Flags of Our Fathers

[dws1982]

I've started working on a long-form piece, but I'm planning to see Flags again (maybe tomorrow; more likely Thursday) before I write the bulk of it.

[Sabin]

I have yet to read a compelling rave for 'Flags of Our Fathers'. I'm being completely serious here; one that fully absorbs the film and digs deep into the structure, execution, and aesthetic of the thing, without coming across as Peter Travers. Because it feels like that's what I'm reading, just a lot of reviews by Peter Travers for one movie, which is a good thing for 'Flags of Our Fathers' because this amount of general goodwill is going to push this thing into the black and save its Oscar cred. I've given up on the notion that it might not be nominated. It's going to be an Oscar movie, and while I hold it in esteem above a movie like 'Finding Neverland' I have yet to read a more incisive take on the thing. There's only so far you can dig into 'Finding Neverland' beyond "It's heart-warming!" or "I couldn't stand it"; it's done in such a pedestrian fashion that you either go with it or not, and based on the reviews I've been reading for 'Flags of Our Fathers' I don't see anything past cursory examination of pedestrian material and execution that these critics just like.

dws, if you'd be willing to expound I'd be grateful. Not to come across as another faction of a cultural divide but I'm really just not getting this one.

[dws1982]

At this point, I must admit to being wrong as to how much I underestimated Eastwood-worship, which, I'm sorry, is the only thing I can pin this film's inexplicable raves to. I do not understand them.

As much as I like the movie, I can understand what you're talking about. I think that a lot of the positive reviews seem to be reductive, missing a lot of the really interesting things about the film and preferring to stay strictly on the surface instead.

[criddic3]

I saw this tonight. It is very well-done, but I cannot the experience hasn't quite settled enough to make up my mind whether to give a 3 1/2 or 4 star rating.

Certainly, it is more cynical than Saving Private Ryan, but in the end it comes around to the notion that whether real or made-up, heroes are necessary for us to come to grips with something as grave as war.

The technicals were outstanding. Acting was solid, with the most emotional storyline going to Beach.

Though a bit heavy-handed at times, director Eastwood and screenwriter Haggis manage to bring sensitivity and intelligence to the film.

It's no Saving Private Ryan, but it definitely felt worth the price of admission. And Eastwood proves he's on a winning streak. (heck, give him extra credit for filming that scene of the entire unit undressing for a swim!)

[Sabin]

'Flags' actually did better this weekend than I was expecting. Box office returns will only affect whether or not it wins the Oscar. At this point, I must admit to being wrong as to how much I underestimated Eastwood-worship, which, I'm sorry, is the only thing I can pin this film's inexplicable raves to. I do not understand them. I thought certainly I wasn't going to be standing alone with the likes of Owen Gleiberman.

[Damien]

The film's box-office was in line with Paramount's expectations.

From Variety:

Paramount is taking a slow-and-steady approach with "Flags," which the studio unfurled at 1,876 in an attempt to mirror the perfs of previous Eastwood pics, "Mystic River" and "Million Dollar Baby." WWII epic planted $10.2 million for a healthy per engagement average of $ $5,437.

Perf of "Flags" -- co-produced by Par and DreamWorks -- was on par with that of Eastwood's 2003 effort "Mystic River," which opened on 1,470 to take in $10.4 million on its way to $90 million-plus.

"Million Dollar Baby" bowed in 2004 at 2,000, nailing a $12.3 million first frame before wrapping up $100.5 million and a best pic Oscar.

According to exit polls, 80% of "Flags" auds were over 30 -- a demo that doesn't typically run to the movies in their opening frames -- and 55% were men.

Par, meanwhile, is undecided how much it will expand "Flags" next frame: prexy of worldwide marketing Rob Moore said the studio would be pow-wowing with Eastwood -- who has been hands-on in all "Flags" decisions -- on Monday morning to mull any immediate expansion.

"Clint Eastwood tends to have an older audience," Moore said. "And this will play like 'Mystic River' and be driven by critical acclaim." He added that "Departed," which is benefiting from solid word of mouth, may have stolen some of the Eastwood pic's potential auds over the frame.

"There's no question that 'Departed' appeals to a significant core of our audience," he said. "With its subject matter, it did start out younger. But there's plenty of capacity in the marketplace now to support both."

[Penelope]

Won't it all depend on enthusiasm? I mean, it's quite possible for Spielberg to once again successfully beat the drums to a nomination for what appears to be a potential flop, but, despite the raves from the print critics, it seems to me that there just isn't any enthusiasm for this film. Certainly, The Departed has a great deal more enthusiasm for it right now, and looks like it might just make it to a Best Pic nomination, whereas Flags already seems to be overshadowed; with The Queen also an apparent Best Pic nominee, and Babel, The Good German, Dreamgirls, etc., coming soon, Flags does appear to be in a struggling position.

[OscarGuy]

Remember that Munich managed success despite disappointing box office returns.

[Big Magilla]

Exactly. The films opened on considerably fewer screens than the one about the magicians. The theatre that I saw it in was packed with people of all ages who stayed for the closing credits. I think word of mouth on this one will be more positive than negative. I should be in theatres for a while.

[dws1982]

Paramount was expecting low eight figures for the opening weekend; probably more along the lines of $12-13 million, but they never planned to open this to blockbuster numbers.

I doubt Paramount should throw in the towel on the Oscar campaign yet.

[MovieWes]

I wonder, given how the film tanked at the box-office this weekend, if it will be able to secure a best picture nomination anymore. The reviews were good, but they were not good enough. It now seems more likely to be a candidate for the odd-man-out best director nod instead.

[Penelope]

Interestingly, the response is always "Wait a minute. There WERE black soldiers in the movie!"

Well, there were. It's just that the primary focus of the film was on the men who raised the flag. But I totally understand the complaint--I mean, as a gay man, I have an incredible desire to see gay characters acknowledged in historical contexts. One of the (many) aspects of United 93 that pissed me off was there was no acknowledgement that Mark Bingham was gay--no, he didn't have to say it out loud, but there coulda been a subtle signal to the audience so that they knew.

[Movielover]

Saw the film yesterday and I would not at all be surprised if the film gets a Director nomination but no screenplay nomination. The direction is meticulous, but the film is just not a great one.

[Sonic Youth]

This article has been showing up everywhere (and I posted a link to it the other day.) Interestingly, the response is always "Wait a minute. There WERE black soldiers in the movie!"

[Big Magilla]

Perhaps some day the contributions of black soldiers on Iwo Jima will get their due. This is not that film. To suggest that the director of Bird, True Crime and Million Dollar Baby is a racist is absurd.