 |
Letters from Iwo Jima (Two-Disc Special Edition) by Clint Eastwood
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
DVD detailsActor: Kazunari Ninomiya, Ken Watanabe, Ryo Kase, Shido Nakamura, Tsuyoshi Ihara Director: Clint Eastwood Brand: Warner Brothers Producer: Paul Haggis Producer: Steven Spielberg Writer: Iris Yamashita DVD: Region Code 1 Audio: Japanese (Unknown), Dolby Digital 5.1; English (Subtitled); Spanish (Subtitled); French (Subtitled); Japanese (Original Language), Dolby Digital 5.1; Japanese (Dubbed), Dolby Digital 5.1; Japanese (Published), Dolby Digital 5.1 Format: NTSC, Widescreen Picture Format: Widescreen, 2.40:1 Running Time: 140 minutes DVD Release Date: 2007-05-22 Audience Rating: R (Restricted) Model: 111292 Studio: Warner Home Video Product features: - Nominated for 4 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima tells the untold story of the Japanese soldiers who defended their homeland against invading American forces during World War II. With little defense other than sheer will and the volcanic rock of Iwo Jima itself, the unprecedented tactics of General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe, The Last Samurai)
DVD Reviews of Letters from Iwo Jima (Two-Disc Special Edition)DVD Review: Best Movie of the Year: A sensitive, yet harrowing drama - another powerful, towering achievement for Eastwood the director. Summary: 5 Stars
"Letters From Iwo Jima," Clint Eastwood's companion piece to "Flags of Our Fathers," released earlier in the year, is easily the best movie of the year ('06). I think "Letters" edges "Flags" as the better movie, simply because, unlike "Flags" this film, from the Japanese prospective, does not focus on the aftermath of the soldiers who fought in the war, but rather the war itself. Not that "Flags" is flawed for its approach, far from it - it is interesting, powerful, and mostly original in that it explores its subject on a political level - but "Letters" proves that a war movie is most effective and powerful when if focuses on the war - and those involved in it - itself.
"Flags," if you recall, was more about the three soldiers who raised the American flag on the Japan's island of Iwo Jima during WWII after our country's victory there, and their return home touted as heroes only to become pawns in our government's agenda to sell war bonds in order to finance further action in the war. I found that film very interesting from the standpoint that I never knew there was such a push to sell these bonds because our country was running out of money to finance the war; and I loved Eastwood's expert direction of the battle sequences (the best in maybe any war movie I have ever seen - and that's a big list). But the film felt like it could have been shorter by 20 minutes and you also kind of saw where it was going early on.
"Letters," by contrast, is a far more effective study of the war and the human beings involved in it. The story, constructed around letters unearthered from destroyed Japanese bunkers on Iwo Jima (which were also the basis for novel upon which this film is based), is a far-more in-your-face allegory for the traumas of war. The film makes the point that it makes no difference if you are Japanese or American, we are all the same and all have mothers and families that do not want to see us die just because our country deems the cause worthy.
The movie takes a half hour or so to get going - introducing us to the few soldiers we will follow through the battle - but after that the film takes off in the way "Flags" seemed like it might, but only ultimately did in brief flashbacks. In "Letters" the battle is the story and the character studies and background are the flashbacks. In "Letters" we see why the American soldiers in "Flags" entered Japanese bunkers only to find soldiers who had exploded themselves with hand grenades, and why, even though the Japanese had the advantage of cover and surprise, the Americans were still able to overcome them. Out-gunned, under-manned and lacking in supplies, troops, and ammo, the Japanese fought a war they knew they could not win, but did so because they were taught it was the honorable thing to do. There is no mention of Pearl Harbor or what got Japan, and us for that matter, involved in WWII, but you can't help but think that none of this would have been necessary had they not made the mistake of attacking that navel base in Hawaii. The Japanese troops don't necessarily agree with what their empire did, but they know they have no choice but to defend it. To die doing so is considered honorable. Eastwood presents the parallels between those troops and those ideals and our own as a heartbreaking and unfortunate product of cultural beliefs and perspectives.
Some have said this film (and "Flags") is slow and doesn't tell us anything we don't already know about this war - or war itself. These viewers are missing these film's two major most points and assets - precisely what makes them so great and original. First, neither film was ever intended or promised to be a big, bloody war action flick. They are not really about the war. They are about men and the effects of war, both during and after, both on them and their loved-ones (although, how many of us did know about the political games played with soldiers in the name of selling war bonds?). Both films have those grandiose war sequences to be sure (and they are some of the best captured on celluloid - especially in "Flags"), but these movies are about the soldiers themselves. Second, Eastwood is not a "slow" director. He is a minimalist and simplistic director who understands that to create mood and atmosphere is far more important to a film's impact that than bombastic action sequences. In all of his movies from "Unforgiven," to "Mystic River," and "Million Dollar Baby" to these epics, Eastwood crafts a stark mood from stark settings and stark characters. The sense that something devastating is going to happen gradually tightens around the viewer like a noose. When violence does occur it is shocking, disheartening, and meaningful, and its impact is felt ten times more than watching soldier after soldier get shot on a battlefield. Want proof? Just look at this film's last shot. It is of simply a beach and the sound of the waves gently rolling over the sand. This one, simple image puts a lump in the viewer's throat because they have just seen all the chaos and devastation that occurred there. And for what? All is silent now. All the individual names and deeds are forgotten. Clint says all that with one simple, quiet image.
Eastwood's films are not about the violence itself, but the effects of it. And as such, all the films mentioned, have been fascinating and emotionally charged character studies. In that respect, "Letters" may be his finest masterpiece. Clint has emerged as the best director of this current generation. That says something considering the guy's career has spanned several generations.
But it is true, "Letters" won't play well to most of today's ADD-afflicted movie-goers, and that's a shame considering with its length and subtitles the film will already be a tough sell even to it's intended audience. However, it is a far better movie than say, "Dreamgirls" and other fine, but overrated films this year that seem destined to eclipse this movie come Oscar time. But if there is any justice, "Letters From Iwo Jima" will be Eastwood's next Oscar winner. At the very least, it deserves to be seen. I saw it with three other people and it sparked an hour long conversation about life, war, and filmmaking.
If that isn't a sign of a great movie, I don't know what is.
More Letters from Iwo Jima (Two-Disc Special Edition) reviews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Description of Letters from Iwo Jima (Two-Disc Special Edition)LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA:SPECIAL EDITION - DVD Movie
|
 |