Reviews

The Endless Trench takes place during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) and its very long aftermath. The Franco regime received military and other aid from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in the civil war, and supported the Axis Powers materially until 1945. Afterwards, it gradually maneuvered itself into favor with the Western Allies through the time of Franco's death in 1975. However, until a general amnesty in 1969, it continued to vigorously root out and punish or execute various political enemies.

Some of Franco's political enemies were known to have hidden out over long periods to avoid arrest. Based on some real events, this is the story of one such man, Higinio (Antonio de la Torre), and his wife, Rosa (Belen Cuesta). Higinio, on the Republican side, is pursued at the beginning by fascist soldiers and manages to evade them, but instead of running off further he returns, so as he can hide out while remaining with his wife.

The two main actors did a nice job, and the focus was always primarily on them. There were no third or fourth principals, only secondary actors. The story revolved around Higinio and Rosa, who are tailors, and the movie achieved sentimentality between the two.

The difficult life Higinio led constantly trying to hide out in two residences (they switched to the house of Rosa's father-in-law) was developed well, and some tough moments were shown. Most intense was when neighbor and civil guard Rodrigo watches in secret after Rosa leaves and manages to see that Higinio is there. (Rodrigo blamed Higinio for the death of his brother.) Rodrigo knows the inner alleys and methods to break in, and Higinio is obliged to hide in a small closet and see a threatening Rodrigo through a keyhole. Luckily, Jaime, the son he had with Rosa over this time, was able to intervene.

Earlier, Rosa had been raped by a Gonzalo, a civil guard and customer, and Higinio was forced to watch with inaction (at first). There was doubt as to who Jaime's father was, but Rosa declared him their son. Later, as a student apparently in his teens, Jaime accuses his father of being a coward for hiding out, adding to Higinio's torment. More subtly this was an issue with Rosa too. (It is interesting that the screenplay has Higinio isolated almost right after the war started as opposed to near its end in 1939.) But Higinio did suffer; the miseries of his food and toiletry limitations, along with hygiene and dress, were displayed.

When the general amnesty comes in 1969, Higinio finally emerges from his literally closeted life. But that is as a movie of 2 hours and 27 minutes ends. For almost all of that to be in the orbit of Higinio's hiding in the houses is more than I can bear without becoming bored. I think I also have less tolerance vs. Other people for activity in a movie in dark background, whether it be sex or violence that one cannot see well or general movie action that is difficult to see and understand. The directors here certainly had their share of darker scenes.

So my main thought is, what could have been put in to add more action? Shortly after the movie begins, in a discussion Higinio has with his Republican "comrades," he tells them as he lectures them that bullets are not supposed to be used and landowners and Priests left alone. I guess a convenient set-up of good guys vs. Bad guys, but really, Republicans did that sort of thing too.

Does this preliminary info mean that things are clear and some opening action showing what happened and what Higinio was doing need not be shown? No.

There is an early exchange between Rosa and Isabel, Rodrigo's wife.

Rosa: "I mean that you could say it was a mistake - and take his name off the list." Isabel: "A mistake? He made the mistake when he burnt down what he shouldn't, huh?" Rosa: "Burnt what? Isabel: "Barcenillas hermitage belongs to the Carmelite nuns... Rosa: "It's not true... He may have his ideas, but he's not violent. Isabel: "What did he do when they killed Gonzalo's brother? He...didn't do or say anything, and he was a councillor." Rosa: "Isabel, go home."

In other words, there is still some doubt about Higinio's degree of culpability. This also is suggested later, in an exchange between Higinio and Jaime. Regardless, adding this action would have livened the movie up.

Another thing that would have helped would have been to show Franco's police capturing one or more Republicans and doing something to them, showing effect on their families, so to give the viewer an idea of what Higinio might face if caught. A brief sub-plot perhaps, and Higinio becoming aware of and discussing it. Or a few shorter dialogues and scenes, for the same purpose.

Finally, Jaime's political activities could have been shown more in their own right, rather than mainly just showing him bringing home a colleague and having his general conflicts with his dad. Perhaps enough to make him at least a semi-main character rather than only a secondary one.

Instead, the directors chose to have the obligatory gay scene as two gay mean take over the house for a while, reaching an agreement with Higinio. That is just how it works today regardless of LGTB issues being irrelevant to the movie's main points. This could have been cut, and little parts of other scenes could also have been, to add up and make room for more action.

In my mind, there is nothing inherently wrong with making a comedy film about a deaf man and a blind man. Sure, people having those conditions deserve sympathy. But the notion of a movie about two such people leading somewhat reasonably effective lives that has comic elements resulting from the lack of functionality of hearing in one and eyesight in another is not objectionable to me if it clearly does not mock contemptuously those affected by the conditions. The humor is in the events that occur, theoretically. But the excessive foul language and much else about this movie that was not funny made it come up short.

I enjoyed Blazing Saddles very much and Young Frankenstein quite a lot; I like slapstick. But I did not think Gene Wilder (Dave) was nearly as funny here, although he did not write the script. I do not have much experience with Richard Pryor (Wally), but did not think he was that funny in this movie as the blind man. But the writers of the screenplay, not they, are responsible for the excessive swearing.

Some scenes were humorous. The basic idea of the common-folk, handicapped duo set off against two slick, cool moneyed types (Joan Severance, Eve; Kevin Spacey, Kirgo) was neat. Wally's Dave-aided fight with the bully in the bar toward the beginning was decent. The final scene with a duel between one Blind Man (Wally) and another was well-conceived and executed. Also good was when Dave is hesitant to hit Eve because she is a woman, Wally's sister Adele (Kirsten Childs) clocks her and says "I had brothers." Was the part with Dave popping up and down on a car roof after dislodging the emergency brake funny? Sort of, not that much. Same with Wally driving fast and blind; causes understood, but the bulk of it kind of silly. As was the two of them stranded on a garbage barge in NYC. I add that the excessive emoting between the two there and elsewhere did not do it for me; that stuff serves non-comedies (when not overdone).

A problem was that some of the wit behind the deficiencies in Dave's hearing and Wally's sight was not always immediately perceptible to the viewer; e.g., at the beginning of the movie it was not immediately discernible that Dave could read lips, and how well or not well. Another problem was in the beginning sequence, all the back and forth of the wrongful arrest, bail, witnesses, and interaction with policemen was far-fetched, stretching even if they were deaf/blind. Just go along, I guess. Similarly, with the shower scene with Eve, was it really likely that she would stick her head out of.the shower like that and not notice Dave? Makes it not work.

The worst part in my view was the whole part about Wally posing as a Swedish gynecologist (Dave was a German doctor) and everything to do with it: The exchange with the hotel check-in clerk; the silly accents; Pryor's screaming the solution for the repressed woman was (common gerund swear word) and fake breakdown at the convention (and later saying another swear word insulting to females); and the dialogue with and reactions of the refined convention crowd. I could not stand watching it.

When critics do not like a movie but the public does, I often agree with the public. Here, I understand the critics did not like it. I agree.

.

Any viewer of this film will simply go home with images of only a few people outshooting huge amounts of German soldiers. No characters are really interesting, just some attempt at presenting some wholesome American boys with pretty, not rugged, faces. The Russian collaborators in the action looked a bit more tough; they similarly always succeeded in the combat. I am aware there are other films that present excessive scenes of protagonists gunning down German soldiers with little or no damage, but this was to the extreme in the sense of the degree to which they were always wide open to the Germans, and were often surrounded or semi-surrounded, so would obviously be hit, you can only shoot so many at the same time. And running from machine gun fire always resulted in escaping being hit, ludicrously. It was laughably stupid. Where the movie also failed was lack of exposure to the viewer about the Nazi plans for Argentina; what were the roots, what the plans were. None of the enemy had any character development. Oh well, one of the female protagonists was pretty and shot 'em up as well, and there was one nude scene.

In recreating Tintin novels for a movie, Spielberg faced a difficult challenge. Did he succeed?

I think Spielberg made a good try, particularly in the early scenes. The depiction of the story locations the Old Street Market, 26 Labrador Road, Marlinspike Hall, and aboard the "Karaboudjan" ship made me feel I was in a Tintin book in a fair attempt. Snowy's chase of the cat was right on point with one and more actual occurrences in Herge's books.

But recreating Tintin in another medium for more than 100 minutes is a big task. As one other commentator on this board put it, the panels in the Tintin books are uniquely stylized, and this raises two questions. First, can they be recreated on screen, and second, if not, can Spielberg do anything that in its own way equals Herge's stylization -- artwork, dialogue, atmosphere, action, progression -- in terms of magnitude of achievement?

My answer in both cases is no. Except for the first three not-fully-developed (and sometimes silly) Tintin books and the last, with its mediocre story, to me, there is nothing like Herge's accomplishments with Tintin. It is hard to think of anything that will grip a reader more. Tintin books are so fully absorbing, unique, and compelling in storyline, atmosphere, and drawing detail that I do not think they can ever be matched on film, by Spielberg or anyone else. Even if Spielberg literally copied the dialogue, art, and panels, something would be lost with the film continuum as opposed to separate panels in the books. But no one is going to do that anyway, which leaves me to declare only that no one who makes a Tintin film with his own touches is ever going to match Herge. This is different from, say, taking something that was based only on written prose such as The Godfather, the story of Gordon of Khartoum, and the Seven Pillars of Wisdom and putting it on the big screen (incidentally, "Lawrence of Arabia" will always be No. #1 with me on visuals). Yes, you can outdo prose and some drawing in terms of dramatic impact and entertainment (although some will subjectively say, a written format was still better for them).

Having said that, I have a positive comment on the visuals. I went into this movie expecting overfast, confusing, and bloated action scenes because that is the trend of today. It is true of standard movies with regular people, so with a 3-D, motion-capture, computer-animated adventure movie, I certainly expected even more, as the norm. I am happy to say, I did not find anything overdone until the falcon chase scene and the final conflict, starting around 1:20. Otherwise, I found enough breathing room and thought the action scenes were fitting when measured against the action-packed Tintin books themselves. Starting at the very beginning with "Tintin in the Land of the Soviets," we know that the series will have a lot of wild rides, escapes, and chases on land, sea, air, and under water, even in outer space, as well as frequent fighting and combat, plus slapstick.

The portrayal of the characters themselves I consider separately. Herge's Tintin was incorruptible and had character, poise, and heroic qualities. However, it is not an original comment to say he did not have much personality, as compared with, say, his basically equal co-hero Captain Haddock, Professor Calculus, Bianca Castafiore, and others. But should we demand Spielberg deviate from this and give him more personality?

I suggest yes, some embellishment could have been done. There could have been some introspective discussion between Tintin and Haddock, for example, or Tintin could say more and emote more, or some inner thoughts of his could be revealed. He could even express his likes and dislikes for food or products or have hobbies. Perhaps it was decided that with this first film, which also captures the first meeting between Tintin and Haddock, not much would be done, but embellishment of Tintin's personality is a possibility for future films. In any event, I and others would welcome such an effort.

As for the complaint that linking Captain Haddock to the bottle was overemphasized vs. the Captain as a person, I felt this a little on the first watch, but on the subsequent watch, I said not really. For one key thing, he even lectures Tintin on not giving up, reversing roles that were displayed in several different Tintin books (including two cases in which Tintin used the bottle to change the Captain's mind). I also note that the two books this was based on, "The Secret of the Unicorn" and "The Crab with the Golden Claws," were the ones in which the Captain's whiskey and rum-guzzling were most prominent. So I cannot find much fault here, and even in other books, his drinking is always a theme.

I also had no problem with the inclusion of Bianca Castafiore, though she is not in either of the two books on which the film was (mainly) based. Her persona and physical appearance added something, and Spielberg's engineering of a voice for the glass-shattering Milanese Nightingale complemented Herge's genius. Captain Allan, Haddock's ancient rival, could have been given more personality. The absent Professor Calculus? Ready for the sequel. As for Thompson and Thomson, I thought Spielberg, using wit, actually managed to make them even more dense and bumbling in their quest for the pickpocket than in Herge's "Secret of the Unicorn."

All in all, a good effort by Spielberg, but I hope to see improvements in characterization in other Tintin films by him or whomever.

"War Horse" is a wonderful movie. Not too many movies are able to entertain and, at the same time, depict at length the cruel and exploitative mistreatment of animals in war, and it stands out for this. But it is the storyline that is the strongest point. Take it from someone who does not accept sentimentality from typical modern "character" movies like "Godfather II" or "Pulp Fiction." I'm into nice people, not sleazy ones. For me, the sentimentality of "War Horse" works, all the way. The viewer is removed from overcomplicated, convoluted movies of the Hollywood of today to a simpler world. In spite of the horrors of the Great War, "War Horse" is a movie of optimism and hope.

Albert Narracott is a boy who lives in Devon, England, before World War I. His father Ted overpays for a thoroughbred horse to be used as a plough animal, and young Albert becomes close to the horse, "Joey." When the crop from a ploughing job is destroyed by the weather, Ted is forced to sell "Joey" off to the armed forces, but Albert, who himself later goes into the military, hopes to get Joey back some day.

Joey's circle of experiences during WWI are great and terrible. The throwback world of a century ago that is presented still receives, for its war scenes, the modern fast, furious, and overdone treatment characterizing modern action movies. Then there is an exaggerated sequence in which Joey is entangled with barbed wire over a long haul, and dubiously survives. But that is compensated by the beauty of the countryside of northeastern France and the warmth of the characters in the movie. Admittedly, sometimes I got confused with accents as emitted here. Joey's sojourn with a young French girl and her grandfather is touching, but does his not sound like a German rather than French accent? Similarly, Albert's mother seems to have an Irish accent, and their home and some of the surroundings seem to evoke Ireland more than England. But you know it is England with the local folks' support for their country when the war breaks out.

What was particularly pleasurable to watch during "War Horse" was the depiction of the high level of civility and respect for human feelings, setting aside the general plight of animals in war. For example, there is the sensitivity of War Horse's new owner — Captain Nicholls — toward Albert. He promises to care for the horse and return him after the war to Albert, who so loved the horse. Later, the officer feels compelled to write Albert about how wonderful Joey is looking. Much more transpires before we reach the ending, which is really moving, highly evocative. The wonderfully sympathetic scenes between horse and humans are in stark contrast to the crassness and lack of sensitivity in today's society.

"War Horse" is enjoyable, moving, and visually beautiful in its depiction of the strong bonds that can develop between humans and horses, even during times of turmoil and war. I am an animal lover; my wife is not a horse lover, but this film turned her into one.

"Pink Panther 2" is not a great movie, but it is not as bad as some say. A new villain, The Tornado, snatches away the Pink Panther diamond. But The Tornado has also swiped other big-name treasures: The Magna Carta, The Shroud of Turin, and the Emperor's Sword. It is an international "Dream Team" of detectives, not just Inspector Jacques Clouseau, who investigate. Joining Steve Martin (Clouseau) are some accomplished actors: Andy Garcia plays (very well) Italian businessman Vicenzo, Alfred Molina is British inspector Pepperidge, and Yuki Matsuzaki is Japanese electronics expert Kenji. The odd lady out, and a very key person, is the exotic and very pretty Sonia (Aishwarya Rai). She is an expert on criminology and, specifically, The Tornado.

***The following may contain spoilers***

Martin is no Peter Sellers. The Englishman ever had poise and charm as Clouseau: Something about him fit so well into a French policeman's uniform or a trench coat. Sellers carried himself well when not tripping over something, and when he did, he seemed oblivious. His manner of speaking was deliberate yet natural: sophisticated, arrogant, comedic aplomb, if you will, and one reason he was funny was that he was almost always serious. Martin's Clouseau is also egotistical and certainly has presence, but not the same poise. He is too goofy. He is taller and gawkier, older, and more nervous. He also gets depressed when he screws up. Martin is fairly funny when he engages in French-to-English mispronunciation dialogue, but I take Sellers' smooth manner over Martin's verbose. In fairness, part of the problem is the script. Attempting to make the movie funny, the screenwriters concocted a substantial amount of cheap lines, especially politically incorrect dialogue and behavior, for Martin, having him contradict his political correctness mentor Mrs. Berenger (Lily Tomlin) by ogling women and making a bad joke about his "yellow" friend Kenji and sushi. He embarrasses a comrade in front of others by saying "I'm sorry you cannot satisfy your wife," and of his secretary, he says to a group of detectives: "Nicole is here to service your needs...use her in any way you wish." The low sexual humor, of which there is plenty, is not always terrible; but if you go there, limit it and assign it to characters other than Clouseau. Blake Edwards' Clouseau had wit, not cheap humor, including in romantic situations.

As for the slapstick and other humor, it is often predictable and silly. In a less-than-stellar scene at the film's beginning, Clouseau bumbles a parking ticket issuance in a hint of more forced humor to come. Still, there is enough here for viewers to laugh at and enjoy, exerting the right to relax. The same restaurant is accidentally burned down twice by guess who [?], and Clouseau has a meeting with the Pope that ends up with Clouseau encountering some fearsome heights. There is a lot of crashing, bashing, and banging; at some point, this is overdone. Vicenzo and Chief Inspector Dreyfus (John Cleese) have a few good moments of humor. An encounter between The Dream Team and a falsely accused Tornado (played by Jeremy Irons) is fairly funny. This is one of a few moderately good twists concerning The Tornado and those in the villain's orbit.

My favorite aspect of the movie is the romantic tension between Clouseau and his sweetheart of a secretary, Nicole (Emily Mortimer). She is the most compelling person of the film. Finding it difficult to express their love for each other, Clouseau and Nicole still feel it, and this makes for a good climax (seriously, no pun intended). Nicole is very beautiful and so is Sonia, who has a sexier look and, for a while, eyes for Clouseau.

But the reality is that the overall script does not match the four great "Pink Panther" works. In the original series of movies, things started going downhill in "Revenge of the Pink Panther" (and continued much further in the follow-ups without Sellers). Sellers could not salvage "Revenge," in which there was too much klutzy humor including overuse of Cato. But Cato fighting is better than fighting with a colleague's young karate kids, as Martin does here. Overall, the silly overrides the witty or sophisticated in "Pink Panther 2."

Various elements of this movie make it worth seeing, but this does not include the Last Stand itself, which is poorly done, a big disappointment. It fails in every category. After Lieutenant Colonel Custer (Robert Shaw) returns from giving testimony in Washington, he abruptly tells Captain Benteen (Jeffrey Hunter) and Major Reno (Ty Hardin) of the three-way march against the Sioux and Cheyenne that will take place, and the Seventh Cavalry takes off. There is no captivating dialogue. The scenes are rigid, unorganized, uninteresting, with no substantive interpretation of the cavalry's movements. The death of Custer is done in a pathetic, historically inaccurate attempt at dramatics that completely backfires. The viewer is left with no sense of drama or legacy of the battle. Still, the rest of the film is interesting. It represents a good effort at capturing the real-life chemistry of Custer and the flavor of the period's conflict between whites and Indians in the Midwest/Dakotas.

**The comments below may contain spoilers**

Custer is not portrayed like the hero in "They Died with Their Boots On." Instead, the portrait of Custer in this film seems close to the truth. "Custer of the West" was made only two years before "Little Big Man," during the Vietnam War. But it is not a satirized Custer that is presented; rather, it is a straight-shooting one. Robert Shaw plays Custer the glory hound, the one who desires action, the military man who will execute his duties without regard to whether they offend one's sense of ethics in mistreatment of Indians. He is a cold, rigid, hard-ass person. He takes over his camp with a preoccupation for discipline in the face of lazy soldiers who want to feign diseases when Indian-fighting duty calls. Major Reno is put down for his well-known alcoholism, and Custer makes clear to Captain Benteen he does not care about Benteen's sense of honor toward the Indians. It is an historical fact that Benteen hated Custer and refused to aid him when Custer requested help at The Battle of the Little Bighorn ("Custer's Last Stand"). This film seems to want to explain why.

Would you really find the person described in the previous paragraph interesting? Libby Custer (Mary Ure) is worked into the movie more than incidentally, but nowhere are the inner workings of the man explored, with her or anywhere else. Shaw's Custer is an impersonal Custer, without much in emotions. Still, as he is cast, Shaw puts on a good performance, and I disagree with some of the commentators on this board who say he displays an English accent. He sounds American.

The early parts of the film have a number of scenes involving good action, with some imagination, and wide-open-space cinematography. Whites are encroaching on Indian land; they are interested in mining and railroads. Indians attack railroads and stagecoaches and, at one point, a large white settlement celebrating Independence Day. Custer has a couple of minor skirmishes with the Indians. In one, he pursues the Indians across a desert and attacks them from below the rock face they have scaled in their retreat. As for major action, Custer's Seventh Cavalry, on orders from General Phil Sheridan, attacks and destroys Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle's village in the Battle of the Washita River, in Kansas. General Sheridan had been Custer's Civil War commander and long-time patron, and he was the one who gave Custer his post in the Dakotas. He calls Benteen a "bleeding heart" for being sympathetic to the Indians. Sheridan claims he has told all his officers "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." The real-life Sheridan claimed he never said that. Regardless, it is an historical fact that he was contemptuous of the Indians, and his attitude represented the mindset of the time. In the battle, The Seventh Cavalry kills not only Black Kettle and numerous warriors, but many women and children. Director Robert Siodmark holds back nothing in presenting what occurred in Custer's only major engagement against the Indians before the Last Stand.

The most important scene of the film occurs after this battle. It, rather than the Last Stand, encapsulates the movie. A Cheyenne Indian visits Custer's HQ to ask him about his intentions, as Custer correctly perceives. Custer makes it clear he is not a moralist. He is not in a position to make the substantive decisions, he is an officer in the army, and will obey orders. If that involves trampling the Indians in violation of some ethical notion, so be it. Custer tells the Indian the problem is that the whites are more advanced than the Indians. He tells him that the Cheyenne were stronger than tribes from whom they took land, so they can expect the same from the whites who want their land. Later, the writers try to acquit Custer a little bit by 1) his remarks that the railroad being built will just lead to trouble from the Indians and complaining about what the Indians have to put up with and 2) his testimony in Washington on Indian Bureau corruption that the "Indian Problem" is the fault of the policymakers. This is historically true; according to Custer's testimony, corruption in the granting of Western post traderships and various other dishonest dealings were cheating Indians as well as the U.S. Cavalry. However, although the film presents miners intruding on Indian territory, it does not treat Custer's personal interest in gold mining.

As I previously observed, I think "Custer of the West" is worth seeing in spite of the Last Stand's being poorly done. It would be most interesting for people who know some of the history surrounding Custer's post–Civil War life and the conflicts with the Plains Indians leading up to the Last Stand.

"Letters from Iwo Jima" should go down as an all-time classic — like "The Seven Samurai" and "Tora Tora Tora," as well as the best war films not involving Japanese, such as "Paths of Glory." It is an Oscar-worthy effort by director Clint Eastwood, far surpassing "Unforgiven" in artistry and scope. (Whether you agree with Newt Gingrich and put "Sands of Iwo Jima" near the top of your list, who knows — I thought "Sands" was good but not great, with hats off to John Wayne.)

As a three-year resident of Tokyo, I know more about Japan/Japanese than most, and I can relate to the humanization of the Japanese soldiers here. "Letters" is highly evocative all the way, but what also makes it great is that it is well-edited. In 2 hours and 20 minutes, it provides little in wasted scenes and self-absorption. Although I thought it dragged a bit while watching it, I later realized virtually all the scenes had meaning. Even the masterpiece "Lawrence of Arabia" (yes, much longer, but "Letters" is also longer than average) had, arguably, a little excess. As for self-absorbed, I won't even get into "Borat."

By lack of self-absorption, I mean that while "Letters" continued to dwell on the emotional makeup of the Japanese military personnel and civilians, it did so in a steady way, showing various aspects of their character, without monotony or pomposity. It brought out certain themes and variations, highlighting differences in chemistry among Japanese. Indeed, the most striking memory from "Letters" is how the individuals (including civilians and women) were so human and so different, in contrast to the machine-like image of the Japanese military. I would not have killed that dog, either.

The film presents a chronological story of the battle, with flashbacks and flash-ins to areas other than the battlefield. It treats Japan's feeling of hopelessness in 1945 and what was left of the rationale for defending to the last man. The knowledge of the Japanese soldier that to fight on means likely death contrasts with the realistic feelings of American marines that their chances of returning home are good. The film portrays the overwhelming material superiority of the Americans, what this looked like to the Japanese (including the bombing preceding the battle), and how it was manifested in the American success as the battle progressed (and as the Japanese ran out of food). It also shows the elaborate tunnel system the Japanese defenders created after realizing a stand on the beaches was impracticable.

Ken Watanabe plays the lead character, General Kuribayashi. He has a thoughtful, independent-thinking defensive strategy, but also feels the conflicts of duty and reality. Kazunari Ninomiya is Saigo, the film's most prominent ordinary soldier, who is not a fanatical samurai type. He is a person with some fear who questions the hard-core military spirit, is concerned about his pregnant wife, and hopes to be home someday. As warranted, the hard-core military spirit was present too, in the persona of Lieutenant Ito (Shido Nakamura).

Basic to the film is how the soldiers' plights — and destinies — affected their feelings and in turn those of Japanese spouses and other civilians (reference the title, based on the poignant letters from the Japanese soldiers to home). Their letters are balanced by a scene in which a wounded U.S. marine is captured and later dies. "Sam" converses with Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara), gold medal winner in equestrian competition at the 1932 Olympics, after the Baron orders his wounds treated. (A flashback had shown Baron Nishi with American officers and their wives at an elegant gathering before the war.) As Nishi relates to Sam his experiences with Americans, and after he reads a letter from Sam's mother, also poignant, found on Sam following his death, we are reminded not to generalize about atrocities on either side in a war. Some Japanese in the film had thought Americans were savages but discovered we weren't, and this was juxtaposed with the realization of some Japanese that U.S. marines at Iwo Jima were not cowards but had displayed bravery and military skill. There is a scene in which some marines have two captured Japanese POWs on their hands who are expected to hurt the marines' logistics on the mountainous terrain, making the Americans sitting ducks, and the prisoners are therefore executed by one of the soldiers. Is this an attempt at being "politically correct"? I cannot read Eastwood's mind, but one could see it partially as excess in a movie made from the Japanese perspective and partially as an emphasis on the horrors of war and what can result when survival is thought to be at stake.

The Japanese soldier was a tough foe his U.S. counterpart. "Letters" focuses on different perspectives of the willingness to fight to the death in a losing cause. The film suggests some Japanese thought fighting on would add time value to Japan's situation, while others carried on as a point of honor. "Letters" also raises the issue of whether running away in a hopeless situation but being willing to fight on in another area of the battlefield should be seen as cowardice or simply good strategy.

Clint Eastwood directed "Unforgiven," and it won an Oscar as the Best Picture, perhaps on passage-of-time sympathy, for many think it was not Oscar material. (I have not seen "Flags of Our Fathers," so cannot comment on it.) Letters from Iwo Jima is Oscar material, and I hope it wins Best Picture.

Possible spoiler

I did not like Field of Dreams for a clear-cut reason: Nothing happened in the movie. It was saccharine sweet without substance, and the empty ghost players at the end, so what? I am a big baseball fan, but Kevin Costner's forte is not baseball movies, witness also For Love of the Game. Let's have a real baseball movie with a good story, like The Natural for fiction, or for nonfiction sentimentality, just watch The Pride of the Yankees or The Jackie Robinson Story. Field of Dreams is nothing but a big bore. For Shoeless Joe, check out Eight Men Out, which captures his soul, not his shell.