[Doctor Raoul]

The final lines of the movie repeat the refrain from "Black Hawk Down," "Saving Private Ryan," and other recent war movies: Ultimately, they fought for each other, not for a cause or a country.

That is a Hollywood deconstruct. Piss on Eastwood, I've changed my mind about going to this movie.

[PhatHead]

That is a Hollywood deconstruct. Piss on Eastwood, I've changed my mind about going to this movie.

FWIW, Eastwood is an Army vet himself (not combat) and has been a Republican, as well. I think (within the framework of Hollywood..) he is a decent guy.

The bias most seen in Hollywood, among the artists, as opposed to propagandists (and I think Eastwood is among the former) is a bias towards the personal. Sometimes, as in war movies especially, they tend to overlook the extent to which individuals can be motivated by patriotism, duty and even history itself. They get too caught up in the personal. It's not necessarily inaccurate - after all, there can be no denying that men fight for their comrades- but it is distorted to pretend there is no other motivation. I have not seen this movie (yet) but I know the Hollywood meme.

Anyway, that is my defense of Eastwood, who I expect has given respectful treatment to the story, based on the book by one of the Marines' sons, as well as to history and to America. I look forward to seeing the film.

[muawiyah]

Of course they fought for each other. That's what always happens in combat troops.

And if they don't the army loses and the nation goes under the yoke of oppression by the victorious enemy.

[Sprite518]

Bingo... This movie sounds like another hit piece on America. Eastwood by the way is no longer a conservative. He use to be. I think his brain has rot since he has been in Hollywood too long.

[truth_seeker]

Doctor Raoul has NOT sen the movie, but says:

"Piss on Eastwood, I've changed my mind about going to this movie."

While on the other hand, truth_seeker DID see the movie. And why anybody would make such a profane remark about Eastwood, without seeing his movie is beyond my rational comprehension.

The movie is good, not the best. My Dad was a Marine that landed and won a Purple Heart at Okinawa a few weeks later. Didn't much want to talk about combat.

I have great respect for these troops, and I believe Eastwood portrayed them in a respectful and honorable manner. That was the point of the movie.

[driftless2]

The movie was a huge letdown. Eastwood didn't have to make a flick laden down with jingoistic sentimentality. What he did was worse. He made one that number one didn't retell the story of how the Marines took Iwo Jima and number two he made one that was overly sentimental in a liberal feelgood way. I guess if they would have advertised it that way, I wouldn't have felt so disappointed. It's not a war flick like "The Longest Day" and others like it.

Eastwood could have shown both the entire battle and the remorse of the soldiers who took part but he chose to devote just about the entire flick to the remorse and guilt felt by the flag-raising Marines on their post-Iwo bond drive. I saw so much of the bond drive sequences that I actually fastforwarded the movie to get through them. Too bad. Eastwood had a great opportunity and blew it.