Banderas de nuestros padres

El bienhechor hipersensible de Clint Eastwood fracasa exactamente donde cabría esperar: en la suavidad e ingenuidad de las escenas bélicas. Éstas, para que pudieran proporcionar un fuerte contrapeso al monólogo «Some of the things I saw done, things I did, they weren't things to be proud of», estaban destinadas a inspirar asombro y consternación, que no es lo que está sucediendo. Y luego está la segunda línea argumental de la película, la exposición de un trío de soldados en el papel de héroes cuestionables. Esa línea sobreviviría -aunque con patética vergüenza-, pero su conexión con la de la guerra fracasa: la lenta y poco entusiasta iluminación de una idea que se hace clara tras la primera media hora se vuelve cada vez más insoportable, y los últimos 20 minutos ultrasentimentales son sólo una prueba de lo uno aguanta. Para Banderas de nuestros padres no hay sinónimo más adecuado que *mierda*. No es una película floja, es una película disfuncional y decepcionante. (13.03.2007)

Clint knows how to tell great stories, but this one had too much sentiment and pathos in the final half hour even for my taste. At the same time, I love Eastwood's old-school cinematic language, which unfortunately isn't much favoured in today's hectic times. Still, what I appreciate about the film is that in Eastwood's rendition war hurts, it damn well hurts, not like in the idealized rendition in films with John Wayne, and it was nice to learn the fate of the soldiers from the legendary Iwo Jima photograph, which helped bring the war with Japan to a victorious end at a time when the American government was running out of money and people were losing faith in the meaning of the whole war campaign. Nevertheless, Letters from Iwo Jima was on the whole much better, artistically and more valuable in terms of story. (13.05.2008)

It's as if Clint Eastwood and Paul Haggis worked with an unfinished version of the script. Sometimes there's something missing, sometimes there's too much of something (god, the ending!!!) and mostly it's pretty boring. Fortunately, the landing and the ensuing battle almost match the opening of Saving Private Ryan, but it can't fix the overall impression. A mediocre film and a missed chance for more Oscars. (26.01.2007)

Clint Eastwood is strongly off-topic in the war theme, instead of the dynamic friendship of young boys, he presents us with a tearful story about one significant photo and the completely uninteresting wrangling around it. The relatively significant departure from the war theme itself – that is, the fights, or America good, Germany/Japan bad – can be considered an interesting idea. The financial flows and the distortion of the national economy during wartime are lightly outlined, so the viewer is not only forced to count body. There is action, of course, but it lacks the rawness of Saving Private Ryan. There are novel views from the cockpits of fighter planes that catch attention, a slightly more detailed look at the weapons or tactics of the enemy, and magnificent scenes of the island being bombarded by battleships. The landing scenes are not as impressive, and it’s clear Eastwood is an old man, it’s missing speed. Overall, it is rather an average attempt to look at a military conflict from a slightly different perspective. The idea is good, but somewhat halfway through completion. (11.01.2008)

It's definitely not garbage. Was someone expecting a war-psychological film like Letters from Iwo Jima? I wasn't. If Clint had made Flags the same way he made Letters, twice as many smart-asses would have criticized him for making two of the same movies, just with different people. Flags of Our Fathers has charm in following the fate of "the soldiers from the photo", action and carnage comes second (maybe third), and I don't blame anyone for it. But the truth is that unless you are in the mood for a very "talky" war movie, don't watch Flags. P.S. I just have to put this link here :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdNV9JX-Xi8 (27.06.2009)

I know, I'm not stating any news here, but I just haven't seen all the movies right when they were released. I like Clint Eastwood. Recently, I watched his "Gran Torino" and my jaw dropped. When I was watching "Flags of Our Fathers," my jaw dropped again. This time because of how much the battle scenes resemble those in Steven Spielberg's film "Saving Private Ryan." I wanted to tear apart Eastwood's film, but then I realized I'm not even halfway through yet. You shouldn't give up on Clint too early, because what he lacks in originality in the war scenes, he truly makes up for with the human aspect of the story. And that's the most important thing about "Flags of Our Fathers." Humanity, or maybe inhumanity, the moments when a person becomes a hero without deserving it, and when they face a fall that they might not deserve either. An excellent human story that touched me. If you have Clint in your mind as a patriot, I think here he will show you that he is quite a realist. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/03/diar-milovnika-filmu-c-0001-cista-duse.html (13.02.2013)