Liberals worldwide are forcing 'Letters' to upstage 'Flags'

Nonsense. First of all, who cares about ratings, that's not a definitive marker of anything but popularity. The box office numbers, that amounts to the same thing. As far as I can tell, the reason Letters was more popular than Flags is because it is more unique, a least on the surface; a Hollywood film about WW2 from the perspective of the Japanese. The perspective of America and the allies isn't exactly new territory, even though Flags did have a lot of heart and less gratuitousness compared to other WW2 films. I remember people calling Flags too liberal as well, so no matter what, Eastwood couldn't win with those people.

And I saw nothing whitewashed about the movie. Neither this movie nor Letters is trying to be about politics nor morality. Yet even in Letters, the cold blooded fascism of the Japanese regime is clearly shown. It's not hidden; couldn't be if somebody tried. This is about individuals, about the human condition more than anything. But it's not trying to apologize for anybody through them, either. If you saw it this way, that's your prerogative.

what the hell are you talking about? This posting makes no sense...

I agree with the response to your post by distant_skies. First off, you make it sound as though Flags was somehow "entitled" to be a better film than Letters- Just another casualty of liberal, revisionist political correctness. I own and enjoy both films but I can't say which one I like better. But that's just my opinion. Have you considered that maybe Letters really WAS the better of the two movies?

Honestly, WWII movies from the American perspective are in surplus. I applaud Mr. Eastwood for bringing something new to the table: a story about the other side.

bottom line is... Letters is definitely a more entertaining film than Flags is.

-Letters From Iwo Jima = 7/10 (it's solid and i liked it but i feel it's overrated at it's current 8.0/10 average rating. a mid 7's would have been plenty)

-Flags of our Fathers = 6/10 (no higher for sure (maybe a 5.5). it's also overrated at it's current 7.2/10. i feel a mid 6's would have been more than enough. Flags is basically a poor mans 'Saving Private Ryan' (1998) (10/10))

and generally speaking... 6/10 or lower = Thumbs Down. 7/10 or higher = Thumbs Up.

p.s. for the record... anything that's a 7.x/10 is NOT a low rating as i think 6.x/10 is typically in the average but decent range. so for a film to have a 7.x/10+ range i would say is a good rating to have.



----------
My Vote History ... http://imdb.to/b5rrNh
----------

'Letters' outgrossed 'Flags' for the simple reason that it is a much better film with a far more engaging storyline that offers a unique perspective of the war that audiences don't typically get. As war movies go, 'Flags' is a very disappointing piece of work. Part of the problem lies in the fact that, at heart, it isn't really a film about the war, but a tale about the men who did (or didn't) raise the flag on Iwo Jima. There are so many more American-focussed WWII out there, most of them far better done, i.e. 'Saving Private Ryan' and the TV series 'Band of Brothers'. There was also an excess of tiresome sentimentality and too much pandering to the 'War is Bad' school of thought (We've already been told this 100 times over in a 100 different war movies), as well as a misguided preferance for a disjointed form of narrative that made the run of events quite hard to follow for the casual viewer. 'Letters', by contrast, was something truly original, possessed characters who had real chemistry and sought to tell a simple but important story through the means of linear narrative.

People do realize both movies were made by the same director, right?

Eastwood won on both counts. Both movies dealt with WW2 but both movies are from two different perspectives. I haven't seen Letters yet but wanted to because I thought it was an interesting idea to make two movies about one thing from two different perspectives.

Saw Flags and thought it was really well made. And it wasn't too liberal, it wasn't about being liberal or republican. It was about what's most important is the people in your platoon and that you are there for one another. And also about that these three men didn't think they deserved the honor that much and that it was about the people that died and are still over there that are the heroes.

I can understand why the OP or other folks might consider both of these films (though I haven't seen "Letters..." yet--tomorrow. I can only take one harrowing movie a night)"liberal". I'm guessing that both are quite anti-war in their sentiments, and I congratulate all the filmmakers (especially dear Clint) on making a film from the "enemy's" point of view. Empathy seems to be a difficult emotion to feel for many (but not all, obviously) "conservatives" I know.
Having not seen "Letters..." yet, I can only imagine it's quite magnificent, considering the criticisms of "Flags..." in comparison. I thought "Flags..." was fantastic, no matter how difficult to watch it was. Terrific portrait of PTSD, and if you watch it more than once, you will understand and appreciate all the flashback nightmares both Ira and Doc experience. It is indeed linear, in a brilliantly realized flashbacky kind 'o way. No, it's not for the popcorn-munching crowd (I love popcorn, myself). It does require a second look (at least for me), and that second look is most definitely worth it.
I can't wait to watch "Letters..."!!! :-)

[deleted]