Flags of Our Fathers Reviews

  • May 04, 2020

    La storia è interessante e vale la pena di essere raccontata. Non ho apprezzato il come sia stata raccontata, poco spazio ai personaggi morti sull'isola e liquidati tutti in una scena, Un po' ripetitivi i vari incontri per la promozione della guerra da parte dei reduci. Anche le scene di guerra non sono girate in maniera impeccabile.

    La storia è interessante e vale la pena di essere raccontata. Non ho apprezzato il come sia stata raccontata, poco spazio ai personaggi morti sull'isola e liquidati tutti in una scena, Un po' ripetitivi i vari incontri per la promozione della guerra da parte dei reduci. Anche le scene di guerra non sono girate in maniera impeccabile.

  • Apr 16, 2020

    لماذا تحتاج الحروب إلى أساطير؟ وكيف يمكن لصناعة أبطال -حتى مع تعمّد الكذب- أن تؤثر على مجريات الحروب، فيلم يسلط الضوء على دور الدعاية والإعلام الحربي في تعزيز سرديات الحرب التي تخرج من (وتصنع) الهوية الوطنية!

    لماذا تحتاج الحروب إلى أساطير؟ وكيف يمكن لصناعة أبطال -حتى مع تعمّد الكذب- أن تؤثر على مجريات الحروب، فيلم يسلط الضوء على دور الدعاية والإعلام الحربي في تعزيز سرديات الحرب التي تخرج من (وتصنع) الهوية الوطنية!

  • Apr 12, 2020

    I've watched a lot of WW2 films recently and this is one of the good ones. It feels real. The battle scenes are incredible, very realistic and the underlying story is good. I think if you are just looking of a war action film this is not for you as that only plays a part in the bigger story being told here.

    I've watched a lot of WW2 films recently and this is one of the good ones. It feels real. The battle scenes are incredible, very realistic and the underlying story is good. I think if you are just looking of a war action film this is not for you as that only plays a part in the bigger story being told here.

  • Mar 14, 2020

    The plot was okay, story was good, good characters

    The plot was okay, story was good, good characters

  • Mar 09, 2020

    I don't like war movies but this had my attention.

    I don't like war movies but this had my attention.

  • Dec 28, 2019

    As a companion piece to the excellent Letters From Iwo Jima, I would have liked the film to show the same events from that film but from the Americans perspective. This was only partly addressed.

    As a companion piece to the excellent Letters From Iwo Jima, I would have liked the film to show the same events from that film but from the Americans perspective. This was only partly addressed.

  • Nov 07, 2019

    The sister film to Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) has all the heart that film does and mostly good acting to boot. Although It goes in a slightly different direction. Focusing on the controversy over who actually raised the flag on Mount. Surabachi, and asking.. "does it matter?" And more importantly. The concept of heroism. Unlike 'letters' however it does also focus a fair amount on the post trauma suffered. Theres not much subtlety in the themes. What does it mean to be a "hero." It just asks it. I like that Eastwood could have just done the same movie twice from two different angles but instead he chose to actually tell two different stories, for the most part. I think that was a good decision. This picture has a slightly faster pace then Letters. Which some may prefer. I personally prefer Letters and its slower thoughtful pacing. This film whilst it does have some thought provoking scenes, I dont think we learn much about the characters. In my opinion, I didn't feel that attached to any of them. Some of the special effects look a little dated. Both films have a non-linear story telling technique. Jumping from non-chronalogical scenes. But it works much better in 'Letters'. Because in Letters it actually has a purpose. That is to show you that General Kuribayashi used to live in the USA and knows the Americans personally. Giving him an edge in battle. Here in this film it just comes across as doing it just for the sake of it to be "different." I was pleased that the film showed realistic prejudice faced by native American servicemen even after they faught for their country. Clint doesnt shy away from that. The gore in this film is present but not front and centre. In this case that's fair, as the battle scenes are not really the focus of this picture to begin with. All in all, it's a fair historical film. I prefer Letters, which I will re-watch again. but this is worth a watch too. The last monologue is almost a conclusion of the message of the film. It even uses that word. I'm not sure if that was necessary but oh well. Over all, it's a thumbs up from me. "..I finally came to the conclusion that he maybe he was right. Maybe there's no such thing as heroes..."

    The sister film to Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) has all the heart that film does and mostly good acting to boot. Although It goes in a slightly different direction. Focusing on the controversy over who actually raised the flag on Mount. Surabachi, and asking.. "does it matter?" And more importantly. The concept of heroism. Unlike 'letters' however it does also focus a fair amount on the post trauma suffered. Theres not much subtlety in the themes. What does it mean to be a "hero." It just asks it. I like that Eastwood could have just done the same movie twice from two different angles but instead he chose to actually tell two different stories, for the most part. I think that was a good decision. This picture has a slightly faster pace then Letters. Which some may prefer. I personally prefer Letters and its slower thoughtful pacing. This film whilst it does have some thought provoking scenes, I dont think we learn much about the characters. In my opinion, I didn't feel that attached to any of them. Some of the special effects look a little dated. Both films have a non-linear story telling technique. Jumping from non-chronalogical scenes. But it works much better in 'Letters'. Because in Letters it actually has a purpose. That is to show you that General Kuribayashi used to live in the USA and knows the Americans personally. Giving him an edge in battle. Here in this film it just comes across as doing it just for the sake of it to be "different." I was pleased that the film showed realistic prejudice faced by native American servicemen even after they faught for their country. Clint doesnt shy away from that. The gore in this film is present but not front and centre. In this case that's fair, as the battle scenes are not really the focus of this picture to begin with. All in all, it's a fair historical film. I prefer Letters, which I will re-watch again. but this is worth a watch too. The last monologue is almost a conclusion of the message of the film. It even uses that word. I'm not sure if that was necessary but oh well. Over all, it's a thumbs up from me. "..I finally came to the conclusion that he maybe he was right. Maybe there's no such thing as heroes..."

  • Aug 26, 2019

    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.

    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.

  • Jun 19, 2019

    Clint Eastwood successfully recreates the Battle of Iwo Jima and makes us cry. I also liked the flashback narrative. I thought it helped us understand the soldier's feelings better.

    Clint Eastwood successfully recreates the Battle of Iwo Jima and makes us cry. I also liked the flashback narrative. I thought it helped us understand the soldier's feelings better.

  • Feb 07, 2019

    good historical movie, probably wont watch more than once acting was great camera work did a good job conveying the emotions of the characters storyline was very interesting. if you dont know all the history, this will be fun to watch pacing is slow and can feel drawn out. it seems like thats the only thing really stopping people from fully enjoying this movie the initial invasion scene of iwo jima is absolutely insane, its hard to find movies with an action scene so captivating overall it was great to watch

    good historical movie, probably wont watch more than once acting was great camera work did a good job conveying the emotions of the characters storyline was very interesting. if you dont know all the history, this will be fun to watch pacing is slow and can feel drawn out. it seems like thats the only thing really stopping people from fully enjoying this movie the initial invasion scene of iwo jima is absolutely insane, its hard to find movies with an action scene so captivating overall it was great to watch