Flags of our Fathers

2006

Action / Drama / History / War

136
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 73%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 69%
IMDb Rating 7.1 10 109411

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 106,348 times
November 10, 2012 at 08:22 AM

Director

Cast

Scott Eastwood as Lundsford
Paul Walker as Hank Hansen
Tom McCarthy as James Bradley
Neal McDonough as Captain Severance
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
900.49 MB
1280*720
English
R
23.976 fps
2hr 15 min
P/S 2 / 44
1.80 GB
1920*1080
English
R
23.976 fps
2hr 15 min
P/S 10 / 40

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by cinemajesty 6 / 10

Melancholy With The Veterans

Movie Review: "Flags Of Our Fathers" (2006)

Film-makers Clint Eastwood and acting-producer Steven Spielberg take on a giant production for struggling label of DreamWorks Pictures LLC in season 2005/2006, nevertheless backed up by Warner Bros. Studios for first-hand distributions of this ultra-national U.S. American story on American boy soldiers, who raised a U.S. American flag on the south-bound Japanese island of "Iwo Jima" on February 23rd 1945, bringing home their tortured spirits in one of the deadliest battles in "The Pacific" most offensive efforts of the United States in World War II.

Director Clint Eastwood, at age 75, coming out of his prime endeavor in directing actress Hilary Swank as female boxing champion in "Million Dollar Baby" (2004), travels onto location toward extraordinary landscapes of "Island" with fellow collaborators cinematographer Tom Stern and production designer Henry Bumstead, who are able to present some hyper-realistic, even gripping war-action scenes, which then get intercepted by editor Joel Cox's effort in post-production to make emotional sense with further leading, yet behind-expectation-character performance by actor Ryan Philippe, whose portrayal of real-life book-of-experience writing John Bradley is missing the heart-breaking edge of a splintered war-scared human spirit, when the 130-Minute-Editorial of back and forth cutting endeavors between endless "Saving Private Ryan" recalling D-day opening scene, here mainly painted grey to black, to hyped public relations in an war-victories-celebrating United States, where further media-stroke heroes, struggle throughout, as the character of Ira Hayes, performed by one-strong-scene-sharing hotelroom cry-out of getting fired actor Adam Beach, known for the more suitable portrayal of Ben Yahzee alongside Nicolas Cage in the emotionally forthcoming as fulfilling "Windtalkers" (2002) directed by John Woo.

"Flags Of Our Fathers" presents itself with conflicting scene work, which are skillfully capture, but at times integrate staggering computer-generated-imagery (CGI), when the picture, even with its sublime supporting cast from Barry Pepper over John Slattery, Jamie Bell and Paul Walker (1973-2013) does not want to come together to one whole war-movie-experience. But then again the two months later released brother-film "Letters From Iwo Jima" on December 20th 2006 seems to be like a silent gem in the pool of "World War II" films due to newly-receivable points of views in the South Pacific warfare of the 1940s, when the effort must have been to combine "Flags Of Our Fathers" and "Letters Of Iwo Jima" into one motion picture of a 200 Minutes including classic orchestral overture, an Intermission plus "Entr'acte" as worldwide event movie experience.

© 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

Reviewed by Dr Jacques COULARDEAU 10 / 10

Horror is on all sides in war

This film concerns the last real fierce emblematic battle (February 19, 1945 - March 26, 1945) between the USA and Japan, the battle for the island of Iwo Jima. The war is coming to an end and after this battle, it will drag on with Japan retreating little by little and this will only be stopped once and for all with the atom bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the end of this battle, the federal government of the USA is unable to finance the end of the war and they use this battle, this victory as the tool they need to launch a final battle in the USA to raise the money necessary to finish the job.

But when this battle is finished, won the main actor of this war, Franklin D. Roosevelt dies within weeks on April 12, 1945, and Truman takes over. He is the one who decided to drop the atom bombs in Japan, though of course, Roosevelt is the one who had launched the research and financed the production of these bombs, little boy as the first one was called. Dramatic event that required the levying of millions if not billions of dollars to pay for the next six months of the war.

This first film - that has to be twinned with Letters from Iwo Jima - is the battle seen from the American point of view and what's more from the recollections the son of one of the GIs who raised the flag there managed to collect from his father before his death, and the father expressed in his last weeks or months of life the great distance he had taken with this war and this battle. The film shows with all the horror and bloody cruelty you can imagine this battle and how the GIs reacted and survived because that's the master word here: The Gis did all they could to survive and avoid the bullets. Their choice was simple: go through the showering bullets, remain alive, and kill as many people on the other side. Prisoners were not even a question.

Then the film shows how three surviving soldiers who raised the flag are enrolled in a campaign across the USA to raise money, including by the reenactment of the raising of the flag. But it is all built on a fake picture. The first raising of the flag was not taken by the photographer following the armed forces, a GI himself, because he was not thre at the time. He only took the "second raising" but in the meantime, one of the four Gis who did it was dead or gone and he was replaced by a second fourth one who will die soon after. The picture that was sent around in the press and the media all over the world cheated then on the identity of this fourth soldier. And both fourth soldiers dying soon after and not being there anymore to testify, two mothers, two families were suffering from the ambiguity.

The truth came from one of the three survivors, the Indian GI, who later on, after the war, leaked the truth to the press. The fact that remains is that the federal state and the American political apparatus used this picture and this event for years with even the erecting of a monument representing this particular event. What is important in such situation? The real truth or the dynamism that the official but false truth creates? The reality is that very often the hypocritical truth is the one that works in the media, most of the time because the media do not know it is fake. And today some speak of fake news!

The three survivors will have very different careers after the war. The Indian will die officially from exposure sometime after the inauguration of the official commemorative monument, without an autopsy, meaning that an Indian is an Indian and his being a national hero does not count: he is still refused a drink in a bar that does not serve Indians, even when the whole city around the bar is celebrating on this very evening the three survivors and the raising of the flag in a monstrous event in some stadium. The next GI will never get a decent job, nor decent training or education, and he will be a janitor all his life. The last one will have the opportunity to buy a funeral parlor and will prosper as a mortician and he is the one whose son is collecting the last memories.

The general idea is that if heroes there are they are all dead: the heroes are those who died in the battle. The survivors were just die-hard lucky survivors who managed to run through a torrentuous shower of projectiles of all sorts and did not get wet at all. Dry till the end, or maybe one or two drops, one or two wounds, but nothing serious enough to put you six feet under. In 2006 the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were getting clogged up in a quagmire and Clint Eastwood and Steven Spielberg had the courage to tell the wide audience that a war is never anything clean, heroic and that it is essentially a cruel game played by people far away from the front who will use the survivors to reach their objectives provided these survivors do NOT, absolutely NOT, question the basic principles of the society whose elite the war-players at home are, namely segregation and class distinctions, not to mention racism and racial distinctions.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Reviewed by PWNYCNY 5 / 10

Missed opportunity to make a great movie

This is a movie that turns a story about how the government and media join together to manipulate facts for political and economic purposes into schmaltz. Everything about this movie is pure Hollywood, from the corny and hokey portrayals of the characters, reducing real-life heroes into caricatures, to the stagy acting, the phony theatrics, and the unbelievably simplistic depiction of President Roosevelt. The movie inspires not one iota of feeling of drama, including the battle scenes that are little more than computer graphics in back of a sound stage. If the intent of this movie was to make a political point, or any point, that message is at best blunted. The flag-raising scenes are glossed over, the the first one is barely mentioned, and the assertion that the US was ready to sue for peace because the country was low on funds is grotesque. The Battle of Iwo Jima is one of the iconic battles of history. The American troops demonstrated a level of valor that the movie fails to convey. True, Americans are shown being involved in battle, but these scenes are so obviously staged that they lose their dramatic impact. Over six thousand Americans died on Iwo Jima and many thousands more were injured. The Japanese garrison defending the island was practically obliterated. It is probably impossible to make a movie that can adequately rcreate the intensity of the fighting. This movie tries to do that and fails, not because they omit scenes of battle, but because the battle itself is reduced to a backdrop for a story that has to do more with politics than war. That the second flag raising got play while the first flag waving was ignored is perhaps an injustice. But to take that and make it the central theme of the story is almost sad because there was so much more that the movie could of depicted, and did not.

Read more IMDb reviews

1 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment