Flags of our Fathers 2/5 reviewed by Corey
There is this cool thing about movies that happens only on occasion: a true surprise. I don't mean a twist ending. I mean you thought the movie was going to royally suck and it turns out it's one of your favorites. Chronicles of Riddick surprised me. Accepted surprised me. Sure, I never thought these guys would win awards (and they didn't and they shouldn't have, don't get me wrong), but they deserved a lot more credit than I gave them.
Flags of our Fathers looked like a movie that would win awards. Which sucks, because I'm sure it will. Which sucks, because the movie is awful. This is probably the most "clean" a movie experience I've had in a while, meaning that I knew nothing about the movie or the cast or any reviews before seeing it. I had heard nothing about it but what the box told me at Movie Gallery. I saw that it was directed by Clint Eastwood. I do not like Mystic River. I do not like Million Dollar Baby. I love Unforgiven.
This movie had a lot of things going for it: a huge budget, a bright young cast, a well-known writer, and an absolutely wonderful premise. All squandered. All wasted.
The film is based around a set of flashbacks to Iwo Jima. A group of young men are brought home after taking a historic photograph to help advocate the cause and, ultimately, sell war bonds to keep it funded. They are made out to be the ultimate representation of American heroism and their reactions run the gamut from euphoria to regret to indifference and back again. These flashbacks are also at times incoherent, nonsensical and pointless. They are certainly never intriguing.
The problem with Eastwood's war flick is just that: it isn't a war flick. The sections that actually take place in the Pacific theatre are few and far between, and only once (and quite early on, mind you) was the action really intense in any way whatsoever. After that, sure, there's the occasional scuffle, but there's a much deeper problem than that here. I didn't care at all for the characters. When they died, I didn't feel anything. When they lived, I didn't feel anything. For a movie that spends so much screentime attempting to develop characters, the payoff is catastrophic. Eastwood tries so hard to do this part right. So when he fails, the audience suffers for it.
This is never less subtle than in the film's yawner of an ending. Not since my first viewing of The Return of the King's finale (which is fantastic once you realize that it was responsible for concluding over NINE HOURS OF FILM) have I been so ready to turn a movie off. Eastwood drags the movie on in all the wrong places and, once again, the audience suffers for it. The writing is decent, another good attempt from Paul Haggis (Crash). It wasn't as riddled with stereotype and cliche as Crash was (which isn't saying much), but it's probably what gave this movie the two points it garnered. Performances were lackluster all around. The actors looked bored. That's all that really needs to be said there.
Oh, and lastly, if you do decide to see it and if you don't know anything about WWII, read up a little bit on Iwo Jima beforehand. There is no orientation at all for the casual moviegoer, and I wouldn't be surprised if a couple people walked out wondering where the movie took place. The significance of the island is completely removed from the story and makes the battle seem worthless. Spielberg got away with this intro in Saving Private Ryan (from which Flags borrows, almost criminally), but that's because it was D-Day. Eastwood, this isn't Normandy. Not everybody knows what you're talking about! I would have liked to see even a brief two-minute background for the audience, but no dice. It's a stale, boring film that had everything going for it.
As a side note, the movie is technically supposed to be coupled with "Letters to/from/who cares Iwo Jima." It's the battle from the Japanese perspective. It's also by Eastwood. It's got Ken Watanabe in it, who is fantastic. Let me know how it is, because I won't watch it.
SEE this movie if...
- You absolutely need to see some war violence before 300 comes out.
- You plan on watching the Japanese sequel. Do it right.
- You think you have to see every "American hero" movie that comes out out of respect and obligation. I respect the people who fought here, but it's not a good movie. I felt sincere loss and sorrow for the people who died in 9/11, but that didn't make World Trade Center a good film.
DON'T see this movie if...
- You're expecting an intense war movie.
- You couldn't keep up with the time structure in Pulp Fiction. Eastwood tries and fails. Miserably.
- You won't watch anything with Paul Walker in it because he's in it. Hahaha...Paul Walker.....
Flags of our Fathers looked like a movie that would win awards. Which sucks, because I'm sure it will. Which sucks, because the movie is awful. This is probably the most "clean" a movie experience I've had in a while, meaning that I knew nothing about the movie or the cast or any reviews before seeing it. I had heard nothing about it but what the box told me at Movie Gallery. I saw that it was directed by Clint Eastwood. I do not like Mystic River. I do not like Million Dollar Baby. I love Unforgiven.
This movie had a lot of things going for it: a huge budget, a bright young cast, a well-known writer, and an absolutely wonderful premise. All squandered. All wasted.
The film is based around a set of flashbacks to Iwo Jima. A group of young men are brought home after taking a historic photograph to help advocate the cause and, ultimately, sell war bonds to keep it funded. They are made out to be the ultimate representation of American heroism and their reactions run the gamut from euphoria to regret to indifference and back again. These flashbacks are also at times incoherent, nonsensical and pointless. They are certainly never intriguing.
The problem with Eastwood's war flick is just that: it isn't a war flick. The sections that actually take place in the Pacific theatre are few and far between, and only once (and quite early on, mind you) was the action really intense in any way whatsoever. After that, sure, there's the occasional scuffle, but there's a much deeper problem than that here. I didn't care at all for the characters. When they died, I didn't feel anything. When they lived, I didn't feel anything. For a movie that spends so much screentime attempting to develop characters, the payoff is catastrophic. Eastwood tries so hard to do this part right. So when he fails, the audience suffers for it.
This is never less subtle than in the film's yawner of an ending. Not since my first viewing of The Return of the King's finale (which is fantastic once you realize that it was responsible for concluding over NINE HOURS OF FILM) have I been so ready to turn a movie off. Eastwood drags the movie on in all the wrong places and, once again, the audience suffers for it. The writing is decent, another good attempt from Paul Haggis (Crash). It wasn't as riddled with stereotype and cliche as Crash was (which isn't saying much), but it's probably what gave this movie the two points it garnered. Performances were lackluster all around. The actors looked bored. That's all that really needs to be said there.
Oh, and lastly, if you do decide to see it and if you don't know anything about WWII, read up a little bit on Iwo Jima beforehand. There is no orientation at all for the casual moviegoer, and I wouldn't be surprised if a couple people walked out wondering where the movie took place. The significance of the island is completely removed from the story and makes the battle seem worthless. Spielberg got away with this intro in Saving Private Ryan (from which Flags borrows, almost criminally), but that's because it was D-Day. Eastwood, this isn't Normandy. Not everybody knows what you're talking about! I would have liked to see even a brief two-minute background for the audience, but no dice. It's a stale, boring film that had everything going for it.
As a side note, the movie is technically supposed to be coupled with "Letters to/from/who cares Iwo Jima." It's the battle from the Japanese perspective. It's also by Eastwood. It's got Ken Watanabe in it, who is fantastic. Let me know how it is, because I won't watch it.
SEE this movie if...
- You absolutely need to see some war violence before 300 comes out.
- You plan on watching the Japanese sequel. Do it right.
- You think you have to see every "American hero" movie that comes out out of respect and obligation. I respect the people who fought here, but it's not a good movie. I felt sincere loss and sorrow for the people who died in 9/11, but that didn't make World Trade Center a good film.
DON'T see this movie if...
- You're expecting an intense war movie.
- You couldn't keep up with the time structure in Pulp Fiction. Eastwood tries and fails. Miserably.
- You won't watch anything with Paul Walker in it because he's in it. Hahaha...Paul Walker.....
posted by Anonymous at 5:09 PM
1 Comments:
who would have ever guessed a crew review would end with "haha...paul walker"...so brilliant. great review again man, you are the best member of the crew! also, i agree VERY strongly with your take on Eastwood films: mystic river sucked, never saw million dollar baby because it looked terrible, but Unforgiven is in my top 20. tough to explain, but that is just how it is. keep rocking.
Post a Comment
<< Home