Paramount Pictures | Release Date: October 20, 2006
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 185 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
129
Mixed:
35
Negative:
21
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
4
JoshR.Oct 18, 2006
What could have been a great movie becomes mediocre thanks to a disjointed narrative and lack of real connection to the characters--this movie feels like it is twice as long as its 2:12 running time would suggest.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
TomA.Oct 21, 2006
Superficial, characters we never get to know, leaving viewers with an empty feeling.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
DrewFeb 17, 2007
The direction, acting and painfully boring political spectrum involving the war leads to a war movie that has each character mearly one politicians handshake away from becoming a cliched and forgettable film experience. There is absolutely The direction, acting and painfully boring political spectrum involving the war leads to a war movie that has each character mearly one politicians handshake away from becoming a cliched and forgettable film experience. There is absolutely no connection between the characters and with such long pauses between past, present, future and politics you almost forget that Eastwood set out to do a film about war. This movie is definietly not worth the time and suggest seeing Letters from Iwo Jima where Eastwood gets it right Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
5
NickA.Aug 20, 2007
'Flags of Our Fathers,' Clint Eastwood
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
LolcanoSep 4, 2011
Ponderous (where's the battle?), navel gazing (not naval, unfortunately), sentimental, cliched, misses the big picture. Anything else? Actually, the battle scenes are quite impressive, even though the movie attempts to remove it from thePonderous (where's the battle?), navel gazing (not naval, unfortunately), sentimental, cliched, misses the big picture. Anything else? Actually, the battle scenes are quite impressive, even though the movie attempts to remove it from the screen altogether. The iconic photograph of the raising of the Stars and Stripes was somewhat inaccurate and was used as a part of US war propaganda? Got that? No? Then watch a movie that is two and a quarter hours long that bleats on about it. Alternatively.... look at the far superior Letters From Iwo Jima instead! Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
3
SteveB.Oct 23, 2006
Classic Hollywood propaganda. Lacked momentum and character development. Doesnt hold a candle to Band of Brothers or SPRyan. Im glad Eastwood wasnt directing in 1944-we would have lost the War. To presume that there were no heroes just guys Classic Hollywood propaganda. Lacked momentum and character development. Doesnt hold a candle to Band of Brothers or SPRyan. Im glad Eastwood wasnt directing in 1944-we would have lost the War. To presume that there were no heroes just guys not trying to get shot is an affront to those who were heroes in WWII. Dont see this trash. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
6
MarkBayerDec 8, 2006
Director and American icon Clint Eastwood follows up Million Dollar Baby, which was controversial but shouldn't have been, with a surprisingly subversive critique of America's participation in the Last Good War that even managed to Director and American icon Clint Eastwood follows up Million Dollar Baby, which was controversial but shouldn't have been, with a surprisingly subversive critique of America's participation in the Last Good War that even managed to hoodwink ultrapatriotic right-wing movie reviewer Michael Medved (Baby's prime and most notorious detractor) into uncritically awarding it three and a half stars. (Maybe it's the title.) While Eastwood and writers Paul Haggis and William Broyles Jr. never mention Iraq, the parallels are certainly there for all to see: their movie's vision of World War II is one where funding and public support are controlled and manipulated by (largely fraudulent) PR gimmicks, and both Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman are shown to have historical predecessors. Ultimately, this is all a lot more interesting to discuss than to actually watch: Eastwood's storytelling approach derails itself with a tortuous, serpentine flashback-within-flashback structure of the kind that occasionally works in romantic dramas and spy thrillers but virtually NEVER in war movies, as the poor reception given to the similarly-structured 1944 Humphrey Bogart French Resistance drama Passage to Marseille (made by the people behind Casablanca) will bear out. (Saving Private Ryan wisely limited itself to making the entire movie a simple journey through only one character's past; perhaps Steven Spielberg, doing co-producer duty here, was trying to top himself. If so, quit while you're ahead!) Eastwood's use of decolorized cinematography in his depiction of the struggle for Iwo Jima is visually effective but nowhere near as gripping or as frightening as Ryan's opening battle sequence, and the use of highly unconvincing special effects and props to depict battlefield gore doesn't work at all. Actors as frequently bland as Jesse Bradford, Ryan Phillippe and Paul Walker, playing servicemen, do nothing to intensify our identification with them, and the only time Flags of Our Fathers really hits the mark is in its fascinating portrayal of Pima Indian Ira Hayes (movingly played by Adam Beach) who generally accepted racist jokes about squaws and wigwams from his fellow Marines as good-natured male bonding but couldn't handle the official and unofficial racism of the folks back home, and because of that AND the knowledge that he was ordered to promulgate a fraud for the sake of building support for the war and selling war bonds, became one of World War II's most poignant psychological casualties. In the last couple of months, we moviegoers have been treated to two inspirational football dramas, two period pieces involving magicians, and THREE films in which a real-life character is so fascinating and beautifully played that he just dwarfs all the other stuff surrounding him. Put together a three-part movie consisting of just the George Reeves material from Hollywoodland, the Idi Amin footage in The Last King of Scotland and everything involving Hayes in this picture, and the resulting anthology would be a prime contender for one of the 10 best films of 2006! Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
2
DaveJ.Jul 29, 2007
This movie is not nearly as good as the ratings would suggest. The budget, the genera, R-rating, and director grant it several additional undeserved rating points before it was ever even viewed by most reviewers. We expect to see a mindless This movie is not nearly as good as the ratings would suggest. The budget, the genera, R-rating, and director grant it several additional undeserved rating points before it was ever even viewed by most reviewers. We expect to see a mindless comedy, romance, or kiddie movie at the bottom of the scale, but nobody dares to put a "serious" movie there. This movie was simply not entertaining and therefore not that thought provoking either. When rated accurately against its peers, this movie deserves to be rated down with the likes of "Who's Your Caddy?", "Giggli" and "See Spot Run", even if it is a far superior film-making effort. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
AlexLFeb 10, 2009
Very very good movie. i love it. it made me cry.
2 of 6 users found this helpful
3
phils.Dec 1, 2007
inferior.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
8
LeonardoP.Jan 9, 2008
I think that the japanese version is better. The movie stays a little boring in certain parts. Watching the movie I 've realized that the americans weren' t so brave and honorable like the japaneses. I thought that the track I think that the japanese version is better. The movie stays a little boring in certain parts. Watching the movie I 've realized that the americans weren' t so brave and honorable like the japaneses. I thought that the track deserved an Academy Award. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
JohnnyMOct 16, 2006
Very fun awesome movie, best of the year!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
RebeccaN.Oct 17, 2006
A beautiful look at a war's effects on and off the battlefield.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
Jean-LouisN.Oct 17, 2006
Ambitious in scope and effective in impact. Again, Clint Eastwood got solid acting performances out of the ensemble. Standouts were Adam Beach and Ryan Philippe. The battle scenes conveyed the chaos and brutality of war with a visual style Ambitious in scope and effective in impact. Again, Clint Eastwood got solid acting performances out of the ensemble. Standouts were Adam Beach and Ryan Philippe. The battle scenes conveyed the chaos and brutality of war with a visual style that has nothing to envy from Saving Private Ryan. It's an amazingly complex study of characters, heroism and the politics of war. It's a movie that needs to be seen. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
AntonioO.Oct 17, 2006
I'm excited, just coming from a screening of Clint's masterpiece. It was amazing! Best film so far....! By far!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
GilbertGOct 17, 2006
Simply an amazing story.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
FrederickS.Oct 17, 2006
Outstanding.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
10
AnthonyO.Oct 18, 2006
Brilliant.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
[Anonymous]Oct 18, 2006
I agree almost entirely with Entertainment Weekly's commentary. The film is technically fine with a story that should be enthralling, yet somehow the movie is less than the sum of its parts. The soldier's stories in particular are I agree almost entirely with Entertainment Weekly's commentary. The film is technically fine with a story that should be enthralling, yet somehow the movie is less than the sum of its parts. The soldier's stories in particular are very thin. The action is fairly well done, but due to Eastwood's stylistic choice to use desaturated, and the nature of the uniforms, it's rather difficult to tell who's who. I left without any specific criticisms, but feeling that there really wasn't enough there. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
BriannaL.Oct 19, 2006
This is a masterpiece. A richly textured, complex film whose power may not be fully comprehended on the first viewing. But that's the mark of greatness, in my book, a sign of a depth too little seen on screens today.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
BillyS.Oct 20, 2006
Don't get me wrong, Flags of Our Fathers is a good movie. It lacks the visual poetry of The Thin Red Line, it does not have the stark realism of Full Metal Jacket or Saving Private Ryan, nor does it have the emotional punch of returning Don't get me wrong, Flags of Our Fathers is a good movie. It lacks the visual poetry of The Thin Red Line, it does not have the stark realism of Full Metal Jacket or Saving Private Ryan, nor does it have the emotional punch of returning war vets like Coming Home, but it tries for all three and at times, comes close. Like I said, it's a good war movie. But, because it's a Clint Eastwood film, it will surely be lauded as one of the great war movies of all time and will be the one nominated for a zillion Oscars that every one will say is so deserving but will be thinking at the same time "Not Again!" So come on everybody, jump on the Eastwood bandwagon. The legend has made another "Good" movie. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
JasonM.Oct 21, 2006
A good movie, The characters lack depth at the beginning of the film, but they begin to take shape as the movie moves on. This Movie is NOT Saving Privat Ryan. If you are looking for no stop action this movie does not have that as it tells A good movie, The characters lack depth at the beginning of the film, but they begin to take shape as the movie moves on. This Movie is NOT Saving Privat Ryan. If you are looking for no stop action this movie does not have that as it tells the story of the men who raised the second flag at Iwo Jima and their personal stories. The movie is mostly HIstorically accurate and tries to present the events as they happened. A great piece of American history is put forth in this film. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
JayC.Oct 21, 2006
What impressed me most was that the political and social problems during WWII were seemingly the same as today. While we may be trying to treat minorities better (unless you look like an Arab), the political world seems about the same. Vets What impressed me most was that the political and social problems during WWII were seemingly the same as today. While we may be trying to treat minorities better (unless you look like an Arab), the political world seems about the same. Vets today are still fighting for fair treatment after having given their all in combat. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
AaronM.Oct 21, 2006
The battle sequences are fantastic, and the film's message is important. A very good film.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
SteveH.Oct 21, 2006
As a few others have said, this is a good movie, not a great movie. The movie does not praise war nor does vilify it. The 3 main characters did there job and did not seek the praise they received. Even though these men could have walked away As a few others have said, this is a good movie, not a great movie. The movie does not praise war nor does vilify it. The 3 main characters did there job and did not seek the praise they received. Even though these men could have walked away from the adulation, Eastwood's film lets you understand why they stayed. I had trouble keeping characters straight but in the end, it didn't matter who raised the flag, they were all heroes. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
8
DanaM>Oct 21, 2006
Entertaining movie, worth the $10 to see a well told story of one of the epic battles of WWII. Not the best of Eastwoods movies but certainly better than a few other movies out there ( are you listening "The Departed?"). A somewhat Entertaining movie, worth the $10 to see a well told story of one of the epic battles of WWII. Not the best of Eastwoods movies but certainly better than a few other movies out there ( are you listening "The Departed?"). A somewhat disjointed plot, considering the flashbacks and forwards, but otherwise well-told, with realistic portrayal of battle scenes. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
PeterM.Oct 21, 2006
A great film, but not much plot to deal with. Great battle scences, ones I will remember.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
PatrickN.Oct 23, 2006
A very well constructed WWII epic, based completely around the events of Iwo Jima and its subsequent effects on those soldiers involved in the fighting. Think of it as having the opposite moral of Saving Private Ryan, the heroism is shown as A very well constructed WWII epic, based completely around the events of Iwo Jima and its subsequent effects on those soldiers involved in the fighting. Think of it as having the opposite moral of Saving Private Ryan, the heroism is shown as simply a means to an end rather than being wholly glorified. Interesting point of view, and very historically accurate work by Eastwood. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
ThewisekingOct 23, 2006
Overrated. A film drained of light, life and energy. The battle sequences especially disappoint and the cutting back and forth in time is really a problem and removes momentum. The film critic community appreciated its anti-heroic stance Overrated. A film drained of light, life and energy. The battle sequences especially disappoint and the cutting back and forth in time is really a problem and removes momentum. The film critic community appreciated its anti-heroic stance with an overlying stench of corruption; but the audiences will not. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
9
JohnS.Oct 23, 2006
Outstanding and powerful. Faithful to the book. The battlefield scenes are harrowing (I can only imagine what the companion film will look like) and the acting is superb. My only criticism is I thought the ending was a bit weak and flat. Outstanding and powerful. Faithful to the book. The battlefield scenes are harrowing (I can only imagine what the companion film will look like) and the acting is superb. My only criticism is I thought the ending was a bit weak and flat. Otherwise, an A+ film. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful