|
"Best Photo? Maybe.
Best Picture? Nope." |
 |
Directed by Clint
Eastwood - Written by
Paul Haggis
Starring Ryan Phillippe,
Jesse Bradford, Adam
Beach, Barry Pepper
Distributed by
Dreamworks -
2006 - 132m - Rated R |
| |
|
“HAAAAAGGIS!” |
| |
The fact that “Flags
of Our Fathers” is a tedious waste of time does not squarely fall on
the shoulders of director Clint Eastwood or the cast. It falls on the
shoulders a man named Paul Haggis, who has somehow managed to become a
highly regarded screenwriter despite his work being, well, crap.
The sad thing is that I can see a good movie in “Flags of Our
Fathers,” but the script is bad enough to have sent me into the
theatre parking lot with my fists raised to the sky shouting
“HAAAAAGGIS!” to the heavens.
Seriously, is there a critically successful screenwriter who continues
to churn out such junk? “Crash” was melodramatic mess that barely
managed to hold itself together and the recent “The Last Kiss” simply
felt fake. You can always tell a Haggis script because of the lousy
dialogue and the air of self-importance.
Okay, so Haggis co-wrote the script with William Broyles Jr., but I
read the Haggis admitted to never reading Broyles’ draft before
working on his. Therefore, I place the blame for this screenplay
solely on Haggis.
“HAAAAAAAAGGIS!”
There is great source material here. The Battle of Iwo Jima is among
the most gruesome and interesting in all of World War II and exactly
what happened there is worthy of a film. However, the focus of the
movie lies not on the battle, but on how the men who appeared in the
famous flag-raising photograph taken during the battle were exploited
to help sell war bonds. Interesting historical tidbit? Yes.
Interesting enough to carry almost any entire film? No.
This is usually the point in the film where I mention the actors, but
what actors? The problem with war movies, even the great ones, is that
once everyone gets their helmets one, you cannot tell them apart.
Here, thing are worsened because we are shown a bunch of characters
and there is no time spent fleshing them out. Don’t give that “they
show their character through their actions” BS that so many people
toss around these days. How can I relate a character’s actions to his
character when I have no idea who he is?
Ryan Phillippe is in this. But he really does nothing remarkable. Adam
Beach is in this. But all he manages to do is officially stereotype
himself as Native American WWII guy. Paul Walker is in this. But he
has about three seconds of screen time. Robert Patrick is in this. But
he has about five minutes of screen time and his role in “The Marine”
left a bigger impact on me. Barry Pepper is in this. But Barry Pepper
is in EVERY war movie, so this is not remarkable.
There, you pretty much know everything about these characters that the
movie discloses.
“But you haven’t discussed the characters!”
Yes.
To make getting to know these guys worse, the story keeps on jumping
between time periods. The battle, before the battle, after the battle,
soldiers at home and modern time. The modern sequences are the worst
in the movie because they don’t even serve the story and only act as
gushy emotional moments. For example, one character even has the balls
to say to his dying father “You were the best father in the world!”
Or something like that. It still amazes me that such scenes are still
written. There doesn’t even seem to be an attempt to make it
interesting.
Unlike “The Prestige,” which also opened on the same day, these plot
jumps are not smooth and planned. They feel random. There is often no
reason for the jump. It feels like they decided on where the movie
goes by throwing darts at the script.
Okay, time to give Clint his slap on the back of the hand.
Mr. Eastwood, I don’t blame you for this mess. The movie looks and
sounds great. I especially liked the color scheme. There are even some
effective sequences, particularly the one with the cave that hides a
gruesome surprise. The combat sequences are fantastic.
But please…
Please stop working with Paul Haggis. “Million Dollar Baby” was a fine
movie because of your direction and the actors, not because of Haggis’
Lifetime Channel script. You are far too good of a director to let him
write your movies.
So I end this review by praying that Haggis has not destroyed “Casino
Royale.” Haggis is added to my shortlist of Hollywood hate. He’s up
there somewhere with Michael Bay.
“HAAAAAAAGGIS!” |
| |
|
© Written by Jacob Hall -
Email
Me! |
TC Candler's Comment
Apathy,
maybe... "hate" seems a tad extreme.
I haven't
seen the film, so I cannot comment on the
specific criticisms. However, comparing
Haggis to Bay makes me baulk.
I think Bay merits that criticism. He is a
cinematic virus slowly breaking down the brain
cells of humanity/sheep.
I have only seen "Crash" & "Million Dollar
Baby", both of which I thought were very good,
although a tad short of greatness. I cannot
fathom this guy being compared with Bay.
I think that perception may be as a result of
his recent critical praise and Oscar success, as
opposed to his actual skill when compared with
the entirety of screenwriters working in movies
today.
Apathy, fine... anything worse appears to be
reactionary to his reputation.
"OSCAAAAAAARRRR!"
Richard Propes' Comment
n/a
|
