What happened to Letters from Iwo Jima? (updated)

Douglas Hanson
The much-anticipated (or so we were told) sequel to Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers premiered in a limited release on December 20.  Letters from Iwo Jima was filmed with the intent of providing the Japanese viewpoint of the ferocious and pivotal battle in the Pacific in February of 1945.
"Limited release" in this case turns out to be very limited; the film has been shown only in the LA and NYC markets, with wider releases scheduled for January 12, 2007 and January 19, 2007.  Despite the typical fawning reviews from the entertainment press, the public's response to Letters has been, to put it mildly, less than encouraging even factoring in its early showing to the biggest cities in Blue America.

As of today, Letters has only grossed  a miniscule $116,000.  Around my neck of the woods, first run films usually go for about $8.00.  This translates into roughly 14,500 viewers over a nine day span.  I imagine the admission price in LA and NYC would be higher, so the number of filmgoers would be even lower in these two areas.  Also, one would think that the trailers for the film for its impending general release would be hitting the local airwaves by now.  So far no previews have been shown in the eighth largest city in the US.

Eastwood first installment about the Iwo Jima battle was a confusing jumble of flashbacks, hackneyed comparisons to the Vietnam War, and overall was a lame piece of propaganda based on revisionist history.  Perhaps the American people are finally getting wise to having the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation, and the tenacity of their foes, twisted into politically correct absurdities.

Update:

Iris Yamashita writes: 

First of all, the article "What happened to Letters from Iwo Jima?" is incorrect about the public response to the film.  If Douglas Hanson had done his homework, he would have looked at the readily veiwable box office charts and would have seen that it only opened in 5 theaters.
If you look at the average per location grosses, he would have seen that "Letters from Iwo Jima" had the BIGGEST per screen take over the weekend at $24,509--more than double the per screen take of the number 1 movie "Night at the Museum" which only had a $11,445 average. 

Second of all, why even write an article about a poor performance of a movie even if it had been accurate? 

I know respectable, non propaganda publications would post corrections to erroneous articles, but I'm certainly not holding my breath on this one.

Editor's note: If sneering reader Yamashita had done her homework, she would note that American Thinker publishes corrections whenever errors are called to our attention. She would also have known that Douglas Hanson had previously written about the other Eastwood film. To paraphrase her, we are not holding our collective breath waiting for her to apologize for her unwarranted aspersions.
The much-anticipated (or so we were told) sequel to Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers premiered in a limited release on December 20.  Letters from Iwo Jima was filmed with the intent of providing the Japanese viewpoint of the ferocious and pivotal battle in the Pacific in February of 1945.
"Limited release" in this case turns out to be very limited; the film has been shown only in the LA and NYC markets, with wider releases scheduled for January 12, 2007 and January 19, 2007.  Despite the typical fawning reviews from the entertainment press, the public's response to Letters has been, to put it mildly, less than encouraging even factoring in its early showing to the biggest cities in Blue America.

As of today, Letters has only grossed  a miniscule $116,000.  Around my neck of the woods, first run films usually go for about $8.00.  This translates into roughly 14,500 viewers over a nine day span.  I imagine the admission price in LA and NYC would be higher, so the number of filmgoers would be even lower in these two areas.  Also, one would think that the trailers for the film for its impending general release would be hitting the local airwaves by now.  So far no previews have been shown in the eighth largest city in the US.

Eastwood first installment about the Iwo Jima battle was a confusing jumble of flashbacks, hackneyed comparisons to the Vietnam War, and overall was a lame piece of propaganda based on revisionist history.  Perhaps the American people are finally getting wise to having the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation, and the tenacity of their foes, twisted into politically correct absurdities.

Update:

Iris Yamashita writes: 

First of all, the article "What happened to Letters from Iwo Jima?" is incorrect about the public response to the film.  If Douglas Hanson had done his homework, he would have looked at the readily veiwable box office charts and would have seen that it only opened in 5 theaters.
If you look at the average per location grosses, he would have seen that "Letters from Iwo Jima" had the BIGGEST per screen take over the weekend at $24,509--more than double the per screen take of the number 1 movie "Night at the Museum" which only had a $11,445 average. 

Second of all, why even write an article about a poor performance of a movie even if it had been accurate? 

I know respectable, non propaganda publications would post corrections to erroneous articles, but I'm certainly not holding my breath on this one.

Editor's note: If sneering reader Yamashita had done her homework, she would note that American Thinker publishes corrections whenever errors are called to our attention. She would also have known that Douglas Hanson had previously written about the other Eastwood film. To paraphrase her, we are not holding our collective breath waiting for her to apologize for her unwarranted aspersions.