At the "Letters from Iwo Jima" press conference, young newcomers as well as established stars like Ken Watanabe and Kazunari Ninomiya admitted that many aspects of the war were unknown to them. Some wounds were so great they had to be "buried" so the opening where soldiers' letters are taken from the dust by archaeologists works as a powerful metaphor of Clint Eastwood's cinematic accomplishment.There are not many movies that show WWII from the perspective of Japan, not even from Japanese who still deem some memories as taboo. The country that brought us Kurosawa and Ozu didn't have its "Das Boot" or "Downfall" but interestingly, it's the world of animation that handled the painful theme of war with movies like "Barefoot Gen" and "Grave of the Fireflies" as if the brutality of war could never be painted in realistic traits and had to be channeled through the lyrical or hyperbolical artistry and philosophy of animation.So it took an American director to make a realistic movie about Japanese soldiers, not as the "enemy" or the invisible force but as the flag-brandishing protagonists, with ambivalent courage and forgivable flaws. On that level, the film is masterpiece of nuance and intelligence, showing Japanese soldiers in a light we seldom see, not this over-patriotic nation submitted to the "Bushido" code, but people who question their own mortality and the meaning of duty under extreme situation. It is ironic that some characters' seemingly weaknesses are actually their most beautiful strength.Yet watching it again, I wondered whether Clint Eastwood was a humanitarian or a pretender. There's no doubt he's a whiz of filmmaker and love how much restraint and depth he injects in stories where even talented directors can get overly sanctimonious. This was obviously one trap he couldn't fall in with this film, adapted by a Japanese-American woman of second or third generation from letters written by soldiers, it couldn't be a glorification of any sort, it's more of a moral confrontation to war from within and the way it interrogates the meaningless of all this mess, like French writer Celine describing the nobility of so-called cowardice in "Journey at the End of the Night."I don't think Eastwood promotes cowardice, I didn't see his last movie dealing with French train attack, but I saw "American Sniper" and as much as I understand how a character like Chris Kyle inspired a patriot like Eastwood, I was wondering why the film didn't have a companion piece like "Letters from Iwo Jima" for "Flags of Our Fathers", a film to show the Iraqi war from the Arab viewpoint. Or am I being naïve? Eastwood is old enough to remember WWII and has probably grown up at the peak of American hostility toward Japan, but the ink of history pages has dried quicker than the blood on the Iwo Jima island and perhaps the wound of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still bleeding, but at least the two countries are in peace now, and there is an obviously mutual attraction. So maybe in 2050, we'll have an American director making a movie about Iraqi, or maybe am I being too naïve again?September 11 is as infamous, if not more, than Pearl Harbor. It's not used as frequently, but I still remember how the word "Kamikaze" was mentioned by journalists referring to these suicide attacks, and "Iwo Jima" made me wonder whether the notion could be applied for both situations. The film clearly shows soldiers who are determined to die for the country, and commit suicide when they fail to accomplish their mission. There are not "kamikaze" attacks per se, but they highlight the same attachment to "martyrdom for a good cause".But if even a modern audience can admit that defending your country's territory is good enough a cause, it will never accept terrorism as a legitimate form of fighting because it kills civilians, unless you deal with a filmmaker like Gillo Pontecorvo with his "Battle of Algiers". But speaking of civilians, how about the two nuclear bombs? One can say that America got away with it, because the technological hecatombs did stop Japan and ended the war, once and for all. The film doesn't mention them, but indirectly reveals how much of an atypical fighter Japan was, at its own expenses. Japan would have never admitted that this was a lost battle, yet Yamamoto knew after Pearl Harbor that they had awakened a "sleeping giant". Some soldiers deemed as weak or submissive only wish not to die for nothing, which can be even worse than death itself, paraphrasing Patton, "the best way to win a war is to make the other bastard die for his country". A terrorist wants death, a real soldier wants to live. There was a scene in the film that showed the cruelty of war, two Japanese soldiers surrender and while they contemplate their life at peacetime, they're shot dead by their American guards. I thought first it was cold-blooded murder, how about the Geneva conventions? But later, the Japanese squad comes and finds them dead, would have they killed the guards? We had just seen an American being bayoned to death and all we know is that the guards' intuition was right and they just didn't take a chance. Did they just want to kill the enemy or were they fearing their death, maybe this is the whole balance of war: conservative and killing instinct. And the way they sometimes overlap show the real hellish nature of war, when fighting or surrendering don't necessarily pay off.The film shows the emotional predicaments Japanese went through, as soldiers, as men who had children, wives and mothers and I guess at the end it all comes down to what can be considered the film's arc quote and fittingly coming from a mother "whatever you think is right, will be right". Not that it solves the equation and that might explains why some memories were kept buried for years...

What didn't work for Clint Eastwood in his Flags Of Our Fathers, was a tremendous success in this decent sequel, Letters Form Iwo Jima. Absolutely impeccable, precise, laconic and correctly shot in a darker color scheme, this epic movie delivers an awesome array of characters, both Japanese and some American, along with superb camera work and unquestionable masterstroke. Ken Watanabe is one of the real huge star here, his character, General Tadamichi Kuribayashi is a deeply complex and very touching person, who is not a one-dimensional military cruel, but a decent man with sorrows and joys. All others Japanese soldiers and officers are depicted so well and so endearingly honest that we can not resist but like them, even if they served a wrong cause. This is a true touch of genius, and Mr. Eastwood is at his best, top form that is evident all trough 2 quick hours. This is a huge improvement of a first film, and its pristine, perfect quality is a real blast that holds you attentive all the film through. Highly recommended

Now this is more like it! The second of the two Clint Eastwood-directed films focusing on the battle for Iwo Jima, this is the one from the Japanese viewpoint and it's a bloody good bit of film-making. It also happens to be the darkest film I've ever watched, and that's a list that includes plenty of horror and serial killer movies. Set entirely on the island of Iwo Jima and focusing on the Japanese forces as they prepare for and then eventually fight the Americans, this is a lengthy bit of film-making that's simply spellbinding for every second it plays out. Eastwood strives for realism and achieves it; there are no gung-ho heroics on offer here, no flights of fancy or exciting battles for survival. Instead, the world of LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA is dark, depressing and brutal, where friends die on a routine basis and hope gradually fades as time goes on.The cast is what really makes this film work. In a film focusing so much on characterisation, going so far as to give back stories in flashback to the principle folk involved, the quality of the acting is key and the actors don't disappoint. Ken Watanabe, recalling us of his former glory in THE LAST SAMURAI, presides over things with a subtle and nuanced turn as the unorthodox general; he's fantastic, as are all the rest. I especially loved the young men who prepare for war; we learn that these men are as brave and naïve as the Americans fighting on the other side in FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS. Real emoting is involved and in the end you root for all these characters, which makes what happens so much more powerful.The cinematography is frequently breathtaking and the washed-out look of the film fits the action perfectly. This is an epic in which the quite, intimate moments of dialogue are just as strong as the effects-heavy battle scenes, and everything feels fresh and so alive. There are many moments of brilliance here, including the notorious grenade suicide scene (one of the most disturbing ever put on film), the final, hopeless charge, the fate of the deserter, and the gradual breakdown of communication and leadership within the labyrinthine tunnels of the island. Film-making at its best, and a movie that easily beats SAVING PRIVATE RYAN as one of the great WWII films of all time.

Letters from Iwo Jima is a film praised by audiences and critics , most unfortunately this film did not catch me , I did not like , photography, soundtrack , costumes and the cast are good , especially the photograph is excellent , the direction of Clint Eastwood is competent , more is not better, the acting is competent also , the Costume is well done , I found the very long movie , and the pace does not hold , it is tiring plus of course it is in my opinion , the dialogue some are good , other surface , the film yet but can be tense at times, the battle scenes are good technically , most are not exciting , Letters from Iwo Jima same critical acclaim , I did not like so much, more ta far from a bad movie , has very positive points, I think one of the weakest work of Eastwood. note 5.1