Flags of Our Fathers

Eastwood’s two-film project is one of the most visionary of all efforts to depict the reality and meaning of battle.

As he did in "Unforgiven," "Mystic River" and "Million Dollar Baby," Eastwood handles this nuanced material with aplomb, giving every element of this complex story just the weight it deserves. The director's lean dispassion, his increased willingness to be strongly emotional while retaining an instinctive restraint, continues to astonish.

An epic both raw and contemplative, is neither a flag-waving war movie nor a debunking.

Flags of Our Fathers is an accomplished, stirring, but, all in all, rather strange movie

Character development is of secondary importance to narrative and theme. As a result, we never really get to know any of the film's protagonists.

It's a noble undertaking, and Eastwood is stylistically bold enough to create a view of combat based mainly on images that are clearly manufactured. (As with "Saving Private Ryan," the movie's principal source is "The Big Red One," whose director, Samuel Fuller, actually experienced the war.) But this is underimagined and so thesis ridden that it's nearly over before it starts.

What Flags of Our Fathers is not, however, is moving, evocative, or very unique.

A nicely crafted war film. I wasn't overly invested in what was happening onscreen, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I still found 'Flags of Our Fathers' to be a very good and a very interesting story from the Battle of Iwo Jima. It's a fascinating tale that it tells, which is definitely its strongest feature. As a whole I was very interested in it, individually I don't think it's as strong but as a collective it comes out nicely. Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford and Adam Beach are the pick of the performers, though there are a load of familiar faces elsewhere - including Paul Walker, John Slattery and Jamie Bell. Super intrigued to check out 'Letters from Iwo Jima', which Clint Eastwood & Co. released two months after this to serve as a companion piece. Hopefully that's as good as this.

Eastwood lacks Spielberg's emotional punch, I'm glad he is not fighting for it. Flags Of Our Fathers Eastwood is the hero. I know I am going against the film. But this is not just about the film. Well, particularly this film. The director, Clint Eastwood honors the "war" like no one. And not just how he decolorizes- actually they are just toned down a bit, the colors- it in his picturization. But also how sensible his approach is. Both sides of perspective are humanized. And this is just those clips, the part where the war is enacted, is what I am talking about. There is this another political unsung not-cold-but-hot war boiled throughout the film as an aftermath to the major event that the film spins around. And this is how William Broyles Jr. and Paul Haggis, the screenwriters who adapted the storyline from Ron Powers and John Bradley's books- separate- keeps us engaged in this formal white collar (or uniform, to be precise) compelling drama. For often in such war based films, the audience tends to trail away from a polished non-controversial content. But here the premise cuts across that very issue and the subtlety is bombarded by a viscous glance shared or a cut-throat passed comment or the hostile body language. Another reason why the drama connects with us instantly, is yes the obvious poignancy of these facts, but also the antics placed specifically by these writers to draw in long lasting teary moments. Almost as if they are going the other way around just for the emotional dosage that Eastwood hands it over with such ease. In terms of performance, John Slattery armed with a complex three dimensional character connected with me the most. His attitude in the Flags Of Our Fathers might be wrong but it is staged in a way that might even remind you of someone you know or a part inside of you.

It was a very interesting movie to watch. It's not a style I generally enjoy but I appreciate the movie as it is. I think it's important to watch movies like this to get a better understanding of the world wars. It shows the brutality of war along with all the other elements that go along with the time period. Clint Eastwood did a good job and this movie is worth watching.

My thoughts of this movie exactly the same as I wrote for American sniper. Too patriotism and sentimentalism for a pompous movie. One of the worst by Eastwood.

Ponderous (where's the battle?), navel gazing (not naval, unfortunately), sentimental, cliched, misses the big picture. Anything else? Actually, the battle scenes are quite impressive, even though the movie attempts to remove it from the screen altogether. The iconic photograph of the raising of the Stars and Stripes was somewhat inaccurate and was used as a part of US war propaganda? Got that? No? Then watch a movie that is two and a quarter hours long that bleats on about it. Alternatively.... look at the far superior Letters From Iwo Jima instead!