|
Flags of Our Fathers (Widescreen Edition) :: 0140556672
Description
| Product Description |
|
| Thematically ambitious and emotionally complex, Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers is an intimate epic with much to say about war and the nature of heroism in America. Based on the non-fiction bestseller by James Bradley (with Ron Powers), and adapted by Million Dollar Baby screenwriter Paul Haggis (Jarhead screenwriter William Broyles Jr. wrote an earlier draft that was abandoned when Eastwood signed on to direct), this isn't so much a conventional war movie as it is a thought-provoking meditation on our collective need for heroes, even at the expense of those we deem heroic. In telling the story of the six men (five Marines, one Navy medic) who raised the American flag of victory on the battle-ravaged Japanese island of Iwo Jima on February 23rd, 1945, Eastwood takes us deep into the horror of war (in painstakingly authentic Iwo Jima battle scenes) while emphasizing how three of the surviving flag-raisers (played by Adam Beach, Ryan Phillippe, and Jesse Bradford) became reluctant celebrities - and resentful pawns in a wartime publicity campaign - after their flag-raising was immortalized by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal in the most famous photograph in military history. As the surviving flag-raisers reluctantly play their public roles as "the heroes of Iwo Jima" during an exhausting (but clearly necessary) wartime bond rally tour, Flags of Our Fathers evolves into a pointed study of battlefield valor and misplaced idolatry, incorporating subtle comment on the bogus nature of celebrity, the trauma of battle, and the true meaning of heroism in wartime. Wisely avoiding any direct parallels to contemporary history, Eastwood allows us to draw our own conclusions about the Iwo Jima flag-raisers and how their postwar histories (both noble and tragic) simultaneously illustrate the hazards of exploited celebrity and society's genuine need for admirable role models during times of national crisis. Flags of Our Fathers defies the expectations of those seeking a more straightforward war-action drama, but it's richly satisfying, impeccably crafted film that manages to be genuinely patriotic (in celebrating the camaraderie of soldiers in battle) while dramatizing the ultimate futility of war. Eastwood's follow-up film, Letters from Iwo Jima, examines the Iwo Jima conflict from the Japanese perspective. --Jeff Shannon Editorial Descriptions are usually submitted by the manufacturers, publishers and authors. Contact us if you are one of them, and wish to change the above description. |
Reviews
Customer feedback
|
|
Voting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Guest
"Flags of our Fathers" comes with an impressive pedigree--the filmmakers behind Million Dollar Baby, Crash and others. It's epic task--to explore the origins and consequences of the iconic photograph at Iwo Jima--and the film doesn't quite deliver. Some great insights come along the way about the nature of war, the realities of propaganda and civic duty, responsibility. But overall, it's a bit of a mess with too many flashbacks and a dearth of war scenes that are hard to take in a movie that didn't have to be a war of movie. The movie gets bogged down too much in specifics in terms of dates and which photo is which and such and yet, by the end, actually fails to tell you much of anything. Who really are the characters? Sure, there's the Native American who drinks booze a lot but who is he, what motivates him? Sure, there's the guy who drops off the face of the earth after the publicity, but who was he to begin with? The acting itself fails to bring this across, and is generally disappointing. "Flags of our Fathers" had lots going for it--it just couldn't get itself organized.
|
Author: Guest
For all the negative responses to the movie "Flags of Our Fathers" I would guess 85% did not read the book with the same title by James Bradley, son of John "Doc" Bradley. This book will give you the whole, true story of what the movie is all about with many details not shown in the film. You will get so much more out of the movie. I can't even fathom seeing the film beforehand. I am absolutely NOT soliciting the book but I am personally acquainted with the Bradley family and my extended family from Antigo, Wisconsin were very good friends with John and continue to be with his wife Betty. My cousins went to school with James and his siblings. John was the funeral director for my grandmother and others I know. I have attended memorials for "Jack" in Appleton, WI (where he went to school), after the book was released. Jim Bradley, the author of "Flags of Our Fathers" agonized over writing the book and consulted with his family whether to do it until he got the go ahead from his mother. Since his father only spoke of the war once to his family is the reason, in the movie, there isn't much personal information on him. People who wrote other reviews stated that they were confused as to why James was interviewing other WWII, Iwo Jima families. This is why. As for the other "stars" of the movie, which very little is said about their personal lives before and then again after the war you will find many details in the book which will help you to understand what lies beneath each personality. I cried when I read the book and I cried when I saw the movie. PLEASE read the book first, or if you've already seen the movie before reading the book, read it and then go back and see the movie again!
|
Author: Guest
Iwo Jima ("Sulfur Island" in Japanese) is a little island six hundred miles south of Tokyo. (Today there is only a Japanese military base now, and you cannot visit the island.) But the name of the island got famous immediately after one photo was taken and published in America nationwide during WWII. The memorable image of six soldiers raising a flag gave courage to the people in America, and three surviving soldiers returning their country became national heroes. It's a famous story.
Clint Eastwood's new film `Flags of Our Fathers' does not try to `debunk' this story. It gives human face to these flag-holing soldiers without over-glorifying them, showing what happened to these heroes John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) and Ira Hayes (Adam Beach) before, during, and after the Battle of Iwo Jima. Familiar actors like Jamie Bell, Paul Walker, Robert Patrick and Barry Pepper appear, but the three above play the pivotal roles here.
Remember this is a war movie, and the battle scenes on the beach are often disturbing. (One of the film's producers is Steven Spielberg). Though the fight scenes are less bloody and brutal than those of `Saving Private Ryan,' they are still honest, often shocking, not only because of the bullets and grenades, but because of the confusion and total chaos of the grey-colored battlefield. Eastwood refuses to soften or sensationalize anything, but the results are riveting.
Though the film's theme is clear, its narrative requires our patience a little. The film's story goes back and forth (screenplay part done by Paul Haggis, `Crush'), and this only makes the film look slightly detached from us. The disjointed story requires us to reconstruct, not follow, the experiences of the soldiers. The emotions are certainly there on the screen (thanks to the effective acting), but I am not sure that this is the best way to visualize them. But as I said, the three actors did a fine job as three soldiers who travel around the country for Bond rallies where they have to face another reality during wartime - they are war heroes and people expect them to behave as such.
Finally, some people, not without good reason, say this film is dull. It is true that Eastwood's films tend to be slow, and he takes time to show certain things about the characters. He avoids melodramatic storytelling and showy camerawork, and that does not change in this film. If the battle scenes look confusing, it is perhaps because the war is confusing. If the descirtios of their life as war hero look boring, that is because it is really boring; they were required to do the same thing again and again before finally being forgotten. We just share their feeling, but perhaps too much of it.
This is Clint Eastwood's most ambitious film (and there is "Letters from Iwo Jima" still waiting), and maybe too ambitious as far as its screenplay is concerned. I am impressed with the film, however, with the sincere message from the director who realized the one of the saddest events in history for both people in America and Japan with his touch subtle and powerful at the same time.
|
Author: Guest
not a typical war movie, only with the trade mark of clint eastwood: slow, very slow, and a badly scripted zigzag screenplay. you must have a very strong and blind patriotism to like this bad movie, no matter what. some cosmetic battle scenes, then back to america in pressed uniforms, party, dancing, hotel hoppings, some big words speeches, applauds, women blindly adored those flag-posting gis and chasing them everywhere, shaking hands again and again all over the places. huggings, teary eyes...ma'm, johnny was my best buddie...yes, sir. what else we got here? nothing. a very hollow movie that only gave a very subtle hint to the audience, but most of them might not realize even they successfully completed their viewing in the theater: what you called war heroes were nothing but bunch of chosen models to show to the american public during tough time of the war, allowed them got something to hold unto, gave them some hopes, even those hopes were just for commercial purposes.
|
Author: Guest
I know, already, that I will be crucified for my reaction to "Flags of our Fathers." As an American treatise to honor our soldiers, it is downright unpatriotic of me to be critical. However, I went into this picture expecting to LOVE it. No one could have been more surprised than me that after an hour of the film, I was still totally uninvolved. And by the end, I was completely disengaged.
Now I like Clint Eastwood as a director. His success has been to really inhabit his films with interesting and real characters, and then to put them into complicated real-life situations. I had hoped for a little of that complexity here--but the tone of "Flags" is so obvious and so heavy-handed that it's a major disappointment. There are some good points. The idea of the movie is an intriguing one. Depicting the Battle of Iwo Jima and how a photo of a relatively minor action became an iconic symbol for the nation-- I really was interested in this story. Eastwood has created a handsome, good looking film. The battle sequences are staged with a realistic flourish (although they lack some of the visceral impact of the similarly staged scenes in "Saving Private Ryan"). Some of the smaller roles are filled with great performances--Barry Pepper, Jamie Bell, Robert Patrick and Neal McDonough leap to mind.
The film, however, is weighed down in two major areas--its characterizations and its narrative framing. Sadly, these are major flaws that derail an otherwise interesting story.
The most ironic thing about "Flags of our Father" is that its major theme is how we "constructed" these heroes arbitrarily. They were used as symbols, just like the photo, with no real concern for the actual men. So, it is a substantial failing that the film doesn't honor them as real people either. The screenplay never develops our three leads as credible three-dimensional characters. Ryan Phillippe is vaguely noble, but a bit bland and a cipher overall. Jesse Bradford is slightly obnoxious, but mostly uninteresting. As his fiance comes into the picture, a media circus revolves around them. However, as played, they are singularly unremarkable--it's very difficult to see just what was so alluring. And Adam Beach, in the film's showiest role, is weighed done with racial stereotypes instead of real conflict. This is nothing against these performers, they have all excelled in other roles. But by not creating fully fleshed out characters to care about, the center of "Flags" is like a void--empty and somewhat dispassionate.
The narrative devise of the film, structured with multiple narrators and flashbacks, doesn't serve the material very well either. It disconnects you from the action and characters unnecessarily. And as I was longing to be more fully invested in the story, these segments became annoying. They served no "real" dramatic purpose other than to further pound the film's message into our consciousness--in case we're not astute enough to follow it within the context of the movie. They also lengthen the film considerably for no additional impact. By the end, the narration becomes heavier and heavier--and the unfortunate result, again, was that I became irritated with the preachy and obvious tone. Meant to uplift and edify--the end narration completely finished any good will I had left toward "Flags."
This lack of subtlety is evidenced throughout. All of the homecoming scenes are staged with over-the-top dismissiveness by those who seek to "use" our heroes. But, I'll leave you with one prime example (of many). As Beach struggles with real life--he is shown as a field laborer with other minority workers. An All-American family pull to the side of the road (in the middle of nowhere) and say "Are you that hero?" Then they gather around for pictures before leaving him to his menial chores. Any point that can be made in "Flags" with sledgehammer obviousness is--and it's a real shame. I'm sure no one has read my review completely--they just gave me a negative and moved on. But I am challenging this film as someone who wanted to like it. This review was done with regret, not spite. KGHarris, 11/06.
|
Send to Friend
Send to friend
|
|
