Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

KG Erwin -> Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/20/2006 7:26:34 AM)

I've been following the progress of this since it was first announced, and I won a copy of the soundtrack from Milan Records, which I received today. Eastwood's music really struck me, as have the few clips that I've seen.

This movie is a big deal to me, as everyone knows that I'm a fan of the WWII Marines. I read James Bradley's book, and I expect the film to be faithful to it.

I will be at the theater tonight, but I already have a good idea of what I'll be seeing.

I highly recommend reading the book before watching the film.

A review will follow.



Sarge -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/20/2006 2:01:29 PM)

Sup KG,

I did finally finish up the book about a week ago, what a fantastic read. I did enjoy the personal back grounds and childhood stories to the personal accounts on Iwo.

Got to be amazed at the story of Jack Lucas , a fourteen year old boy that fool the recruiters that he was of age. This kid at fifteen stowed away on a transport (going AWOL) and survived on food being passed along by sympathetic troops across the Pacific.

Then some how managed to blend in with the assault troops and loaded up on one of the first waves going into Iwo, landing with out a rifle which was quickly rectified on the beach.
Jack Lucas at the ripe age of fifteen fighting his way to the top of Mt. Suribachi became the nations youngest Metal of Honor winner and the only high school freshmen on the island.

I don’t know how they are going to fit all the personal accounts in the film , and may just center on the flag raising individuals, either way the book is a must read before the film IMHO.




Sarge -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/20/2006 3:03:11 PM)

PS: Jack Lucas came back home after the war a enrolled in the ninth grade.

Holy sh!t [:D]




Warfare1 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/20/2006 4:26:23 PM)

I'll be going to a first showing later this afternoon.

Been looking forward to this movie for sometime.

I'll do a quick review after I get back. 



sol_invictus -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/20/2006 4:58:07 PM)

I really want to see it, but I hate to venture into a movie theatre amymore. I really prefer to rent movies and watch them form the comfort of my Lazy Boy, with copious amounts of cheap and healthy popcorn and excellent cold beer at hand. i can wait for the release to dvd.



ShermanM4 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/20/2006 5:59:34 PM)

quote:

Sup KG,

I did finally finish up the book about a week ago, what a fantastic read. I did enjoy the personal back grounds and childhood stories to the personal accounts on Iwo.

Got to be amazed at the story of Jack Lucas , a fourteen year old boy that fool the recruiters that he was of age. This kid at fifteen stowed away on a transport (going AWOL) and survived on food being passed along by sympathetic troops across the Pacific.

Then some how managed to blend in with the assault troops and loaded up on one of the first waves going into Iwo, landing with out a rifle which was quickly rectified on the beach.
Jack Lucas at the ripe age of fifteen fighting his way to the top of Mt. Suribachi became the nations youngest Metal of Honor winner and the only high school freshmen on the island.

I don’t know how they are going to fit all the personal accounts in the film , and may just center on the flag raising individuals, either way the book is a must read before the film IMHO.

PS: Jack Lucas came back home after the war a enrolled in the ninth grade.

Holy sh!t



Thats gotta be the least selfish 15 year old i've ever heard of. Either that or just a really tough one. No wonder why he won the CMoH.

quote:

I really want to see it, but I hate to venture into a movie theatre amymore. . i can wait for the release to dvd.


I have to agree. I don't know what things are like in Kentucky, but the average movie theater ticket price in Denver and the Metro area is $10-$12. I just think thats too much for a ticket for what they offer. I can't wait to see it though!



Warfare1 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/21/2006 4:39:46 AM)

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




KG Erwin -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/21/2006 4:56:51 AM)

As far as Pacific ground combat is concerned, it's the best I've ever seen. I'll definitely be buying the DVD next year.

Some have complained about the flashback/flash forward style, but that's also the way the book was written.

So, I still strongly recommend reading the book before seeing the movie.

I thought the ensemble cast was superb, with special mention given to Adam Beach. I'd previously believed that the character of Ira Hayes was the most compelling, and Beach's portrayal did not disappoint. He should be a lock for an Academy Award Best Supporting Actor nomination, and the film itself should get nods for its technical wizardry.

My rating: 9.5 / 10. It didn't score a perfect 10 because I felt it could've been longer. Perhaps an eventual director's cut DVD with additional footage will remedy this.

Gunny



ShermanM4 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/21/2006 3:19:10 PM)

quote:

My rating: 7.5/10


quote:

My rating: 9.5 / 10. It didn't score a perfect 10 because I felt it could've been longer. Perhaps an eventual director's cut DVD with additional footage will remedy this.



All sounds pretty good guys. Thanks for the review[8D] Alls well that ends well.



Warfare1 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/21/2006 4:41:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShermanM4

quote:

My rating: 7.5/10


quote:

My rating: 9.5 / 10. It didn't score a perfect 10 because I felt it could've been longer. Perhaps an eventual director's cut DVD with additional footage will remedy this.



All sounds pretty good guys. Thanks for the review[8D] Alls well that ends well.


ShermanM4:

Note that I edited my above post. My rating should be 7.8/10 and not 7.5.

It is a solid movie. The battle and technical aspects are superb. I just felt the flashback aspects hampered the power of the message of the movie. While this might have worked in the book, the movie only has a limited amount of time to make us feel for the survivors, and I think this would have worked better with a straight narrative.

Watch the movie "The Outsider" with Tony Curtis and you'll see what I mean.

In "Flags", early on in the Bond Drive, we get a lot emotion from the three survivors without ourselves having seen enough of the battle to fully identify with them. I also felt the battle itself should have been longer to actually make us feel how grinding and brutal the fighting was.

Even at 2h 12m, the movie was too short - hopefully the DVD will add lots of footage.

I am sure once it comes out on DVD and I get a chance to see the movie again, my rating for the movie will increase.



sol_invictus -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/21/2006 5:08:17 PM)

Just as an aside, Frank Salsely; one of the flag raisers, went to highschool in the small town that I grew up in. He is buried in a small cemetery where my grandfather is buried. The cemetery was land that my family owned as a small family farm when my grandfather was young. There is a nice little memorial at his grave that was dedicated in the early 80's if I remember correctly. Frank died on Iwo Jima a few weeks after the famous photo was taken.



Guz -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/21/2006 7:54:44 PM)

I grew up listening to stories about this battle (and a couple others) from My dad who fought on that island. Going to take him to see this movie soon. I really wonder what his reaction will be to it. On a side note, I'm really more interested to see "Letters from Iwo Jima", Eastwoods companion movie to this one. For those that may not know its shot from the Japanese perspective.



scott64 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/22/2006 4:36:14 AM)

I will be going Monday with my brother [:)]





[sm=00000028.gif][sm=00001746.gif][sm=Crazy-1271.gif]



johnnycanuck1944 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/22/2006 8:19:13 AM)

Must say,it was a great movie,especially enjoyed Adam beach s role as Ira Hayes. Kudos to a Canadian who s done pretty well for himself [:D]



Blackhorse -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/23/2006 6:29:39 AM)

I just saw the movie . . . and was a little disappointed.

The cinematography was superb -- the battle scenes were filmed in color, but "washed out" to better represent the bleak landscape on Iwo.

I too, felt that we weren't given enough time to identify with the characters . . . and that something rich was lost when they left out the stories of the three flagraisers who were killed. I have no problem with flashbacks, but FOOF's were sometimes confusing (one flashback shows the flag already on Surabaichi, *before* the flashbacks of the flag raisings).

Mostly, I felt that too much modern cynicism crept into the movie, and at the expense of historical accuracy. A few examples:
(MINOR SPOILER ALERT!)

-- According to the movie, the second flag raising occured because a politician landed on Iwo (on Day Five!) and wanted the first flag as a trophy.
-- A key character in the movie overstates the importance of the Bond Drive, saying that America was bankrupt and would have to sue for peace in a month, and in a political shot more appropriate to the 1970s or today, says that "our friends the Ay-rabs will only accept gold bullion." Who in 1945 cared what "the Ay-rabs" thought?
-- In some ways the Marines are depicted as if they might have been in the modern-day, All-volunteer Army. One rich guy introduces his Ivy League friends, indicating that they choose to stay out of the military. One mother blames her husband for letting their son join. The only discussion about why anyone was serving was when a squad was ragging on one marine for joining because they had "the best looking uniforms." There was no sense that nearly every able-bodied male had volunteered or been drafted to serve.

Overall, I think that Clint Eastwood, in trying to be balanced, overshot the mark -- he stripped out most of the inspirational parts of the book, and left, for me, too much of a sense that the celebrated flag-raising was a cynical fraud.




scott64 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/23/2006 7:26:59 AM)

Joe Rosenthal died on Friday Oct 20th 2006 [:(]





[sm=00000028.gif][sm=00001746.gif][sm=Crazy-1271.gif]



freeboy -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/23/2006 8:24:38 AM)

I gave the movie a just over passing grade, great technically but a bit tooo melencholy.. and as pointed out above the war would not grind to a stop without war bonds, oil still would flow and the govt would continue, remember we out built all other nations combined for most \everything exceipt probably tanks.. there the Reds produced A LOTwe had so many ships planes etc at the wars end we didn't know whatto do with them...but I regress.. for me the movie needed more Iwo and less crying about being at home etc, too long a movie for me due to the editing, I wouldn't mind a three hour movie with some action, but this one had few action sceens, and these mostly set ups for the "gosh isn't this ugly" moto the movie tracked. We did need to take the Island to help bomb the mainland.. where did the movie work ?
A... great shots of the fleet and the landings, ala computer generated still very spify
B. Credible portrayals and charactors, well written
C. Mostly accurate, Nambu sounded authentic and looked it too.. etc...



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/23/2006 6:10:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I just saw the movie . . . and was a little disappointed.

The cinematography was superb -- the battle scenes were filmed in color, but "washed out" to better represent the bleak landscape on Iwo.

I too, felt that we weren't given enough time to identify with the characters . . . and that something rich was lost when they left out the stories of the three flagraisers who were killed. I have no problem with flashbacks, but FOOF's were sometimes confusing (one flashback shows the flag already on Surabaichi, *before* the flashbacks of the flag raisings).

Mostly, I felt that too much modern cynicism crept into the movie, and at the expense of historical accuracy. A few examples:
(MINOR SPOILER ALERT!)

-- According to the movie, the second flag raising occured because a politician landed on Iwo (on Day Five!) and wanted the first flag as a trophy.
-- A key character in the movie overstates the importance of the Bond Drive, saying that America was bankrupt and would have to sue for peace in a month, and in a political shot more appropriate to the 1970s or today, says that "our friends the Ay-rabs will only accept gold bullion." Who in 1945 cared what "the Ay-rabs" thought?
-- In some ways the Marines are depicted as if they might have been in the modern-day, All-volunteer Army. One rich guy introduces his Ivy League friends, indicating that they choose to stay out of the military. One mother blames her husband for letting their son join. The only discussion about why anyone was serving was when a squad was ragging on one marine for joining because they had "the best looking uniforms." There was no sense that nearly every able-bodied male had volunteered or been drafted to serve.

Overall, I think that Clint Eastwood, in trying to be balanced, overshot the mark -- he stripped out most of the inspirational parts of the book, and left, for me, too much of a sense that the celebrated flag-raising was a cynical fraud.



Those things absolutely spoiled the movie for me. Never having read the book, I wonder if that was in there.




Lysus -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/25/2006 12:23:14 AM)

I have to see this today, I think.



reg113 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/25/2006 8:54:51 PM)

So Korps, where is your review?[&:]



keystone -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/26/2006 3:08:22 PM)

I definitely want to see this movie, and hopefully will find time. But after reading these posts I have some reservations going in. They were all heroes on Iwo, but the real heroes did not come home. I thought this was a movie more along the lines of the book. To just focus on the ones that lived is denying the honor the ones that died deserve. Saving Private Ryan, though not a true story, hits on this quite well. Iwo is a story of perserverance, not if i get hit but when, thats why those guys raise that flag, to show to the rest of their fellow Marines that they were going to take that Island and to buck up the rest of thier comrades. The Iwo Jima monument is a testament of American resolve. It looks like Eastwood only went halfway here in this movie, a sign of the times, we are only willing to go halfway now.



Warfare1 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/26/2006 6:24:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: keystone

I definitely want to see this movie, and hopefully will find time. But after reading these posts I have some reservations going in. They were all heroes on Iwo, but the real heroes did not come home. I thought this was a movie more along the lines of the book. To just focus on the ones that lived is denying the honor the ones that died deserve. Saving Private Ryan, though not a true story, hits on this quite well. Iwo is a story of perserverance, not if i get hit but when, thats why those guys raise that flag, to show to the rest of their fellow Marines that they were going to take that Island and to buck up the rest of thier comrades. The Iwo Jima monument is a testament of American resolve. It looks like Eastwood only went halfway here in this movie, a sign of the times, we are only willing to go halfway now.


I fear you are right.

I am a long-time wargamer and military buff, and I have read tons of material and seen a lot of documentaries about Iwo.

The Battle sequences in the movie get 10/10.

The characterizations and story get 7.8/10.

Unfortunately, I am really of two minds about this movie. I went into it really wanting to like it. But the disjointed nature/flashback sequences were confusing and did little to help me understand what went on in the battle.

Most people who will see this movie will have little idea what Iwo was all about except for the fact that the US had tons of ships, that lots of soldiers died on the beaches, and that somehow taking this little piece of island saved lives.

While we see tons of US soldiers and ships, I really only saw about a dozen Japanese soldiers, 3 MGs, and two cannons on the island. The impression being that the BIG US was fighting a little helpless enemy.

There were no grinding fight sequences over days and weeks to show what the marines went through. For example, similar sequences as has been used in previous movies, such as "Hamburger Hill", would have spoken volumes about the nature of the grinding fighting.

We do not learn any background leading up to the battle of Iwo.

We do not learn that the Battle of Iwo Jima was the US Marine Corps biggest and bloodiest battle of the entire Pacific War.

We do not learn for example that in a period of 35 days the US Marines suffered almost 27,000 casualties, and won more Medals of Honor in these 35 days than in all their previous history!

The Japanese were tenacious and vicious fighters and they suffered 18,000 casualties.

The reason the island was taken? To help save the lives of American air crews after bombing runs on Japan. They could land their damaged aircraft on the island. In addition, Iwo gave the Americans a base from which they could launch fighter protection for the bombers. Tens of thousands of airmen were saved.

By focusing on the negative questions surrounding the flag raising, Eastwood seems to be trying to denegrate the only true and lasting symbol that came out of the Pacific War.

That flag raising; that picture; had nothing to do with the soldiers that raised that flag. To me, after reading so much about the battle, after hearing the many stories from WWII vets who fought on the island, that picture is a SYMBOL of the bloody cost and heroism and grinding bloody fight that was the Battle of Iwo Jima.

There are no faces shown in the picture of the flag raising. Why? Originally, it may have been by accident. But now, we can understand the faceless nature of the picture can best be seen as symbolizing ALL soldiers. Every soldier who fought is in that picture. That flag raising picture is not about the men who raised that flag; it's not about their characters or their emotions or their flaws; it's about the cost and courage of battle.

No one has to say those soldiers were heroes; no one HAD to say it: their very deeds, their actions, spoke volumes about their courage....

In this Eastwood's movie only goes halfway....



KG Erwin -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (10/27/2006 12:07:59 AM)

To Warfare1 and the others, for discussion of the deeper meanings behind the film, please visit us over at the Pacific War forum http://www.the-pacific-war.com/phpBB2/index.php

A poll was conducted there, and the movie has received a 4-star rating (on a 1-4 scale) by 70% of the respondents.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (11/2/2006 3:25:41 AM)

I don't support ANY of the criticisms thus far.

I watched the film, and rapidly realised there were other issues going on during the film. Maybe some stuff wasn't spot on.

But, I watched the film wondering, will this be a Saving Private Ryan where I will want to buy a copy immediately, or a Pearl Harbour, where I would rather spit on the film makers.

I want my copy of this film ASAP.

I am not sure I could have handled a film that started as brutal as the landing was, and stuck with the battle for the entire film's length. Some scenes had me stressed out. I was a bit overcome in other sequences. The film was utterly horrifying in some portions.
Those sections of the film that switched back to the scenes outside of the battle allowed me to regain composure.

Eastwood delivered a stunning film, to which I hope he scores a lot of awards. He did a fine job illustrating that horrible moment and supreme triumph in Marine history.

There was not one wretched Hollycrud element for once. No pointless sex scene (thank friking christ). No piss me off over the top grosslessly insulting way off of realism petrochemical looking explosion.

I don't think Hollywood will fail to release crud in the future, but it is nice that this film wasn't the usual crap.

I score it 9.8



Maliki -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (11/2/2006 6:54:34 AM)

I was going to see this movie with my dad..then he bitched out saying that a similar movie was already done with the Ira Hayes Storystaring Tony Curtis

Still i am going to see it.It picked my interest..I am sure that it will do justice to the men whom fought and died in the PTO and also their disconnection of returining to civilized society after their service.



KG Erwin -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (11/3/2006 2:32:46 AM)

Someone in another forum mentioned this, and it never occurred to me. While FoOF will be popular amongst PTO fans, the general populace is war-weary. They see it on the news every day, so it won't fare as well as SPR did at the box office because of it.

Whether we like it or not, current events shade peoples' opinions on the type of entertainment they want, so an epic war movie, at this particular time, may not be received as warmly as some of us had hoped.

However, I think DVD sales of this will do well.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (11/3/2006 7:09:34 AM)

That may or may not be true Glenn.

I recall a great many Vietnam films coming out, when Vietnam was still the war no one wanted to remember for the most part.

I think if the film is well done, it will be reasonably received.

I have not spent ANY effort following the scene in Iraq now for quite a long time. Totally avoid anything connected to it for the most part.

But, that doesn't alter my feelings about history.
This November 11, I will once again likely spend the day teary eyed repeatedly as I remember all the young boys that never got to be old men like me.

Nothing in our stupid modern world will ever invalidate the incredible sacrifices of our honoured heroes of the past.



JamesM -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (11/3/2006 8:46:34 AM)

Just went and saw I gave would give it 8/10, a very good film. It centered more on the effect to the men than the fighting. Definitely better than “Saving Private Ryan", once the WOW factor wore off on that film it was revealed as just another middle of the road film. While Flag of Our Fathers is more storyline and character driven.

Jim



Brady -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (11/3/2006 5:43:16 PM)


The Second Film, looks to interesting as well:

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



Peter Fisla -> RE: Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"? (11/3/2006 5:49:19 PM)

I'm going to pass on the "Flags of our Fathers" based on the reviews I have red and heard from my friends, I will rent it once it will be out on DVD. I think I will rather pick up the book based on which the movie was made. I'm going to see "letters from Iwo Jima" for sure...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.011719