Flags of Our Fathers

The picture itself is one of the most iconic, instantly recognizable images in American history. Days into the battle for Iwo Jima, photographer Joe Rosenthal snapped a picture of six Marines on Mount Suribachi as they raised a flag pole on this remote Japanese-held island. For a country who needed it as World War II raged on and the casualty lists increased day-by-day, the picture became something bigger, something more. The story itself though, isn't so well known, as told in 2006's Flags of Our Fathers.

It's February 1945 and World War II is in its final year. The Allies are advancing on all fronts and in the Pacific theater, a huge invasion is being planned on the island of Iwo Jima. After days of horrific fighting, a platoon of Marines walks up Mount Suribachi, planting an American flag at the summit. A photographer snaps a picture that becomes an instant sensation across the U.S. Three soldiers in the picture, John Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), a Navy corpsman, and two Marines, Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), and Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), are pulled from the fighting and sent back to the U.S.. Why? The trio of soldiers begin a nationwide tour so Americans buy war bonds to aid the fighting. As they criss-cross the country, each of them begins to question what they're doing. There's more to the story than what people are being told. And why are they being honored when so many others didn't make it off Iwo Jima, off hundreds of little islands all over the Pacific?

What director Clint Eastwood set out to do when he decided to make two films about the battle for Iwo Jima was truly daunting. Filming back-to-back, Eastwood filmed 'Flags' (from the American perspective) and then Letters from Iwo Jima (from the Japanese perspective). Both films received excellent reviews (Letters higher than Flags) and the two films combined to earn about $130 million in theaters while also picking up quite a few award wins and nominations. For 'Flags' alone, he's taking on a lot. The true story of the flag-raising in Iwo is a fascinating one. The picture we all know, the Marines memorial in Washington D.C., that was actually the second flag-raising on Mount Suribachi that day in March 1945. That's one of the biggest selling points for Eastwood's film, a not so well known historical story, and what actually played out. Interesting stuff throughout.

This is not a combat heavy movie for those expecting Saving Private Ryan or We Were Soldiers. This is a war story that involves combat but uses that as a jumping off point. The firefights on Iwo Jima were filmed in Iceland and are incredibly uncomfortable to watch, but that's what the fighting on Iwo was like. The Japanese garrison had miles of tunnels, bunkers, pillboxes and intended crossfires, all waiting to unleash hell. That garrison didn't intend to surrender. They intended to die fighting for the island, and the fighting was the definition of hell. These scenes aren't prolonged, but it's quick, hard-hitting and visceral. It's never flashy either. Eastwood just presents it and lets the scenes breathe. The actual flag-raising on Mt. Suribachi is almost secondary, an effective scene that is even underused a little.

No, not a combat movie. This is a movie about the profound impact the Iwo Jima picture makes in the months following the picture's release. The focus is on Phillippe, Bradford and Beach, three different responses, three solid performances. Also look for John Benjamin Hickey as Keyes Beech, the trio's military handler on the bonds tour, and John Slattery as Bud Gerber, the Treasury official working as the ramrod of the tour. The story in a sense is familiar, those who survived honored as heroes and struggling with the title. They survived while thousands of others didn't. Now they're talking heads, public relations figures meant to give the war a heroic and financial boost. A truly interesting story that isn't hugely well known.

Who else to look out for? Beyond those three main soldiers, look for Jamie Bell, Barry Pepper and Paul Walker as key Marines, Bell given more to do as a close friend of Phillippe's Bradley. Pepper is solid -- as he always is -- as Sgt. Mike Strank, the platoon sergeant trying to get his men through the fighting. Robert Patrick and Neal McDonough have small parts as higher-ranking Marines. With this comes a pretty major issue for me. The focus is almost solely on the three survivors. The Marines who raised the first flag and the three who don't survive from the second flag-raising are barely mentioned, much less introduced. When we see them killed later in a quick montage, the deaths have little to no impact because we simply don't know these young men. Two deaths do resonate, one happening off-screen, but it's because we've met these two men and know a little something about them.

The storytelling device is tricky here, 'Flags' going a little down the Saving Private Ryan route. The story is told with a modern framing device, WWII/Iwo Jima vets telling their story to a reporter ('Flags' author James Bradley). Then we're thrown back to the actual tour. Then we're thrown back to the fighting. It leaves a disjointed feel to the story without a rhythm being found. It feels like we're bouncing around too much. Mostly though, the film works. The emotions are there, and it is an effective, fascinating story. The final scene is especially touching as are the pictures we see rolling over the credits of the real-life people and the real-life incidents. It's not Saving Private Ryan, but that's an all-time classic. Well worth checking out for history and WWII buffs.

Flags of Our Fathers (2006): ***/****

Chaos

I've got 30-plus movies on my Netflix queue, and I'm....in....a....rut. Last weekend, not one of them burst off the page. I didn't really want to see any of them so I did a sorta-random search and picked a movie. The end result....2005's Chaos, a movie that got an extremely limited theatrical release. Good cast, cool premise? Maybe we've got a rut-buster.

After a hostage standoff goes horribly wrong, Seattle detective Quentin Conners (Jason Statham) is suspended indefinitely from the force while his partner is fired. Just a few months later, Conners is brought back to the force when his supervisor has no other option. A bank is being robbed by five heavily armed gunmen with over 40 hostages taken. The leader of the bank robbers, Lorenz (Wesley Snipes), has demanded to negotiate only with Conners and no one else. Given a young, new partner -- really more of a watchdog -- Shane Dekker (Ryan Phillippe), Conners heads to the bank looking to get the robbers and save the hostages. Nothing goes right though, several hostages injured in an explosion that allows the bank robbers to escape as well. Inside the bank, no money seems to have been taken. What exactly was the purpose of the "robbery"? What did they hope to achieve? Can Conners and Dekker figure it all out?

Yeah, about this one......wow, what a stinker. This is not the rut-buster I was counting on for my Netflix queue. From director Tony Giglio (who also wrote the screenplay), 'Chaos' borrows liberally from a fair amount of like-minded movies about bank robberies and hostages, anything from Swordfish to Inside Man (heavily borrowed), Dog Day Afternoon to Heat and plenty other movies that are far better than this one. It was clearly made on a smaller budget, Canadian locations filling in for Seattle, and generally has the feel of a straight-to-DVD dud. It tries to be something better, something else, but it never creates enough of its own identity and is dead on arrival. 'Chaos' is only 106 minutes long but it drags badly almost immediately and never picks up any momentum.

The formula for cheap action flicks like this is usually cast two or three pretty recognizable actors/stars, get another actor who never quite became a star but is a recognizable face, and then fill in the rest of the cast with no-name actors and actresses. Here we get Statham (rising action star at the time), Snipes (past his prime star with some legal issues) and Phillippe (young star who never quite rose to stardom). The three lead performances range from decent to pointless to wasted and then just some plain old bad. Statham's cool on-screen persona is there, but his American accent drifts in and out at will. Mostly, he looks frustrated or has a smart-ass grin on his face. Snipes' part amounts to little more than a cameo, but he goes for it in the over-the-top villain department. Phillippe just struggles. He gets the big, explanatory dialogue scenes and it's just bad. Uncomfortably bad.

The only other recognizable face is Henry Czerny as Capt. Martin Jenkins, the higher-ranking police officer who speaks in cliches, questioning everything and demanding things be done his way. Or the highway!!! It's the same part he played in Mission: Impossible and Clear and Present Danger.

Bad is bad, but then there's just awful bad. 'Chaos' has more of those awful moments than any guilty pleasure should have. My favorite right out of the Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay school of Action Movies goes like this. Phillippe is chasing a suspect down an alley in a foot chase and smashes right into a row of parked motorcycles. Shane yells "I'm a police officer! I need your motorcycle!" at which point he puts on a ridiculous helmet and chases after him, a ridiculously long action sequence starting up. The other goes down the Overtly Uncomfortable Sexual Tension Department. Investigating a crime scene, Conners and Dekker talk to a CSI investigator (Keegan Connor Tracy) who tells Dekker she'd like to ride him and she has a list of approved things he can put in her mouth. Oh, all the while she's sucking on a sucker. Subtle, this ain't. You'll think you've stumbled across a Skinamax movie late at night.

Then there's the twist and then another and then another. The movie's title is based on chaos theory which suggests that seemingly random occurrences are actually related in some fashion or another. Random eventually leads to patterns so in fact, nothing is in fact, chaotic. There are so many good movies out there like The Usual Suspects and Fight Club and The Sixth Sense with excellent twists, really well thought out revelations that seem ridiculous, but nope, when you really start to think about them it all comes together. This is not one of those movies. The twists are both obvious and stupid, and the ending goes for a "clever" finale that plays against genre conventions, but even that falls short. Just nothing to recommend here unfortunately. Avoid at all costs.

Chaos (2005): */****