Flags of Our Fathers / Letters from Iwo Jima

So, technically these are two separate movies, but they really belong together as a pair. 😬
It was directed by Clint Eastwood.
Both stories revolve around the intense combat during WWII on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima, though one film takes an American perspective (Flags of Our Fathers), while the other looks at things through a Japanese lens (Letters from Iwo Jima).

The first one just opened up in theaters here recently.
http://www.flagsofourfathers.com/
Personally, I thought it was absolutely wonderful...
The plot is actually inspired by that iconic photograph and the events surrounding those six American soldiers raising the American flag on Iwo Jima.
Time-wise, the story jumps from the heat of battle on the island—which was filmed with that same handheld, shaky camera style you see in the combat scenes of Saving Private Ryan, only even grittier—to post-war America and how people viewed those soldiers and heroes after the fighting stopped.
It’s a really sharp observation by society, regardless.

I honestly can't wait to catch the Japanese side of the story once it hits theaters!
My only little gripe is that for the first 15 minutes or so, it wasn't entirely clear who was footing the bill and who was paying, mostly because the narrative is so fragmented and jumps so quickly from one location to another and from one time period to the next...

I also found it quite strange that such a massive, high-quality production backed by such a big name like Clint Eastwood hasn't received almost any advertising at all. If I hadn't happened to stumble upon a review in a film magazine, I wouldn't have even known the movie was playing! There was absolutely zero promotion for it. During the opening weekend, there were maybe six people in the whole theater, including me and my boyfriend.
Maybe it's because Americans don't want a film like this to negatively impact the national mood regarding the war in Iraq and everything else going on.
Then again, the movie doesn't exactly paint a rosy picture of war or the aftermath; if anything, it's quite critical, even if it does so in a very subtle way...

In any case, I highly recommend that you go see the film (or films)!

I'd give it 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿 out of five buckets of popcorn. 😬

Personally, I found Flags of Our Fathers to be a massive letdown. I had such high expectations for it, but honestly, the only thing it really nailed was that sharp observation of society you mentioned, Sandra King86. The opening is incredibly clunky—it’s so poorly executed that you're left wondering who is actually drinking or paying for what. At least it avoided that usual, over-the-top sentimentality you see in most American war movies.
Saving Private Ryan is leagues better; there isn't a single moment where you feel bored. With this one, you have all the time in the world to lose interest.
I'm still holding out hope that Letters from Iwo Jima will be better. The idea of telling the story from a Japanese perspective is something I'm genuinely interested in seeing.

Personally, I still find Saving Private Ryan to be the superior film, if only because it feels so much more cohesive as a complete cinematic experience... though I have to admit that Flags of Our Fathers is arguably more interesting when you look at its themes and the way it critiques both society and the reality of war.
I completely agree that the opening is incredibly intense and difficult to watch, and yeah, there are definitely moments where the pacing feels a bit dragged out, I'll give you that.
Even so, I still think it stands head and shoulders above so many other movies we've seen throughout this year...

I haven't seen it, but I'm really just hoping it moves past that typical shallowness and all the American propaganda—plus that untouchable sense of patriotism you see in Saving Private Ryan. Aside from a few decent scenes and the overall visuals, that one is honestly among the worst war movies—pro or anti-war—I’ve ever sat through... it’s basically the perfect template for American lecturing.

Donna Hughes80, have you had a chance to look over those last three posts about the movie yet?
Because if you did, you’d see that the whole thing is being viewed through a pretty critical lens, which is probably why they didn't bother with a massive ad campaign or anything like that...

I was just sharing my own hopes here—regardless of what everyone else is posting—and whether this movie actually hits as hard or stays as provocative as people claim... well, I’d rather just let the film speak for itself.
All the best.

Ronald Bishop said:Personally, I think Flags of Our Fathers was a massive letdown since I expected so much more from him; the only real strength was that sharp social commentary you mentioned earlier... though the opening is handled so clumsily that you're left wondering who's drinking or paying for what, at least it avoided that nauseatingly sentimental patriotism found in most American war movies.
Saving Private Ryan is leagues better because it holds your attention every single second, whereas here, you can watch as much as you want without feeling anything...
I’m still holding out hope that Letters from Iwo Jima, especially with that Japanese perspective, might actually deliver something worthwhile...

You can't even put this movie in the same conversation as Ryan. Production-wise, Ryan was flawless, but it wasn't really an anti-war film nor did it dig deep into the actual mechanics of combat—it was more of an action drama wrapped in American kitsch.
The film in this thread belongs to an entirely different category... I wouldn't say it was gripping while I was watching it, but it succeeded brilliantly in conveying the core themes of the book, which still feel relevant today regarding the relationship between warfare and the media... the peak is, of course, that quote at the end:

James Bradley: "I finally came to the conclusion that he maybe he was right maybe there are no such things as heroes maybe there are just people like my dad, I finally came to understand why they were so uncomfortable being called heroes. Heroes are something we create, something we need. It's a way for us to understand what is almost incomprehensible, how people could sacrifice so much for us, but for my dad and these men the risks they took, the wounds they suffered, they did that for their buddies, they may have fought for there country but they died for there friends. For the man in front for the man beside him, and if we wish to truly honor these men we should remember them the way they really were the way my dad remembered them."

Especially in our society, where the word "hero" is constantly being exploited and politicized for every possible agenda, this quote makes the film essential viewing for anyone who doesn't grasp how "heroes" are manufactured or what their true motivations actually were...

Ultimately, I'd say Clint Eastwood crafted a phenomenal film that people might discuss while it's still in theaters, but I doubt anyone will walk out of the cinema with empty heads like they did after Ryan, where all that remained was just the impressive visual spectacle...

Scott Sanders2 said:You can't even put this movie in the same conversation as Ryan. Production-wise, Ryan was flawless, but it wasn't really an anti-war film nor did it dig deep into the actual mechanics of combat—it was more of an action drama wrapped in American kitsch.
The film in this thread belongs to an entirely different category... I wouldn't say it was gripping while I was watching it, but it succeeded brilliantly in conveying the core themes of the book, which still feel relevant today regarding the relationship between warfare and the media... the peak is, of course, that quote at the end:

James Bradley: "I finally came to the conclusion that he maybe he was right maybe there are no such things as heroes maybe there are just people like my dad, I finally came to understand why they were so uncomfortable being called heroes. Heroes are something we create, something we need. It's a way for us to understand what is almost incomprehensible, how people could sacrifice so much for us, but for my dad and these men the risks they took, the wounds they suffered, they did that for their buddies, they may have fought for there country but they died for there friends. For the man in front for the man beside him, and if we wish to truly honor these men we should remember them the way they really were the way my dad remembered them."

Especially in our society, where the word "hero" is constantly being exploited and politicized for every possible agenda, this quote makes the film essential viewing for anyone who doesn't grasp how "heroes" are manufactured or what their true motivations actually were...

Ultimately, I'd say Clint Eastwood crafted a phenomenal film that people might discuss while it's still in theaters, but I doubt anyone will walk out of the cinema with empty heads like they did after Ryan, where all that remained was just the impressive visual spectacle...

I'm right there with you. 👍

I’d also throw in that the mainstream media has mostly just ignored the film, probably because Clint did such a killer job calling out those hypocritical "anti-war" movements—the kind that, back in 1944 and even today, hide behind the "we're for peace" slogan to basically advocate for the US staying out of the tribal infighting of "savages" on other continents.
Who among us actually knew—aside from the folks who are looking for it—that "public opinion" in America back in 1944 was largely for pulling troops out of the combat zones because everyone was just "tired of the war"?

Clint showed the true face of the Hollywood liberals and the media establishment—and that's exactly why they're giving him the cold shoulder. They aren't stupid; they know exactly who this movie is really talking about.

Hats off to you, Clint Eastwood. 😘

I’ve sat through both of them. Honestly? They’re both absolute masterpieces!
There is just something about war movies that hits differently—they’re in a league of their own.
If you ask me, the Oscar for Best Picture should have gone straight to Letters from Iwo Jima!🙏

I've just been sitting here wondering if I should actually go wait at the theater or not🤔

Personally, I’m stoked they finally made a war movie (haven't seen Flags of Our Fathers or Letters from Iwo Jima yet) where the fighting isn't the only thing holding the whole thing up—and don't get me wrong, I respect the classics, I'm not saying they suck.
Of course, I'm talking about the "good" ones everyone loves, like Apocalypse Now, Platoon, or even Saving Private Ryan, which I know some people here can't stand!
What I loved about Flags of Our Fathers is how they show the soldiers as just regular guys caught up in the mess, whether they wanted to be or not, just doing their jobs.
Then you've got the politicians back home playing them like a fiddle, using them until there's nothing left and then basically saying "bye bye, forget about them."
But hey, it came out at an interesting time, much like Jarhead, with 75% of Americans wanting the war over and Bush being even less popular than Nixon; honestly, it kind of bothers me when they use WWII as a way to critique today—that was a different era, a war that absolutely HAD to be fought, if for no other reason than that. Thank God for Americans.

Emily Ramos said:Personally, I’m thrilled they finally made a war movie (haven't seen Flags of Our Fathers or Letters from Iwo Jima yet) where constant combat isn't the absolute foundation—and look, I mean that with all due respect to the classics; I'm not saying they're bad.
Of course, I'm talking about the ones everyone considers "the good stuff"—Apocalypse Now, Platoon, even Ryan, which some people here don't seem to care for!
In Flags of Our Fathers, what I loved most was how the soldiers were portrayed as just regular people caught up in the whole mess, whether they wanted to be or not, just doing their jobs.

...I'm no huge war movie buff, and I haven't actually sat down with Josh's flag yet... but didn't Malick pull off something similar in The Thin Red Line? To me, that’s the ultimate anti-war film because it really follows the soldiers as just regular guys who get sucked into a war without any clue what's coming for them. Even though people have different takes on it, it's pretty clear nobody expected what they got (well, maybe Nolte's character did)... and honestly, even with Ryan opening with such a bloody scene and leaning a bit more into the fighting—since Spielberg clearly wants to show the horror of war more rawly than the poetic Malick does—at the end of the day, the film prioritizes values over just pure combat.

Larry Martin11 said:...I'm no huge war movie buff, and I haven't actually sat down with Josh's flag yet... but didn't Malick pull off something similar in The Thin Red Line? To me, that’s the ultimate anti-war film because it really follows the soldiers as just regular guys who get sucked into a war without any clue what's coming for them. Even though people have different takes on it, it's pretty clear nobody expected what they got (well, maybe Nolte's character did)... and honestly, even with Ryan opening with such a bloody scene and leaning a bit more into the fighting—since Spielberg clearly wants to show the horror of war more rawly than the poetic Malick does—at the end of the day, the film prioritizes values over just pure combat.

That’s all true and totally fair :grižnjasavjestizbogzaboravljanjathinredline:, but I feel like those movies aim for something else. War psychology is obviously on a whole different level than something like 12 Angry Men or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but in Flags of Our Fathers, that seems to be the core. Even during the combat scenes, I kept thinking, "Damn, why is war so pointless? Why are people like this?" instead of just "Kill those Japanese guys!" It was like being in that village at the end of Saving Private Ryan.

And that bloody opening in Ryan isn't something you can just psychologize away—that beach landing was probably the most intense and necessary assault in history.

Thank God we’re actually making unbeatable war movies now—that way we can finally tear apart the ones made by people who aren't even close to our level...🍿

talking about pathetic:
Donna Hughes80, who's that in your avatar? And Ronald Bishop, who's the guy you named yourself after... 🤣

Sandra King86 said:talking about pathetic:
Donna Hughes80, who's that in your avatar? And Ronald Bishop, who's the guy you named yourself after... 🤣

A bad day?
Are you trying to start a little flame war just to boost your mood?
Go ahead then. 😍
No, it’s not Crichton—though I only know one Crichton, and I don't see any connection between him and my totally random, made-up username...
Be a sweetheart and tell me what the joke is? Clearly, I'm missing something here. 😢

...well, she's asking Ronald Bishop (look above, right under the topic starter 🙂) who 🙂 was named after, and as for you—who's the Jack in your avatar? 😉

Good grief, I went and got all defensive immediately—acting like a total madman toward her 😬 . My apologies, Sandra King86, and Larry Martin11, thanks for being so kind. 🙂

That’s Jack Nicholson in the photo, by the way. 😉

edit: just re-read what I wrote... man, I can be such an idiot sometimes. 🤣

Does anyone happen to have the subtitles for "Letters from Iwo Jima" lying around?
English or American?

Just finished watching 'Letters from Iwo Jima'... honestly, it missed the mark for me. Something about the whole thing feels off—way too many clichés and plot resolutions that just don't land. I caught the trailer for 'Flags of Our Fathers' while I was at it, and now I'm seriously doubting if I'll even bother watching that one.