Flags of Our Fathers

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote:Rex Reed is a horrible critic and probably a lousy human being as well. That opening salvo before 'Flags' is one of the most myopic things I've ever read. #### him.
Andrew Sarris is the official film critic for the New York Observer. Technically, Rex Reed writes on the arts as a man-about-town culture geek, which gives him the freedom to write such things as that rambling introduction to his review of Flags of Our Fathers.

I always enjoy reading him. He is so over-the-top with his reviews whether pro or con that I can always find something in them that makes me laugh out loud, sometimes at him, but often with him. That you find him a horrible critic is a matter of taste, but what makes you think he's a lousy human being? The only negative thing he's ever been accused of is walking out of Tower Records with unpaid for CDs in his coat pocket, which he alleged he did absent-mindedly. I don't know whether he was telling the truth or not, but that kind of thing does happen to people. I think we can afford to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

My recollection was that Beloved got mostly mixed reviews so I looked it up on both Rotten Tomatoes where it got a strong 77% rating and Metacritic where it got a decidedly lukewarm 57%.

Whereas Rotten Tomatoes factors in just about anyone who writes a review, Metacritic is more discerning, factoring in only the most well known and influential critics.

Flags is defiinitely more popular with the mainstream critics, which include the Village Voiced where it gets 100% vs. 40% for Beloved.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

My recollection -- and it predates my time with the board, as well -- is that Beloved (which had got a cover rave from Corliss at Time -- before we knew how off-base he could be) was still considered a best picture/actress contender until the quite disappointing box office returns came in. At that point, the film was utterly forgotten (including, sadly, the very good Kimberly Elise performance).

dws, I agree that seanflynn at the envelope is a pretty intelligent poster (he's the only one from over there I could imagine posting here), and, apart from the Scorsese angle (which hadn't occurred to me), his possibilities are basically the ones I had in mind.

The thing is, Eastwood was being touted by some critics as a major auteur from the late 70s/early 80s on -- but this designation was sharply resisted by many for a long time (the case was made easier by the fact that the Eastwood efforts that got the best reviews -- Bronco Billy, White Hunter Black Heart -- were generally his least successful at the box-office). After Unforgiven, and the run since, the resistant position is of course no longer tenable -- but that doesn't mean every critic has truly been converted; in some cases, it may be that they simply don't want to be seen as out of step with perceived wisdom (not to say there aren't critics who give their best independent judgement every time out; but I'd argue there are just as many subject to group-think). Thus, since they're not giving, truly, their own opinion, but what they think they should believe, they may have assumed by appearance this was another "classic" and have pronounced it accordingly.

Or else, Sabin and the net-folk are full of crap, and it's a bloody masterpiece. I'll let you know after I see it.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Rex Reed is a horrible critic and probably a lousy human being as well. That opening salvo before 'Flags' is one of the most myopic things I've ever read. #### him.

Sarris...I don't know. He loved 'Finding Neverland' also, so I guess there's that. Mr. Old Man Critic over there.

Ed is dead ####ing on. So is Schager.

Reviews for 'Beloved' were almost uniformly positive, if not lavish. The film had many champions (although that was pre-dating my time spent on this board, I remember thinking it was quite strong), but I feel as though everybody admitted its failure too soon. This is based completely on a gut feeling though and I can't really back it up.

I think it's possible that Scorsese-fever is overwhelming Clint Eastwood's "achievement" in 'Flags of Our Fathers'. Unfairly, I remember thinking to myself more than once in the film "Why can't movies be as fun as 'The Departed'?" 'Flags' is not a fun film, nor was it intended to be so my Scorsese-fever is admittedly a little inappropriate for that viewing experience; however, 'Flags' is also not a good movie, and when it's released, I expect it to promptly bomb and this prerelease Eastwood-hysteria to quickly peter out.

I will say that I am now eagerly awaiting its release, if only because the disconnect really has gotten much deeper now.




Edited By Sabin on 1161189626
"How's the despair?"
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

This has a lot to do with some of the negativity from online reviewers, I think:
The stink of Crash hovers over Flags of Our Fathers.


You've got your wish, Sabin--Ed Blogged About It.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

Andrew Sarris loves it:
Clint Eastwood’s Flags of Our Fathers, from the screenplay by William Broyles Jr. with Paul Haggis, seems to have captured the spirit of our time with its mixture of cynicism and idealism, irony and conviction, satiric skepticism and red-blooded patriotism. In the end, it leaves newspaper reporters—the media mavens of their time—unsure and suspicious about what really happened at the top of Mount Suribachi on the blood-drenched island of Iwo Jima on Feb. 23, 1945, when Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal took the picture of five Marines and one Navy Corpsman raising the U.S. flag after one of the fiercest engagements of World War II.

It's fairly long, so the full article is here

Rex Reed is effusive:
Airplanes crashing into New York apartment buildings. Teenagers shooting up their classrooms. Rising death tolls in a meaningless war nobody understands. New dance companies that require audiences to watch their ballets on iPods. Millions of dollars spent on—and miles of newsprint devoted to—time-wasting junk Web sites like YouTube. And have you even tried to reach a human voice on the phone to book an airplane ticket, check your bank balance, get an appliance repaired or question your cable-TV bill? Nothing much makes sense anymore, which is all the more reason to cherish the films of Clint Eastwood. They all make perfect sense. Every year since 1993, when he won the Best Director and Best Picture Oscars for Unforgiven, the yearly awards roll around and the man who used to look as stoic and ossified as Mount Rushmore flashes a Cinemascope grin as he figures prominently in the honors.

Flags of Our Fathers, his latest triumph, will be no exception. Produced by Steven Spielberg and directed by Mr. Eastwood with power and perception, it is a film that will stop your heart. Brilliantly conceived, articulately written, sensitively acted, filled with deeply penetrating emotions and breathtaking action, it is the greatest cinematic canvas of war since Saving Private Ryan. I didn’t think he could top Million Dollar Baby, but I was wrong. With Flags of Our Fathers, the enshrinement of Clint Eastwood is manifest.

Full article here
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I don't think it really matters because Flags will be a nominee whether or not it gets raves...
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

Mister Tee wrote:Committed at this point to Eastwood for his iconic stature and being more willing to overlook flaws?

If you look at some of Eastwood's later films (Blood Work, Absolute Power, Space Cowboys), most mainstream critics who liked those mostly seemed to be praising them as entertainments, and out of admiration of Eastwood for continuing to work steadily. Most people who viewed those films as major works are the ones who look at them from an auteurist perspective, but Flags of Our Fathers is getting legitmate raves from mainstream critics.

I think it's most likely due to the fact that the film is being warmly received and most critics attending an advance screening don't want to be the first to poo-poo it. Look at 'Beloved', which was heralded before its release as "The Film to Beat Spielberg".

I doubt that critics at major publications would be worried about being the first to pan a movie they didn't like. And from my memory--which may be sketchy--Beloved (one of the three or four best movies of that year, in my opinion) was thought to be a major contender up until mainstream reviews were unenthusiastic, which is different than the case here.

-------------------------------------------------
Here's a post from a guy at The Envelope (one of the more intelligent posters there) about this disconnect:
Except for edgy/hip/cult type films, has there ever been such a dichotomy? And what does it mean?

I'm going to suggest a couple of possibilities that might be having an impact with some of each:

1) The established critics are older, and more appreciative of Eastwood's themes and throw back to classical style

2) In some cases, the major critics - not all of whom were as much on the Eastwood bandwagon - don't want to miss it

3) Some of the web critics, many of whom are huge Scorsese fans, are overreacting negatively to Flags, seeing the upcoming possible Eastwood/Scorsese battle.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Well, yes, that's precisely our point, OG. The web critics are bringing the score down.

And I notice many of the reviews on Metacritic haven't made their way to Rotten T.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Which is really interesting considering rottentomatoes.com currently has the film at 53% fresh.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

I really don't care about the level of disconnect. I think it's most likely due to the fact that the film is being warmly received and most critics attending an advance screening don't want to be the first to poo-poo it. Look at 'Beloved', which was heralded before its release as "The Film to Beat Spielberg". I'm curious to see if 'Flags' receives a more muted wide release critically. I do think that's possible, that latecomer critics will remain somewhat indifferent. They have to be, they just have to. I'm so grateful for Schager's review, which is just miles above what Poland and Wells have written.

I hope Ed Gonzalez blogs about this and 'The Departed'. I really love the guy's two cents. He holds 'Last King of Scotland' and 'Little Children' in outright contempt and yet adores 'Inside Man' and 'Miami Vice'.




Edited By Sabin on 1161119460
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Wells has a son at least in his late teens, so we're not talking about a child there, either.

What could be causing this disconnect? The older crowd being more in tune with a contemplative, slowly paced film? Relating more to the subject matter? Committed at this point to Eastwood for his iconic stature and being more willing to overlook flaws? (As, say, sports writers did with Nolan Ryan late in his career: so enamored of his being on that job past retirement age that they glossed over the fact he never had spectacular records)

This would of course be easier to diagnose had I seen the film myself.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

This disconnect is rather fascinating.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

The online/print disconnect continues, as Nick Schager at Slant Magazine pans it. He liked Million Dollar Baby and Mystic River; I was still hoping that Ed Gonzalez would review it.

------------------------------------------------------
Clint Eastwood's creaky history-class lecture Flags of Our Fathers makes the nature of heroism its primary point of concern via the plight of three soldiers who were immortalized in Joe Rosenthal's iconic 1945 photograph of six marines triumphantly hoisting the stars and stripes on top of Mount Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo Jima. As the faces of its subjects were obscured, Rosenthal's picture became a vision of national—rather than individual—victory, though for medic John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe) and soldiers Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) and Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), the snapshot became a one-way ticket to unwanted celebrity, as the trio became reluctant tools in the military marketing machine's efforts to pass a $14 billion bond issue aimed at financing the costly campaign. Adapted from James Bradley and Ron Powers's book, Eastwood's tale predicates its thematic thrust on the fact that its protagonists were sold as both literal and emblematic heroes, even though their general contributions to the war effort were no greater (and, in many respects, far less) than their fallen compatriots, and that the three—as proven by a deceased grunt being incorrectly designated as one of the photo's commemorated men—may not have even been the ones featured in the picture.

The military's desire to sell the public a disingenuous portrait of success in order to rally support, the discrepancy between image and reality, and the supreme valor of self-sacrifice are all worthy topics that, in this uneven and repetitive WWII saga, are conveyed in the first 10 minutes and then revisited, ad nauseam, throughout the flashbacking remainder. With an overdone divided narrative structure that appears to have been influenced by Lost, a storytelling frame (involving Bradley's son interviewing his dad's comrades for a book) that isn't properly established until the third act, and heavy-handed juxtapositions between Bradley, Gagnon, and Hayes's tacky publicity tour duties with their grim battlefield experiences, Flags of Our Fathers manages to pull off the dubious double whammy of being painfully didactic and emotionally unaffecting. Infantrymen "certainly didn't think of themselves as heroes," says a grumpy old man at the outset, "Heroes are something we create," states another toward film's conclusion, while in between, shots of tasteless fund raiser desserts shaped like Rosenthal's photograph (drenched in blood-red strawberry sauce, no less) and the trio reenacting their flag-raising on top of a papier-mâché float offer up more of the same contentions, with William Broyles Jr. and Paul Haggis's script restating its themes in virtually every scene with a modicum of subtlety and an abundance of groan-worthy solemn irony.

Working with Million Dollar Baby cinematographer Tom Stern, Eastwood employs a desaturated color palette that borders on black-and-white during his well-staged combat sequences. While this visual schema nicely mirrors the lustrous silvery hues of Rosenthal's picture, however, the director's decision to editorially chop up the island-set battle, and the compounding problem that the characters' fates have already been established during the early going, saps these set pieces of continuity, tension, and weight. Still, if the wartime material alternates between assured (POV shots from fighter plane cockpits and Japanese beach bunkers) and middling (i.e. every CGI effect), Flags of Our Fathers' characterizations, aided by nondescript and/or hysterical performances, remain its weak link, with each defined by a puny single trait: Bradley the bland skeptic, Gagnon the limelight-lover, and Hayes the tortured Native American dissenter. It's the last of these that reeks most foul, as Hayes spends most of his time sloshed, moaning about the unjustness of his undeserved good fortune while his friends continue to perish, and suffering a succession of contrived racist humiliations that culminate in his being asked, while forlorn and working as a crop farmer, to partake in a family picture by a callous Caucasian family. Such race-conscious sermonizing clearly boasts Haggis's Crash fingerprints—and, it seems, portends ominously for Eastwood's 2007 Japanese-perspective companion piece, Letters from Iwo Jima.
Post Reply

Return to “2000 - 2007”