Flags of our fathers

I saw Flags of our fathers today. It was very moving. At first I was a little disappointed. I guess I was expecting a war movie that sort of documented the batlle of Iwo jima. But it wasn't a war movie. It was a story about the six flag raisers. Iwo jima was just a part (a large part), bt still just a part in their lives. It was more or less a movie that showed their life stories and their experiences in combat. Once I realized that this wasn't a movie about Iwo but rather a movie about an extrodianary group of men and their experiences I loved it. My advice: If you are looking for a movie on Iwo Jima that expresses a chronological account of the battle. Then don't see this movie. If you want to see a story of a group of amazing guys that is very poignant and moving. Then see this movie. I liked and thought it was very well done. Basically this isn't a war movie. it is a drama with a historical battle as a partial backdrop.

 

well, some of those movies are great, because they depict the general era, and not focusing just on war

 

I 100% agree with you. I think if all our movies about the 40's were about WWII combat and not the people of that era themselves. Then future generations would not fully understand what kind of amazing people made up our greatest generation. As I said before it is a great movie on an amazing group of people who really weren't different from the other soldiers on that island. But it gives you kind of glimpse into that era.

 

Has anyone read Bradley's book for comparison with the movie?

I started his newer work, Flyboys, last night. It's about the little-known action on Chichi Jima, and follows the lives of several navy airmen who were shot down over that island, captured, and later murdered by the Japanese.
One pilot, Lt. (j.g.) George Bush, landed at sea and was rescued by the U.S.S. Finback.

JT

 

I saw the trailer today and I must say it looks good, I'm really looking forward to this one. I'll just have to wait for a good couple of weeks before it premieres in Finland

 

Not a very good flick in my opinion. I liked Clint Eastwood better when he was acting instead of directing. But, would be kinda hard to put him back into cowboy land as a quick shooter with him being 70something years old. I'd prefer to see Sands of Iwo Jima with the Duke for 897th time before I'd ever purchase or care to see Clint's let-down again. I've never been that big into WWI, but after I decided to see Flyboys it sparked an interest in the Escadrille Layfeyette and I've bought some books. Amazingly the Lion mascot (Whiskey) was the real deal, along with a lot of other "stuff" that I would have otherwise dismissed as hollywood make-up crap.

 

I really liked the movie, it was extremely well directed, well acted, and raised very interesting questions, for example, what makes a hero? Being in a picture? Killing many enemy soldiers? Dying?

The battle scenes, especially the landing scene, were amazing. I just loved those shots from the cockpits of the USAF fighters when they attacked mt. Suribachi. Breathtaking

 

This movie has just been released in the UK and has been the subject of highly complimentary reviews. I hope to be able to get to see it over the holiday period.

 

I enjoyed the film. It matched up with the book very well as I would have expected from Mr. Eastwood. The only thing I had a problem with was the jumping around between battle scenes and the war bond tour around the US. Seemed to me there was a bit too much of it. Other than that, great film.

 

Clint seems to be doing great work every time. have not seen the film but intend on doing it soon, hopefully next week.

 

Went to see it in London last night and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Firstly, it should come with a 'health warning' - if you're expecting John Wayne blasting the Nips, or a WWII documentary, then it isn't for you.

It's a thoughtful, and thought-provoking, study of the gulf between the experience of combat and the PR/political machinery aimed at keeping 'the folks back home' onside. Some have seen the film as somehow unpatriotic or 'anti-American' which to me sems foolish and over-sensitive ; the 'media hero' is a 20th Century invention and every Nation had them, from T E Lawrence in WW1 to Guy Gibson, Douglas Bader and 'Buzz' Beurling in WWII. And don't forget the Other Side ; the Nazis used Hermann Graf, Michael Wittmann and many others.

The flashback format of the movie is confusing but the combat sequences are impressive and the cliches of 'SPR' in its later parts are avoided. The CGI are very good but they're still CGI - you can tell the difference.... the battleship's guns aren't loud enough but I'd have loved to have seen more of the B-29 ( but that's the small boy in me ! ).

Some fine performances too, especially Adam Beach as the North American Indian character.

I viewed it as a worthy tribute to veterans, not as 'greatest generation' stereotypes but men who have done and seen terrible things which we have not had to ; and who also have experienced intense comradeships of the kind we have never had. And then they have watched as these buddies/kamaraden/mates have been killed one by one in front of them.

Certainly not a conventional war movie but to me it made more sense of the Pacific fighting than 'Thin Red Line'.

Certainly recommended for Forum contributors.

 

I just ordered the book and I'm waiting for the movie to come out on DVD. Amazon says February 6, 2007.

 

I know its a bit late posting, I just watched it on pay per view, and I was amazed at the movie. I liked the war and the side dish of it all. What ships were there? I saw all this shots of the ships, not knowing what they were

 

Quite enjoyed the film upto a point.

Could someone who is more knowledgeable than me tell me how much of the film was correct.

 

I must say I did like it, It is one of those movies where you may crave more action, but know that it is not merited. I must say i walked away quite impressed

 

The book is almost always better in my opinion. Hell, even reading Rambo II was good for me...

 

What exactly did the Japanese do to Iggy? I thought the director copped out there. Because had you had seen what the japanese had done to poor Iggy, there would have been no way to sympathize with them, or to see that war as a bad thing. All in all, the movie was too touchy feely, too feel good towards the Japanese. Visually, the movie was quite good, it really captured the hell the war in the pacific really was.