Read Mixed User Reviews for Flags of Our Fathers

4

JoshR.Oct 18, 2006

What could have been a great movie becomes mediocre thanks to a disjointed narrative and lack of real connection to the characters--this movie feels like it is twice as long as its 2:12 running time would suggest.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

4

DrewFeb 17, 2007

The direction, acting and painfully boring political spectrum involving the war leads to a war movie that has each character mearly one politicians handshake away from becoming a cliched and forgettable film experience. There is absolutely The direction, acting and painfully boring political spectrum involving the war leads to a war movie that has each character mearly one politicians handshake away from becoming a cliched and forgettable film experience. There is absolutely no connection between the characters and with such long pauses between past, present, future and politics you almost forget that Eastwood set out to do a film about war. This movie is definietly not worth the time and suggest seeing Letters from Iwo Jima where Eastwood gets it right… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

4

TomA.Oct 21, 2006

Superficial, characters we never get to know, leaving viewers with an empty feeling.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

5

NickA.Aug 20, 2007

'Flags of Our Fathers,' Clint Eastwood

2 of 3 users found this helpful

6

MarkBayerDec 8, 2006

Director and American icon Clint Eastwood follows up Million Dollar Baby, which was controversial but shouldn't have been, with a surprisingly subversive critique of America's participation in the Last Good War that even managed to Director and American icon Clint Eastwood follows up Million Dollar Baby, which was controversial but shouldn't have been, with a surprisingly subversive critique of America's participation in the Last Good War that even managed to hoodwink ultrapatriotic right-wing movie reviewer Michael Medved (Baby's prime and most notorious detractor) into uncritically awarding it three and a half stars. (Maybe it's the title.) While Eastwood and writers Paul Haggis and William Broyles Jr. never mention Iraq, the parallels are certainly there for all to see: their movie's vision of World War II is one where funding and public support are controlled and manipulated by (largely fraudulent) PR gimmicks, and both Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman are shown to have historical predecessors. Ultimately, this is all a lot more interesting to discuss than to actually watch: Eastwood's storytelling approach derails itself with a tortuous, serpentine flashback-within-flashback structure of the kind that occasionally works in romantic dramas and spy thrillers but virtually NEVER in war movies, as the poor reception given to the similarly-structured 1944 Humphrey Bogart French Resistance drama Passage to Marseille (made by the people behind Casablanca) will bear out. (Saving Private Ryan wisely limited itself to making the entire movie a simple journey through only one character's past; perhaps Steven Spielberg, doing co-producer duty here, was trying to top himself. If so, quit while you're ahead!) Eastwood's use of decolorized cinematography in his depiction of the struggle for Iwo Jima is visually effective but nowhere near as gripping or as frightening as Ryan's opening battle sequence, and the use of highly unconvincing special effects and props to depict battlefield gore doesn't work at all. Actors as frequently bland as Jesse Bradford, Ryan Phillippe and Paul Walker, playing servicemen, do nothing to intensify our identification with them, and the only time Flags of Our Fathers really hits the mark is in its fascinating portrayal of Pima Indian Ira Hayes (movingly played by Adam Beach) who generally accepted racist jokes about squaws and wigwams from his fellow Marines as good-natured male bonding but couldn't handle the official and unofficial racism of the folks back home, and because of that AND the knowledge that he was ordered to promulgate a fraud for the sake of building support for the war and selling war bonds, became one of World War II's most poignant psychological casualties. In the last couple of months, we moviegoers have been treated to two inspirational football dramas, two period pieces involving magicians, and THREE films in which a real-life character is so fascinating and beautifully played that he just dwarfs all the other stuff surrounding him. Put together a three-part movie consisting of just the George Reeves material from Hollywoodland, the Idi Amin footage in The Last King of Scotland and everything involving Hayes in this picture, and the resulting anthology would be a prime contender for one of the 10 best films of 2006!… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

6

ThewisekingOct 23, 2006

Overrated. A film drained of light, life and energy. The battle sequences especially disappoint and the cutting back and forth in time is really a problem and removes momentum. The film critic community appreciated its anti-heroic stance Overrated. A film drained of light, life and energy. The battle sequences especially disappoint and the cutting back and forth in time is really a problem and removes momentum. The film critic community appreciated its anti-heroic stance with an overlying stench of corruption; but the audiences will not.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

6

ChadShiiraOct 23, 2006

If the filmmaker's intent is to honor our dead, there probably shouldn't be scenes that would emit ooohs and aaahs from the Fangoria jetset. Like Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan", the level of gore is once again, If the filmmaker's intent is to honor our dead, there probably shouldn't be scenes that would emit ooohs and aaahs from the Fangoria jetset. Like Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan", the level of gore is once again, envelope-pushing; and it's my assertion that nobody needs to see the human flesh mangled in such horrifying detail. Watching the combat scenes in "Flags of our Fathers" is a lot like the truth about auto racing; some spectators are waiting for the carnage. Blood and guts aren't going to upstage Tom Hanks, but it does give a slightly lesser actor like Jesse Bradford (actually, he's pretty good here) a run for his money. But what the decapitated head and movable stomach doesn't upstage in this otherwise noble film is the highlighting of a less-enlightened and hopefully bygone era, in which minorities gave up their lives for a country that championed their institutionalized subjugation. Adam Beach, as the Indian stooge, is the heart and soul of this not wholly organized movie.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

6

JoeM.Oct 24, 2006

The movie makes a unique point about heroism and has realistic war scenes. But, the movie looses its way in the middle with too many flashbacks. Better editing would have made a more concise and moving story.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

6

NancyH.Oct 29, 2006

The movie was slow--and not enough character development. It took a while to figure out who was who--you'd think with all this time, it would be established earlier on. Ok, war is hell, and it's a business--but the movie kept The movie was slow--and not enough character development. It took a while to figure out who was who--you'd think with all this time, it would be established earlier on. Ok, war is hell, and it's a business--but the movie kept making the point over and over again and neglected other aspects. I don't think there was enough material for a story hear. It was beautifully shot, though.… Expand