 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.235.81.32
your time though Eastwood is ham-fisted as a director. He's saved by a very good story, excellent acting, and sharp editing.
SPOILER:
From watching this film, one gets the impression few Americans were killed on Iwo Jima. Instead, it was a major Marine killing field.
Follow Ups:
...as a set.'Flags of Our Fathers' first, from the American perspective.
And then 'Letters from Iwo Jima' highlights the same battle from the Japanese perspective.
comment referred to the rather obvious fact that SOMEONE was killing all those Marines. The scale of the film but more importantly the activities of the Japanese which resulted in so many American casualties laregely are absent.
The wave after wave of suicide charges, for instance, are not shown, only hinted at and my impression was it was small-scale. Not so.
Also, there is no glee when successful attacks, which was the case in the beginning, occur. We know that's inaccurate, too.
Eastwood made some decisions to do all in his power to make the Japanese sympathetic but in doing so, he used the "knife" too widely, resulting in lopping off key organs of his creation. These were not Japanese scum but rather elite fighters. Have you ever seen an American film where the Marines all sit around looking sullen and defeated before or during even the most fearsome, impossible struggles?
No.
Like I said, good performances and not much else.
I disliked Flags. After about thirty minutes, this heavy-handed movie had made its point, and then proceeded to make it again, and again, and again, AD NAUSEUM for the next hour--i.e., the real heroes died fighting on the island, and the GIs touring the country raising war bonds weren't the real heroes. The U.S. government was prostituting these men.The flashing backs were distracting and tired.
Finally, there was very little combat in the movie, and what little there was wasn't done well. At least Speilberg in SPR well depicted the horror of the Normandy invasion.
I don't know what invading these Japanese islands was like first hand, but my father, who was a Master Sergeant in the army, fought the Japanese for four years in the Pacific theater. I remember him telling me that the U.S. navy had laid a heavy bombardment before the Army went ashore on Leyte. Yet when the army hit the beach, it was as if the enemy hadn't been softened up at all (presumably because they were deeply dug in and protected in the caves).
Why wasn't the horror of these landings depicted accurately? That wasn't the point of his movie? It would have been a better movie had the landing been portrayed in its full horror. Then we would better understand the sacrifice of the Americans who fought in the Pacific.
Yes, I know, it wasn't meant to be a typical war movie, but whatever it was, I think it missed the mark.
At least Eastwood tackles some films on good issues. He does overkill stuff and that was my big problem with both movies. They could have been each 1/2 as long and put together into 1 two hour movie.
ee
would have been better filmed as such. The outdoor scenes were on such a small scale. A few dozen extras. Made the enormity of the battles seem miniscule. The special effects were terrible, i.e. the ships massing in front of the beaches. Cookie-cutter cutouts. Ditto the bombers.
Two major faults, yet the film held together and because of the strong performances, it was worthwhile.
A couple of other problems: many, many Americans died on the island but we get very little actual killing of Americans by Japanese. Yes, it would have created an almost impossible barrier for the film to overcome but by omitting it, the entire movie rings quite false. We never find out how many days have passed. The length of the stand is important for a true realization of the ferocity and commitment.
"A couple of other problems: many, many Americans died on the island but we get very little actual killing of Americans by Japanese."Not having seen the film, I can only speculate that the reason for this was because of Eastwood's intent was to view the events through the eyes of the Japanese. Certainly brave, even at this point in time. The Japanese version of events on Iwo Jima would likely be different than the U.S. version. The deaths certainly occurred, but to the Japanese, the deaths were likely not the story and the focus of Iwo Jima as they would be to the U.S. I understand that Flags of our Fathers was the same story from the American perspective, and I suspect was more detailed in the deaths that occurred.
I didn't get the impression that few Americans were killed. It felt about right. In the battle about 4,100 Americans were killed and 20+ thousand Japanese were killed.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
But from the Japanese perspective if they had 20k troop spread over the whole island in cave networks then no one of them or small group of them was really privy to the overall scale of it.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
