Mémoires de nos pères

L'adorable Clint Eastwood échoue là où on pouvait s'y attendre - dans la douceur et la naïveté des scènes de guerre. Elles auraient dû susciter de l'horreur et de la consternation pour contraster avec le monologue "Certains des actes que j'ai vus, des choses que j'ai faites, ce n'étaient pas des choses dont on peut être fier", mais ce n'est pas le cas. Ensuite, il y a cette deuxième ligne du film, l'exposition d'un trio de soldats en tant que héros discutables, qui, bien qu'elle survive dans une honte pathétique, échoue dans sa connexion avec la guerre - l'éclairage lent et hésitant d'une idée déjà claire après une demi-heure devient de plus en plus insupportable, et les dernières 20 minutes ultra-sentimentales ne sont qu'un test de votre endurance. Il n'y a pas de synonyme plus approprié pour "Flags of Our Fathers" que *merde*. Ce n'est pas un film faible, c'est un film dysfonctionnel et raté. (13/03/2007)

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)

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 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 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)