Leterrs From EE!Whoa! Jima

Official Post Number Four
"Letters From Iwo Jima"
-Sam Leishman

I'm not too caught up in the world of Clint Eastwood. I've never seen any of his Spaghetti Westerns, and I've somehow avoided seeing most of his directorial efforts. But I am quite familiar with the concept of Clint Eastwood. I'm familiar with the fact that he's probably among the top twenty icons of the twentieth century, and I'm familiar with the fact that he's always there at the end of the year, with some new oscar bait for his ever-populating Acadamy Award shelf.

Now, I haven't seen both sides of his Iwo Jima epic, but I heard that "Letters from Iwo Jima" was vastly superior to "Flags of our Fathers." And "Flags" wasn't playing anywhere else, at least not the three theaters that I've got free tickets for.

"Letters" is being hailed by loads and loads of critics as "The Best Movie of 2006." And while it is quite good, here's a list of films that are better:

Little Miss Sunshine
The Departed
Children of Men
Borat!
Jesus Camp
Thank You For Smoking
(I'm sure there are more that I haven't seen, just based on what critics have said such as: The Queen, The Last King of Scotland, Babel, Little Children, Dreamgirls, United 93, etc.)

Again, "Letters" is in no way a bad movie, but it is oscar bait at its finest. That is: 1. A drama. 2. In subtitles with an American director. 3. A War Movie.
4. Relatively Formulaic.

It plays out like a lot of war movies do, and I wasn't expecting it. I actually went into the movie expecting to be moved and to come out of the theater saying, "Wow, I worship Clint Eastwood and have a newfound respect for the Japanese in World War II." I try never to expect these kinds of things because there's always that chance of being let down. I wasn't extremely let down, but wasn't blown away. And for a movie to be called the best movie of the year, it's got to blow me away. I don't know, maybe it's just a fluke.