Seriously! The people who call this movie inaccurate aren't watching it carefully. The thing is Iwo Jima is a Japanese island with no natives or any others there so if Clinton Eastwood showed scenes of Japanese torturing or raping innocents then that would be historically inaccurate. Since there aren't any natives to beat or rape there. Also if you think this movie doesn't show the cruelty and strictness of the Japanese during the war. The punishments the soldiers received for showing unpatriotic feelings toward the war or even disobeying orders is enough to prove cruelty especially with that one officer ordering the dog to be killed. Anyway this movie has to be once of the greatest war movies I've ever seen in my life. It's rare for film makers to make a movie showing the opposite side of the war. The sad storyline and dialogue is enough to make you cry. The acting is strong in the movie although I thought the actor who played Saigo's friend was a bit too Western than WWII. Clinton Eastwood does it again and I like the directing too. This is a lot better than "Flags for Our Fathers." Which I honestly thought with no harsh feelings to Mr. Eastwood was a bit lousy and kind of stupid. 10 stars all the way with Letters from Iwo Jima.
Review of Letters from Iwo Jima
Letters from Iwo Jima
(2006)
What's with the stuff about inaccuracy in the film? This is a good movie!
14 February 2009