Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Letters from Iwo Jima Comes Out on DVD May 22

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yes, my main problem is not that atrocities happened on both sides. I have no doubt that some Marines here and there took revenge in one form or another on the Japanese prisoners. My main beef is the almost casual way it was depicted by the director. He could have gotten the exact same effect by having a mortar drop from out of nowhere and in the chaos the Marine accidentally shoots the prisoner. The Japanese would have stumbled on his body, and they would have still thought the Americans killed him...BUT the big difference is that audiences today would have seen it was a misunderstanding. Instead, audiences everywhere come away thinking ALL Marines treated their prisoners just as badly as the Japanese...and therefore everyone says "oh well, both sides had "incidents" and it is regrettable."

    The movie has 120 minutes to give the flavor of the battle. That 30 second scene was intended to counterbalance the scene with Iggy. The message is that there were no good guys and no bad guys. That's what drives me nuts about this. It was totally irresponsible to portray the Marines in that light. Hell, it is one of only 2 times in the whole movie the Americans are even shown talking...and HALF the time they are killing prisoners.

    It makes me more and more mad the more I think about it.
    Our forefathers died to give us freedom, not free stuff.

    I write books about zombies as E.E. Isherwood. Check me out at ZombieBooks.net.

    Comment


    • #17
      Well, if nothing else a Letters from Iwo Jima did the job of making people sit back, think and react to the movie if nothing else.
      Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

      "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

      What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

      Comment


      • #18
        Yes, my main problem is not that atrocities happened on both sides. I have no doubt that some Marines here and there took revenge in one form or another on the Japanese prisoners. My main beef is the almost casual way it was depicted by the director. He could have gotten the exact same effect by having a mortar drop from out of nowhere and in the chaos the Marine accidentally shoots the prisoner. The Japanese would have stumbled on his body, and they would have still thought the Americans killed him...BUT the big difference is that audiences today would have seen it was a misunderstanding. Instead, audiences everywhere come away thinking ALL Marines treated their prisoners just as badly as the Japanese...and therefore everyone says "oh well, both sides had "incidents" and it is regrettable."
        Whether audiences would understand all of the nuances of the Pacific War or not, I think that they should show the "utmost savagery" that defined the conflict. The Japanese were brutal and exceedingly cruel, but we paid them back in kind and gave them what they deserved. I think the comical character in Dead Presidents who collects VC heads would actually make for a more realistic image (not dialogue) for a Marine fighting in the Pacific, as we did use their heads for decoration from time to time.

        Unfortunately, both movies fell way short of my expectations were not that high to begin with. In the 'making of' commentary, the screenwriter admits that she has a vendetta against these United States because she had a grandmother who reaped the whirlwind during the Tokyo bombings. Well I hope that the stupid witch who wrote this gets AIDS to begin with and maybe gets stuck under a burning car, but I also hope that the Chinese get to put their side of the story into celulloid with the bombing of Xian, Chunqing, or anywhere else where the Japanese terror bombed for the sake of terror bombing, mass murder, and emperor-worship/racial junk science influenced genocide.

        Neither movie made the scale of the battle seem anywhere near realistic. I felt as if I was watching various skirmishes from a quiet part of Cape Gloucester and not the definitive battle in Marine history. 27,000? Watching either of these, I would believe more like 1,000 and a bunch of ships (since we Americans are such cowards to have such great production, after all). The scene of prisoner bayonetting is also anti-American because it actually justifies the bayoneting and denigrates the dead Marine. The Japanese shout "You wanted to burn us alive?" and the American Marine, of course, shouts "Please no!" Every account I've read had the Japanese screaming something along the lines of "Blood for the Emperor!" "Die <white> pig!" "Shinei! Shinei! Shinei!" or things like that, and Marines yelling back "F___ the Emperor!" or something equally beligerent, or stoicly said nothing at all, since we knew very well what the Japanese would do to prisoners (much better than the Army who abandoned their wounded to be mutilated). The Marines also shoot the Jap prisoners simply out of laziness and not because of the heat of battle. Marines who killed and beheaded the Japanese did so for revenge, not out of innate American weakness or laziness. Thanks Tokyo-Clint, for perverting a war movie to erase the time we proved the big mouthed enemies all over the world wrong. Then there were the imbecile American officers at the fancy dinner - this wasn't so much a slam on Marines or American fighting quality, but it did have, just like the equally vitriolic Flags of our Fathers, have lots of big, stupid women with fake southern accents (TM).

        Overall, thumbs way down and a request for Hollywood to just stop making movies about Marines completely.

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X