Flags Of Our Fathers Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x528 | 4477.59 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x312 | 1200.66 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x256 | 711.11 MiB | divx | |
|
320x136 | 275.51 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x136 | 291.05 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
A Single Shot Can End The War
Every Soldier Stands Beside A Hero
The real heroes are the ones left on the island.
All it takes to win is the right picture.
They fight for their country but they die for their friends.
In February, 1945, one of the fiercest battles of the Pacific theater of World War II occurs on the tiny island of Iwo Jima. Thousands of Marines attack the stronghold maintained by thousands of Japanese, and the slaughter on both sides is horrific. Early in the battle, an American flag is raised atop the high point, Mount Suribachi, and a photograph of the raising becomes an American cause celebre. As a powerful inspiration to war-sick Americans, the photo becomes a symbol of the Allied cause. The three surviving flag raisers, Rene Gagnon, John Bradley, and Ira Hayes, are whisked back to civilization to help raise funds for the war effort. But the accolades for heroism heaped upon the three men are at odds with their own personal realizations that thousands of real heroes lie dead on Iwo Jima, and that their own contributions to the fight are only symbolic and not deserving of the singling out they are experiencing. Each of the three must come to terms with the honors, exploitation, and grief that they face simply for being in a photograph.
| Ryan Phillippe | John "Doc" Bradley |
| Jesse Bradford | Rene Gagnon |
| Adam Beach | Ira Hayes |
| John Benjamin Hickey | Keyes Beech |
| John Slattery | Bud Gerber |
| Barry Pepper | Mike Strank |
| Jamie Bell | Ralph "Iggy" Ignatowski |
| Paul Walker | Hank Hansen |
| Robert Patrick | Colonel Chandler Johnson |
| Neal McDonough | Captain Severance |
| Melanie Lynskey | Pauline Harnois |
| Thomas McCarthy | James Bradley |
| Chris Bauer | Commandant Vandergrift |
| Judith Ivey | Belle Block |
| Myra Turley | Madeline Evelley |
| Clint Eastwood |
7.20 out of 10 (14583 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A Great Clint Eastwood Film
posted on 22 Aug 2009When I saw this movie I loved it. I would have to say that it is going to be a film that is going to be remembered in our history for a long time. It has a perfect cast of veteran war film actors including Berry Pepper from Saving Private Ryan, Adam Beach from Windtalkers, Robert Patrick from The Unit, and many more. The other thing I like about this film is that it not only goes into what happens on the battlefield, but also what goes on when the soldiers return home. This is also very historically accurate and I would say that it deserved those two Oscars it won. This is going to be one of Clint Eastwood's most memorable works.
Flag Bearers.
posted on 22 Aug 2009Three of the six survivors who raised the flag in Iwo Jima are brought back as national heroes who double as fund raisers to help support the U.S. World War II effort's economic dilemma. Ryan Phillippe and Jesse Bradford are fine as two of the three focused troops, but it is Adam Beach as Ira Hayes (a Native American who gained notoriety and unfortunately a severe problem with alcoholism) who makes "Flags of Our Fathers" as great as it is. Director Clint Eastwood understands emotion and storytelling elements with his films as he delivers another critical success which stands tall with his other directorial ventures. Co-writer Paul Haggis (best known as the mastermind behind "Crash") continues to amaze with his uncanny screen writing skills. An understated and quietly effective winner. 5 stars out of 5.
An Excellent war movie
posted on 18 Aug 2009I was completely amazed by this movie. I think it is up there with Saving Private Ryan as the best World War II Movie ever. It is definitely the best movie made about the pacific campaign of WWII. I think that Adam Beach, in his portrayal of Ira Hayes could be one of the leading canidates for best actor at the academy awards. The movie had just the right mix of battle scenes and dramatic scenes. James Franco and Ryan Phillipe were very good in there roles as the other flag raisers, but Adam Beach stood out as the best in the movie. I can not wait until Clint Eastwood's companion to this movie comes out this winter.
A Nutshell Review: Flags of Our Fathers
posted on 14 Aug 2009I nodded in agreement when it was mentioned a single photo taken during combat has the power to make or break a war. At a time when the war chest is drained and the battle seemed to be drawn out longer than expected, you need public support to cough out funds and make donations to the manufacturing of arms. In the dying days of WWII, that photo you see above, gave reason to galvanize the American public into making donations for that final push. Now think Abu Graib. Nuff said, on its adverse impact to the war machinery.For WWII movies, the Pacific theatre has arguably fewer number of films made by the West, especially those whose focus is on the ground troops, as compared to the European theatre, and possibly could be due to the availability of locales, as well as budget and (non) permission to film at the actual place. The Iwo Jima here is a substitute backdrop, not the real Iwo Jima with black beaches that you can see right after the end credits roll, as if in silent meditation of the soldiers on both sides who had given up their lives fighting for their cause.And the Battle of Iwo Jima had its historical significance given it's the first landing of Allied troops on Japanese soil, and one of the bloodiest yet with high casualties on both sides. It also opened up the American eyes to the tenacity of the Japanese troops and their relentless defence of the homeland from invasion, in a Digital Domain CGI-created massive naval beach landing. Those looking for recreated battle scenes will probably not be disappointed with the level of detail shown in Flags, like the weapons, and the infamous use of flamethrowers to smoke out hidden troops in bunkers.But this movie is not an all out action film. It's not a macro look at how the Allies secured their first foothold in Japanese soil. Rather, it takes a very personal look at the surviving men who hoisted the American flag over a prominent knoll in Iwo Jima. While there are countless of versions of the circumstances surrounding this lifting of a symbol, be it for morale boosting purpose, or politics, or for abstract ideals like hope, the definitive version as recounted in this story is actually quite ordinary, fueled by a mix of human desire for something monumental, as well as the listening to orders to a T.Told in a non linear fashion with flashbacks and voiceovers, it is extremely difficult that you'll be bored by the movie, unless your expectations have been set the wrong way. There is plenty of material and themes that the movie touched upon, although it can be argued that each doesn't necessarily have enough focus, issues like racism and prejudice. What makes this film compelling is the story of the survivors, being whisked back to the States to be part of propaganda to raise funds. Accuracy and accountability take the backseat against the hail of heroism, and it evolves very quickly into a media circus.Flags examines the lives of those in the photo who survived the battle, their reluctance to be called heroes, the demons that they faced while on the battlefield, the constant reminder to kill or be killed, the lies they have to tell to sell, and their sense of morality sacrificed for the lesser of two evils. Being soldiers, they have to do listen to orders, even if at the moment, it sounds absurd (I believe those who have been through service in the armed forces will agree on this). It is the conflict, and the need to lie through their teeth, which makes it all the more a sorrowful struggle, especially when you have to deny a fellow brother his moment of recognition, and denying his family the need for closure.And of course, we all know how fickle the press can be. On one hand they can praise you, on the other, someone's always looking at ways to demean and cast doubts. Flavours of the moment, potshots of controversy like whether the picture was staged, ring to mind that icons can never escape from the cynical eye. Politicians, rich businessmen and the military brass too are cast in none too positive light, as they get portrayed as men who like association with power, fame, and glory.Clint Eastwood again never ceases to amaze me. Here's the star of spaghetti westerns, Dirty Harry himself, who has aged but still showing no signs of slowing down. Like fine wine, he has started to show his talents in the films he makes, and award winning critically acclaimed ones too. But what I'm really pleasantly and thoroughly enjoyed, is the score that he wrote for Flags. It's restrained, yet powerful, kept simple in instrument, yet never lacking in grandeur. Being a filmmaker is one thing, but having contribute to a highly effective score complimenting the movie, is another. Not many can do that.Flags of Our Fathers is a must watch, and I'm already eagerly anticipating the companion movie, with viewpoints from the Japanese, fighting the same war, in Letters From Iwo Jima, and it should be equally powerful.
Flags of our Father
posted on 10 Aug 2009Flags of our Father I had seen the Clint Eastwood's second sequel "Letter from Iwo Jima" first and liked the Japanese side of the Iwo Jima war story. And thus I had become a bit more curious to see the American side of the same story.The movie is good; compared to the Japanese side that more deals with the human trauma during the war, this deals with the depiction of the aftermath of the Iwo Jima war story. The story is three men who were part of the few non-main line soldiers who were instructed to hoist the flag on the captured Iwo Jima hill. The moment was captured on camera and it became an iconic image for Americans which was broadcasted, published and discussed everywhere. The three surviving soldiers were honored upon their arrival to US, because they were part of the flag hoisting. The media built-up, the aspirations, the trauma and fears of these exposures had different effect on each soldier who knew they are not the real heroes of the war. The one to suffer the most was Ira Hayes – delicately portrayed by Adam Beach as a Red Indian serving for US army. The instant uplifting of these heroes and the later disinterest of the society after few months and years is touchingly captured by Clint Eastwood, who has develop a typical style through his movies.I like to see Clint Eastwood movies because he is sensitive to his protagonist characters. Some moments of the movie are really touching and sincerely presented. The war scenes have close resemblance with "Letter from Iwo Jima" because they were shot at the same time with different set of actors.Acting wise – I found actors in "Letter to Iwo Jima" more matured and acting better than the ones in "Flags of our Fathers".An ironic statement by Clint on how the media empires show interest and dis-interest in stories depending upon their own business interests; which is so much applicable today too! (Stars 5.5 out of 10)
Much better than I expected.
posted on 06 Aug 2009When I first heard of this movie I fully expected it to be another cheesy, jingoistic Hollywood shoot-em-up that had little or nothing to do with actual fact. I am happy to say that I was completely wrong.'Flags of our Fathers' is loosely focused around the three surviving Iwo Jima flag raisers in what is probably the most famous photograph to come out of the Second World War. But the real story behind that photograph is quite different from what everyone wanted it to be. It was simply a hasty replacement of the first flag after some politician demanded it to hang on his wall, much to the outrage of the marines that bled all over that rock to get it up there. As one veteran put it; "Nobody noticed that second flag going up. People saw that picture and just invented their own truth." FOOF shows the stark contrast between what the public wants to believe and actual reality. The three remaining flag raisers are pulled from combat and sent home to parrot prepared speeches encouraging people to buy war bonds, and charge up paper mache hills to 'reenact' the flag raising in the middle of crowded baseball stadiums. Nobody wanted to hear the truth, and the blatant exploitation weighed on these three kids in profound and different ways. You as the viewer, however, are allowed to know the truth.I was most impressed with Adam Beach's portrayal of Ira Hayes, ironically the most famous private American soldier of WWII next to Audie Murphy. FOOF showed him as he really was, a terrified, confused, awkward and emotionally damaged man-child trying to forget everything by crawling into a whiskey bottle. A genuinely tragic character.An absolute must see.
Good movie that just misses being great
posted on 04 Aug 2009"Flags of Our Fathers "is a very good movie that just misses being a great one, mostly due to the disjointed script. So many things is this movie are outstanding: the acting (especially by Adam Beach, who plays Ira Hayes), the meticulous attention to period detail, and the thoughtful, balanced way in which director Clint Eastwood explores the concepts of heroism, sacrifice and truth without being heavy-handed or preachy. The movie really comes alive in the last 10 minutes.But there's one big problem with the movie: its script. Paul Haggis co-wrote the script, and he uses the same sort of jumping among several different stories that he used in "Crash" to such good effect. The movie cuts between the battle on Iwo Jima, the subsequent war bond drive that used three of the flagraisers to sell bonds, and the 1990s, when the son of one of the Marines in Rosenthal's famous photograph is doing research for a book. The constant shifting back and forth in time and place is confusing, even though Eastwood uses a bleached-out color for the battle scenes and a richer color palette for the war bond scenes to distinguish them. More importantly, the cutting back and forth gives short shrift to the battle itself and, in addition, makes it hard for the audience to learn much about the characters or to care about them. The fight for Iwo Jima dragged on for weeks. A longer, uninterrupted stretch in the film focusing on the battle for Iwo Jima would have illustrated why this was such an important battle in World War II, and why the Marines were so haunted by it. Instead, the characters keep saying during the war bond tour "The real heroes are back in Iwo Jima,' but yet more time is devoted to the war bond drive part of the movie than the battle itself. The audience never really gets much of a sense of what it was like to be trapped on that island for weeks on end fighting a determined enemy and seeing your friends die because the Iwo Jima battle is shown in such brief, disconnected flashbacks.Finally, the centerpiece of the whole film - the flagraising - is treated like an afterthought, The scene is quick and shot from a distance, which I believe is how it was captured on a newsreel (I may be wrong on this). This may have been done on purpose to echo the newsreel or to emphasize that the famous flagraising was a perfunctory event because another group of Marines had earlier raised a smaller flag, which was ordered to be taken down and replaced by a bigger one. In addition, the photographer, Abe Rosenthal, just snapped the picture and then focused on the subsequent posed shot of the Marines standing in front of the flag, which was the source of the unfouned rumor that the flagraising was staged. So, perhaps that is why the scene is so hastily done in the movie. Still, since this whole movie is based on the aftermath of that one moment, the scene should have been shot in a different way with more impact - close-ups of the flagraisers? Close-ups of their hands on the pole? I have no clue how the scene could have been filmed, but I think more thought could have been put into that scene. The movie makes the point that the moment was no big deal and not worth the fuss and attention given the photograph, but the point is that it moved people. Even today, people cry when they visit the Iwo Jima Memorial. This movie had the potential to be great, but due to the script problems is only quite good.
The revelation beyond the flag
posted on 04 Aug 2009To take the battle of Iwo Jima and show how that war, that turning point, maybe not, that dramatic apocalypse, for sure, of the Second World War, American side, is a pure illustration of what an apocalypse is: a revelation. Clint Eastwood with his Steven Spielberg accomplice demonstrate that revelation and its secret content. The kids who are sent to a war, any war, all wars, are no heroes whatsoever and in any way but they are the flesh and dough of the cannons of the enemy, or rather the other side. And they even have to lie and play heroes to get the dough the government needs to continue and finish that war. Those heroes are associated to flags and the raising of flags on a pile of ruins to show and inspire victory, be it in Iwo Jima, Berlin or Hiroshima. Heroes are fabricated for the sole reason that they are needed to go on with the lucrative and politically essential war, on any side of the conflict. For one flag, and in this conflict hardly more than half a dozen flags for fifty five million dead. That makes each star on the flags, when these flags have stars, quite expensive. There is no clean war, there is no un-staged war, there is no just war. There is only war, war horror and staging the horror to make it palatable to those who do not live it, have not lived it, do not remember it. And some invent a duty to remember, an obligation to keep in mind, even when we are two or three or more generations after the conflict and we do not have direct witnesses to speak of it any more, and their word is only their word modified by time, propaganda, celebrations and simply the desire to forget. There is no obligation to remember, even if there is an obligation to make, not only permit them to, historians go on with their work and try to reconstruct what has disappeared forever anyway. In fact a poet could be more effective in that direction than a historian who is paid for his work and tends to follow the trend of whoever pays him, be they publishers or politicians, or committed associations on one side or the other of the many rivers that run through historical time. Clint Eastwood and Steven Spielberg do a marvelous work along that line.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID
A Comparison with "Citizen Kane"
posted on 29 Jul 2009As directed masterfully by Clint Eastwood, "Flags of Our Fathers" plays both as a war film and a sensitive human drama. It begs comparison with Orson Welles' screen masterpiece "Citizen Kane" in the film's scope and its structure.The "rosebud" of "Flags of Our Fathers" is one of the greatest icons of American history: the photograph of the raising of the flag on the tiny island of Iwo Jima and the strategic importance of the bloody combat for the acquisition of a landing strip to nearby Japan for American planes. The questions that the film carefully traces are (1) Who were the Marines pictured in the famous photograph? and (2) Was this famous tableau a "staged" scene, as opposed to a real event?To answer these questions, the film moves episodically among three time-frames--the horrifying battle for the hill at the western tip of Iwo Jima; the time in which three servicemen are identified as the heroes in the picture and paraded ceremonially around America to promote the sale of war bonds; and the time of the death of John "Doc" Bradley, one of the alleged Iwo Jima flag-raisers, as his son seeks to learn the hidden truth about his dad, much like the newspaper reporter on the trail of "rosebud" in "Citizen Kane."The outstanding pacing of the film by Eastwood is matched by the creative cinematography and the work of designers who accomplish these extraordinary tasks: the recreation of the Iwo Jima theater of war with location filming; a spectacular amphibious landing; grisly scenes of combat....plus detailed period scenes on the home-front. As a minor spoiler alert: please be sure to stay through the film's closing credits for a thoughtful montage of still photographs of the Battle of Iwo Jima, as well as the three protagonists, Bradley, Gagnon, and Hayes.Among the fine ensemble cast, it is impossible to forget Adam Beach's sensitive and heartbreaking performance as Ira Hayes, a Native American who is simultaneously made into a war hero and marginalized due to his race. Hayes never felt comfortable in claiming status as a hero for his involvement in the flag-raising. In an emotionally-wrenching scene in a hotel room before a military superior, Beach's character breaks down and poignantly expresses the camaraderie and love felt for the fallen members of his battalion. Indeed for all three of the purported flag-raisers, the true heroes were those veterans who sacrificed their lives so that the flag could be raised on Iwo Jima. For this moving and important message, "Flags of Our Fathers" deserves to be placed not only among the greatest war films of all time, but also alongside classics like "Citizen Kane."
Not this year.
posted on 29 Jul 2009While this movie conveyed the message it was aiming for well, it lacked a central narrative to keep the viewer compelled. Some would cite the nonlinear storytelling as the reason for this impression, but in fact, I would say that if the story had been told from beginning to end, it would only have made the movie more monotonous, with an hour of dying on Iwo, then the rest following the three flag raisers as they do the same thing over and over again until it's done.The acting was quality, if not exceptional. The gore definitely didn't hold anything back. If there's one thing I'd say that Clint wants the viewer to come away with, it's that war doesn't have a happy ending that makes all the horror okay with those involved. At the same time, he refrains from making any blatantly anti-war remarks. War may be hell, but there's no suggestion in the movie that it's entirely unnecessary.
Oscar Alert 2006: ''Flags of our Fathers''
posted on 21 Jul 2009Before starting my review, let me just explain how Clint Eastwood is and will always be one of the greatest icons in cinema. He is cool. He is so cool to the point of directing a mega-production after a small, intimate film. He is so cool that he beats John Wayne in the ''Western Idol'' competition. That said, let's go on to his mega-production I've mentioned, a WWII drama named ''Flags of our Fathers''.After proving he can be, besides a spectacular actor, an spectacular director (with Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, and his masterpiece, The Unforgiven, all of which in the Top 250), Clint leads us back in time and teaches us some history about Iwo Jima. After a gruesome and heroic battle, six men lift up a flag and a picture is taken. That picture becomes a treasure, and the war heroes returning to their homes, the same men that carried that flag, become myths.The story is mainly about three characters: the honest and sensitive John ''Doc'' Bradley (Ryan Phillipe), who believes taking full credit for the battle because of one picture is wrong, the brave soldier Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), who is willing to prove he is a hero, even though he tries not to get in a real battle, and the naive, but strong Ira Hayes (Adam Beach, in a role that may probably gather him a Supporting Actor nod). The whole film is entirely narrated by John Bradley (at this time, in old age, played by Len Cariou). As the film tells us, these are the only ones in the picture that manage to come out of war alive.The film revolves around this picture, and also about how these three men live after the war. Ira is target of racism, Bradley is haunted by memories of war and his friends who past away (in special Iggy, played by Jamie Bell, whom Bradley was fond of before his death), and Gagnon celebrates all the media attention.The film, however, is greatly flawed. And that hurts a lot for me to say this, considering the appreciation I have for Eastwood. He turns a movie worthy of a gargantuan epic drama into an opportunistic drama, with situations entirely designed to make audiences cry. In the battle scenes, Eastwood is a lion: perfectly orchestrated, they're the high point of this (overlong) picture. However, in the drama, Clint loses his heels. It gets kind of sad, seeing all these clichéd moments.Eastwood still proves to be a great director for actors. He takes out great performances of the cast, with three in particular. Adam Beach, perfect as Ira Hayes. Barry Pepper, magnificent as another flag-raiser, Michael Strank, which was a leader for his men. And Robert Patrick, as the Colonel Chandler. There are still thousands of roles in the movie, and they all deserve some praise.In conclusion, Eastwood seems to run head over heels in this war picture. However, it is almost undeniable the potential this movie has for the Oscars. It is technically perfect, no doubt about it. It is beautifully directed, of course. But it is melodramatic, and it is the same war story you've seen a thousand times told again. The only difference is the power of the story teller.---6/10 P.S: This movie is probable to gain an Oscar nod for Best Picture. But, as the review lends to show, it is not my favorite. Starting from today, my cheering goes to the magnificent, gripping, A+ gangster drama, ''The Departed''. Scorcese X Eastwood, once again.
Comparing the companion films
posted on 19 Jul 2009Should have won a bigger prize. Ironically the Japanese gave it Best Foreign Picture! _Letters from Iwo Jima_ is of course the companion film. Not as complex, but more so a traditional WWII film, except told from the p.o.v. of the Japanese. Based on actual letters.Eastwood ought to be recognized as the first director to issue a duet on war, looking at the same battle from both sides. Haven't seen enough critical discussion here about the results of this very interesting experiment. If anything, the American film (Flags) is about political wrangling over the power of an image turned into a media circus – quite literally so, but how this process damages the individuals involved – i.e., the death of the Native American soldier who is wracked by guilt. Meanwhile the Japanese film (Letters) is an exercise in empathy for the enemy, who are shown to be trapped in circumstances beyond their control, facing certain death stoically, yet with occasional hysterical panic. This one, _Letters_, got an overall higher rating on IMDb, again ironically, probably because is is simpler in narrative form. The obviously more complex interweaving of three narratives in the companion film (Flags) along with an ambiguously dialectical view of the relative rightness and wrongness of the characters was all clearly too much trouble for most of the commentators collected on this website. Against that rather dubious trend, I give the more complex "Flags" a higher rating than the more macho-sentimental "Letters".
An Oscar scoring film if I ever saw one!
posted on 17 Jul 2009This film is nothing short of fantastic. Clint has done it again with his usual style of giving the people what they want. I sincerely hope that this film wins Oscar nods for Best Film, Best Director (Clint Eastwood), Best Actor (Adam Beach), Best Producer, Best Production Artist (Joe Musso), Best Screenplay, and several more that will take up too much time and space. I look forward to seeing the sequel, "Letters from Iwo Jima". Just having Mr.Eastwood at the helm, we know it'll be fantastic and another Oscar winning production. I would of loved working on an Eastwood project if I was still acting. He's an enormous talent and one can learn a lot about the business just by working on a project of his and watching all he does to bring it all together.
It's a mixed bag.
posted on 07 Jul 2009I'm not going to waste space telling the story. We all know the story of the flag raisers of Iwo - or should. I say it is a mixed bag because Eastwood and Spielberg can't help but preach to us. When most of us go to a movie, we go to be entertained - not lectured. They took a great story and turned much of it into a rant against racism and America. One of the six flag raisers was an American Indian or Native American if you prefer. They spent a good amount of time throwing all manner of insults his way and the rest of the time telling us how money hungry the American war machine was. I'm sure Ira Hays endured many an insult in his life, and that is regrettable. But his problem was the same one that many men face when they return from the brutality of war. The demons haunt them. Ira turned to liquor just like many another fighting man - whether he was red, white, black or whatever. I've known a good number of alcoholics who were prescribing their own medicine to forget. As for the money hungry war machine. That machine is what won the war for us. Hollywood tends to forget that we were fighting an all out domination of the world by fascist nations. The three survivors understood this more than today's make believe movie moguls. The three didn't like being called heroes. Just the same, they continued to do their duty for America. This is not the Eastwood of old, he has turned his back on his fans. In Heartbreak Ridge, although a bit silly at times, it did give honor to the United States military personnel for their service. In Flags of Our Fathers, Eastwood and Spielberg go out of their way to say these soldiers were not fighting for their country. Yes, they fight for each other - true. But who are Eastwood and Spielberg to say they had no patriotism for America? That they were fighting for the most basic reasons. I find their premise an insult to Americans who love their country. It is the continuing effort by Hollywood to remove a love of country. Getting beyond the Eastwood and Spielberg insult, the acting in the movie was most excellent! Every part was well casted and every part well played. The three lead parts by Phillippe, Bradford and Beach were very believable due to the actors. Barry Pepper and Neal McDonough always good. And kudos to the rest of the cast as well. When they were traveling by train the interior of the club car was as close to real as I can remember. They ran the trains by Diesel locomotives and I'm not sure if they had replaced steam engines that much by the mid 1940's. However, in those parts of the movie especially, one definitely felt the time period. Also notable at the bond rallies were three female singers and I am supposing that they were the Andrews Sisters. That was a nice period touch. The battle scenes on the beach were fairly good. Obviously, digital special effects were used for the broader scenes. But the shells hitting tanks and ships were very believable. As to the flash back form of filming. I knew ahead of time that there were flash back scenes. I hate movies with flash backs. Not because we can't understand them, just because they are annoying. However, I have to admit that Eastwood - if he just had to use flashbacks - did it well. It was a fast paced film and each flash back and its return was done quickly, in that, it put you right back into the story. That's about all I have to say, you may or may not agree and that is OK. I'll have to read the book though, to see if Mr. Bradley spent all that time lecturing us on racism, anti-military hatred and anti-patriotism. Somehow I doubt it. In summing it up, I would say it is a film worth seeing if you don't mind being slyly lectured about the evils of being pro-American or honoring military people as patriots. I don't think the movie itself deserves best picture for the Academy Awards. It is no block buster in historic terms. It was good but not great. The directing by Eastwood was good, and many of the actors definitely do deserve nominations and wins. Adam Beach had the meaty parts as Ira Hays and he did a wonderful job. All the actors were top notch and the movie is worth seeing, if for no other reason, than to experience actors who know their craft.
Some comparisons
posted on 07 Jul 2009I think this film is very timely, for a number of reasons. Other than the most obvious reason, I think this is a farewell to the generation who fought WW2. There is a scene toward the end of the film that is explicitly that kind of farewell. The baby boomers will be making their farewells (if they have not already done so) in the very near future. If you have a parent who fought in and survived WW2, this film will have quite an impact on you.The obvious comparison is to Saving Private Ryan, and both films excellently portray the harrowing reality and loss. The opening sequence in Saving Private Ryan is still the best portrayal, because the focus never moves from the D-Day landing. In this film, the battle for Iwo Jima is broken into segments, to contrast it with subsequent events. Saving Private Ryan then changed into a rather conventional war film. This film cuts back and forth from the battle, going sometime to the immediate future, and sometime to the present day. But that is its purpose. And the film achieves that purpose excellently.WW2 was basically glorified in films made while it was going on, for morale purposes obviously. And afterward, the "war is hell" films of the late forties and fifties always showed the soldiers' sacrifices as being for a noble purpose. Brave soldiers did not die in vain, at least not in Hollywood. Maybe this was because the unpleasant reality was too painful to face.
"They may have fought for their country, but they died for their friends."
posted on 05 Jul 2009With the end credits rolling I was saying to myself 'the movie is over already?' That doesn't happen very often with a two hour plus movie, so to prolong the experience I found myself taking in the stills of the actual flag raising along with combat photos and even Richard Nixon's face popping up for the dedication of the Iwo Jima Memorial. The film convinces once again that Clint Eastwood's name on a project insures quality of execution and achievement, whether the treatment is a fictional story or one based on historical fact.I'll get my one nitpick out of the way early. Though I was aware that the story's narrator was James Bradley, son of flag raiser 'Doc' Bradley, he's shown interviewing others who reminisced about the island battle who weren't identified, or if they were, I wasn't able to make the connection to their youthful counterparts in the story. Also, even though the flashback scenes were effectively done for Bradley to reflect on his painful memories back on Iwo, I found myself straining to coordinate the 'hero on display' Bradley with the battlefield corpsman in fatigues. I'm sure another viewing would make things easier, but I was very much focused the first time, and found myself getting frustrated whenever I encountered a question mark.There can be no doubt, at least in my mind, that director Eastwood was heavily influenced by actual war footage of the Pacific Campaign and Bloody Iwo in particular. There are excellent compilations available, rather inexpensively I might add, that detail U.S. involvement in the Pacific theater. One of the best is "Crusade in the Pacific"; watching the footage on Iwo Jima reveals that scenes in Eastwood's movie are almost a direct copy of events as they actually happened. Those include the beach landing, the unloading of men and equipment, much of the battle scenes and the scaling of Suribachi. One particularly stunning scene in the documentary captures the aftermath of a Japanese body in flames, though the movie is more graphic in it's portrayal. Either way, the ferocity of war is on display in all of it's horrific reality.Being the story of three of the men who participated in the flag raising, the film's diversion from the war left a largely untold story of the rest of the battle. Yet the home front drama of propagandizing the hero story is as compelling as the fighting on the island. Particularly poignant is the story of Ira Hayes, the Pima Indian who 'couldn't take them callin' me a hero'. Nowhere more is the weird dichotomy of the men's situation portrayed than in the mock scaling of Suribachi at Soldier Field; Hayes again - "You want us to plant the flag on a pile of papier mache?" That in a nutshell captures the ethical quandary the trio find themselves in, yet deemed necessary to further finance the war effort.Perhaps wisely, Eastwood preferred to stay away from the grim statistics of the Iwo Jima campaign. The battle raged on for four more weeks after the flag was raised. In the first five days, there were 6845 casualties; most of the 5284 wounded were surgical cases along with many instances of treatment for shock. In preparation for a nearly thirty three percent casualty rate, the medical corpsmen employed whole blood and plasma on a scale that had never been utilized before. Yet with the securing of Suribachi and the southern part of the island, the more difficult part of the battle was still ahead. When it was all over, American troops suffered 5563 Marine deaths, along with 982 sailors. The wounded topped nineteen thousand, while the beachhead was littered with wrecked equipment. Perhaps an even more staggering statistic, of twenty two thousand Japanese defenders, only 217 prisoners were taken, and only 159 of them Japanese. Iwo Jima was finally secured after thirty six days on March 25th, 1945.Doubtless, "Flags Of Our Fathers" will garner it's share of award nominations. For my part, I'm even more curious now to view Eastwood's companion piece, "Letters From Iwo Jima" offering the Japanese perspective.On a final note, curiosity seekers might want to seek out the John Wayne movie, "Sands of Iwo Jima". As a war film, it was regarded highly when it came out in 1949, a mere four years after the actual event. There's no comparison in my opinion with 'Flags', though the reason I bring it up is to call attention to the scene where Wayne's character watches the scaling of Mt. Suribachi with three soldiers, and he hands one of them a flag to put up over the captured territory. Those three soldiers are the real life John 'Doc' Bradley, Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes.
Simplistic screenplay dumbs down this war flick.
posted on 03 Jul 2009Certainly not one of Eastwood's best.The action scenes are fine & really only the part of the movie I enjoyed.The drama is very forced and trite and keeps repeating the same theme over and over again.I'm one of those movie viewers who simply watches a film, doesn't try to guess what's going to happen in the movie & typically can't figure it out anyway, but in this movie the main theme is just hammered into your head over and over again.The theme? A country needs heroes in wartime but the people who become heroes, are just that, people, no different in the final analysis than anyone else.Well duh...Maybe this is news to fourteen year olds, but to adults, it's something we learned a long time ago.Ryan Phillippe didn't do much with his role except pout and furrow his brow at times. He's of the Scarlett Johansson school of acting.The format of the movie is tedious as it constantly cuts back & forth via flashbacks to the battle of Iwo Jima & the 'heroes' back in the states being feted.Really trite moralizing of the most obvious kind.
There's always a story behind the headlines...
posted on 01 Jul 2009Clint Eastwood's companion piece to Letters from Iwo Jima is a beast of a different colour in almost every respect. I went into this film blind (somehow) and expected a straightforward account of the battle as seen through the eyes of US troops and their commanders, much as Letters from Iwo Jima focused on the epic battle from the Japanese perspective. Instead, Eastwood takes the iconic photograph of five marines raising the US flag, and tells with an unflinching eye the fate of the men – and the political machinations – created by that image.It's a pretty sordid tale when you get right down to it. The US people were tired of war, and were tired of placing dollars and cents into the US government's permanently outstretched hand. For the government that photo represented an opportunity to galvanise public opinion once more, to exploit and manipulate the patriotic fervour it created. The truth, less palatable, less Hollywood, was conveniently swept beneath the carpet. The shot didn't capture a moment of victory, but a recreation of the original raising of the flag, and the re-enactments the soldiers were forced to perform at home on papier mache mountains in front of vast stadiums of cheering people both trivialised and cheapened the ordeals suffered by these men and all others who took part in the battle.Eastwood depicts all this without resorting to emotional histrionics or painting the top brass as out-and-out villains. He lays out the facts in a mature and measured way. Sometimes this technique leaves the viewer feeling a little distanced from the three young marines and the psychological traumas they must deal with as they travel around the States raising money. Ira Hayes is the biggest victim, already traumatised by what he has experienced and witnessed on the battlefield, the status of hero forced upon him by the government and the people, is a burden that colours the remainder of his life. His problems form a large part of the plot here, but we never really seem to get under the skin of the man, or understand why his trauma is so much greater than those of his comrades.
An excellent and fully engrossing docu-drama
posted on 21 Jun 2009One of the reasons that Eastwood is such a magnificent and successful director and producer is that he manages to give a very realistic portrayal of human events, without subjecting us to the over burdening political correctness of today. As the audience in good faith, we do not have to wade through the business of one white guy, one black guy, one Asian, one Hispanic for every 2.5 screen shots, etc., ad infinitum. We are given a magnificent production, and portrayal of true to life history, in the way things did happen.Eastwood provides the basis and clear understanding of what this event is all about, and provides the highlights and important points necessary to leave a clear impression in the viewers mind. This film was more than just entertaining. It was an experience. It was also informative, historically accurate, and showed a balanced and impartial report of a major event in 20th century history. There were no filler scenes, there was no unnecessary or unrealistic flag waving, no out of proportion background music. The directorship gives us the facts, as close to absolute reality as possible. We see these events unfold from the perspective of the participants in the war on the sea, the air, and the ground, in a very large and all encompassing field of view.Another reason that this film should be considered great, is that it points out, and shows in detail, what men and women have to endure during times of crises, both as soldiers and as civilians. We are also reminded that much of politics do not change, regardless of their placement in history. The politically motivated hero exhibitions that the main character soldiers were made to present in this film were not always desirable to the soldiers themselves; they were doing their patriotic duty, never the less, at home as well as abroad.Anyone who has an ounce of patriotism should see this film. Among all of its fine features, it also suggests the strong message that in WWII, the ground soldier knew exactly what he was fighting for, and didn't have to worry as to weather or not it was merely a potential waste of life.
I just don't know...
posted on 26 Aug 2009Am I the only one that thought this movie was a little mediocre? I went in expecting an amazing movie seeing as how it was directed by Clint Eastwood...but then I remembered that he also directed Bloodwork.I thought it was a good original approach on the story of Iwo Jima, but the story was a little too dry and the characters didn't really progress at all. The three main flag raisers were a little too predictable as well. Every line they delivered wasn't sold and their acting style was way too over the top. It just seems to me that modern-day Hollywood can't crank out a good WWII Pacific movie anymore.