Flags of our Fathers

indifan101

New member
Flags of our Fathers is one of the best war documentaries of all time. I thought the battle scenes were terrific and the real life documentaries were also great. The Native American that was in this movie was also in Windtalkers was again in the pacific. I think that this soldier was in both theaters Iwo Jima and Sai Pan. Anyways Flags of our Fathers was the true story of the flag raising of Iwo Jima and the real people who raised it. I highly recommend it.(y)
 

Kill Cavalry

New member
I'd love to see this film, but frankly the actor from Windtalkers is one of the reasons I haven't yet. Windtalkers was a trainwreck of a film, and his acting was terrible. I'm not looking forward to enduring more scenes featuring him.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Flags Comes Out Flat. . .

Interesting about how this is more bad news for Paramount and yet another film coming up short for Steven Spielberg, producer (me-thinks it's time to for Mr. Spielberg to get to back to the sure-thing Indy IV if he wants to help Paramount get the big pay-day).

After Weak ‘Flags’ Debut, Studio May Face Costly Oscar Battle
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and ALLISON HOPE WEINER
Published in the New York Times: October 24, 2006
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 23 — Clint Eastwood’s World War II movie “Flags of Our Fathers” lumbered ashore this weekend weighted with the expectations of a studio needing to win big. Looking for Oscars and a payoff on the film’s $90 million budget, Paramount, its distributor, put the film in nearly 1,900 theaters, and still plans to add hundreds more as early as this week.

By Monday morning, however, the studio and its partners found themselves facing a costly fight to save their showcase awards entry, as “Flags” took in just $10.2 million at the box office — a relatively tiny beachhead that did not match expectations or its mostly strong reviews. The picture had failed to excite enough older viewers who could remember, readily identify or relate to its subject, the bloody battle for Iwo Jima, to make up for its lack of appeal to younger audiences and paucity of recognizable stars.

For Paramount, which inherited the movie when it bought DreamWorks last year, the combination of a weak opening and good reviews made for a problem that has become all too familiar to major studios offering big dramas at awards time: it now will have to mount a costly Oscar campaign, but it hasn’t yet made the money to pay for it.

The fate of “Flags” in the moviegoing marketplace could also provide the clearest test yet of the DreamWorks-Paramount marriage. The movie’s marketing is being run by Terry Press of DreamWorks, overseeing a Paramount team, and its distribution is being overseen by Rob Moore, a top colonel to Brad Grey, Paramount’s chairman, relying on a staff of former DreamWorks employees. To complicate things further, Warner Brothers, which helped finance the film, holds international distribution rights, and is expected to release a companion movie depicting the battle from the Japanese point of view early next year.

Still, even as they vowed to battle into the winter for “Flags,” hoping for awards nominations to rally its box-office performance, studio executives left broad hints that they were not willing to shoulder the blame alone if their efforts were for naught. Mr. Eastwood, they noted, held contractual rights to approve both the marketing and distribution plans for his movie. “Every step of the way, we are working with Clint or being directed by Clint,” Mr. Moore said.

“Flags” seemed like a sure bet on Paramount’s schedule when the studio and DreamWorks combined forces last December: Mr. Eastwood was coming off best-picture and best-director nominations for “Mystic River” in 2004, and wins in both categories for “Million Dollar Baby” last year. Paul Haggis, the screenwriter of “Flags,” won the Oscar (along with Bobby Moresco) for the screenplay for “Crash,” named best picture this March, and also wrote “Million Dollar Baby.” And Steven Spielberg, who had originally wanted to film “Flags” as a bookend to his own “Saving Private Ryan,” had decided to take a rare producer’s credit for a movie he did not direct.

Mr. Spielberg did the same with “Memoirs of a Geisha,” another Oscar aspirant that disappointed at the box office and came up short in the awards race for Sony Pictures last year. Following a different path, “Munich,” which was directed by Mr. Spielberg, was not a major audience hit, but did end up with a best-picture nomination.

True to form, the pedigree of “Flags” produced some blurb-worthy raves: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone called it “a film of awesome power”; David Ansen of Newsweek called it “tough, smart, raw and contemplative”; and Manohla Dargis of The New York Times wrote that it said “something new and urgent about the uses of war and of the men who fight.”

But the movie posed several marketing challenges that Mr. Eastwood’s last two films did not face. Unlike Mr. Spielberg, who cast Tom Hanks in “Private Ryan,” Mr. Eastwood wanted to give a sense of the youth and ordinariness of the marines who fought at Iwo Jima, so he deliberately avoided casting major stars. Ryan Phillippe is the biggest name in “Flags,” though hardly a household one. Some critics even wrote that the movie’s characters were almost indistinguishable in the mayhem of battle.

As Mr. Moore summed up: “The biggest draw of the movie is its director, who’s not in the movie.”

Some industry insiders also questioned the timing of the film’s release in late October — a time when audiences are mainly young and mainly interested in Halloween fare like next weekend’s release of “Saw III” — rather than closer to Thanksgiving, when audiences have been conditioned to expect more adult-themed movies with awards potential.

But Mr. Moore said the timing was nearly identical to that of “Mystic River,” which opened in mid-October 2003 in a platform release of 13 theaters before expanding to 1,467 theaters a week later. Any thought of a similar platform release a week or two ago was dropped, lest “Flags” go up against Martin Scorsese’s “Departed,” Mr. Moore said. But he and other executives said the calendar ahead looked forgiving, with youth-oriented movies like the “Saw” sequel and “Borat,” and family fare like DreamWorks’ and Paramount’s own “Flushed Away” on Nov. 3.

Counting on that window of opportunity, Mr. Moore said Monday morning that Paramount, DreamWorks and Mr. Eastwood had agreed to expand by 300 screens nationwide this week. He cited the movie’s reviews, as well as exit polls of audience members that were 50 percent better than average — a sure gauge of word of mouth, he said.

Robert Lorenz, Mr. Eastwood’s longtime producer, said the opening weekend box office, while lower than some projections, was not disappointing at all. “It’s on track with what Clint’s movies have done in the past,” he said.

Executives like Mr. Moore said they were counting on the many fans of Mr. Eastwood’s dramatic and darker recent movies to show up as they always seem to — in their own good time. “They come out slower,” he said. “Therefore, we roll out slower.”

And Ms. Press, of DreamWorks, said that the film’s reviews held out hopes that, once the movie made it to December, it could wind up on the year’s-best lists and start piling up the kind of accolades that might prompt moviegoers to give it another look.

“When you have that level of respect, you have to go the distance here,” Ms. Press of DreamWorks said, referring to Mr. Eastwood. “There is no other choice for a movie like this but to go the distance.”
 

San Holo

Active member
To tell ya the truth, I didn't care very much for this movie at all, even though I'm a big Eastwood fan and love WW2 history. I was really excited to see it, after watching the History Channel docs about the flag raising- but it was too long, too preachy, and the acting sucked(with the exception of the guy who played Ira Hayes, and Barry Pepper).
 
Last edited:

Joe Brody

Well-known member
San Holo said:
To tell ya the truth, I didn't care very much for this movie at all, even though I'm a big Eastwood fan and love WW2 history. I was really excited to see it, after watching the History Channel docs about the flag raising- but it was too long, too preachy, and the acting sucked(with the exception of the guy who played Ira Hayes, and Barry Pepper).

The wife and I were headed out tonight for dinner and a movie. I check showtimes online and our finalists are The Departed or Flags -- your review makes me opt for The Departed, and I must say that I'm one happy customer. Thanks for the review. I'll catch Flags as a renter.
 

San Holo

Active member
Joe Brody said:
The wife and I were headed out tonight for dinner and a movie. I check showtimes online and our finalists are The Departed or Flags -- your review makes me opt for The Departed, and I must say that I'm one happy customer. Thanks for the review. I'll catch Flags as a renter.
The Departed was a damn fine movie, "you chose wisely". I would like to know your thoughts of Flags when you do see it tho. You might like it, hell I may like it upon a second viewing(seriously doubt it;) ).
 

roundshort

Active member
Have not seen the movie yet, and will probably wait until the Birthday (jarheads know what I mean) but I question if a non-Marine can really understand What the book and movie are about. I have spoken to many Iwo vets and it seems to have been one hell of a battle. Being a Marine is a mond set unlike anything else on the planet, and book was really about the surviors dealing with being called a hero when in their heart hey know the real heros never made it off that rock. Ira had it tough, and thanks to Johnny Cash his troubles are now a joke. Michael Stank was the man, a Marines Marine. It is interesting when you look at the photo Michael is not supporting the flag, but the younger Marine's hand, because that is who Sgt. Strank was in life he was a mentor to yougner Marines. He is also the one Marine (or corpsman) you can not see in the photo. This guy was a member of CCC and was a highway laborer for 18 months (talk abotu hard work) then joined the Corp. He made into the Raiders, which was the only time the Marines had "special Ops"

A sad not he was probably killed by friendly fire. The artillery shell that killed him was proably from a navy destroyer off shore.

Great book, can not wait to see the movie.
 

San Holo

Active member
roundshort said:
Have not seen the movie yet, and will probably wait until the Birthday (jarheads know what I mean) but I question if a non-Marine can really understand What the book and movie are about.Being a Marine is a mond set unlike anything else on the planet, and book was really about the surviors dealing with being called a hero when in their heart hey know the real heros never made it off that rock.
Great book, can not wait to see the movie.
I wonder how the movie differs from the book, if at all. I agree that these men had a tough time being called hero's, but I didn't care for how the movie portrayed them. I also would have like to seen more of the battle and the brotherhood.
 
Learn something new every day

The Ballad of Ira Hayes (1964), written by Peter LaFarge....

Turns out it was only performed by the likes of Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash and Townes Van Zant
 

roundshort

Active member
San Holo said:
I wonder how the movie differs from the book, if at all. I agree that these men had a tough time being called hero's, but I didn't care for how the movie portrayed them. I also would have like to seen more of the battle and the brotherhood.

Having not seen the movie I don't think that you get the brother hood. I think Jarhead does an excellent of showing the relationship building in the corps (I wish TOJ was here to make a Brokeback joke). I was worried they were going to make it look like a Saving Private Rayn beach landing, which I would hate to have happen. The real B**ch of the Battle was after we tookt he MT. on a part of the Island called the Meatgrinder.
 

Katarn07

New member
I thought Flags was boring. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't worth seeing in the theater (as I had when it first came out).

I'm bumping this for the companion film by Eastwood, Letters from Iwo Jima. Now that is a good movie. I just got around to seeing it. It really humanizes the Japanese who are known to have done some savage things in the war. The movie doesn't try to deny those things happened, but it shows not everyone was like that (just like not every German soldier was a Nazi and every American soldier is a "good guy").
 

Bjorn Heimdall

Active member
yeah I didn't care much for Flags either. Very Bland acting although the actors didn't really have that much to work with. Had some great scenes filmed in Iceland, though(y)

I will be checking out Letters to Iwo Jima.
 

Spikes & Lava

New member
I haven't seen Flags of Our Fathers, but Letters from Iwo Jima was extremely well done. It was very interesting to see the battle from the perpetually de-humanized and demonized Japanese perspective.

I can highly recommend the book Flags of Our Fathers, though. It is very evocative of the manipulation and exploitation the flag-raisers went through after the iconic photograph was taken.
 
Top