Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline
|
I just saw the movie.
I haven't read the book upon which it is based.
The review below (from another site) basically sums up my feelings about the movie. It is a GOOD movie; not a GREAT one.
Clearly, Eastwood's goal in this movie was to debunk the myth surrounding the most famous picture that came out of WWII: The flag raising on Mount Suribachi. His goal was NOT to tell us about the Marine Corps' brutal 35 day meat grinder Battle for Iwo Jima.
Footage of the battle was shot in black and white and it was shown mostly through flashbacks between scenes of the post-battle War Bond drive with the three survivors of the flag raising.
Personally, I would have preferred a straight narrative, since Eastwood's approach means (at least for me) that we are not given enough time to care about what we are seeing before we are taken to another time and place (between peace and war). This was my main complaint about the movie.
Technically, this movie is superb: we get huge naval armadas; fighters; naval bombardments; etc. We see (and feel) the naval guns pounding the island from the deck of a ship; we are in the cockpit of a fighter as it flies low over the naval ships, and again when it flies directly at Mount Suribachi as it fires rockets into it...
My rating: 7.8/10
EDIT: My rating should have been 7.8, NOT 7.5. (was tired when I wrote the review).
Review from another site:
"Flags of Our Fathers
I live in DC, so I have visited the memorial a few times. I didn't get to see it with Eastwood or Beach or Haggis...but I did sit right behind three Iwo vets. That's not a small thing. I attended the 50th Anniversary of Iwo Jima over a decade ago. Bill Clinton spoke, and there were more Medal of Honor winners in one place than had probably ever been...except in the actual battle a half-century before. I am a Navy man, with great affection for the U.S. Marines, and an abiding love of soldiers. Plenty of people confuse that with being pro-military, but the military and the soldiers are NOT the same thing. I make a hobby (of sorts) of seeing how they are portrayed, and how the themes that shape their lives and deaths are explored. I have read the book the film is based on, and it's a great one. The title is great, and the scope is great. So there is my background.
I've thought long and hard about this. As I alluded to last night, Flags is a decent film. It certainly honors soldiers, and even honors them in ways other war movies forget (or ignore). But its explorations circle larger themes, and when it drives some of them home...I am simply reminded of films that drove those specific themes home better. The structure is intentional, but not purposeful. It did not build to a realization. It followed events on the War Bond tour and back on Iwo, bringing the audience along. but it just never coalesced into something more.
I wanted it to do that. The material is there. It would not require a thematic stretch. But I believe Eastwood was content with the message, and letting us choose our beliefs on the surrounding themes. For certain, he is a crasftman, so there was a point to his structure and decisions. I believe they rob the story of some of the power.
The film focuses on the three survivors...the book focused on all six, the living and the dead. Where they came from, who they were, and why they fought. Removing the dead soldiers (beyond some vignettes) places the focus solely on the War Bond tour, and Iwo Jima is surprisingly bloodless and forgotten. There is little sense of what a true meatgrinder it REALLY was. Of how brutal the fighting was. You see a little of the 5 days the survivors were there...but not the next five weeks of toil. I think that balance would have amplified the themes.
But I did appreciate the exploration of the PR/media blitz. It does seem the film wants it both ways - look at the sleazy (and it gives them plenty of opportunities to be sleazy) government folks trying to make a buck; but it gives them a good reason to do so (though it only gives on character two minutes to make that point...though the point is tragically sound, honest, and painfully the truth). The soldiers Ira, Rene, and John are brought home to serve their country in a manner different than their peers. Their friends face bullets, and the War Bondsmen face isolation, guilt, and hypocrisy. But they serve as best they can. The film never lets us see the fruits of their labor on the Tour.
The theme I wish had been pursued a bit more aggressively: the public side of the equation. The civilian need to make these men something they did not want to be. Why was the burden placed on them? They had enough already. That would have been a very, very bold observation...how our society often makes soldiers the "sin eaters". That element is set up, touched upon very briefly, and then set aside.
I don't want more Iwo because I want a war movie. I simply think it would balance the themes of the tour more strongly. The violence present at Iwo is seen through the filter of modern war movies...which isn't fair, but there it is. It almost felt as if Eastwood felt obligated having it there.
The craft was outstanding as usual. I expect no less from Eastwood, and he delivers. He is skilled and workmanlike, and it serves the film. The music was exceptional at times.
But the themes touched upon mean a lot to me. I would prefer them to be ground down or evaluated in new ways. There is immense power in the story. I feel Haggis and Eastwood left a lot of it on the page.
8/10,
Chuck"
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=244309
< Message edited by Warfare1 -- 10/21/2006 4:36:27 PM >
|
Printable Version
Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? - 
Alls well that ends well.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread