Flags of Our Fathers

[Bourne101]

http://www.independentcritics.com/images/flags%20of%20our%20fathers%20POSTER.jpg

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Genre: Action/War/Drama

Tagline: A Single Shot Can End The War

Plot Outline: The life stories of the six men who raised the flag at The Battle of Iwo Jima, a turning point in WWII.

Starring: Ryan Phillippe, Paul Walker, Ken Watanabe and Jesse Bradford.

Rated R for sequences of graphic war violence and carnage, and for language.


I think I will see this in theatres, but I won't have too high expectations because by the trailers, it looks like it could go either way.

[SheLizard]

I'm so looking forward to this. I think Eastwood is a great director for this kind of movie, and if the trailer is anything to go by, I'm going to love it. I was just blown away by the trailer - visually it looks amazing, and i can tell just from that, that this'll be an emotional film.

I've been reading the reviews that have started to come out, and it looks like there is a good balance between the big, epic war story, and character moments.

[Mentiroso]

Im not really looking forward to this. I mean I like the actors, I love the director. Just not sure if the story is going to get it for me or not. I might check it out though on a lazy sunday just for fun in the weeks after it opens.

[DareDevil]

I am going to see Flags this weekend, I hope it's good. I personally hated Million Dollar Baby, which is weird because Mystic River was my favorite movie of 03. Clint Eastwood as a director is hit and miss, some of his efforts have been pretty bad, where on the other hand he has made a few masterpieces. I am anticipating Flags of our Fathers though and I would expect this film to fall into the ladder.

[NightStalkerGtx]

Mystic River= BAD

M D B- TERRIBLE

Flags of our Fathers- ...

[Lazy Boy]

I hated Mystic River, but I found Million Dollar Baby to be one of the best films of 2004, deserving of its win for Best Picture.

Now, as far as the Eastwood roller coaster goes, my interest is plummeting in this the more I read about it. It sounds solidly crafted, but I think it's going to be admired more than loved. Or, could I be wrong?

[Strider]

^^^^

No, I think you have a point, Lazy. I'm not terribly interested in Flags of Our Fathers either. The trailer is "meh," and the story, unfortunately, sounds dull. That being said, I will see it, but only because of the director and my liking of his last two features.

Strider

[ilovemovies]

Mystic River was great. Million Dollar Baby, however, was just good.

Alas, based on the trailer, I think this looks like another Million Dollar Baby. Good but not great.

It doesn't looks like one of Eastwood's great movies like the aforementioned Mystic River or his 1992 western masterpiece, Unforgiven.

Hopefully this is just a case of an underwhelming trailer though and it does turn out to be GREAT.

[SheLizard]

See, I think Eastwood is a really good director, I've liked all of his movies so far, and I think he'll actually handle the subject matter of this well - I'm sure it'll be a great war movie - I feel like it could rival Saving Private Ryan in that regard - in addition to a solid character piece.

I mean, I'm assuming a lot of people don't know what happened on Iwo Jima or when they all came home - I work near the Iwo Jima memorial here, and I don't, really - it'll be a good story to see what really happened to those guys (and educational for me!)

[Beenthere]

Saw it yesterday. Watched with the press and veterans. My thoughts (some minor SPOILERS);













I liked the battle scenes and they're very close to Saving Private Ryan's in brutality and impact. Told in flashbacks. The story of "making and forgetting heroes shortly after" is solid but seems a little over melodramatic and even boring in pieces but in general the mixed dosage of sadness and cynicism works quite good. And present. Seemed overlong and not necessary.
And what Paul walker was doing in this movie I have no idea. Maybe his hero was heavily cut. It's very strange.

B+

Prescreening rocks!

[Shockwave]

Im REALLY looking forward to this( i loved MDB and Mistyc River), but i really dont think itll top THE DEPARTED........maybe.

[Moviefan02000]

I do want to see this, but I'd be lying if I said my anticipation is growing by the day. In fact, it's actually decreasing. Poor reviews are really killing it for me. I'll still see it, but with lower expectations.

[blankpage]

I think this one looks excellent. Clint has been growing on me as a director, and I have complete faith that he can continue to produce quality work. I'm a sucker for a good war movie, and I think this one will find it's way to my end of the year top 10.

[Tweek]

Can't freaking wait.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

He's done some great stuff. Unforgiven was breathtaking, Mystic River was great, and Million Dollar Baby was really good. Flags of Our Fathers looks like a pretty typical war flick, though.

[bob]

This film looks completely uninteresting to me. WWII has been done to death...hey Clint, how about a film about how disillusioning Vietnam was? That should be almost as obvious as a story about the many meanings of heroism in WWII.

And on top of that, it looks schmaltzy....I really think the rest of Clint's movies will be made to win Oscars. I'll definitely skip this one.

[Shockwave]

Eastwood has yet to let me down.

I thought Mystic River and MDB both looked "blah" and wound up loving them.

[The FamilyJulas]

I'm skipping it

[dfd3657]

I love Eastwood, but I may wait on this one. I haven't been hearing super great things about it.

[Borris]

Saw this last night at a press screening. Good film very worthy of a best picture nomination. It is the first movie that I've been to in a long time where everyone (over 400 people) remained in the theatre in silence throughout the entire credits. And there was nothing overly special about the credits other than photographs taken at Iwo Jima. It is a good film, but beware if you are uneasy about seeing war violence in film. Some of the battle sequences are on par and sometimes out do the opening segment of Saving Private Ryan. Flags is often times very graphic, but it is a great story that any fan of this genre will appreciate.

[Scorpio24]

Unforgiven = Masterpiece
Mystic River = Great
Million Dollar Baby = Great


As for this. I really have no expectations becasue it's a film I have absolutley no inkling of wanting to see it. I hope it isn't to mushy or tub thumping. I'll wait till I watch the Oscars and then feel compelled to watch it as it walks off with all the awards

[dellamorte dellamore]

It's the annual , obligatory Eastwood oscar bait film . The film looks boring , melodramatic , sentimental , and manipulative , with a slight sense of pandering going on , to the patriotic sensabilities of certain people . Why don't they just put the " for your consideration " scroll under the bottom of the screen during the opening credits , cause that's all this film is , with a tired heroes of ww2 angle to lend it more credence . Every year , a new crop of films come out trying to kiss the academy's ass , and every year the studios release the checklist films , the films that have to have certain elements in order to pander to the academy , and every year , we get over praised tripe . And why do ww2 battle scenes always have that sped up frame rate / sepia tone tint to them , can someone please try something diff with that aspect of war films set in this time period .

[bob]

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
It's the annual , obligatory Eastwood oscar bait film . The film looks boring , melodramatic , sentimental , and manipulative , with a slight sense of pandering going on , to the patriotic sensabilities of certain people . Why don't they just put the " for your consideration " scroll under the bottom of the screen during the opening credits , cause that's all this film is , with a tired heroes of ww2 angle to lend it more credence . Every year , a new crop of films come out trying to kiss the academy's ass , and every year the studios release the checklist films , the films that have to have certain elements in order to pander to the academy , and every year , we get over praised tripe . And why do ww2 battle scenes always have that sped up frame rate / sepia tone tint to them , can someone please try something diff with that aspect of war films set in this time period .

Those are my impressions of the film exactly. Hopefully I'm proven wrong, but I doubt it.

[Tayzlor]

Why do we assume Eastwood's making this movie for the Oscars? Nevermind that he has several, but just because this is the type of movie the Academy usually jumps for made by a man the Academy usually jumps for doesn't mean it's reason for existence is the Oscars.

Heroism (or the absence of) has been a common link throughout Eastwood's acting and directing career so it makes sense that that would be a major theme of one of his movies. Eastwood made not be a Certified Auteur but there are some commonalities.

It doesn't look too interesting though. From first glance it does looks like a retread of past WWII movies and I'm sure there's plenty overlap. But remember that Eastwood's last movie did appear to be a Rocky retread from the marketing to at least 2/3 into the movie, so maybe Eastwood and his screenwriter have some of the unexpected to unleash.

What's infinitely more interesting though is is Japanese war movie. It's just really great that he made that movie and didn't stop with the patriotic American one. I don't think the Japanese side of events has been portrayed on the level in a major American production, and,with Clint helming it people will be more inclined to see it (subtitles and all).

Has anyone heard anything about the release date for "Sands of Iwo Jima"?

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by Tayzlor
Has anyone heard anything about the release date for "Sands of Iwo Jima"?

I read something about February, but don't hold me to that. I may have to find the exact source.

[blankpage]

Yeah, I heard February as well. I read on Moviefone and a couple other sites that the exact release date is Feb 9th.

[donna542004]

I am not big on war movies. Even thou I am big on history of wars and other historial happenings.
Donna A.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by Tayzlor
Why do we assume Eastwood's making this movie for the Oscars? Nevermind that he has several, but just because this is the type of movie the Academy usually jumps for made by a man the Academy usually jumps for doesn't mean it's reason for existence is the Oscars.



I agree. But I don't think ANY filmmakers make a movie just for oscars. That's why I the term oscar bait has always been absurd to me.

[max]

I couldn't even sit through the trailer without yawning and picking my nose.

[Tayzlor]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
That's why I the term oscar bait has always been absurd to me.

I think that term just expresses a feeling of the movie's marketing.

I'm wondering though, and I don't think is absurd, if Warner is releasing Eastwood's Japanese movie as Oscar promotion for "Flags". It's February release date coincides with the ballot casting and "Iwo Jima" doesn't stand so much a chance on the Award show front when committees have the option of an American version.

[Tayzlor]

Originally posted by max
I couldn't even sit through the trailer without yawning and picking my nose.

The same could be said of your post.

I have a short attention span, sorry.

[max]

The same could be said of your post.

I have a short attention span, sorry.

Whatever. (Try picking your nose through that!) ;)

Anyway, I just feel Clint is the most overrated director working today. Those AMPASS-kissers probably wouldn't hesitate to give him the Oscar just for the trailer alone.

[Lemmywinks]

If this is anything like mystic river or million dollar baby.....count me the fuck out.

[SheLizard]

Originally posted by Tayzlor
[B]Why do we assume Eastwood's making this movie for the Oscars? Nevermind that he has several, but just because this is the type of movie the Academy usually jumps for made by a man the Academy usually jumps for doesn't mean it's reason for existence is the Oscars.

I agree - I think it's probably more likely that Eastwood decided to make the movie just because he thought it would be a good story. Eastwood's directing style is usually something the Academy loves, true, but to me it's always seemed that he's done the movies his done because he's got a particular story that he wants to tell.

I'm still really looking forward to seeing this movie this weekend. I trust Clint to handle it well, and to tell a good story. And, of course, the critics raving about it don't hurt ;)

[Monotreme]

Mystic River is one of the most powerful and depressing movies of the past decaide and one of the best of 2003, and Eastwood totally out-directed himself with Million Dollar Baby, which I think is a masterpiece and second best of 2004 only to Eternal Sunshine. It deserved all its Oscars. This looks like it may be his most ambitious project yet. Unfortunately it's only seeing a release over here in 3 weeks or so, and until then I will patiently anticipate it, as well as its sister film, Letters from Iwo Jima (no release date yet, unfortunately... I'd also love to see some promotional material for it).

[JayB18]

I just got back from seeing this film and I thought it was excellent. I didn't find the film unfocussed or confusing like some reviews are saying and thought the shifting timeline worked well. It is easily my favorite film of the year so far and one of my favorite war movies. It did the book justice for a 2 hour movie. As the movie ended several began walking out but stopped when images of the actual people and Iwo Jima flashed on the screen during the credits. Everyone in the theater watched in silence throughout the entire end credits. This was a moment I will never forget. 10/10

[cfdemarco]

Just got back myself...I thought it was very good. A large focus on the mental tole the war took on the soldiers, similar to Jarhead in that regard...but quite a bit of action as well.

I'd give it a 9/10

[BigRedNeck]

I just got back and I really liked it.

[Shockwave]

..im shocked at how much i liked it, i thought i was all war-movied out.

I saw a very late night showing, im going to wait till morning to post anything that resembles a review.

[RandalGraves]

Very good war film! The only flaw in my eyes was that the ending dragged and shouldn't of been so long.

[BigRedNeck]

I can't wait till next one comes out.



Letters from Iwo Jima (2007)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498380/"

[tlc3377]

Saw this opening day. My thoughts:
The flashbacks got a little annoying after awhile, but was essential to the film so I understand the use.
I agree with whoever said the ending was too long. It felt like they could have easily done that with line notes before the credits.
Adam Beach is deserving of an oscar nom for this one. You can see the hurt in this guy's eyes and actions. He plays Hayes to a tee.
The 1 scene from this film that sticks in my mind:
When they're at 1 of the dinners in their honor. A waiter sets down some kind of cake that's a replica of the flag raising, then proceeds to pour red strawberry sauce over it. That right there to me spoke volumes about Iwo Jima period.
I also noticed that people started to get out of their seats when the film ended. However, once the credits and pictures rolled, everyone stopped in their tracks. All eyes were glued to the screen, some with tears flowing.
Oscar nominations for sure for this 1.

[ilovemovies]

The ending does go on too long. Infact all of the current day scenes were completely unneccessary and actually hindered the movie. And the final monologue given by the Ryan Phillippe's character's son is atrocious. It's preachy and sappy and wasn't needed. It actually made me snicker a little.

But that aside this is a very good, occasionally great movie. The battle scenes were gripping and the aftermath were compelling and involving. Jess Bradford's character is the least developed of the three but Bradford is really good. So is Phillippe. He's really come a long way in his career. He's no longer just a hearthrob but a very solid actor now. But the best performance, the absolute most moving performance comes from Adam Beach. Beach gave a strong performance in another war movie a few years, the underrated Windtalkers. But as good as he was in that movie, he's even better here. Towards the end of the movie when he breaks down and talks about not being able to take being called a hero was an incredibly moving scene. Beach deserves to get an oscar nomination here.

There is a solid supporting cast with some good actors making appearences, some of them surprising to me. For instance, I always loved Gordon Clapp on NYPD Blue and it was nice to see him here, 100% different from what he was like on NYPD Blue. And there are some nice turns as well from the likes of Neal McDonough, Robert Patrick, Barry Pepper and Paul Walker.

The movie looks amazing. The cinematography is astonishing. The production design is superb.

It's funny that I watched this movie right before The Marine. The Marine is an embarrassment. It's cartoonish. It's sloppy beyond belief. But here, in this movie, the violence means something. There are really ugly scenes of violence. It's like Munich in that the violence is really ugly and horrible. And to compare it to another Steven Spielberg movie, the battle scenes are visceral and gripping as they were Saving Private Ryan. Eastwood's movie isn't quite on that level. But at it's best, which is quite often during the first two thirds, it comese extremely close.

[arto_j]

I liked Flags of Our Fathers somewhat, but it's not a great movie. Like some people said, the modern day scenes are really quite bad, especially the ending that drags on forever and doens't really add anything. The whole bit about the author is completely redundant and just plain horribly written.

The war flashbacks work really well, and so does the promotion tour plot, but only for a bit. It gets pretty tiring after a while, and after a certain point doesn't really add anything of importance to the themes of the film.

As for the acting, Ryan Philippe is the only one of the main three who stands out, he really does give a good, restrained performance. Beach has a meaty part, but he overacts too much and botches it. And Bradford doesn't really do anything at all, he gives one of the emptiest lead performances I've ever seen in a big film like this. The supporting players are great across the line though, Robert Patrick, Neil McDonough and co. are all very good.

All in all, it's a fairly good movie with thought-provoking themes, but it seems to repeat the same points over and over, and the acting simply isn't good enough to distract from that. Gorgeous cinematography and a good score help the film a lot, but it's got some mortal weaknesses that bog it down a lot.

6/10

[dman476]

Excellent points Arto and ilovemovies. I totally agree. :)
But it was fairly entertaining at times (and don't get me started on the gorgeous set-designs and cinematography).
I'd give it about a 6 or 7/10.

[Fisting Ackbar]

MINOR SPOILERS








I'd argue that the worst part of the modern day scenes is at the beginning, when the old guy is on the stairs chanting where is he, where is he. Starting off on such a wrong foot, it's hard to be brought back into that time era, especially when the Iwo Jima scenes are so compelling. Eastwood's use of shadows during the modern scenes however (like he used in MILLION DOLLAR BABY), was excellent, most noteworthy the way the son remains in the dark while he's interviewing folks.

Gotta agree with some of the other flaws mentioned (awkward time shifts, overlong epilogue). The arrival at Iwo Jima was spectacular though, and the disappearance and ultimate fate of a particular character was chilling. Acting was a mixed bag; Jesse Bradford had the same smile throughout the show, and while Adam Beach had charisma, his crying moments reeked of overacting. But no faults on the rest of the cast (this including Paul Walker!).

Good, not great, but still happy I saw it.

7/10

[RandalGraves]

Just picked up the soundtrack for this flick...very good st!

[bigred760]

This movie deals with so many aspects of war that it kind of gets bogged down in all of it. It mixes politics, the action itself, patriotism, and after effects of being in battle. Although Eastwood mixes it all very well, using flashbacks and cool editing tactics - it's still a lot to take in at the end.

All the elements are tied together by a photograph - the famous photograph of U.S. soldiers planting an American flag on a mountain on Iwo Jima. The movie opens with the photograph being recognized as one that could help the war effort through patriotism, promotion, and press. From there the movie takes us through different timelines and flashbacks. We see soldiers getting ready for battle on Iwo Jima, the surviving soldiers who were in the picture promoting the war effort, and what happens to the soldiers during and after the flag planting.

Along the way, we get a sense of the politics behind the war, the effects of the photograph on American pride, and how the soldiers felt about being called heroes. For most of the movie, we're following Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, and Adam Beach as they're fighting in WWII and touring the U.S. promoting the war effort as the heroes in the famous photograph. When we see them at war, we meet a lot of characters whose relationships with the future heroes are relevant to the movie. When we see them back in the States, we see them deal with each and the politics of supporting the war. It is a good character study, but not the best Eastwood as made.

The ending does drag out too much where the movie shifts from a movie about the photograph and its history to what happens to the heroes themselves. It becomes a movie about heroes and how heroes can affect a country and its patriotism. Eastwood has made an interesting war movie with good characters but a little too many elements to follow. The performances were good, but nothing special, and I think it's a good movie to watch if you want to learn a little about a historical event.

7/10

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by bob
This film looks completely uninteresting to me. WWII has been done to death...hey Clint, how about a film about how disillusioning Vietnam was? That should be almost as obvious as a story about the many meanings of heroism in WWII.

And on top of that, it looks schmaltzy....I really think the rest of Clint's movies will be made to win Oscars. I'll definitely skip this one.

Vietnam was done to death too.

Vietnam was the war that, unfortunately, the Soviets won. The hot part of Cold War.

Nobody died for nothing in the battle against the Morons from the Evil Empire. However, the stubborn sympathizers of the first Socialist country in the World will definitely disagree.

Thank you.

[c.k.clark]

Overall a very good film. Although it has several action scenes that is not the focus of the movie which is nice. I think the modern day scene could of been cut down or gotten rid of total. The worst was the ending. After on showing a few seconds or a minute or two here or there to come back and spend the last 10 or more minuets made it drag. Not the best Eastwood film but not the worst by a long shot.

[Bourne101]

Wasn't sure if I should see this. The reviews were good, some even excellent, but I still wasn't sure. Well, I just said fuck it. Borat wasn't playing and I'd pretty much seen everything else. So I gave this a shot. It was a truly excellent movie!

The directing by Clint Eastwood was top notch and Oscar worthy. Not quite as good as Mystic River, but still very good. Adam Beach was outstanding in his role and although mabye not Oscar worthy, his performance is definitley in the top 20 of the year. All the rest of the performances were good, but after a decent performance in Running Scared, Paul Walker didn't get any screen time at all. I was looking forward to see if he could pull off two in a row, but I didn't see enough of him to rate his performance.

There is a good mix of action and drama, I never really felt bored, although it did drag along a little bit towards the end and could've been about 10-15 minutes shorter.

I recommend this movie if you haven't seen it yet. Definitley worth a view.

9/10