Flags of our Fathers review?

[IBTyrone]

Hey Gunny,

As much as you've been talking about "Flags of our Fathers", I figured you would have had a review up here from your perspective by now. Actually, I've been looking forward to your review since last weekend, but haven't seen it yet. I may have missed it under another thread. I know you are under the weather so I understand if you haven't gotten out to see the movie yet.

I read the book last weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. It will be interesting to see how Eastwood visually represents some scenes that are best understood verbally.

Anybody else seen the movie? What are your thoughts?

I am also looking forward to the Japanese perspective of Iwo, "Letters from Iwo Jima," coming out in the Spring. I heard Ken Wantanabe, the guy from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" is starring in that one.

[KG Erwin]

I HAVE written reviews in other forums, but for the SPWaW crew, I'll say this:  the views of Pacific war ground combat are magnificent.     Yeah, there's a lot of CGI, but on the big screen it nearly took my breath away.   

As for the meat of the story -- it is about the survivors of the second flag-raising, which produced "The picture".  Rosenthal captured that moment by accident.   He wasn't even sure if he got a decent shot when the pics were transmitted. 

The movie is about John Bradley, Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes.    This is NOT a documentary about the Battle of Iwo Jima.   This is about three combat survivors, and how the ballyhoo over that photo affected THEM. 

Personally, I loved it.  I WILL buy the DVD, too.   This movie doesn't denigrate the Corps at all -- some folks have said that. They are dead wrong.

The bond drive -- here's the crux of the matter, and why Marines are a special breed -- Hayes did NOT want to be taken out of the fighting.    This guy was an exemplary Marine, and a former parachutist.   He had earned his jump wings. 

NONE of those survivors really wanted to leave -- they considered it as letting their buddies down.  This point must be understood. 

As for America's need to manufacture heroes -- that's something else entirely.   It's a social issue, and it doesn't have squat to do with Marine values. Clint Eastwood did the Marines a valuable service by illustrating how their understanding of duty can be manipulated and corrupted by politicians.

[IBTyrone]

Thanks for the synopsis, Gunny. I saw it this afternoon but would have preferred to have been armed with your opinion as far as realism before I viewed it. I concur with your assessment and thought the movie was true to the book, but with details left out that did not translate well to the big screen. The music, which in the credits was attributed to Eastwood, complemented the movie well. I thought the actual pictures of the invasion displayed during the credits at the end were a fantastic addition to the film.

[Titanwarrior89]

Saw the movie last sunday. Not a bad movie but kind of slow but worth seeing. [;)]

[azraelck]

I wish I had the time to see it. Like all movies I actually want to see, I won't get to until it's out on DVD. [:@]

[dje]

I just saw the movie and believe it to be averagely average. I thought the film didnt capture the horror and pain as well as it could. It didnt really emotionally move me the way other war films have. The movie is worth seeing although I was let down by it.

[jeffthewookiee]

I really enjoyed it, and at the risk of sounding pansy, it brought me to tears at points <blush>.

I did feel that it was very negative towards the US government and their attitude to the war. The 'we're not heroes, we just did our duty' attitude I really appreciated; the negative portrayal of the bond drive I didn't. But then, I think that it's rare that a war movie be anything but anti-war, so I wasn't particularly surprised. I also thought it was a bit hypocritical of them to make a big point out of how the Iwo Jima picture was deliberately misrepresented by the government, draw a parallel with the Vietnam photo of a South Vietnamese officer executing a prisoner, but then not mention how that photo was similarly misrepresented by the media.

I do think the film has valuable things to say about how media influences the way people think about the wars that are being fought, but I honestly feel that in modern times the 'propaganda' factor works in the opposite direction. At least in the US, the media is the one who decides how to portray events, not the US government.

But overall, a great film, definitely worth watching. More of an experience than a movie though, make sure you're not depressed already when you go, because it might be worse after you leave.