It's been awhile since I read the novel and/or saw the movie, but what I CAN say is that Eastwood's day of playing a leading man who gets the girl are long past. I like Eastwood, always have. He plays a fine tough guy, but he is the tough guy that rides off into the sunset and leaves the girl. If you think about it, any movie where Eastwood gets the girl is either a bad movie in general or has a bad ending.

How about Two Mules for Sister Sara? I always pictured Eastwood's and MacLaine's characters staying together. There's also Play Misty for Me where Clint ends up with the good girl.

I personally disliked Bridges of Madison County because I felt it was a book/movie that celebrated adultery.

When I saw The Unforgiven, I was so shocked I inhaled a piece of popcorn. By 2:00 AM I had pneumonia. It wasn't fun.

I did like Eastwood's [SIZE=2]spaghetti westerns. When they first came out, most Western's were made with clean-cut John Wayne type heros. Eastwood was the perfect anti-hero.[/SIZE]

This may shock a lot of people, but except for Hatari and a couple of minor others, I never cared for John Wayne.

Ken V.

This may shock a lot of people, but except for Hatari and a couple of minor others, I never cared for John Wayne.

Just curious -- Do you also not care for mom and apple pie? (That's a joke, just in case anyone gets confused). Also, I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually LIKED "Hatari."

The airport down the road from here is called "John Wayne Airport."

Just curious -- Do you also not care for mom and apple pie? (That's a joke, just in case anyone gets confused). Also, I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually LIKED "Hatari."

The airport down the road from here is called "John Wayne Airport."

Hatari was a good story, but not what I'd call a great movie.

And yes, I know about the airport. I used to work a short distance from there in Costa Mesa.

My wife and I had our boat slip in Newport, and we passed by "John Wayne's House" every time we left the harbor. He was definitely a famous local celebrity. I just never cared that much for his movies.

Ken V.

My grandda fought in WWI and never spoke of it to anyone so for me seeing Flags gave me a chance to understand a little of what he must have endured

The film is emotionally devastating as these were just ordinary fellows and the acting reflects thatolid, dependable and unspectacular.

His recreation of Iwo Jima will stay with me for as long as I am here.

I am looking forward to seeing the companion film Letters from Iwo JIma and I wish Paramount/Dreamworks and Warners would have released them simultaneously. Only someone of Eastwood' stature would do this: a chance to see a single battle told from those who fought from both sides of it.

The actual news footage seen at the film's conclusion along with the names of their cinematic counterparts- a fine tribute, indeed.

I just saw "Flags of Our Fathers." What an outstanding film. Now I want to see "Letters from Iwo Jima" again; I may appreciate it more because the films are linked. I was amazed to see so many scenes in "Flags" that I recognized from "Iwo Jima." These movies are two of a kind, not quite the flip side of the coin, but almost.

"Flags" had more going on in terms of story than "Iwo Jima," thus I found it more interesting and richer. However, I and my friends had a devil of a time trying to figure out which character was which. It was nearly impossible, and I think that's part of the story. The public was never told the truth about who exactly raised the flag or that the famous picture was actually the second raising of the flag because a politician wanted the first flag for his private collection of war mementos (or so the movie says). That scene provided a great image of the way that soldiers follow orders, no matter how nonsensical.

The film is set up in flashbacks in a fashion that I found confusing. It took awhile to piece the puzzle together, and, again, I guess that is the point of view of the storyteller, the person who, in the present, was putting together the confusing and contradictory story of the flag raising and his father's part in it.

Despite the confusion, the film was gripping, moving and a testament to the destructive power of posttraumatic stress disorder, which afflicted those brave men.

Clearly, Eastwood had a towering vision in mind when he conceived of these two epic films. The fulfillment of that vision is genius.

I just saw "Flags of Our Fathers." What an outstanding film. Now I want to see "Letters from Iwo Jima" again; I may appreciate it more because the films are linked. I was amazed to see so many scenes in "Flags" that I recognized from "Iwo Jima." These movies are two of a kind, not quite the flip side of the coin, but almost.

I rented "Flags" last week, and am now waiting for "Letters" to be released on DVD.

"Flags" had more going on in terms of story than "Iwo Jima," thus I found it more interesting and richer. However, I and my friends had a devil of a time trying to figure out which character was which. It was nearly impossible, and I think that's part of the story.

I had the same problem, and I already knew the names of the men who raised the second flag.

The public was never told the truth about who exactly raised the flag or that the famous picture was actually the second raising of the flag because a politician wanted the first flag for his private collection of war mementos (or so the movie says).

A little background: James Forrestal was Secretary of the Navy, and he did step ashore on the fourth day of the battle. When he saw the flag, he wanted it, although I don't remember if he ever got it.

A lot of Americans were "souvenir hounds," this seems especially true of those in the rear. (REMF's, as the combat troops called them. [RE stands for Rear Eshelon, and I'll let you figure what the MF stands for.]) Forrestal was one of them.

As an aside, a Japanese General was reputed to have said, "The Germans fight for Hitler, the Japanese fight for the Emperor, and the Marines fight for souvenir's." This is not really true, as soldiers from all sides tend to pick up things they find in combat. And the Japanese, knowing this, booby-trapped things which they thought Americans would want to take as souvenirs. One of the men my dad knew (John Santana) was killed on Iwo when he disobeyed orders and tried to take apart a runway landing light for some bright shiny part he wanted.

My dad had a few souvenirs himself. Among them were a Sterling Silver Cigarette case he found, (it seems to have been British-made, and was probably picked up by a Japanese soldier who took part in the conquest of some of the British possessions early in the war.) an Officers sword, a Japanese Arisaka rifle which was still packed in preservative (it had never been issued) and a complete set of coins and bills which he kapt when he was stationed on New Zealand.

After he was hit, all of this stuff disappeared. Seems that some Navy men looted the sea chests of Marines who didn't return from battle.

But I digress.

Mount Suribachi was the highest point on the Island and therefore a very effective Japanese observation post. Raising a flag on the top of the volcano would tell anyone who saw it that the observation post was taken, and give them a bit of confidence. But the flag was too small to be seen from very far away. So someone said, "Put up this much larger flag." That's effectively it. Joe Rosenthal's photo of the second flag was almost an accident, and the scene in the movie of his taking the photograph was about as accurate as it gets -- even to the actor who portrayed Rosenthal looking as close as possible to Joe himself.

The film is set up in flashbacks in a fashion that I found confusing. It took awhile to piece the puzzle together, and, again, I guess that is the point of view of the storyteller, the person who, in the present, was putting together the confusing and contradictory story of the flag raising and his father's part in it.

Good assessment. Combat is always chaotic and it takes a while for things to get sorted out.

Despite the confusion, the film was gripping, moving and a testament to the destructive power of posttraumatic stress disorder, which afflicted those brave men.

Post-traumatic stress, definitely; but the thing was, they didn't consider themselves to be especially brave, and they definitely didn't consider themselves to be "hero's." As Ira Hayes said in the movie, "All I did was try not to get shot."

Clearly, Eastwood had a towering vision in mind when he conceived of these two epic films. The fulfillment of that vision is genius.

"Flags" was an extremely accurate movie . . . for as far as it went. They couldn't tell the entire story in the time available. But the government was nearly bankrupt, Americans were sick of the war, and for years, the government lied about how many American casualties there were in that battle. It took fourty days of fighting to completely subdue the island, although during the last week or so, most of the fighting was done by the Army. The battle for Iwo Jima was expected to be over in five days! All plans and expectations were that more than half the island would be taken on the first day.

Ken V.