Thursday, November 02, 2006

Flags of Our Fathers

One of my most anticipated films this year, “Flags of Our Fathers”, is the story behind the men who hoisted the American flag on Iwo Jima during WWII in one of the most famous pictures in U.S. history.

I was excited not so much for another WWII film but because it was coming from director Clint Eastwood.

His track record is phenomenal, going back to his Western heyday with films like “High Plains Drifter”, his resurrection of the Western in “Unforgiven” and more recently with gritty films like “Mystic River” and “Million Dollar Baby”.

This project was something that he had wanted to do for some time but when the rights to the book became available, a certain Steven Spielberg got them first.

Over time, due to schedules and discussions about the project, Spielberg decided to be a producer on the film and Eastwood was finally able to direct.

A refreshing change in the war movie formula is that “Flags of Our Fathers” focuses on the use of the photo, and those in it, to spur on a war bond drive to finance the war campaign.

Sure, probably thanks to Spielberg in large part, the battle scenes themselves are brutal and reminiscent of the first 30 minutes of “Saving Private Ryan”. Expect dismemberment and disemboweling to be on the menu when you slip into the theater on this one.

However, this isn’t simply a tale of what happened on Iwo Jima.

To that end, Eastwood’s casting was concerned not so much with getting believable soldiers but with getting actors who could pull off a wide spectrum of emotions as they dealt with being hailed as heroes stateside in posh hotels while their fellow comrades were still fighting a war and sleeping in bunks if they were lucky.

Casting is where the movie began to go wrong. Sure, they did great at getting some of the military-only roles. The film boasts Barry Pepper, Neal McDonough and Robert Patrick – all of whom are perfect for their roles. “Billy Elliot” star, Jamie Bell, is also a pivotal character that was cast well.

But how in the hell did they cast Paul Walker? Does his agent have some embarrassing photos of Eastwood in a motel with the Orangutan from “Every Which Way But Loose”?

Thankfully, Walker’s role is small and he does die (HOORAY!). Sadly, his death is quick and the audience doesn’t get the proper time to celebrate. Still, a dead Paul Walker is better than the alternative.

Now when casting the main three actors who would be the core of the film, Eastwood and company went with Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford and Adam Beach.

I can understand Beach and even Phillippe, whose sour face and demeanor worked for this role well enough.

However, Bradford irritated me enough to almost ruin the film. While I see how his smug and glib routine is an essential part of the character, it was completely two-dimensional.

At no time was he a believable soldier and he’s never shown the ability to convincingly portray emotions outside of a high school mentality (hence my nickname for him of “Bring it Swimfan”).

Aside from that, there were two other crucial elements that I though were mishandled – a shift in the film’s focus three quarters of the way through and a painfully long death march of an ending.

Like so many films, “Flags of Our Fathers” is told largely in flashbacks. All fine and dandy, I can deal with that. Yet, at about the two-hour mark (of two and a half hours), the story essentially shifts from the recollection of the main characters to one of their sons as he tries to gather information for a book about his father’s ordeals in the war, both abroad and at home.

I realize that the movie is based on that book but it’s a completely useless element that only detracts from the rest of the story.

And then there’s the ending. You think the film is coming to an end and then, in what feels like 30 minutes later, the credits roll. The film goes on and on, following the lives of the central characters once their part in the war effort is over.

I could have done with losing the last reel of the film entirely and getting home sooner to make sure my fantasy football lineup was set.

All that being said, it’s not that “Flags of Our Fathers” is a bad film overall. It’s just so much less than it could have been.

However, I still hold out hope that “Letters from Iwo Jima”, the Japanese side to the conflict, will be nothing short of amazing and will renew my faith in Eastwood’s great talents.

I’m giving “Flags of Our Fathers” a 3 out of 5. Wait for DVD or at least make sure to catch “The Last King of Scotland”, “Catch a Fire”, “The Queen” and even “The Prestige” before you make it inside a theater for this one.

9 Comments:

Blogger Mike Terry said...

This is the worst review since 'CATCH A FIRE.' Almost totally uninformative. And despite it's two paragraph run time, manages to be mostly devoid of content.

11/03/2006 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger B said...

Concur with Surge...

Since when have we started putting notices for upcoming reviews?

Why not start making predictions while your at it? Anything on National Treasure 2?

11/03/2006 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Upgrayedd said...

I know you're having fun, and I appreciate your continued patronage to the site, but sometimes I can't write up a review immediately because I don't have the time.

When that happens, I post these up just in case one of you might be leaning on seeing a film and seeing that it gets a 4 or a 2 from me might sway which one you decide to plunk $10 down on.

And since you love these so much, I'm not going to write up the "Catch a Fire" review until at least tonight sometime before I possibly see "The Prestige" and "Babel" ... both of which will get these treatments until I can find the time, hopefully before the end of this weekend.

Though I may also check out "American Hardcore" which will only serve to delay things further.

What's the grammatical equivalent of sticking your tongue out? Oh, yeah ... :P.


P.S. "National Treasure 2" will probably get a 3 out of 5 from me (sice that's what I would have given the 1st if I had the time to write up the review), assuming the cast returns and it gets budget over $20 million dollars to make things look pretty.

11/03/2006 12:48:00 PM  
Blogger B said...

ooh... Navy Seals...

11/03/2006 06:46:00 PM  
Blogger General Anacock said...

I haven't seen the movie, but I don't really see how it can be any good. I think we've already created the 'definitive' war movie for every war we've had.

That and all this movie seems to be about is the picture and all that crap and the fame that came about as a result. I'm sure at the end it's all depressing because everyone dies and yadda yadda yadda.

The next war movie I'm going to see will be Full Metal Jacket 2 with Ashton Kutcher and P. Diddy as the staff Seargent.

11/08/2006 06:25:00 AM  
Blogger Full Force said...

What if they made another Leprechaun movie and set it in the former Soviet Union during the 1980s? "Leprechaun 7: The Gold War". I think you'd go see that. Then again, so would I. I mean, how could you not?

11/09/2006 08:02:00 PM  
Blogger Upgrayedd said...

Don't tease me ... I know there isn't another Leprechaun film in the works and the alcohol only dulls that pain!

11/09/2006 09:59:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Terry said...

You think it's bad for you? What about that peck who played him?

11/11/2006 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger Upgrayedd said...

Warwick is still getting work. Look next year for "Agent 1/2" and I hope you didn't miss his remarkable turn as the robot in "Hitchhiker's Guide" with the fantastic Alan Rickman as the voice.

Probably the best on-screen duo ever!

Still, I need "Leprechaun 7: A Black Knight's Tale."

With a formula mixing time travel with the medieval times with contemporary music with other races (and hopefully a Rufus Sewell cameo)... really, who doesn't win?

11/11/2006 12:05:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

CounterData.com

This includes you.
Counter
CounterData.com

Search Advertising
Search Advertising Counter
.