User Reviews

(Synopsis) There were five Marines and one Navy Corpsman photographed raising the U.S. flag on Mt. Suribachi by Joe Rosenthal on February 23, 1945. "Flags of Our Fathers" is the story of three of the six surviving servicemen, John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Pvt. Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), and Pvt. Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), who fought in the battle to take Iwo Jima. The picture became one of the most famous images of the U.S. winning a battle during WWII. However, the battle for Iwo Jima raged on for another month with three of the marines being killed in action. The other three servicemen were taken out of battle and flown back to the states. The photo made these men heroes, and the government used these new heroes to promote the selling of war bonds on the War Bond Tour. The three men did not believe they were heroes, even though the American public did.

(My Comment) The film was based on the book written by Doc's son, James Bradley. It wasn't until his father's death that he found out that Doc was one of the Iwo Jima flag raisers. Soldiers with real combat experiences usually keep their war stories to themselves. Clint Eastwood directed the film, and he didn't pull any punches in the battle scenes, even though the battle for Iwo Jima was considered one of the bloodiest against the Japanese in the Pacific. The only problem I had with the movie was that Eastwood used too many flashbacks that jumped around and made the movie hard to follow. The movie would have been better if Eastwood had gone in chronicle order with some flashbacks. During the battle scenes, you actually see the chaos that soldiers encounter on the battlefield. Overall, I found the story to be realistic and very compelling by not glorifying war. It is a long movie, but the time passes very fast. This film will receive many Oscar nominations. Some of the movie is graphically violent and shows the dark side of war, and the effects war has on our returning soldiers. (Warner Brothers Pictures, Run time 2:12, Rated R) (8/10)

What do you get when you cross an Academy Award winning director whose movies tend to follow the lives of individuals and their consequences of the violence around them, an award winning writer that deals with racism and the map of the human spirit and a producer that has a penchant for World War II history who is a master of telling epic stories on the widescreen canvas? Well, you get Clint Eastwood, Paul Haggis and Steven Spielberg who have teamed up for the first time to bring to the screen the new WWII story of the six soldiers who raised the American flag at Iwo Jima and became media heroes in the new film Flags of our Fathers.

Based on the true (and relatively unknown) story of six regular soldiers that raised the flag atop the isle of Iwo Jima and whose picture of the effort became synonymous with an impending victory of the war, Flags of our Fathers will be one of the most talked about films of 2006.

Flags of our Fathers follows the lives of three surviving members who raised the flag in 1945 atop Mount Suribachi and how the government used these three individuals and the media in an effort to spark interest in selling war bonds to the American public.

Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford and Adam Beach play John "Doc" Bradley, Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes respectively. These three individuals were partly responsible for the second American flag raising on that graced newspapers and magazine covers all over the world.

If you caught it, I did write the 'second American flag raising'. A fact that it seemed not one of us in the packed pre-screening knew before the films closing credits. Six soldiers on the 5th day of the island's invasion planted the flag of infamy just seconds after the first flag was that was erected was taken down. As the picture made its circles in every American media outlet available, Bradley, Gagnon and Hayes were quickly sent packing back to the United States to be used in a cross country marketing campaign to drum up support for the troops spread out over Europe and Asia.

Not one of them believing they were true heroes, the three are persuaded to separate their reluctance from the necessity to boost morale with the American public and ask for funds to continue with the necessary production of tanks, grenades, guns and armor. The film then switches between their tours of sporting arenas and speaking engagements and flashbacks back to the horrors of the taking of the island in full vivid detail.

Flags of our Fathers is an important film, but unfortunately, not a stellar one. The battle scenes are very well done and show the chaotic atmosphere and pace that follows a ground war, but it's the relationship and the manipulation of public interest as used by the media that the movie hits home. In a time where America is fighting two separate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with veterans of Vietnam still being paraded on CNN every evening news to discuss comparisons, Flags of our Fathers is important in that it shows how a single picture or event can change an entire opinion over an effort that will cost young men and women their lives.

But where Eastwood fails is in his attempt to drum up any emotional attachment to the three characters. Haggis does his Crash best to have us 'tisk' at the consistent barrage of racial epithets thrown towards Indian descent Ira Hayes, but Eastwood fails to weave this sympathy and the sympathy for those left behind on the beach into an emotional punch that will carry us to the voting polls in the awards season.

The biggest disappointment with Flags of our Fathers comes with the expectation that the three major players in the production bring to the table. Eastwood in particular has stemmed together three recent films – The Forgiven, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby – that each dealt with a person of persons dealing with the emotional weight of violence that they were witness. The heavy handedness of Flags of our Fathers should be right up his wheelhouse. Add the brilliant writing experience and resume of Haggis and the movie should have been celluloid gold. Instead, we deal with waving veterans, moments of tenderness between the soldiers and the families of the dead they fought beside and the emotional burden of the horrors that surrounded them in combat without any tear tugging or tissue pulling on behalf of the experiencing movie watcher.

Flags of our Fathers was shot back-to-back with Letters from Iwo Jima which will shows the Japanese perspective of the battle and is scheduled for release in February 2007. While watching Flags of our Fathers, there are a few scenes that you can imagine being in the next years release and maybe that is where Eastwood and the gang lost their focus.

So why does Flags of our Fathers still get 3 ½ stars even though the comments seem so negative? Well, it is because what the film does right, it does extremely well. During the battle scenes you are transported to Iwo Jima and the chaos of the situation can be felt in how you inch towards the edge of your seats. The acting too is better than average, especially from Phillippe who might find himself along side wife Reese Witherspoon as an awards nominee come Christmas. Couple these pluses with the importance of revealing a true and important story to the mass audiences and the obvious comparisons with American war efforts at the time of print, and you have a film that will undoubtedly become one of Eastwoods most talked about films. Even if it wasn't one of his best.

"Flags of Our Fathers" is the story of the five Marines and one Navy Corpsman who raised a replacement flag on a stinking little island six-hundred miles south of Tokyo. An Associated Press photographer, who wasn't ready and was caught off guard, snapped a picture of them raising this seemingly unimportant second flag. He had no idea what he had just done.

That one picture is said to be the most reproduced picture in the history of photography.

I toured Iwo Jima in 2000 with my father, a private in the 5th Marine Division, who, along with the flag raisers, landed on Iwo Jima on February 19, 1945 -- the opening day of what would be the costliest battle in the history of the U.S. Marine Corps.

I can't say enough good things about the realism of Clint Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers." Visually, the movie made me think that I was back on Iwo Jima, and emotionally, I felt like I was witnessing what I had been told by Iwo survivors and what I had read in Richard E. Overton's "God Isn't Here: A Young American's Entry into World War II and His Participation in the Battle for Iwo Jima."

James Bradley's book "Flags of our Fathers," is wonderful, and this movie of the same name is very faithful to his book.

But, the editing of the movie takes the viewer through so many flash-backs and flash-forwards that it's hard to keep things straight -- even if you have read the book!

The movie opens with Harve Presnel (I think it was Harve) playing the role of what I thought was a narrator. Later, it looks like he's just one of many people that James Bradley interviewed for his book.

I was expecting some corny things in the movie, like seeing the flag raising picture taking up the full screen in the theater while the Marine Corps Hymn played. That didn't happen. After I heard what I thought was a narrator, I thought that anyone who didn't know what was going on in the movie would probably be kept informed of the not-so-obvious things . . . like it was Howlin' Mad Smith who was demanding, and not getting, additional bombardment of the island; like it was Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal, who told Howlin' Mad Smith that "...the raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years." These events were in the movie, but the characters were neither introduced by name in the movie, nor were they described by "the narrator," who seemed to come and go at odd times.

Ira Hayes is a tragic character. It's obvious that Hollywood likes tragic characters just because of all of the attention that he gets in this movie, and because Tony Curtis made a movie about Ira Hayes back in 1961. The actor who plays Ira in this movie is great!

Stephen Spielberg and Clint Eastwood obviously had to tap dance around an "Elephant in the Room" when it came to showing what happened to John Bradley's friend on Iwo Jima. If you've read the book, you know what happened. The movie does a masterful job of bringing the subject up, but not bringing it up in a manner that would offend the squeamish, or, for that matter, bringing it up in a way that would make it impossible to show the movie to a Japanese audience.

Haggis, Eastwood and Spielberg team up to tell a less known but poignant story about 6 soldiers who were the second flag-raisers of Iwo Jima and how an event that does not seem so significant is captured on photo and becomes one of the most crucial events in America during WWII. Having always admired Eastwood for tackling complex subjects, he does a wonderful job of telling an event that is not known to many. He captures the time period well on screen.

The war sequences are skillfully executed. It reminds me of the early sequences of 'Saving Private Ryan' as its shot with washed out colours and the scenes are just as visceral and hard-hitting. They are extremely effective as are the scenes where the three survivors are being paraded by officers in order to sell military bonds. The real truth is ignored, the illusion of a photo is confirmed as truth, the three soldiers are burning in the inside while obliged to parade themselves and then they are left with nothing, just memories of the war. Eastwood has also briefly but effectively tackled the racism theme. Even the label of a hero was not enough for Hayes to get a drink at a bar.

Haggis's writing is solid. War isn't glorified and the aftereffects are shown with subtlety rather than blatant preaching. The editing is tight as the movie flows at a smooth pace. It starts off with the war sequences and then follows the three surviving flag-raisers revisiting the war in flashbacks. Eastwood's soundtrack is intense and gives voice to the unspoken words. All the performances are good but it is Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach and Ryan Phillipe who stand out as the three survivors, particularly Phillipe who is restrained.

'Flags of Our Fathers' an important side of the war that almost vanished into oblivion but thanks to Eastwood and his team, many people today will know about it.

I've always felt that when you fictionalize a story about war, you dishonor the memory of so many people who have a compelling story to tell by choosing to make something up instead *cough*privateryan*cough*.

The problem with war movies about real people is that you have to deal with complexities of character and plot that the genre simply doesn't lend itself easily to.

So when the story at hand aims to pose questions like "what does it mean to do the wrong things for the right reasons" and tries to debunk the popular myth of herodom, there's very little margin for error.

Enter Clint Eastwood. Never one to shy away from challenging stories, this is a much bigger effort than his usual understated character dramas. On the one hand, it doesn't "feel" like a Clint Eastwood movie, but on the other, it feels at home in his themes of used-up heroes -- the person behind the larger than life persona. These are complex characters in very difficult situations, and he presents them in a way that's straightforward and non-judgmental, so we're left to decide the answers to the film's central conflicts ourselves.

To a person, the cast is up to the challenge. It's hard not to admire Ryan Phillippe for a restrained and thoughtful performance, but the real kudos go to Adam Beach. Almost every aspect of Beach's character is cliché, with one minor exception - that's really the way Ira Hayes was. So the challenge was to portray Hayes as a real person despite the cliché, and the result is one of the most heartbreaking and troubling performances in the film. Here's a guy who is portrayed as a hero, who really has no answers at all.

There's a lot not to like about the film. It's not "entertaining" per se, in the same way that any war memorial in DC is not entertaining. Nor is it a particularly approachable film. What it lacks in popcorn-munching entertainment value, it replaces with gravitas. This is an important film, about an important time. It's status as a valuable history lesson is secondary to it's reflections on human nature and our society. As such, it deserves to be seen, and contemplated, and appreciated.

I can't wait for Letters From Iwo Jima (the companion piece, also from Clint Eastwood, told from the Japanese point of view.) Taken together, the scope of this project is breathtaking.

The timeline was very dicey and did not flow well. Great depiction of history but needed to flow better

In two and a half hours Clint Eastwood paints a thought provoking piece on heroism and war-propaganda. The film tells three stories: first it is the WW II battle of Iwo Jima where thousands of soldiers (Japanese and American) died 'conquering' that island. In the style of Saving Private Ryan (Spielberg is a producer of Flags) the viewer gets a astounding look at war with a lot of blood, guts and CGI. Second is the story of a son of one of the flag raisers on that island, who interviews other survivors of that battle to understand his dad a little better. This is very moving stuff, but stands a little pale in comparison to the final storyline. This is where veteran-director Eastwood really shines. Like his meditation on violence Unforgiven, Flags takes a closer look at heroism where soldiers by chance get into the spotlight of the war-propaganda-machine. Some may say that Eastwood made an anti-war film or even an anti-America film, but they're wrong. Flags is very critical on the way war is sold to the public. There's nothing honorable about killing or to be killed on the battlefield. The only thing that matters is that you protect you're friends in your platoon and that they protect you. Flags is one of the best war movies I ever saw, maybe even better than Ryan, because it's never sentimental and always honest in its portrayal of the soldiers and war in general.

Outstanding World War II film purporting to be the "true" story of the iconic and glorious flag raising on top of Mount Suribachi during the battle of Iwo Jima. It turns out that two of the US Marine flag raisers in the film (main character Corpsman John Bradley and Rene Gabon) were frauds. Unfortunately this truth came out 10 years after the film was made. It's interesting as depicted in the film the son of John Bradley says that his father (played by Ryan Phillipe) never wanted to talk about the flag raising and never discussed it with anyone. Well now we have a better idea why he didn't want to discuss it. Ironically the real reason why John Bradley his this fact for his entire life might make another good movie. The film also depicts Bradley as super modest and embarrassed by all the fame and fortune the flag raising brought him. But now we know it was actually guilt for being a fraud. All of this is not the fault of Clint Eastwood, the actors and writers of the film as they didn't know the truth. And in spite of this, they still made a great film that is a tribute to the brave Marines that sacrificed so much to protect our freedoms from an evil foreign enemy.

Learning that Clint Eastwood teamed up with Steven Spielberg and Paul "Crash" Haggis for this ambitious project about the epic battle for Iwo Jima in the Pacific, I didn't know what to expect. The results are not entirely positive, but the film does offer spectacle of the highest order. The first part is the strongest with grandly filmed battle scenes on the island of Iwo Jima (filmed on the volcanic wastelands of Iceland), which constitutes some very intense film-making, impressively filmed and nearly on par with the battle scenes in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. In the second part we get to see the men who raised the famous flag on a tour at home to raise money for the necessary war bonds, although the occasional flashback takes us back to the battlefield.

I must admit, this one has elements of greatness in almost every department, but somehow these don't quite glue together as intended. The film seems to suffer from three evenly strong-handed approaches. The script by Paul Haggis eagerly wants to take us on an emotional roller-coaster in the second half, where the focus increasingly shifts to the story of Ira Hayes in the aftermath of the battle. There's obviously a strong hand of Steven Spielberg, who always wants to show us the human side of the story, which Clint obviously wants too, but he tends to do it in a different way. There seems to be a clash of wills, with these three major forces at work here. Ultimately, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is not about the war proceedings itself, but how the war affected the men who fought in it themselves, and how they refused to be seen as heroes.

It's hard to dislike any of Clint Eastwood's films and with this one, and the follow-up LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, he made two films of epic proportions, that will undoubtedly compete for the Oscars. Both of the films that is, as they were released by different distributors, "Flags" is with Dreamworks and "Letters" with Warner Brothers.

We'll see, so far, so good. I wasn't blown away by this one, but certainly a film to respect. Difficult to judge this, before seeing the follow-up LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, which shows the Japanese perspective of the story. I strongly suspect Clint saved the best for last and that "Letters" will be his ultimate showcase.

Camera Obscura --- 7/10

Eastwood shot this film and Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) back to back to convey an emotional time in human history. The Second Great War makes for great entertainment and human connection and Iwo Jima captured this perfectly. Unfortunately, "Flags" focuses much more on the politics of the war and uses its narrative to jump between timelines, which distracts from the atrocities of the war while making it difficult to differentiate personality amongst the soldiers. Monotony set in early and, while beautiful at times, this film really lacked the punch it should have had.

In 1945, the Marines attack twelve thousand Japaneses protecting the twenty square kilometers of the sacred Iwo Jima island in a very violent battle. When they reach the Mount Suribachi and six soldiers raise their flag on the top, the picture become a symbol in a post Great Depression America. The government brings the three survivors to America to raise funds of war, bringing hope to desolated people, and making the three men heroes of war. However, the traumatized trio has difficulties to deal with the image build by their superiors, sharing the heroism with their mates.

"Flag of Our Fathers" is a reasonable movie of war, entwining battle scenes with the personal drama of three privates that raised the American flag on the top of the Mount Suribachi, becoming one of the most famous picture of World War II. The screenplay uses too many flashback and the film is too long and boring in some moments. The good points of this movie is the way it discloses how America was broken in 1945; the effects of war in the lives of the survivors; and how people is always manipulated by governments. Further, the story never glorifies the war, acting actually like a good anti-war movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Conquista da Honra" ("The Conquest of the Honor")

This could quite possibly be the longest movie that I have ever seen that clocks in at just over two hours in length. The pacing is terrible with constant jumps from the taking of Iwo Jima to the surviving soldiers War Bond tour. I never felt connected to any of the characters in the film and wasn't even sure other than the surviving soldiers who was involved in the raising of the flag. So much more character development could have been packed into this film that wasn't and ultimately the film fails for that very reason. Having been a fan of almost all of Eastwood's other films this movie was a great disappointment.

I can't recall the last time a movie moved me the way this film did. Clint Eastwood presents an honest portrait of war (the beauty of brotherhood, the horror of literally walking through death, the pain of dealing with survival). The images made me feel like I was getting a real glimpse at the lives of the men who served during WWII. The actors more then carried their own weight. They made you understand these were not characters they were acting out, they were representing real men. To often today war movies are used to actively promote war or to demonize it. I appreciated that this film let me make up my own mind. "Flags of Our Fathers" is a movie that will stay with you. Isn't that what great movies are supposed to do? This film reminds you why movies are important.

If your expecting a Saving Private Ryan or Patton type film you are going to be disappointed. The movie is not patriotic, and it mostly flips back and forth from different times(some are flashback). The time changes are not confusing, but it is annoying in the way they happen. The acting ranges from mediocre to just plain bad. Which cause you to never quite feel for the characters. Then story tends to drag at the end, and it just lacks depth through the entire film.

The visuals are great in the film. It's some of the best I've seen in this type of film. Nothing stands out as historically inaccurate, like in some period films that have present day soda/beer cans, etc. It's different in many way to the normal war film, in the aspect that it shows solders after the war in more detail.

Overall I was not checking what time it was during the movie, so it did keep my attention. My recommendation is if you really want to see it, catch the matinée or the discount theater showing in a few weeks. It's not worth full price!

A great film showing war as it was, and is: ugly, frantic, corporate, confusing, frustrating and very sad. Soldiers accompany their friends into horrific situations with terrible consequences. Ryan Phillippe, Adam Beach & Jesse Bradford are WONDERFUL. Paul Walker did not suck. Neal McDonough & Barry Pepper are great (pepper is older but still hot...fell in love with his bible-quoting sniper in SPRyan). Paul Haggis re-wrote the screenplay, which I really enjoyed. The music is haunting as done by Clint, as well as his son Kyle. Please don't leave when the lights go up. B&W photos of the real people this film was based on are shown during the credits. I will see this film quite a few more times.

This excellent film deals the Iwo Jima battle and the three survivors of the notorious flag raising on mount Suribachi. This is a flag-waving and patriotic tribute to U.S. Marines and experiences of three soldiers after US took Iwo Jima from the Japanese. A photograph of this act appeared in 'Life' magazine and immediately caught the imagination of the nation. Very decent war scenes that convey us the assault troops establish in the Pacific island. The picture bring to life one of the famous images of the WWII, Joe Rosenthal's photography of US marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima, on the morning of February 23,1945 .The three living survivors of the historic flag raising are Rene Cagnon(Jesse Bradford), John Bradley(Ryan Phillippe)who attempted his best to forget everything about his existence on Iwo Jima where his best pal was captured and tortured to death and the native Ira Hayes. The Indian Hayes suffered post-traumatic stress and his life was disintegrated as he utilized alcohol to attempt to cope his fame, he seemed to to alternate among despising his war experience and relishing it. Interesting fact is the real-life Marines appeared in 'Sand of Iwo Jima' by Allan Dawn with John Wayne, as the three marines who raise the flag at Mount Suribachi went to each man and said that other who had agreed to make it. The three reunited and put in their few days on the set, appeared as themselves in the film, but they conned into making it. The three protagonists actors are top-notch with special mention to Adam Beach as Ira Hayes(whose life was acted by Tony Curtis in 'The outsider,1961,'directed by Delbert Mann), a deranged native-American soldier . The movie is a sensible commemoration to United States Marine Corps whose exploits and valor have left a lasting impression of the world and the hearts of their countrymen. It is enshrined in stone as a monument in Washington D.C. near Arlington cemetery.

The motion picture is very well realized by Clint Eastwood and lavishly produced by Steven Spielberg. Perfect trio starring,Phillippe,Bradford and Beach and extraordinary secondary cast as Robert Patrick, Neal McDonough,Harve Presnell,Jamie Bell,Barry Pepper, Paul Walker and David Patrick Kelly as President Truman, among others. Evocative and colorful cinematography by Tom Stern. Perceptible and feeling musical score by Eastwood. Spectacular production design by Henry Bumstead in his last film , he worked for Alfred Hitchcock and Eastwood's habitual.

Adding more details along with the largely described on the movie, the deeds happened of the following way: Iwo Jima battle was a hard-fought US operation, but like the navy, the Us army fought its way from island to island in the Pacific and was one of the most difficult campaign of the Pacific theater. US capture of Japanese-held island in Bonin group about 1450 miles south of Tokio and under command of general Kuribayashi. Fortified by the Japanese with 1500 underground posts, it held two airfields, with a third under construction and was a valuable strategic target for US forces as it would provide a base for land-based 2221 bombers to raid mainland of Japan. After a tense fighting Feb-March 1945 , it was assaulted by US marines 19 Feb 1945 after a prolonged air and naval bombardment. The 22000 Japanese troops put up a fanatical resistance but the island was finally secured 10 March. US casualties came to 6891 killed and 18700 wounded, while only 212 of the Japanese garrison survived.

I was interested in seeing Flags of Our Fathers, in high school and college, for my history classes, WWII was the most interesting subject and I've always loved learning about the different battles and historic moments of that time. The men who raised the flag at Iwo was something I never had an opportunity to study, I was lucky enough in junior high to see the statue in Washington, D.C., but I never understood what it meant, that's why I was looking forward to Flags of Our Fathers. I was interested in what the flag truly meant to the people and I'd say that Flags of Our Fathers was a great story to tell.

As I stated, one of the most memorable pictures of WWII was the men raising the American flag in victory. But do we know who those men were? What they were thinking about when they raised the flag? Was the flag staged? How did the men feel being called heroes coming home when they just witnessed so many of their friends being slaughtered? What makes a hero and could we really say who was the good and who was the bad of every war?

Flags of Our Fathers showed what we are still living with to this day, with the war in Iraq, we are very quick to call every soldier a hero, but sort of like Ira said in the movie "I was just dodging bullets", I don't think we could ever understand what these men went through and what it must have been like coming home to everyone applauding them when they just lost their brother or best friend, then being forgot after a while. While this isn't the best WWII movie, I don't think it's one to be missed, so please do give this movie a look, I think people need to understand what these men have gone through.

7/10

Like many others I was looking forward to this film. Not so much as a remake of the battle of Iwo Jima but as a more humanistic examination of the lives of the men who fought and survived it. But what I assumed to be an interesting and thought provoking story, centering around the survivors of Joe Rosenthal's famous Suribachi photo, turned out to be a real let down. I guess my real problem with the film is that it didn't know what it wanted to be; was it a war film or a drama or a commentary on the ugliness of wartime politics or what? It bounced around so much it was at times difficult to watch. The battle scenes were very well done yet no sooner are we drawn in then Eastwood cuts away to another place and we have no idea where we are, why we are here, or who these people are. The characters were all a little two dimensional and wooden. I don't think it's because they're bad actors, I just think Eastwood didn't focus on them very hard. And that's the point. This movie lacks focus. This movie is in fact all over the place. It could have pinpointed any one of dozens of interesting subjects it touched upon yet it seems Clint wanted to cram in as much as he could. The stories of the three men paraded around the country selling war bonds was more of a backdrop, but to what I'm not sure, rather then the centerpiece of this narrative. Truth be told their tale, as told here, was not all that interesting or compelling. What we got was a jumbled, often confusing, poorly implemented story about real people and real events that didn't get the justice they deserved in this one. A real missed opportunity.