Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The first of director Clint Eastwood's two films detailing the battle for Iwo Jima from the perspective of both armies, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is a watchable but hardly life-changing movie. The problem is that it follows too closely the pattern of other recent war epics like WE WERE SOLDIERS and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; the battle scenes are filmed in the same washed-out ways with earth exploding over the camera and soldiers getting shot all over the place. The problem is that it's all been done before, and better, so the film loses some of its impact that would have resulted from alternative ways of shooting or different ways of showing the battle. Saying that, the film is far more interesting when it details the effects of the battle on three survivors who end up touring the USA in a bid to drum up some fund-raising for the war effort. I've never liked Ryan Phillippe very much but the other actors are very good, especially Adam Beach who steals the show as the Native American conscript who ends up becoming a drunk, unable to deal with what he's been through in the name of war.The film is well directed, with a good script and music and excellent photography. The story is wide-ranging and the only thing that seems a little hokey is the quality of the CGI effects which is questionable in places. It tells an interesting story, but the familiarity of that story works against it and, aside from Beach's character, Eastwood fails to drum up any sympathy for his protagonists. They're pretty much interchangeable, they could be anybody out there fighting, and even though the likes of Barry Pepper, Jamie Bell, Paul Walker, Robert Patrick, and Neal McDonough all put in more than adequate turns, there's definitely something missing here. An interesting piece, a serious one with a story that should be told, but not one I plan to come back to.

Almost a decade after I watched the movie in the cinema I watched it again and I cannot say I was as impressed as I was back then. Perhaps the movie doesn't translate well to DVD and perhaps a small screen doesn't do it justice, but my biggest issue is that I find most of the movie lacking in engaging personalities, captivating story and a well chosen creative music score. What struck me most to me was boring music. You know this solitary piano play or bugle to signify a pensive or sad mood? Well it's in there throughout the movie. Sometimes a few strings are added, but that is about it for variance. Only a few times we get a time related piece of music, but those feel like they were put in there by mistake. The personalities are on par with the dullness of the music. I can only recall the Chief, probably because he was an Indian and thus more of an individual than most and because he is the one with the biggest issues. All the others are as gray as most of the battle scenes, which must have been seen as a nifty idea to discern the battles scenes from the other scenes, but it hardly helps you get a fix on who is who.The movie loses even more focus because it displays events from three different periods: the fighting on the island, the campaign to raise money for the war effort directly after and 'today' when the son of one of the soldiers finds out what has happened from his dying father and the view remaining survivors. However, perhaps the worst thing is actually the 'message'. I just don't like messages; if you just show the stuff, it is a message enough. Now we have to be told the message and it is given in a blatant reversal trick - Orwellian in nature- that does the same as the normal cult of heroism by implying something different. Now they are heroes, not because they gave their lives for their country, but because they did it for their buddies. It is the same stuff, only the reason is different. Just a play of words. This cult of heroism mars the whole movie and is blatantly add odds with what is actually been told. These guys are just men that get stuck in a bad situation and made the most of it, but making them into a heroes, something different from the humans they were, just steals from their humanity. It is even more odd because the next movie clearly exposes the suicidal honor driven Japanese Bushido thinking for the nut-case philosophy it is. Dying for honor and country like the Japanese do.., now that is silly, but dying for your buddies, that is what heroism is all about. Yeah, those are true patriots. Of course they are.

There is nothing honorable about dying, when it comes to dying in war, it's better not to die at all. So wrote the great author Eric Marie Remarque. Now two further authors come to the same conclusion. James Bradley and Ron Powers, together with Noted Director Clint Eastwood, have created this moving tribute to the soldiers who died on the island of Iwo Jima. In this film Eastwood revisits the tiny Vocanic island, the carnage, savagery and the countless deaths, through the lives of several men. Adam Beach plays Ira Hayes, the Pima Indian who's memories of the war kept him in pain till his ignoble death of exposure in a roadside ditch. Ryan Phillippe plays the Corpsman John "Doc" Bradley. Jesse Bradford (Rene Gagnon), Barry Pepper and Paul Walker, Hank Hansen make up the soldiers in his squad. Throughout the movie the audience is reminded of the sacrifice the marines gave and it's well to remember that in 1968 the politicians gave back the island to Japan, without a shot being fired. Adam Beach steal the story as he did in a second film of his called 'Code Talkers.' However, the entire cast should be commended and we can chalk up another triumph for Eastwood. Well Done. ****

As the title suggests, the thing that stands out most is how honest the war is portrayed as. It is not all about in-your-face patriotism and hatred of the enemy. Eastwood and the rest of the crew show how propaganda kept the war going and making money for the war effort was the biggest reason for doing anything. That is not in any way a bad thing. In fact, it shows how America was indeed focused on ensuring victory would be the ultimate result. As for other elements, the music is simply beautiful. I do not think Flags of our Fathers would have had as much of an impact without it. It suits the situations and lets the viewer connect more with the characters. Any CGI used could just as easily have been the thousands of units that were present during the war. The inevitable comparison with Saving Private Ryan does come up. But, being that Spielberg produced this one, you do feel like the two are similar. Albeit, Saving Private Ryan was more gory. For comparison's sake, Saving Private Ryan would have probably showed what the Japanese had done to Iggy. Otherwise, the two are similar in evoking emotion and telling a terrific story (though Flags of our Fathers was a true story). Lastly, I enjoyed the high level of historical accuracy and similarities the actors possessed to the actual people they were portraying. I looked into the film and the facts therein and did not discover anything major that detracted from true events. I loved the occasional first person camera angles that made me feel even closer to the action. I loved the camera angles that corresponded to the ones from 1945. Truly, a wonderful war film and definitely one that ranks up with Saving Private Ryan even though it did not rake in as much money. Purely due to coincidence, watched and written 02/23/2014.