Review of Flags of Our Fathers (2006) by Alexander D — 28 May 2012

As FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is one of Clint Eastwoodâ(TM)s more recent films, I was a bit worried about what I would think of it. Ever since his 2002 film BLOOD WORK, Eastwood has been collaborating with cinematographer Tom Stern. Stern has a fascination for shooting Eastwoodâ(TM)s films in bleak, washed-out hues of grey and blue. The tactic often becomes aggravating when we have to sit through it for two hours plus. Iâ(TM)ve consistently tried to ignore it when watching films such as HEREAFTER, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, and J. EDGAR. In this film, however, the cinematography simply cannot be ignored, because it actually works quite well. This isnâ(TM)t a documentary: it canâ(TM)t look perfectly accurate in and of itself, but if thereâ(TM)s one thing that can do a fine job to strengthen the bleak tone it possesses, thatâ(TM)s Tom Sternâ(TM)s cinematography. The melancholy colors go so far with a war film that they even do a better job with making the soldiers blend in with the rocky Mount Suribachi. You could also look at it another way, though, and say these tactics can tend to fail a bit. Combine this purposefully lifeless coloration with the frequent over-the-shoulder and point-of-view shots, and it feels like youâ(TM)re watching someone play Call of Duty.

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS was a neat film. Sure, it could have been a bit more transitional (okay, a lot) between the heavy during-Iwo Jima scenes and the bright post-Iwo Jima scenes, and it could have had a better script. War films arenâ(TM)t like most other films. The war genre is comparable to the biopic genre in a sense that they should be judged not only on how well such films perform in general, but also on the historical value and factual intrigue. With that said, the historical value certainly weighs out most of the minute flaws imposed on it as a film, making it both an entertaining and factually intriguing film to watch.