did you even like saving private ryan? They arnt really that similar actually. Flags is about the lives of these guys after they raised the flag. THey do go back and show some war scenes, but its not really a big war movie. The action is limited and a lot of times the action started getting good it cuts back away from it.
comingsoon said it best.
"The thought of Clint Eastwood directing a war drama based on one of the bloodiest battles of WWII with the aid of producer Steven Spielberg and screenwriters William Broyles Jr. ("Jarhead") and Paul Haggis ("Million Dollar Baby"), sounds like cinephile heaven. The fact that it's based on the bestselling book by James Bradley (with Ron Powers) offers even more hope, which may be why "Flags of Our Fathers" is likely to go down as one of the year's biggest head-scratchers in its inability to deliver on what could have been a fascinating look at one of the great mysteries of WWII. "
Yes I have seen SPR, and while it was great film, it didn't quite manage to live up to the hype surrounding it.
I do agree that they aren't that similar, but heavily disagree with what the reviewer on coomingsoon.net said. It was even better than I expected, and I feel that it more than managed to deliver. My only complaint lies with the sequence where the three surviors are served the ice cream in the shape of the photograph with strawberry sauce on it. It wasn't necessary.
You might call it a large disappointment. I found it to be one of the year's best.
Last edited by JerichoCross on Oct 24th, 2006 at 10:49 PM
I JUST saw this movie. It was good. It felt like it dragged on rather long at the end but it had some good moments. Not a great movie by any means but it was good. I am looking forward to Letters from Iwo Jima.
__________________ "I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy."
just saw it. i thought there were alot of pretty big problems with this movie, however at the same time there is so much to admire. The Bad: the storyline involving James Bradley felt detached, unimportant and kid of irrelevent to what the story is actually about. it really didn't contribute at all to showing how the war effected them or how the bond drive worked. also cutting between three different time periods makes it feel choppy and keeps you from getting involved. Also, I was not at all impressed by adam beach's performance as Ira Hayes. it's a fantastic role and i felt he really didn't do it justice. the lead actors in general i thought were weak with the exception of ryan phillipe. he was good but couldn't provide enough charisma by himself to carry a movie as big as that. and one last minor complaint is that the high contrast cinematography in the modern scenes was so arresting it really made you feel uninvolved and detached from characters who you don't really know or care about already.
Now for the good.
The ultra-washed out film stock for the battle scenes is a brilliant decision. i kow it was started by SPR and Flags is just copying, but it is so monochromatic that when we see color it really jumps out at us, most notably when blood appears, and even more importantly, the flag. the colors of the flag are so vibrant and rich against the grey background that the really make the flag come alive. also, despite relatively weak performances from the leads, the supporting characters are generally very good. the oppening battle sequence was phenominal. everyone has compared it to SPR, and it almost comes close to being nearly as good as the invasion in that film, and is shot in the same style, but there is alot different in this battle scene. it has a very distinctive and original look and feel to it that's very different. it is one of the finest battle sequences i have ever seen. finally, it's just a fantastic and original story that is very different from anything else we've seen.
Overall opinion: A masterfully made but ultimately uninvolving epic.
__________________ christmas... christmas dinner...dinner means death... death means carnage... CHRISTMAS MEANS CARNAGE!!!
KMC Community Forums
Oct 19th, 2006 01:14 AM
