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

[KG Erwin]

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]

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]

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

Holy sh!t [:D]

[Warfare1]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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/sho ... p?t=244309

[KG Erwin]

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]

My rating: 7.5/10

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]

ORIGINAL: ShermanM4

My rating: 7.5/10

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]

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]

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]

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

[johnnycanuck1944]

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]

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]

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

[freeboy]

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]

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]

I have to see this today, I think.

[reg113]

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