Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Flags of our Fathers (2006)

This is topic Flags of our Fathers (2006) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001194

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-28-2006, 06:14 PM:

I can't believe that no one else has reviewed this yet.

Anyway, it's a very, very good film and one which I can recommend highly. Go see it if you are in the mood for a good war movie. As a side note, I should point out that the CGI work during the battle scenes is fantastic and, unlike most CGI work, is not distracting at all.

Posted by Jared Thornton (Member # 3580) on 11-02-2006, 05:40 AM:

Where:
Regal's Red Rock Station 16
Theatre 16
Presentation:
Aperture plate shadows along right side and bottom, plus way way way way too loud. My mom has 50% hearing loss and complained it was to loud.
Other than that presentation was fine

I know I'm gonna get flack for this but but sadly I was disapointed with this film. I really wanted to like it but I left the theatre feeling like something was missing. I just stopped caring about the characters half way through, so when the emotional ending hit it did nothing for me. It also felt like Clint Eastwood was just going through the motions with this one, kinda mailing it in if you will.
I will agree with Scott that the battle seens were outstanding with very good cgi work throughout, easily the best parts of the film. 3 stars because of the outstanding battle scenes.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-02-2006, 11:34 PM:

A POS that I would rather not have seen.
Blatantly anti war. Denigrates the sacrifices made by the WWII generation. Whether or not the film is factual is beside the point. The story serves no purpose in being told. This is NOT a feel good movie.
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer and save $10

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-03-2006, 02:09 AM:

quote: Greg Mueller
This is NOT a feel good movie.

So you want to watch a war movie and "feel good" about people dying? [Eek!]

People dying violently, be it for a good or not a good reason is always very sad. Even if they die for "a good cause", it still is a tragedy and basically a horrible waste of life. One shouldn't "feel good" about watching that.
One should feel horrified and then reflect on the senselessness of killing each other - for what? One should think about **why** people got and still get into situations in which they are let loose against each other.
If you haven't learned that from history, then you have learned nothing at all - and the sacrifices made by these men were basically for nothing.
If there is one thing we can learn from history, it is that people don't fight against people - whom they usually don't even know and have no problem with. It is systems and ideologies fighting against each other on the backs of the people. "The people" who are on the battlefield and dying in large numbers are all victims of senseless violence. The only way we can make sense of all that is to learn from what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again.
It's not about "feeling good".

The other day, I was at the post office and they had a motif displayed there which showed people at the Vietnam Memorial touching the names on the wall, and in the wall, instead of their reflections, you could see what appeared to be shadows of their fallen comrades. That made me very sad, even though I don't really have any even remote personal connection to that war and the people who were in it. But it made me very sad on a general human level, beyond all what and why and who, for the people who fell there, completely regardless of the what and why. It is just sad. It should move us, but not to "feeling good", but to thinking about what happened in this and other wars, and learn from it.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-03-2006, 08:00 AM:

There are ideas worth dying for.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-03-2006, 09:01 AM:

[ 11-05-2006, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-04-2006, 09:08 AM:

Mike
This is a forum for movie reviews not philosophical or political debate.
My review stated my opinion that's all.

And yes somethings are worth dieing for. But as Patton said, the idea is to make the other poor bastard die for his ideas

[ 11-04-2006, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2006, 11:10 AM:

[ 11-05-2006, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-04-2006, 04:18 PM:

[sleep]

Anyone else see the film?

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 11-04-2006, 04:41 PM:

I personally really appreciated the film for its commentary on how war is promoted and celebrated by those who have no business pretending that they know what sacrifice means. My grandfather was a WWII photographer in the pacific (on Saipan images 14-21 here ) and knew Rosenthal personally, and his stories are very much in line with the tone of this movie.

For those that don't know, this film will be complemented by Eastwoods' Letters From Iwo Jima to be released in February. Letters is a Japaneese language film that tells the story of Iwo Jima from the alternate perspective and was shot concurrently with Flags.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-04-2006, 07:55 PM:

Greg,

I'm surprised that for as many years you have posted here and been associated with the technical aspects of this industry, you have have not come to the realization that ALL Hollywood films (with perhaps the exception of Patton) have been anti-war.

Posted by Lilian Burch (Member # 4052) on 11-05-2006, 03:24 PM:

I wonder if anyone knows the movie "The Outsider" with Tony Curtis playing Ira Hayes. This movie gives another perspective of the events on Iwo Jima that led to the famous picture and some background on the other guys in the picture. Interesting and a big production but a little disappointing for me.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-15-2006, 10:01 AM:

I thought it was an excellent film... The best use of computer generated effects I've ever seen.

Mark

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-15-2006, 11:12 AM:

I thought that the book "Flags ofr our Fathers" was one of the best books that I have read.

I found the film extremely dissappointing.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-18-2006, 12:16 AM:

quote: Greg Mueller
Denigrates the sacrifices made by the WWII generation.

I showed it to my Grandpa, who was a Marine in the Pacific during WWII, and he thought the exact opposite. He's still very close with the guys he fought with, and they all agreed that the movie was brilliant.

Personally, I liked it. But at the same time, it demonstrates that Eastwood is only as good as his material. And he's had better material in the past.

quote: Aaron Mehocic
I'm surprised that for as many years you have posted here and been associated with the technical aspects of this industry, you have have not come to the realization that ALL Hollywood films (with perhaps the exception of Patton) have been anti-war.

I just went to a panel where the topic of discussion was "Can a war film be anti-war?" The panelists were a professor at Notre Dame, the critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, and editor Walter Murch. Murch was the only one who thought that it could be. He also brought up PATTON, and said that one of the reasons for that film's success is that it could be read either way. He even implied that this was intended by the filmmakers.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-18-2006, 10:45 AM:

It seems like every war movie I see with in-your-face battle scenes I end up comparing to Saving Private Ryan. I liked Flags, but I found myself paying more attention to the media-enhanced lives of the individuals involved than the importance of the battle. Maybe that was the point. Do you think it bothers anyone who was actually involved when movies of this magnitude are made by people that were never in the military? I never served, so I don't know.

Regarding anti-war movies, is there anybody or any film that is really pro-war? I mean, I'm sure there are a few nuts out there, but I don't think anyone sane likes war. Understanding a need or presenting history is different. I therefore find it very unlikely for there to be a movie that is pro-war, which by default makes them all, including this one, either anti-war or neutral.

Posted by Lilian Burch (Member # 4052) on 11-26-2006, 12:29 AM:

Saving Private Ryan - another movie that does not measure up to its "predecessor" The Longest Day , IMHO.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-26-2006, 01:53 AM:

"It is good that war is so terrible else we would grow to fond of it."
-Robert E. Lee

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-17-2007, 02:18 AM:

I tried to watch this movie on DVD just now. I had to turn it off after an hour because it was just too god damn motherfucking boring. None of the characters were interesting and it seems like it was directed by a senile old fart who probably takes three days just to tie his shoes. The movie tried to maintain viewer interest by actually having a few war scenes scattered throughout the completely useless US scenes. It was obvious that they did this at key points when they felt people would probably think about leaving the theater. Even the war scenes were kind of mediocre. CGI was easily spotted and nothing really ever happened either in the war scenes or the US scenes.

I am afraid to watch the Japanese version because I fear it will also be boring as god damned fuck. You know they'll give Clint a bunch of awards because he is over 200 years old and everyone voting is afraid that he won't be alive to ever be nominated again, so they feel that this is their last chance to give false respect to him.

This movie did not deserve to be made.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2007, 12:36 PM:

I think you need to be over 50 to really enjoy this to the fullest. We had a lot of WWII vets to it and they all said it was awesome. (I guess real war is probably not as much fun as "Gears of War.")

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-18-2007, 05:02 AM:

They hadn't invented gears yet back in the 40's. Only cogs.