Best movie fo the year thus far. I actually doubt anything will overtake it on my list.

I was happily stunned by this film. I had just watched Flags of our Fathers a week ago and even with all the mediocre response I've heard, I was still a tad underwhelmed. So, I agree with Loyal in that this is a complete B-side to Flags.

I loved this movie. It might have been the lackluster year that seemed to make this sparkle in my eyes, but the overall tone, the acting, the flashbacks, the emotion, the intensely gruesome GRUESOME scenes, the complimentary scenes to Flags... just all meshed perfectly together.

Flags just didn't work... at all. All throughout the movie there was this feel of "I can see an effort somewhere but it just falls flat in every scene." With Letters, it's just the opposite. Every scene resonates with immense emotional power and adds to the overall greatness of the film.

Eastwood has fast become one of my favorite directors (sorry Loyal). This is the 5th film he has directed that I have seen. Unforgiven was great (though I saw it maybe 5 years ago when I was 14 and don't quite remember the fine details). I thought Mystic River was a small masterpiece. I thought MDB was well done but not quite on par with Mystic River. Flags fell flat and Letters may very well be my favorite of his. It still has to sit on my mind for a while because River has entered probably my top 50 favorites but Letters could top it.

Gosh... I liked this one.

After skipping Clint's last film and detesting his two films previous to that (Million Dollar Baby and Mystic River), I honestly never thought Eastwood would get his Unforgiven groove back.

But -- lo and behold -- Letters from Iwo Jima is a very cool movie. To see a story told from the losers side is very refreshing. To see our traditionally heroically portrayed Americans as the bad guys, the villains, the black hats, is a superb way to spin an anti-war message. Especially with the delicious overtones of Clint's very own ultra-American-ness, not to mention his past iconic roles in old school Yankee war epics.

Frankly, I can't wait to see Iwo Jima 2: The Hiroshima Genocide... I just know Eastwood would do a masterful job on telling that untold (in America, at least) story.

This is literally the polar opposite to a jingoistic pro-war movie like United 93. Both are very well made movies, but the distinguishing feature is in the respective moral compasses of the two directors. Glorification of war is chasmically separated from the humanization of war. It's amazing that Clint Eastwood has parlayed all his chips (current Oscar cred; trust of people in him personally; advanced age; true old-fashioned, honest, American independent thinking and action; innate orneriness; etc.) into a crazy ass project like Letters from Iwo Jima. But all's I can say is: Bravo!

8 out of 5.

(I may even have to weigh it against my 2006 Top Ten List -- I will take time to reflect upon it...)

IMO, last year was great for movies. Almost every film I anticipated met or exceeded my expectations and surprises were plentiful. The best of the best, though, is Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima. A harrowing film regarding noble men of war facing the inevitable as they prepare for a battle they're destined to lose, it left me both moved and shattered. This is an incredible accomplishment, an unmissable offering of superlative acting, directing, and screenwriting. Do not miss it. A+.

A-, much much better effort than Flags

Best freaking movie of the year. I was so close to crying. The acting is incredible as is the story. Do not miss this.

A+

I'm dieing to see this. No chance it unseats CoM but it may have a shot at "The Wind That Shakes That Barley"'s number 2 slot if it delivers the goods.

I'm finally seeing this and COM back to back today.

There's a nice light double bill for ya...

Like a feather...

Ken Watanabe better be nominated for an Oscar... I give 'Letters' an A.

What a depressing day of film, but a day that will be known as perhaps seeing two of the best films of the year. IWO and COM shocked the hell out of me and emotionally drained me. This is undoubtably one of the best films of the year and it just might be Clint's best directing effort ever. More later, but easily an A for me.

I want to see Mystic River again, but I'd put this above Million Dollar Baby, and that was one of my very favorites of 2004. Y'know, 2006 for me has been an incredible year when this may just make my top five. Ken Watanabe was excellent but I found myself by far the most emotionally invested in Saigo, albeit admittedly because he's absolutely the most sympathetic character. The grenade scene is the second most harrowing one I've seen all year, and the most in theaters - my heart was pounding at the carnage onscreen. It still makes me really shiver, and that's not something that happens to me often. Although it felt a bit long to me, it's a very thoughtful, powerful piece of work, and a must see for everyone here. A

Do you see what happened to Iggy in Flags??

Tonight! 10:00! It's only a 2-hour drive. I have piles of work to do, but you know...some things are more important.

For the record, I thought Flags of Our Fathers was a pretty sizable failure, although I've been looking forward to giving it another look.

Haven't seen that yet, and even after seeing this, I really don't have much interest in doing so. It just sounds like a waste of my time.

I was a bit disappointed. Though admittedly, I was kinda out of it for the first hour...just couldn't get into it, and was missing subtitles and stuff. It's far better than the other war film, but just not near the level I'd come to expect. Its a very powerful, intense experience, but I really didnt ever feel invested in it. And though the movie is nice to look at, the monochromity got very grating very fast and after a while just bugged me. It' still a strong B film, because there isn't any doubt that its a well made and acted, very cohesive film and a very powerful experience. I do expect that my feelings might change for the better with another, more focused viewing.

Disappointing. I liked Flags of Our Fathers well enough, I think I gave it a B- and said there were some problems with the structure (obtrusive blending of the flashbacks and the tacked on present day stuff), but I was really hoping that Clint would do better with the second film, since it would be focusing on the Japanese side of the battle and would be a fresh experience in that regard. Unfortunately, structure problems, and this time an uneven script, bog down the proceedings. I think I enjoyed the build-up and the "getting-to-know-your-recruits" section of Flags better than Iwo Jima's, which I felt dragged a little and contained some weak dialogue and interactions. Once the battle hits we are treated to kind of a Flags redux with different camera angles and so that kind of robbed the battle scenes of some of their intensity. The main structural problems occur here as well, as things move way too quickly (the mountain stronghold was captured in a matter of minutes and all of a sudden we get mass suicides......I just wasn't convinced of the gravitas of the situation. What follows are a few incomprehensible night-time skirmishes, which aren't particularly well filmed and don't really add anything. I began to enjoy the movie more once things calmed down a little and we get Nishi's death, the great scene of the white flag carrying soldier being shot and final scenes with the general, which were quite emotional and well presented. The central character, Saigo, the general (played wonderfully by Ken Watanabe) and Nishi were all well drawn and I enjoyed most of their moments in the film. So I guess it was basically the choppy plotting and the ineffective war elements that bothered me......oh, and the cinematography was rather dull (the film grade was so close to being black and white that Clint might as well have gone that route instead).

I'm in the minority, but I think Flags is marginally ahead of Iwo Jima. On the whole, an impressive undertaking for Clint and an admirable respect for the material and determination to present both sides, which most certainly deserves to be commended. But they're both just OK films. Best picture and best director nominations are undeserving.

B-

No. I was waiting for this all through the movie and they do show scenes with two prisoners, but neither of them is Iggy.

There are moments when you've sat yourself down to watch this movie where you can almost taste that rarest of cinematic traits. Perfection!

Eastwood isn't doing anything revolutionary here, the old "war is hell" moral is a well known and filmed one at this stage, which means simply saying that does not make a good movie.

Instead it needs defining scenes, deep human examination and a whole array of other emotionally connecting moments to get its message across, and in Letters from Iwo Jima the attempts fly closer to the sun then one would have thought possible for a movie, which at the end of the day was constructed as Oscar Bait and nothing more.

The use of music is kept to a minimum only brought to bare during moments of lull in the battle and realization of the suicidal path the characters had found themselves on.

A rousing bombastic score would have destroyed any chance of this movie being effective and its a consideration that should always be taken into account when putting a war movie to screen. Many a pretender has been struck down before the opening exchanges by this tempting but ill advised route (Windtalkers is one movie that springs to mind). Letters from Iwo Jima avoids the trap with a score that would easily rank up with the best.

The reluctant but loyal warrior's in the form of Watanabe's Lt. General Kuribayashi and Tsuyoshi Ihara's Lt.Colonel Takeichi Nishi are the foundation of this movies attempt at human connection.

The little vignettes of Kuribayashi's almost innocent glee in receiving a Colt pistol as a parting gift on his farewell to the America's (one of the movies many flashbacks) and Nishi's conversation with the wounded American marine its tone overflowing with regret for a life that will never be lived and a good life past form the best sections of this movie.

It gives the characters a true substance and weight, it makes them feel human in a matter that hasn't been captured in a movie produced in mainstream Hollywood in a long while and it proves the movies best moments.

But for all this, Letters still falls short of brilliance and in the end must settle for the tag of Good.

Outside of the moments with Kuribayashi and Nishi's there is an air of mechanical forward momentum to the movie. The other players in the mix tell their stories willing you to invest in their survival but before we can Eastwood pulls the camera back is if afraid to delve deeper.

He assumes simply telling the story of a baker or other civilian thrust into war will be enough but without any contrast between the hell of Iwo Jima and the normality of life without the war (bar the odd sparodic scene, to short to have any effect) your left with what in essence is a poor mans "The Big Red One: The Reconstruction".

Letters needs moments like "The Big Red One's" interlude in the Sicilian village or the encounter with the destroyed cross in the ruins of France to have achieved what it had set out to do. Instead its a movie searching for its other half, unable to reach higher without it.

Another point to note is the prism of Western values and moral ism which runs through every facet of this movie. This may not count at a strike against its quality but does lessen its authentic depiction. It paints the voice of reason as the Western way and turns many of the Japanese characters into people that seem rather unlikely to have come from the imperial Japanese tradition of the time.

For all the people coming out of this saying/thinking this movie is anti-American I'd say look deeper. If anything its a movie laced with a vindication of the Western way. Its not a bad or good thing but woven into the japanese side of the story feels contrived and unrealistic, especially next to brutally unsentimental and realistic depictions of the motivations of war like the Russian made "Come and See"

In the final analysis Letters is a movie which shows vast improvement over the lumpen mess of Flags of our Fathers, but in a way is far more infuriating to watch because their are glimpses of a classic to be found in the weave.

B

My Review:

In October 2006, Clint Eastwood released "Flags of our Fathers," the first of two movies about the battle at Iwo Jima the legendary director made. On its own, "Flags" was an outstanding film, but Eastwood one-ups his own effort with his follow-up "Letters from Iwo Jima." Told from the Japanese prospective, "Letters" was always meant to be the companion piece or afterthought to "Flags," which was supposed to be a big hit with critics, audiences, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. But after the box office struggle "Flags" endured, it looked like the film would be a weaker awards contender, and the decision was made to release "Letters" within the next-to-last week of the year as such to get awards consideration, an attempt that proved successful. Whatever the reason, the arrival of the stronger half of Eastwood's towering achievement is a momentous occasion to be treasured by movie fans everywhere.

At first, it may be a bit difficult to comprehend the idea of a war film where America is shown as the opponent, or "enemy" so to speak. While it neither sympathizes nor cast stones one way or another, "Letters from Iwo Jima" illustrates the American and Japanese soldiers as opposite sides of the same coin. Just as there was a lot to feel for in "Flags," there's a great deal to feel for in "Letters," if not more. Like "Flags," a major strength in "Letters" is that the characters are so well formed and illustrated that it's easy for a viewer to feel for them, but what sets "Letters" apart as the stronger, more complete effort is that there seems to be more of an emotional core in this film. Unlike "Flags of our Fathers," which jumped back and forth between combat and post-combat events, "Letters from Iwo Jima" is entirely about the battle, with brief flashbacks filling in story-related blanks. As such, it is afforded much more time to focus on its characters, who are deeper than those of "Flags." In dismissing the storytelling excess that mostly carried, but at time hindered "Flags," "Letters" ends up carrying greater resonance and a greater sense of urgency for survival during the combat.

To put it simply, "Letters from Iwo Jima" fills in the blanks left by "Flags of our Fathers." Many of the "what just happened" questions from that film are answered here. However, that's the simplest way to state the basic plot and events of "Letters." Delving into the more complex, it's a war-set character study that focuses upon two characters. The first is General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe), a general who is loyal to his country. Before fighting in the war, Kuribayashi lived in America and knows many of the American strategies. As such, he prepares for battle in such a way that the Japanese are in a good position to hold off American invaders at Iwo Jima. However, he misses his family members, and despite his unhinging devotion to his country, he still somehow wishes to be with them. The second character given a major focus is Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya), a baker-turned-soldier who longs most to return to his wife and newborn child. Saigo tries to make himself appear honorable, but he does not understand the honor behind dying for his country, nor the honor involved in taking his own life in shame, as many of his comrades do. Saigo befriends fellow soldier Shimizu (Ryo Kase), and has a connection to General Kuribayashi in that the general saved his life on multiple occasions.

Even though most of the cast Eastwood employs is unknown, the acting in "Letters from Iwo Jima" is among the best that any movie has had to offer in 2006. Ken Watanabe is the only immediately recognizable face in the cast, and his performance here is electrifying. It's not quite at the level of his breakthrough turn in 2003's "The Last Samurai," but nevertheless, it's one of the best and most effective turns of the year. The unknown Kazunari Ninomiya shines as Saigo, providing the movie with its true emotional core. Ninomiya brings the character to full life and gives the audience a hero of sorts. His performance is one of the deepest and most emotional of the year, and as such, one would hope that this is not the last exposure Ninomiya will get with American audiences.

Perhaps the defining thing that makes "Letters from Iwo Jima" a better movie than "Flags of our Fathers" is its emotional resonance. In "Flags," it was made clear very early on who would live and who was going to be killed in combat. Obviously, the three flag-raisers we'd already seen near the very start of the movie would survive the combat, while the odds for the survival of everyone else were slim at the very best. In "Letters," there is no such assurance. The vast difference in war customs of the Americans and the Japanese add extra emphasis. In "Flags," many of the soldiers hope that they will be allowed to survive and return to their loved ones. However, for many of the soldiers in "Letters," it seems pre-ordained that each one will die, and few see that as a bad thing due to the honor that will come with it. These customs come into play in "Letters" on numerous occasions. Whereas there's a great deal of apprehension for the Americans heading into battle, there is very little among the Japanese. There's also a "suicide mission" scene that is the most unsettling scene 2006 has had to offer short of the hijacking sequence in "United 93." Emotion and power were there in "Flags," but they're in "Letters" in far greater doses. "Letters" isn't as much a tribute to those fallen as "Flags" was, and as such, its power is all the more blistering.

As far as war films go, "Letters from Iwo Jima" is the best effort released since "Saving Private Ryan." The general consensus heading in was that "Letters" was a stronger entry than "Flags," and the hype is spot on. "Letters from Iwo Jima" isn't 2006's best film, but it comes insanely close to dethroning "The Departed" from its yearly cinematic throne. It's saddening that thanks to subtitles and showing the story of "the enemy," "Letters" is going to be hard pressed to find a very big audience unless the Academy steps in and gives it Best Picture. Regardless, "Letters from Iwo Jima" is a masterpiece, and a war film for the ages. Any movie buff worth his salt should note that "Letters from Iwo Jima" is a must-see picture.


Grade: A (#2 of 2006)

I liked Letters. I respected it. It had a genuinely anti-war perspective, unlike stuff like Saving Private Ryan that claims to be anti-war but doesn't really know what that means.

Still, I was left kinda cold.

So much better that Flags, and it's not like Flags was a terrible movie either. It was actually quite decent. Ken Watanabe proves that The Last Samurai was not a fluke...he is an excellent actor who seems to get better with each role. The technicals are brilliant, as is the the directing. Eastwood has once again made an amazing movie.

A-

As the saying goes, "to the victors goes the spoils." When Americans make films about war, they more times than not come out on top. It invariably show the fighting perpetual undying spirit of a nation of heroes fighting through adversity to win a war that others think they should fail at. There are exceptions of course, but never, that I can recall, has their been an American film that shows the other side, with an honest and unbiased approach. Clint Eastwood's Letter From Iwo Jima does just that. The Americans still win the battle of Iwo Jima of course, but this film goes to great lengths to show the human side to their enemy. War is hell, no doubt, but there are still real people on both ends of the gun. Real people have to make real decisions and those decisions affect the balance of the war. While I doubt some of the humanity prevalent in the film, I don't doubt the emotion and the realism of how each and every soldier feels.

The anchor of the film is the great Japanese actor Ken Watanabe, who should have won an Oscar for his excellent work in The Last Saumurai. He plays the historical figure General Kuribayashi, the genius behind the defense of the island. This film shows his wits and his tenacity as he arrives on the island and immediately tells his soldiers that the defense they are planning is futile and he has them digging tunnels in the rocky mountainous terrain. This is burdensome for the soldiers but most of them believe in the General and they do it without question. It also shows the aggressive nature of some of the other captains as they make them men work long hours in the blazing sunshine, beat them when they tire and deprive them of food and water for long periods of time. This all changes when Kuribayashi lands on the island. His approach to things is a complete dichotomy from what we have been taught about the Japanese. He is a humanitarian. He believes in treating each soldier humanely. He is dedicated, smart and loyal to Japan first and foremost, but he is not abusive to the point of excess. If you look at other films that show the ugly side the the Japanese like Men Behind the Sun, this is refreshing in that there is a much more human side to people of the nationality. Not only was the General kind and generous, but the soldiers, based on the letters discovered, were very much like their American counterparts. These were all nervous and scared young men just hoping they would make it back home to see their wives and young children. This is conveyed beautifully by Eastwood.

The war scenes are a true wonder as well. Some of the film was done with CGI so they could show the massive assault the Americans launched on the island. This must have been done to keep the cost to a minimum. But the bombs, the blasts, the gunfire and the fighting are all images and sounds that will stay with you long after you leave the theater. It's interesting to see how the ideologies are different between the Americans and the Japanese. The Japanese epitomize the phrase "death before dishonour" as some of them literally blow their own heads off than get captured and disgrace the motherland. There are some indelible scenes in the film that will stay with you as the Japanese men imbue each other with a fighting spirit that is usually reserved for American jingoism. But Eastwood goes to great lengths to paint each side with the same brush, the same stroke and the same humanity. As I said earlier, I find it hard to believe that it happened exactly like this because war can be hell and this was definitely the sugar coated version of what men can be capable of, but at the same time, the letters written by the young boys in film would certainly have an effect even on the most grizzled man.

Clint Eastwood has made a film that is good enough to be nominated for best picture and director. He will lose this year to Scorcese, and deservedly so, but this is undoubtedly one of the years best. Perhaps in a different year, like last year, this might have won. But this year, it will have to settle for the runner up prize.

9/10

I've always been pretty lukewarm about Clint Eastwood films. I liked Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby, but not as much as most people. I also thought Unforgiven was overrated. But this has changed my opinion about Eastwood. It's a msterpiece. I loved it.

My grade: A+.

It was actually a surprising disappointment for me.

It's very quiet, respectful, and beautifully produced. Expectedly Eastwoodian.

But the department in which both this and Flags of Our Fathers falter most heavily is, simply, character development. Flags' clumsy script didn't allocate enough time and backstory to each principal character, and while Letters' script is much tighter, it makes the same mistake of glossing over three or four characters instead of narrowing in on one or two.

I was also surprised at Eastwood's unchallenging take on the theme of war - that it's hell, and that our enemies are people, too.

It's a smidge better than Flags, yeah. But I really don't think Clint succeeded with Letters and didn't with Flags. For me they're pretty much on equal footing.

B