Cool News
Moriarty Storms The Beach With FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS!!
You know what drives me crazy?
When people take one or two reviews from the career of an artist, and they assume that your reaction to those particular films is somehow indicative of your overall feelings about that filmmaker.
Case in point: somehow, the perception seems to be that I hate Clint Eastwood’s work. This is, frankly, an insane thing to think. Eastwood has been directing for almost my entire life. I think he’s made great films. I think he’s made terrible films. What impresses me about him is the way he seems willing to constantly try new things. I may not like MILLION DOLLAR BABY or MYSTIC RIVER, but I see them as important steps in Eastwood’s ongoing evolution as a director. I think his first film as a director, PLAY MISTY FOR ME, is one of those debuts that tells you right away, “Whatever you think you know about this guy, you’re wrong. He’s going to surprise you.” Like the film he starred in just before that one, THE BEGUILED, MISTY subverted many of the notions of masculine heroism in a film, and they seemed to almost fly in the face of the types of movies in which Eastwood became a star. Film after film, he made pictures that I enjoy, that I think hold up today. Lean, efficient genre films, heavy on the character. PLAY MISTY FOR ME. HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER. THE EIGER SANCTION. BREEZY. HONKYTONK MAN. BRONCO BILLY. FIREFOX. When he finally got around to directing a Dirty Harry film, late in the series, he made a movie that still sets a standard for sleaze in the cop genre, SUDDEN IMPACT. He wasn’t repeating himself at all until he made PALE RIDER, which feels like he’s wrestling with a way to explore some of the same ideas as HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER. HEARTBREAK RIDGE was a nice character piece by him, even if it did traffic in cliché. In a way, it’s a prototypical Eastwood picture. It’s got nice performances across the board, it’s well-shot. It manages to pack an emotional punch even though the material feels very familiar.
When he made BIRD and WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART back to back, I thought he had turned a corner as a filmmaker. I couldn’t believe those films came out of the tough guy icon who I had grown up on. THE ROOKIE felt like a huge backward step, but a brief one. He followed it up with his masterpiece, UNFORGIVEN, as canny a deconstruction of a genre as I’ve ever seen. I like A PERFECT WORLD, but don’t love it. I admire BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, but it doesn’t make me do cartwheels. It’s better that its source material, which is saying something.
ABSOLUTE POWER was crap before Clint got hold of it, and he didn’t save it from its own crappy nature. MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL is probably the low point of his recent career, a film that doesn’t work at all, adapted from a book that probably didn’t need to be adapted.
I think TRUE CRIME, SPACE COWBOYS, and BLOOD WORK all demonstrate Eastwood’s strengths and weaknesses in equal measure, and anyone who says that MILLION DOLLAR BABY or MYSTIC RIVER are significantly different in terms of overall filmcraft is just plain wrong. I think they’re of a piece. Clint sort of hit a stride, making a film a year, turning them around quickly and efficiently, and I think each of the films has things to like and things not to like. It’s been a while since I felt like he really got everything right, and because I’ve written that, it’s turned into me somehow hating his work.
If anything, I went into FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS hoping for a home run. I think the story is interesting, and the battle of Iwo Jima is one of the more interesting moments in WWII. I thought it sounded like a recipe for exactly the sort of film that Eastwood does well. And, to a degree, that’s correct. He’s made a decent movie that is easy to admire, but it doesn’t really rise above. It’s handsomely produced, but it’s thematically creaky. It’s a film that works in bits and pieces, and watching it, it goes down pretty easy, but the film ultimately suffers from having been overly complicated at the script stage.
William Broyles Jr. and Paul Haggis are both credited writers on the project, but Haggis has spoken repeatedly about how he never even looked at the Broyles draft, instead deciding to re-adapt it from scratch. He’s spoken about how hard it was to crack, and how much he worked to nail down the structure. I don’t think he ever did. The script is way too busy. There are at least four major timelines that we’re supposed to follow, and the switches from one to another seem arbitrary.
I think for this to pay off properly, this should have been built as the exact inverse of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, the film it’s going to inevitably be compared to most often. They should have held the battle for the end of the film, and then when it came, it should have been from the start to the finish, to the raising of the flag.
After all, this whole film is built like it’s protecting a mystery of some sort. The way we’re given little bites of information at a time, Haggis has structured this like there are going to be some sensational reveals. There aren’t, though. The film has some sequences that are built very well, and I think the battle footage has a great sense of geography and danger. Eastwood explains the goals of the battle clearly, and he makes sure you understand each foot of ground that’s gained and why it’s important. But aside from being a well-directed recreation of the battle of Iwo Jima, there’s not a lot going on during these sequences. They’re impressive, but oddly undramatic. And the stateside drama is much the same way. Scene to scene, there’s some good stuff going on, but there’s no tension to the story, no drive that compels the film forward. I think the main trio of actors has an easy chemistry, and all of them do good work. I never thought I would write this phrase, but here we go: Ryan Phillippe serves as a credible and impressive moral center in the film. His work as John “Doc” Bradley is mature and thoughtful, and I just plain like him onscreen here. He works. There’s a decency to him that informs the whole movie. Maybe it’s because he’s a family man these days and has settled into his skin. Maybe it’s just age. But whatever the case, he was the film’s big surprise for me. Jesse Bradford’s one of those young guys who has worked a lot, but he’s never really had that one great defining moment. For me, I think of two films when I think of him: Soderbergh’s KING OF THE HILL and James Ivory’s A SOLDIER’S DAUGHTER NEVER CRIES. Both great, interesting early roles that show promise he’s never really lived up to. Rene Gagnon, the role he plays here, is a good opportunity for him, but he’s probably the least interesting of the three guys. He doesn’t really do anything in the film. He just sort of recognizes an opportunity, hops on, and then lets it take him where it will. He lets his girlfriend (an adorable Melanie Lynskey) do all the work with the press because he can tell that she thrives on it. And despite the horrors of Iwo Jima, he barely seems affected. I think it’s just the character as written, though. There’s nothing for Bradford to do. Adam Beach, on the other hand, is given a lot of heavy lifting to do, and he tries valiantly to live up to the demands of the role. He’s Ira Hayes, immortalized by Johnny Cash at one point, a Native American who was destroyed by the burden of guilt he felt about surviving Iwo Jima after watching “better” soldiers die.
I like Beach, and I think he’s pretty good here. It’s certainly the best work he’s done since the criminally underrated SMOKE SIGNALS, which is due in part to the fact that it’s the biggest role he’s had since then. But just a Bradford plays one note for the whole film, Beach basically plays drunk and weepy from the moment the tour of America begins for Doc, Rene, and Ira. He has some affecting moments, but by the film’s end, I felt like I’d really only seen one part of the character. The film does a nice job of presenting the surface of the characters and the events, but considering how many films we’ve seen about this period, and how high the bar’s been raised by some of the films we’ve seen in the past, the film just doesn’t add anything new to the genre. I rather liked Eastwood’s score, and I thought Digital Domain’s work during the battle sequences was nerve-wracking and disturbing. It’s a nice piece of filmcraft, which makes it more frustrating when it never quite gels into the great film that I think it desperately wants to be.
I’m still battling this rotten black lung that’s had me knocked out of service for the past week, but there are a number of things that I hope to have ready for you this weekend. We’ll see how it goes between blacking out from the coughing fits.
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
-
+ Expand All
-
Even Eastwood hates it. But at least thanks for acknowledging that UNFORGIVEN is a deconstruction of the western as genre, rather than an actual western.
-
Don Siegel did. Clint's directorial debut was PLAY MISTY FOR ME. He followed that with the little-seen May-December romance BREEZY. These two films do make Moriarty's point, though, that right off the bat Clint was into challenging whatever kind of movies people were expecting from him. He makes a thriller where he plays a frickin' DJ, and then he makes a romance he isn't even in. Clint has run hot and cold with me but I generally respect the guy's directorial work, though MILLION DOLLAR BABY left me cold and I feel no great need to see his two WWII flicks.
-
...is the sharpest guy on this site, and the best writer.
-
And decent ad blocking. Now Foxfire, that was the movie with Angelina Jolie naked and lezzing out.
-
keep hiring actors from other war movies/mini-series to sign on to others. They got 'Ryan's' Barry Pepper and 'Windtalkers' Beach and MacDonough from Band of Brothers, among a few smaller bit parts. When he first talked of this project he wanted young unknowns. How is the kid from Swimfan Ryan Witherspoon Phillipe, Beach, T-1000, and Paul Walker unknown? Wierd. My father's a WW2 buff. We're going to check it out this weekend. Can anyone who's seen it tell me of its accuracy. If it messes up even a uniform, like The Thin Red Line, my Dad will complain all the way home.
-
Oct 20, 2006 10:24:18 PM CDT
Eastwood is great but wasn't this made 50 years ago?
by lettersoftransit
I can't remember the name of the film but it was all about the aftermath of the famous photo and how it screwed up the lives of some of the GIs in the picture to be used the way they were. Tony Curtis had just about the best acting moment of his career when the post-pic hype caused one of his buddies to get killed. Sounds like this pic travels the same road but I haven't heard anyone mention it
-
I've said before that I respect Mori's view here more than most of his editors, but where we differ nearly 100% is with Haggis. I honestly and truly, with all my heart and mind, loved Million Dollar Baby. I think it a milestone for everyone remotely involved, and the best film I've seen in years. I truly think this reintroduction of Clint is due primarily to Haggis's influence, who seems to paint in mythos and archeotypes rather then the gritty realism we've become accustomed to. I hope this film is what it's supposed to be, and I'll certainly check it out this weekend.
-
...I also agree, Firefox sucked. As did Bloodwork. My personal favorite 'CLINT' movie of all time? Escape from Alcatraz. LOVE that movie... love it!
-
"it should have been from the start to the finish, to the raising of the flag". Actually, the flag wasn't the end. They fought for over a month afterwards. Anyways, the movie stays mostly true to the actual events. Bradley was actually in crutches during the entire warbonds tour, which is ommited from the film. He also shot the Japanese soldier that tried to bayonette him while fixed up that wounded marine, not knife him. Also, if you read the book, you will understand why they didnt show what the Japanese troops did to his friend Iggy (It's extremely graphic...lets just say certain bodyparts were shoved inside mouth and he was missing various other parts). I think the flashbacks worked for the most part during the warbonds drive...like that part where they are climbing the paper mache hill and he recalls what happened to the other 3 guys. What sort of throws it out of whack is the end caps of the "present" day son researching what had occured. While I think it was useful for conveying the intended message of the film, it did muck up the pacing and flow of the film. That being said, I look forward to Letters from Iwo Jima.
-
since The Perfect World but I'm willing to give him a chance everytime he's up at bat (even though this one looks like it might smell of trench-foot). And Mori, get better man.
-
I should have known it would be paul haggis writing the screenplay. The plot and type of story reeked of paul haggis.
-
That was not all uncommon what the Japanese did to the Allied soldiers. It started on the Bataan Death March. They were pretty barbaric to the P.O.W.'s.
-
Sorry, but that was boring.
AND recent Clint is pretty crappy. MDB is overly sentimental syrup infested slop. and FoUF's sounds exactly the same. it's a pity. was looking forward to it. -
Damn you Michael Bay
-
Peddling your unfunny wares. See another person thinks your vid is crap, lol. Was the lack of interest in you from Youtube and Myspace not enough? Your no good lol.
-
I guess I'm the only one that liked Firefox. Also there was a Foxfire with John Denver. Basically the same story...
-
Or at least thats what it sounds like from the reviews. I disagree with Mori on Eastwood, Im a big fan of his work as of late and I think there is a very good chance Ill love this but it sounds like a trend is starting to develope with Haggis. The problem with Crash is how spectacularly uncomplicated he made one of the most complicated topics in history; racism. Everything that was right htere ont he surface, all the out of absolutely nowhere hate filled rants, should have been subtext. It should have been simmering beneath the surface rather than handled in that blatantly agit prop way. It sounds like Haggis may have gone so over the top with Crash that he is having trouble pulling himself back, and Im sure that farce of an Oscar didn't help. I'd like to see The Last Kiss now to see if it suffers the same problem. It a shame too because Eastwood usually directs with such a simple "let the audience decide" style, the fact script doesn't allow his actors to stretch (something Eastwood actors do brilliantly) pisses me off. Screw Michael Bay, damn you Haggis!
-
I think Eastwood's strongest stuff as a director is when he is actually in the film. Unforgiven was a truly great film and it's a shame that Eastwood has gotten accolades as a director but not as an actor when it comes Oscar time. His work in Unforgiven was incredible as an actor.
-
He has a solid, good script. It's well know he doesn't mess with a script much once he decides to direct it. He works from his gut. Economical, tight... He doesn't fall back on some sort of over worked style, unless it's to serve the story. As a director he's in the Don Siegel mold of serving the material. This works brilliantly when it's "Unforgiven" (amazing script) and not so great when it's "Bloodwork." I'm a huge fan, starting with "Misty" and will always watch whatever he directs, hoping he'll hit gold. I'll take an Eastwood effort over a Michael Bay film any day of the week.
-
to know what Mori thinks. Don't drudge through all the other shit. It's as expected.
-
...and I can't think of anything better to start off a review than to firmly establish a connection with the readers regarding opinions and feelings about the artist in question.
-
... spectacularly wrong as always. Film isn't always "you liked it or you didn't." There are shades of gray, especially when elements of a film work and elements don't. This was what the experts call a "mixed review". I'd explain the term to you, but I have a feeling you would intentionally fail to understand.
-
... his best work was not in Smoke Signals. It was in Dance Me Outside. Is that movie even on DVD? I'd buy it for sure.
-
I don't know if its entirely due to Clint either. I attribute much of its success to Helgeland. It has grown on me over time. Its a great modern tragedy - with use of both Shakesperian and Aristotelian structure. Great stuff.
-
...and boring, very boring (in the theater, the urge to glance at my watch became like a nervous tick). The flashbacks to the actual invasion are very poorly done... we learn some interesting tidbits about the photograph, but we also get pulled in a million different directions that don't cohere or hold our interest. After an eternity of lingering, pointless scenes, we still know NEXT TO NOTHING about the lead characters... in the big fight scenes, they just seem like faceless grunts. This isn't the same Eastwood who made Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby (both of which I liked), this is the Eastwood who made Space Cowboys... like that film, Flags is filled with interminable scenes that are poorly edited and go nowhere. On the plus side, the film does make some nice points about the PR/media side of war, and the deception that it involves.... but in the end, this movie is a gigantic, sappy, sentimental mess... with absolutely no wisdom behind the sentiment. I kept waiting for the intrusive musical score to kick up again. Please, no more movies like this. We already have a billion.
-
I was so stoked MR got shafted by ROTK. Especially after his "it's not about special-FX comments in the ads.
-
I completely agree that the film of "Bridges Of Madison County" is better than the source material.
-
stating that "FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS" is the LAST World War II movie that can be made for the next 50 years? I fucking get it. It was the last noble war the U.S. was involved in. Theirs is "the greatest generation" Point taken. Now can we please move the fuck on? I am IN NO WAY suggesting that we forget the lessons of that dark period of time , I just don't want any more movies made about it. For a while, anyways.
-
Your critical but fair eye is essential to this website! It wouldn't be the same without you. Even when I don't agree with your reviews, they always give me something to think about and cause to re-examine my own perceptions of a filmmaker. While I feel Harry offers a unique perspective on film (I admire his finding "the good" in as many films as he can...he is a true movie lover), I feel that you are the site's best writer and best critic overall. Hope you feel better soon, your work is much appreciated!!
-
I'm with DirtyRatBastard. Maybe you should start playing the Rocky theme before writing your reviews...or at least having that guy slap you on the stomach while you're doing situps while visualizing your lead in. I mean...come on! Blame it on the black lung? Get your act together! And watch the scene with young Forrest Gump breaking off his leg braces before you ante up to the computer next time. Then, like him...you'll be runn-iiing-guh! Go get em' kiddo! M-O-R-I-A-R-T-Y! It practically rolls off the tongue. P.S. I called Dr. Phil. He'll be calling you in the morning to set you straight, too. With an overly aggressive speech about where you're going, an awkward indepth camera review of your private life with badly timed slow motion pieces to accentuate your short comings followed by a free year of diet supplements and all the copies of his diet book you can carry. Now get back to your laptop and become the man you left in LAMAS class!
-
To me why all the hate for Crash? I don’t get it. yeah it had some Pat moments, but overall was a good movie (and all movies of that type have a few pat moments) …. I have heard a lot of people get angry about it in a general fashion- but what exactly was so bad? Personally, I liked most of it, and found he went deeper in one respect- ie. He showed the hypocrisy of the way Politicians use racism to get elected... it’s a dividing football for them… and becoming more so. That said- the reviews I have read on Flags of Our Fathers does make it look suck-tastic… this is one of the few times reviews of a movies construct has actually convinced me to not bother…
-
Maybe you should just stop going to see WW2 films?
-
I absolutely do not get the reviews coming out of this film about Ryan Phillipe. Granted, every character is one-dimensional in this movie, but Phillipe HAS NO LINES. No meaningful dialogue, no quiet conversations, and no emotional core. What Moriarty describes as "mature" is simply a guy that doesn't talk or show any emotion throoughout the entire film. What was his arch? What was his stance on the whole fake hero image he had to endure? Does the guy have any family? It says he got married, but we would never know it, because he don't get anything from his character. Adam Beach may have been drunken and whiney, but at least that captured more of my attention that Phillipe did.
-
because it won an Oscar that it didn't deserve. It was an OK film filled with terrific performances and a couple really good set pieces, but it wasn't the best picture of the year. Of course, Oscar rarely gets awarded to the best picture of the year, so perhaps the hatred is a little disproportionate.
-
Exhibit A: "... anyone who says that MILLION DOLLAR BABY or MYSTIC RIVER are significantly different in terms of overall filmcraft is just plain wrong. I think they’re of a piece." Maybe you shouldn't follow up that first sentence with "I think"... Films are subjective and you don't need to be told that. Truly a bad review, but I forgive ya coz ya sex me up. Maybe, right next to *spolier warning* you should have *tired warning*. Nighty, night tiger.
P.S. Moriarty hates Clint Eastwood ... and jews... -- just jokes. He doesn't hate Clint. -
becuase Haggis is a liberal filmmaker and Crash is a liberal film. It paints a picture, that very few people would like to see and that is that racism is not just between black and white. conservatives though the film was overly preachy and they reacted to it by spewing bile all over it. Conservatives dont like liberals and they were not happy when this liberal film won best picture. They will go all out to make sure clint doesnt win this year. Conservatives tarred Clint with the unpatriotic brush. They were just pissed because Flags wasnt gung-ho enough. Sometimes the truth can be very ugly indeed
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts