster. And I don’t think half the votes there come from Japan.
()
My next encounter with war Eastwood, where the director once again shows that he is much closer to a human story than capturing war. He is not trying to make a great war film, but a great drama. I simply cannot forget some scenes from the movie. The scene with the dog, touching and harsh at the same time, Japanese fanaticism, which ends in mass suicide with a lot of grenades, a bucket of excrement, which means the difference between life and death. Even in war, there is room for happiness. An excellent film that surpassed its doppelgänger "Flags of Our Fathers". I admire Eastwood for not shooting in English, but in the right language, just like Mel Gibson did in "Apocalypto" or "The Passion of the Christ". That's how it should be. And not like the case of the film "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", which is great in the American version, but why the hell is it set in Sweden when the characters speak English anyway? More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/04/diar-milovnika-filmu-c-0003-eastwood.html
()
Ads