I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

In his review of "Letters from Iwo Jima", Roger Ebert recalled the line from "Patton"'s iconic monologue, you don't win a war by dying for your country but by making "the other poor dumb bastard die for his country", maybe that's why the Americans won the war after all, they fought to death. Japanese, while honorably, fought to their death, too.And "Flags of Our Fathers", first opus of Clint Eastwood's "Iwo Jima" duology also reminded me of a quote from the same monologue: "an army is a team - it lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap." And as far as exemplifying the team spirit within the army, the famous picture of the flag-raising over Mount Suribashi is quite an eloquent illustration.It is indeed one of the most iconic, parodied and probably misundestood pictures of all time, taken at face value and wrongly translated as the epitome of victory while the battle, one of the toughest and deadliest of WW2, was still going on and half of the soldiers in the picture would eventually die. Interestingly, we never see their faces and for a few of them their bodies, but that's what makes it such a great symbol of anonymous heroism carried by a group, not individuals.In other words, it shouldn't have mattered who raised the flag, and I guess it didn't, what mattered is that it was the American flag and that sight was enough to awaken the Americans from lassitude and convince them to buy bonds. So the American government couldn't rely on a simple photograph, and needed the three survivors to play the game as ambassadors from that moment that stopped belonging to them, but to history, transiting though with politics. Clint Eastwood's adaptations of James Bradley's novel, takes us, in a fascinating introspection into the various perceptions of heroism depending on the perspectives. Even in Eastwood movies I disliked like "Unforgiven" and "American Sniper", I respected morally ambiguous characters for some values they carried and that I could relate to. Here I expected a new "Saving Private Ryan", but Spielberg is "only" the producer, Eastwood isn't the preacher type (not always anyway) and the flag isn't the end, but the beginning.And for the survivors, the beginning of an odd journey. Harlon Block (Benjamin Walker) and Sergeant Michael Strank (Barry Pepper) were all dead and as soon as the survivors were identified, they're taken for a long ride across America to encourage cheerful crowds to buy war bonds. The film unveil many aspects of their lives and how it affected their reactions. The father of the novel's author, Pharmacist "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe) is good-hearted and altruistic, he comforted his dying comrades and takes his new assignment as a way to comfort the spirits of people. Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) sort of enjoys his new fame and the attention it brings (so does his girlfriend) but insists that he was just lucky, as they all say, the real heroes didn't come back. The most tragic character and the soul of the film is Ira Hayes (Adam Beach in a performance that should have earned him a few nods), his experience doesn't differ from the rest of the soldiers except that he's of Native background, an outcast status that pushed him to keep a low profile which was perfect for the army body. Being propelled in the main front, not to fight but to pose as a clean-cut hero could only make things worse to him, especially when he's still victim of racist paternalism or plain segregation. Hayes' tragedy is that he's not concerned by politics but politics were concerned by him.The film is punctuated with many war flashbacks that show the incredible gap between the atrocities in the island and the whole backstage show, the most infamous episode is Ralph "Iggy" Ignatowky (Jamie Bell) whose death is only alluded but a glimpse on a Wikipedia page will tell you that some soldiers' blood drop more significantly than other on the sand of Iwo Jima. Violence reached such a paroxysm that there was no possible way for the soldiers to recover unless they decided to keep quiet about it, about the details anyway. And yet the three survivors had to talk, talk and talk.They were even forced to replicate the deed over a mountain made of carton during a big exhibition in a stadium with the typical American fireworks, cheerleaders and all that jazz their supervisor prepared. The pseudo-flag-raising intercut with scenes of extreme violence, showing the deaths of the other soldiers, create a difficult mood whiplash but it's crucial in the understanding of another sad aspect about war, you must pretend.. These guys must act as heroes because the war needed them to be heroes, even the picture while speaking a thousand words, didn't say that it was the second flag raising, causing one of the soldiers to be misidentified, although his mother could, even from behind.The film reveals many secrets about the iconic shot, a lucky one from a photographical perspective and it also reminded me of Jean Gabin's speech in "The President", addressing a parliament member parliament too young to have fought in WW1, he said "you talk about millions but as a guy in the trenches, I can only remember a dozen of deaths, scope differs whether you're in or out the front", indeed.For the politician, it's about the big picture. For soldiers, it's just about kill and not to be killed, and protecting or saving your buddies. The tragedy is more intimate and it follows the 'privileged' ones for the rest of their lives... that's heroic enough to me. And the picture reminded of this adage: when a man points to the moon, the fool sees his finger. The government looked at for the American flag, but Eastwood is pointing to the guys who raised it.

The story of the flag-raisers of Iwo Jima is a fascinating one. From the perhaps not-so-common knowledge that the picture was actually of the second flag raised on the mountain, to the misrepresentation of those even in the picture, it is a narrative filled with drama and human interest. Director Clint Eastwood is the perfect figure to tackle such a project, and he does so with his usual aplomb (aside from perhaps a few narrative structure hiccups).For a basic plot summary, "Flags Of Our Fathers" tells the story of that famous picture taken of the American flag being hoisted atop Mt. Suribachi during the battle for Iwo Jima. The film many focuses on John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), & Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), three of the flag-raisers who survived the war and were recruited by the military to tell their story and be hailed as heroes to drum up sales for war bonds. Initially, the three men seem quite uncomfortable in this role, and as the story progresses (filled with flashbacks to the Iwo Jima battle itself) we learn why: Not only was the famous picture taken of the "second flag", but there is even an error regarding which men are in the picture. The military pushes the rhetoric over the truth in order to "sell, sell, sell" those war bonds, and the three men must deal with those repercussions.First and foremost, "Flags of our Fathers" is a great movie because it has a great story to tell. Most Americans can identify that iconic flag-raising photo, but many did not know the interesting story behind it. All movies succeed/fail primarily by the strength of the story, and it is in this category where "Flags" shines the brightest. One can see their own parents or grandparents (who may have participated in WW2) through the lens of these characters, and even extrapolate upon themes of military deception or obfuscation of the truth. Fortunately, Eastwood is always very good at keeping things grounded and practical instead of "rah rah" political, so this isn't a preachy film by any means. It lays out the story and lets the viewer make their own conclusions.Supporting that fine story is some great acting all the way around. The three leads are spot-on, while the auxiliary cast features such strong performers as: John Slattery, Barry Pepper, Paul Walker, Robert Patrick, & Neil McDonough. Simply put, acting isn't a problem in this film (!).About the only reason I can't give this picture the full five stars is because of Eastwood's rather odd choice of telling the narrative in such a disjointed fashion. Parts are flashbacks, parts are narrated by a researcher interviewing the aged veterans of Iwo Jima, and even the "real time" action can jump forward or back in time with little to no warning. To me, this led to a rather disjointed experience in trying to follow the overall narrative. It seemed like every time I would get comfortable in what time/place was being presented in the scene, it would jump to another just as quick. Luckily, Eastwood is a good enough director to still "make it work", but his other films usually take a more straightforward, direct approach.Overall, though, "Flags of our Fathers" is a great film filled with wartime action, human interest, and a story that will last down through the generations. It may lack the utter gravitas of the earlier "Saving Private Ryan", but it tells an equally (if not even more) compelling story. The telling of that story may be a bit fractured, but the sum of the parts is quite a moving, emotional experience.

Almost a decade after I watched the movie in the cinema I watched it again and I cannot say I was as impressed as I was back then. Perhaps the movie doesn't translate well to DVD and perhaps a small screen doesn't do it justice, but my biggest issue is that I find most of the movie lacking in engaging personalities, captivating story and a well chosen creative music score. What struck me most to me was boring music. You know this solitary piano play or bugle to signify a pensive or sad mood? Well it's in there throughout the movie. Sometimes a few strings are added, but that is about it for variance. Only a few times we get a time related piece of music, but those feel like they were put in there by mistake. The personalities are on par with the dullness of the music. I can only recall the Chief, probably because he was an Indian and thus more of an individual than most and because he is the one with the biggest issues. All the others are as gray as most of the battle scenes, which must have been seen as a nifty idea to discern the battles scenes from the other scenes, but it hardly helps you get a fix on who is who.The movie loses even more focus because it displays events from three different periods: the fighting on the island, the campaign to raise money for the war effort directly after and 'today' when the son of one of the soldiers finds out what has happened from his dying father and the view remaining survivors. However, perhaps the worst thing is actually the 'message'. I just don't like messages; if you just show the stuff, it is a message enough. Now we have to be told the message and it is given in a blatant reversal trick - Orwellian in nature- that does the same as the normal cult of heroism by implying something different. Now they are heroes, not because they gave their lives for their country, but because they did it for their buddies. It is the same stuff, only the reason is different. Just a play of words. This cult of heroism mars the whole movie and is blatantly add odds with what is actually been told. These guys are just men that get stuck in a bad situation and made the most of it, but making them into a heroes, something different from the humans they were, just steals from their humanity. It is even more odd because the next movie clearly exposes the suicidal honor driven Japanese Bushido thinking for the nut-case philosophy it is. Dying for honor and country like the Japanese do.., now that is silly, but dying for your buddies, that is what heroism is all about. Yeah, those are true patriots. Of course they are.

Recently, war movies have aroused great interest. Accordingly, a plethora of this sort of movies has invaded our cinemas. Maybe the two most popular war movies in recent years have been Saving Private Ryan, directed by Steven Spielberg, focused on the Normandy Landings, and Flags of our Fathers, directed by Clint Eastwood, focused on the battle of Iwo Jima (together with Letters from Iwo Jima, the Japanese view of the conflict, whose premiere in Spain will be held in few weeks). Both films show bloody scenes of fights and, as a result, the cruelty of the war. In addition, a large part of both films is focused on the miseries and attitudes towards death, danger and desperation of a small group of soldiers. Also common to both films is the fact that the main characters are actually antiheroes. The Spielberg's film takes place mostly in the battlefield and is perfectly linear. On the other hand, flashbacks are used in Flags of our Fathers in order to show both the war and the propaganda campaign undertaken by the main characters going across the United States. By virtue of this we can see a different drama in this film related to the feelings and problems of the soldiers when they come back home to undertake a mission they have not been trained for. Furthermore, we clearly identify with the leading actor in Saving Private Ryan (Tom Hanks). On the contrary, the three actors in Eastwood's film actually share the prominence. The strength of Saving Private Ryan lies in the intense representation of the war and it is a typical war film, maybe better than others, but a war film nevertheless. However, Flags of our Fathers is more complex. With his usual skill, Eastwood shows a combination of war and politics, death and propaganda.