Who's Going To Go See "Flags of Our Fathers"?

[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.

[Warfare1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The Second Film, looks to interesting as well:

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

[Peter Fisla]

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...

[RealChuckB]

Just a short question to those who have already seen it:

I bloody/gory are the battle scenes in Flags? My wife is interested in seeing it, but I'm not sure if it might be too much for her (for example, she never saw Saving Ryan and the first 20 minutes would definitely be too much for her, so a comparison would be interesting). Just to clarify, I'm asking about how the cruelty is actually depicted, not the underlying cruelty of every battle.

Thanks!

Chuck

[KG Erwin]

Chuck, there IS some gore in the movie (after all, this is the PTO we're talking about), but none of it is gratuitous.

There's a cave scene in which you get a glimpse of dead Japanese who committed suicide by blowing themselves up with grenades. That's pretty graphic, but it's brief.

There are no torture scenes or anything like that.

Show your wife some actual Pacific documentary footage, and I think she should be OK with the movie.

I would also recommend that she read the book. It might make it easier to identify who's who in the film. The voiceover you hear at the beginning is the old Capt. Dave Severance being interviewed by James Bradley. He provides the background to the importance of "the picture". The young Severance is played by Neal McDonough (who was also "Buck" Compton in Band of Brothers.)