This movie is the best movie ever made. If I were to rate this movie... with 1 being not so extreme, and 10 being extremely extreme I would definitely give this movie a 10.

The only other thing I can think of off the top of my head that is actually better than this extremely original story-driven movie is Armen and Bullik (quite possibly the best TV show ever).

I mean seriously there is no movie better than this one. It has everything you could possibly ask for in a movie. Drama, Action, Suspense, Supreme Martial Arts tactics... I mean everything!

This movie is a must see!


Movie was good but exotic dancers like Carolyn Calres, Jennifer Adams and Angela Rust were great. I was looking to get more information about them, after all they stole my heart. The full cast review don't have there names any place to find more information about them, please let me know.

Martial arts champion Hector Echavarria stars as a thief who wants to go straight. When his cohorts convince him to pull one last job, he finds himself in the dangerous realm of the powerful and wealthy Action/Adventure

Marcos DeSantos is a Robin Hood-type thief whose plans on retiring from the life of crime are halted when his partners Cole and Bianca convince him to return for one last score. When the object of the routine heist turns out to be the priceless Sacred Seal of Mongolia, DeSantos must overpower its protector, the Mongolian President's mammoth bodyguard, Kong Li. But the success of the heist is short lived when, in a stunning act of betrayal, Cole turns his gun on DeSantos, shooting him twice in the chest. Marcos DeSantos miraculously survives the gunshots. He is kept alive with the help of the Mongolian President and his cunning assistant, Sharka, who believe DeSantos is their only hope of recovering the Sacred Seal from Cole and Bianca. Joining forces with Kong Li, DeSantos goes in search of the friends who betrayed him and the Seal that eludes him.


My dad, massive action movie buff, hired this out as a zone-out, fight movie. I sat down to watch it with him because I had nothing better to do. I spent the first 20 minutes trying to figure out if this was a joke or not. Apparently they want you to, at least pretend to, take it seriously.

Basically, the hero, a reformed Robin Hood-esquire thief, was betrayed by his partners and now is being hired to retrieve a seal, which they had stolen. The movie follows this hero, as he goes around beating up groups of stereotypical minorities, until he defeats his insane nemesis.

I spent the whole time laughing at how utterly terrible it was, yet I enjoyed myself immensely. It's worth a watch, just for the ridiculousness of it.


Extreme Force was a movie with a lot of action. It was nice seeing Hector the world martial arts champion in a film. He acts very well,and his martial movements are awesome, I would think as good as Bruce Lee. I have seen Hector a lot in martial arts magazines, he really knows what he is talking about. I am a martial artist and I can tell all his movements in the movie are true and real, that's very rare to see now days! I thought the plot was interesting, although kind of confusing sometimes. I am looking forward to seeing this champ on the screen again. A real fan, Matt


This movie is an very entertaining M.A movie. The Cast of this movie was excellent with Hector Echavarria (The Falklandman) Michel Qissi (kickboxer 1,2, terminator woman) and Youssef Qissi (The Falklandman). The fights were good directed only I was a little disappointed of Michel Qissi. We didn't see his true Muay Thai Skills. For an american movie the fights were great. The bad thing about this movie was the acting. Echavarria is a great martial artist but a bad actor. Michel and Youssef Qissi were normal. The story was simple. The directing skills of Michel Qissi were very good and I hope he is going to make so more movies.

8/10 (only the martial arts) 7/10 (the normal rating)


It was last night that I got around to seeing this film. I expected something of a martial arts fest and I was right. But what was utterly disappointing was that it was topped off with so much useless garbage that I barely could keep watching. Michael Qissi, though he does and OK job with the stunt choreography, should not direct. He lacks the capability to direct others and the cinematography was totally sick. It is clearly evident that the guy had no proper experience directing a good movie. One thing props up in my mind every time I think about the film, the betrayal. The leads character is betrayed at the beginning of the story, a shot to the heart. However, instead of treating it with certain horror to it, the guy openly touches his wound and rather than show himself the blood, he holds it out for others to see, that too at full arms length. The martial arts are not too shabby but I was disappointed to find out that most of Qissi's martial arts focused on the sheer strength of the fighter. It is a well known fact, since the late Bruce Lee's time, that it does not matter how strong the opponent is, It matters how you quick you react and how fast you can move. Overall, I see that the movie is not for me nor for any fan of the true spirit of martial arts. However, if you want a story that can show you all the violence you want coupled with some extremely bad acting and direction, this should be at the top of your pick.


Yet another Mills & Boon type foray into the unfortunate love affair between the "traitor king" (Edward VIII...David to the family) and his American paramour, but this one was all a bit one-sided and wishy-washy.

Wallis Simpson was a woman of questionable character and a chequered past. The suggestion bandied about that she had been a whore in a Chinese brothel, was I'm sure pure fiction, but the feeling that (as quoted in the film) "there's no smoke without fire", gave impetus to the general consensus of the day (although there was a certain popular sympathy with Edward's predicament), that the woman of his choice should not become queen.

Although obviously not as black as the media of the time painted her, she was certainly a woman of the world, and I don't believe for a moment that she hadn't really got designs on becoming Edward's consort. If she had known at the outset that she would never become queen, I doubt if the romance would ever have gone the distance. As it was, and I suppose to her credit, the future marriage (if not the passion) did last, but she lived it in disappointment and disillusionment, and after him giving up everything and bringing the whole British Empire into turmoil, probably felt she couldn't leave him. Anyway, she may not be a king's consort, but she had gained a certain status, and wealth. And who knows...? But as everyone does know, the fairy tale turned into a pointless, roundabout existence, including a hopeful collusion with the Nazis, (in particular von Ribbentrop, a close friend of Mrs Simpson) who wanted to put Edward back on the throne as a puppet king to prevent any interference from Britain to Hitler's nasty little designs in Europe. I wonder how world history would have changed had the plan succeeded.

There is no doubt that Edward and Wallis were sympathetic to this aim, and even before their marriage they both had friends in, and an admiration for, the Nazi regime, and he especially for everything German.

Given Winston's anti-Nazi views, Churchill surprisingly had supported the intended nuptials, but maybe as he was still in his "wilderness years" at the time, could have had his own agenda in mind. However, the bulk of the British Establishment must have been extremely jittery.

Apart from the actual Constitutional crisis, which of course was the primary concern, I believe this underlying factor was one of the unsaid objections to the marriage, and why the couple were eventually exiled to far off domains. Objections due to Wallis's background, her divorces, her foreign nationalism etc., were valid, but could have been overcome (unless she was a Roman Catholic, which she wasn't) and let's face it, the British royal families have been dealing with situations like that for centuries. But in view of increased European tensions and possible and impending hostilities, a potential Nazi collaborator on the throne could have been a little awkward to say the least. That Edward was besotted with the influential Wallis is well recorded and being a puppet on a woman's string is one thing, but to be the puppet of a psychotic dictator is quite another. So in hindsight, the abdication was perhaps a blessing in disguise.

Of course, none of the treacherous and treasonable qualities of "Romeo" Windsor and "Juliet" Simpson were shown to any great extent in this somewhat insipid and inferior re-telling of "Edward & Mrs Simpson", and why it was ever made is beyond me, but if you're a fan of the likes of "Brief Encounter" or Barbara Cartland, you'll probably love it. And I suppose it might just encourage the modern generation to delve into the history books.

The dialogue was slow and laboured at times and was only dragged along by the experience of an impressive cast, of which the acting honours have to go to Margaret Tysack as Queen Mary, the veteran Richard Johnson as Stanley Baldwin, and the ever excellent David Calder as a refreshingly look-alike Churchill.

Apparently the main attribute of Wallis Simpson was not so much her beauty, but her charm. Sad to say an irritating Joely Richardson exuded no charm whatsoever, nor for that matter, very many of her acting skills either, and her terribly contrived American accent grated on the nerves. (Why couldn't an American have been awarded the part? Seems logical to me.) Stephen Campbell Moore as the love-lorn and beleaguered prince looked so wooden and listless throughout most of the proceedings, that I wasn't sure he'd even make it to the abdication, let alone the wedding. However, he livened up a bit towards the end.

When I saw the preview on this production and its subject matter, I thought "Oh Lord, not again", but then considered that maybe it would shed a different light on the events. It didn't. Nevertheless I struggled gamely through it, but overall the boredom of this over-trodden story was only relieved by the commercial breaks, and of course it's conclusion.

I hope this is the end, for surely enough has been sung of the whole dismal song, about this sorry little Merryman and his Maid. As it happened Edward was not really missed. King George VI (Bertie to the family), unlike Edward, was loved by everyone, and without him we wouldn't have had the present queen.

I must conclude by saying that my father used to proudly wear a "Windsor" knot in his necktie. From the day of Edward's abdication he never wore that style of knot again, and his subsequent comments on the real Wallis and Edward are unrepeatable.

NB. Eduncan-1 is misinformed. Ernest Simpson was American-born, naturalised-British, but certainly not English. Eduncan-1 should also get his facts right.


Viewers with an interest in British history might wish to note that since the first Hanoverian came to the British throne (George I in 1714) it has been occupied by dimwits. These dimwits have fallen into two classes  those like Victoria, George V, George VI and the present incumbent, who saw themselves as the slaves of duty and therefore as ceremonial heads of state did little or no harm, and those like George IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII who kicked over the traces, but did less damage than one might have expected. The 1936 abdication crisis was a crisis only for those who believe in monarchy, in this country a minority of about 25%, according to the 1999 Republic referendum. The story has been told several times before on TV  is there anything new about this 2005 ITV version, apart from the Baltic locations?.

Well, the publicity says there's more of Wallis's side of the story here, but I can't say that's obvious, apart from there being a bit more of Wallis' Aunt Bessie (Miriam Margolyes). Edward is portrayed as the seducer (in a candlelight chalet in winter) but Wallis (nicely played by Joely Richardson) doesn't exactly play hard to get. She had rivals for the post of prince's mistress (Lady Furness and Mrs Ward) whom she easily defeats. At the end she was left with the baby, or at least the immature prince, a duchess without honour exiled to France. Stephen Campbell Moore is about 10 years too young for Edward but his puppy-like demeanour is appropriate. The triviality of the Windsors is shown by the fact that it wasn't the loss of the Crown that irked them so much as the establishment's refusal to give Wallis the title "Her Royal Highness". Diana, of course, had exactly the same beef, but then she was demoted on her divorce. Camilla (for the moment) is a mere duchess, but is also "HRH". Winston Churchill, robustly played here by David Calder, was a principal supporter of Edward just because he was a prince, but then Winston was a rather romantic old Tory.

Nazi sympathies were not uncommon in the British upper classes prior to World War 2 ("those Nazi chappies certainly know how to make the trains run on time") but if an invasion of Britain by Germany had been successful (and it was a closerun thing), Edward, given his sympathies would have been the front-runner for puppet King. Edward was an undistinguished governor of the Bahamas between 1940 and 1945 but the main reason for that appointment was to keep him out of the reach of the Nazis. (Down under we got his younger brother, Prince Henry, who was even dumber than Edward, as GG (1942-1945), but a bit better behaved). After that he and Wallis spent the remaining 27 years of their marriage in very comfortable and well-deserved obscurity in Paris. One is left with the feeling we got lucky.

This production has a nice sheen to it and the 30s' era is well evoked. There are some other good performances, particularly 80 year old veteran Richard Johnston as Wallis' nemesis, prime minister Baldwin, and Julian Wadham as Edward's not exactly loyal private secretary Fitzhardinge.


It is impossible to fault this made for TV film - the principals make an attractive couple; the period is well evoked; the settings are suitably glamorous and the supporting cast is particularly strong.

There is a deft touch running throughout: the abdication crisis could have been played in a grinding and maudlin manner but it is handled summarily and almost underplayed.

What particularly convinced was the abdication speech, in the context of the film this "historic given" rang absolutely true. Quite an achievement.

However, it is still a made for TV biopic - the historic characters are necessarily painted a little bland and it is inescapably "light entertainment". There is much humour and subtle-digging at the royal family - but not without affection. Altogether, this film is far better than one could have reasonably expected and far more enjoyable too.

There is some hint towards the end of the narrative, of the sadness of the life of exile that the Windsors led, but that is a whole other movie. There are clear resonances in the movie of Camilla and Charles - I think this is deliberate for the contemporary audience but not overstated. Some of the historical context was a revelation: Churchill considered forming a King's party to champion the cause of Edward and Mrs. Simpson i.e. by no means was the whole county in favour of abdication.

When all is said and done, the story is a real life tragedy out of the Shakespearian mold, and one worthy of the retelling. My mother was at a girls' school at the time - and the whole class listened to the abdication speech in tears. The hold of the story at the time was intense as that other Shakespearian tragedy in our times of Diana.


As biopic films go, this one has taken a lot of liberties in order to produce an entertainment that will be appreciated by people that didn't know many of the details which surrounded the abdication of the heir of the English throne in the 1930s. Written by Sarah Williams and directed by without much excitement by Dave Moore, we are given an account of what went on behind the scenes in one of the most remarkable stories of the last century.

Edward, who would have been the king of England after the death of his father, has to do some reckoning about whether to give up the reins to the empire in order to marry the woman who conquered his heart. This was one of the most romantic episodes involving a royal house in Europe in the last century. Duty, honor, something that is a natural for the monarchy of that country, was a burden Edward was not ready to accept because it excluded the twice-divorced Wallis Simpson, who he fell in love with and put him at odds with his family and the English establishment, something unheard of in those days.

The result was his abdication and a life without his family, who protocol dictated to stay away from him after the scandal. Edward and Wallis lived the jet set life of the few privileged people of the times after he resigned the right to be crowned king. The film only deals with the events that led to that break.

Joely Richardson shows an uncanny resemblance to Wallis Simpson, a woman with her own style who made headlines and who appeared to have lived a fulfilled life next to the man who gave up everything for her. Stephen Campbell Moore is seen as Edward. Mr. Campbell Moore makes a good impression as this somewhat rash young man who couldn't care anything about the power his position would have meant for him. He was an unselfish man who threw everything away for love.

Mr. Moore got interesting performances from the supporting cast, especially Richard Johnson, as Stanley Baldwin, the man who opposed the marriage from the start. David Calder is seen as Winston Churchill, who proved to be a true friend to the troubled monarch. The excellent Margaret Tyzak, who has little to do, appears as a proud Queen Mary.

This film, although far from accurate, shows a page of history from the not too distant past in which we are shown a different situation of the royal family of England, something that in today's standards wouldn't have occurred at all.


As a fan of the Monarchy and everything Royal I was really happy with this wonderful presentation of the Monarchy during this slightly difficult and emotional time. It was wonderful to see the ex-King presented in such an emotional way. There was love in that actor's eye, and to act in such a wonderful way is a true asset to any productions cast.

Wallis Simpson is your classic American character. I'm sure she wasn't like this back in the day... a boisterous, bossy and rather annoying woman, slowly becoming a reasonably acceptable character portraying someone who really was stuck in the middle.

All in all, I think this is a very good 'made-for-TV' presentation and I'd recommend it for anyone's 'Royal Viewing Schedule'.


Liu Jian (aka "Johnny") is a top level cop from Bejing on temporary assignment in Paris to aid French police in a sting operation to take down a Chinese heroine kingpin. But things go bad and a double-cross ensues, leaving Liu Jian framed for murder and running for his life. One is thing certain, though, our hero won't be taken without a fight... a really good fight... and a few more after that. Luc Besson's screenplay isn't exactly creative, but given the genre, it's pretty darn good. I know I sure sighed with relief that Liu Jian (played with subtle excellence by Jet Li) wasn't driven by some emotionally haunting past, like the death of a wife and child, as is so typical in super-cop action films. In fact, we get just the opposite--a man who simply loves his job and does it very well, but is still human enough to make mistakes, feel pain and make realistic choices (well, mostly).

The story isn't without its flaws, however. Mindless thugs do play their part and there is an utterance of the most over-used villain line of all time: "Bring him to me alive; I'll deal with him myself" (or something to that affect). But somehow, it doesn't sound quite so corny coming from actor Tcheky Karyo (as Inspector Jean-Pierre Richard), who manages to play the heartless villain with a great deal of intelligence. Rounding out the cast is Bridget Fonda's Jessica, the prostitute with a good heart and, yes, a young daughter in jeopardy. But despite its few formulaic shortcomings, Kiss of the Dragon still delivers.

What really stands out in this film is the way the fight sequences flow with the rest of the story, unlike so many other movies that seem to be constructed around a few preconceived action scenes. It's a martial arts action film done right. Thanks to the superb direction of Chris Nahon, Kiss of the Dragon is classy, well paced and gives us a near perfect blend of drama and levity (no ridiculous one-liners here, but definitely some laughs along the way). Best of all, Nahon engages the audience and makes the story work to a reasonable level of believability.


I was hoping this movie to be better than 'Romeo Must Die' and I was not disappointed. I truly believe this is Jet Li's English coming out movie (too bad it was released in the summer when other bigger movies come out).

I did not go to see the movie for the story line and those who don't won't be disappointed either. The action was great especially the final scenes. Bridget Fonda did not do much (found her irritating in some scenes) but then again, did not watch the movie because she was there.

Believable, maybe not ... Jet Li as the new Bruce Lee, most definitely!

8/10


I expect most of these Hong Kong martial-arts films to be packed with action but most feature either a little humor (Jackie Chan) or beautiful scenery ("Hero," etc.) or wild special effects ("Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and more).....but this one features a mean edge. I'm not used to seeing these Asian films with a lot of profanity (mainly f-words) or bloody scenes almost to the point of being gross, which one scene was in here.

The hero is likable guy played by Jet Li. Despite his martial arts penchant for violence, he has a soft, boyish look to him and doesn't seem to fit the type. He's always the gentleman in here, with no profanity either. The villains, led by Tchecky Karyo, are brutal. Bridget Fonda, playing a hooker, at least wasn't some "Pretty Woman" type figure. She was rough, too, but at least realistic and I give her credit for not worrying about how she looked in here, beauty-wise.

I don't regret seeing this film. It was entertaining, but beware: it's a rough movie.


KISS OF THE DRAGON / (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

	I admire "Kiss of the Dragon" because it's a wake-up call to the increasingly desperate genre of martial arts action movies. After disasters like "Romeo Must Die" and any recent Jackie Chan production, my expectations for "Kiss of the Dragon" were not exactly sky high. It seems as if every movie like this replaces a story and characters with silly special effects and high-tech action sequences involving martial arts fighting. Here, there are solid, visible characters and an involving story. That's a real accomplishment these days.

	Jet Li starred in 25 successful Asian films before making his debut in America as the villain in the lackluster "Lethal Weapon 4." His last film, "Romeo Must Die," was a pitiful action extravaganza that borrowed elements from Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet." Before this film, I could not stand this martial artist turned actor. Here, he makes a strong name for himself. He co-produces the film, stars in it, and created the original story. According the production notes, Li initially envisioned a dramatic film that combined his trademark martial arts and action heroics with strong, recognizable characters.

	"I wasn't interested in making a movie about a big action hero who saves the day," explains Li. "My character, Liu Jiuan, is one of China's best agents, with tremendous abilities in martial arts and acupuncture. He's determined and driven. But he's not a superman; he's human. When his mission goes wrong, Liu initially doesn't know how to handle things."

	Liu Jiuan is the most skilled law enforcer in China brought to Paris on a top secret mission where he must assist an unorthodox police official named Richard (Tcheky Karyo) in dealings involving some off the record drug traffic. His mission goes awry and he quickly learns that Richard, who seemingly has a limitless supply of henchmen, is the villainous mastermind behind most of the crime in France. Liu becomes trapped in a dangerous conspiracy-Richard frames him for a murder he tried to stop. Liu also becomes involved with a local American woman named Jessica (Bridget Fonda), who was forced into prostitution when Richard kidnapped her child.

The story feels real, instead of a clothesline for countless gratuitous action sequences. There are plenty of action sequences, however, and the fighting does not involve wires, phony stunts, or computer generated effects like in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," and "The Matrix." The fights are grounded and real. "We went back to the basics," explains Jet Li, "keeping the fighting simple and based more in reality." Liu's principle fighting weapons are not guns or swords, but acupuncture needles, which play an important role in the mysterious "kiss of the dragon" revealed at the movie's climax.

"Kiss of the Dragon" is directed by French commercial director Chris Nohan in his feature film debut. He does a good job of involving the audience in the action, and distracting us from some of the film's weaknesses. But no director could conceal some of the bad writing, terrible dialogue, unanswered questions, plausible motives, and stereotypical character traits. "Kiss of the Dragon" is not a great movie, but for Jet Li, this is good stuff nonetheless.


This is definitely Jet Li's best action movie since he came over from Hong Kong. Some scenes reminiscent of Fist of Legend in this one. Quite well choreographed fight scenes with good realistic violence a la Bruce Lee. The plot is rather formulaic, as is much of the dialogue (I expected better from Besson), but the movie has a bit of the 'Nikita' flair (guys going crazy with fully automatic weapons in public places). A bit too much talking and not enough fighting, but far superior to 'Romeo Must Die'. The use of no wires is also a very nice touch. Best action movie of this summer so far. (8/10)


Jet Li really packs a punch in this action farce. I believe it's his best so far...followed by the decent Romeo Must Die and the laughable disaster The One. Bridget Fonda is astounding in this movie. She is a knockout. The villain and his henchmen are magnificent. Exciting and thrilling action at it's finest. 9 out of 10.


Kiss of the Dragon is a hyperactive martial arts movie with a heavy European feel. After Jet Li's fans were left disappointed with the fake, CGI-enhanced fighting in Romeo Must Die he decided to go back to practical, hand-to-hand combat with literally no strings attached. KOTD is the perfect excuse for action, with minimal plot and impossible odds.

Basically, Jet Li plays a Chinese cop Lui Jian who travels to Paris to help the police bring a crime boss to justice. But the French police just happen to be heavily, heavily corrupt and kill Mr. Big, framing Lui Jian in the process.

Keen to stay alive, Lui Jian flees the scene, but not before screaming, mad and completely hat stand police inspector Richard (Tcheky Caryo in his typically delirious role) sends just about every hardened police psycho after him. Outrageously outnumbered, Lui Jian prevails and fights his way through swarms and swarms of thugs out for his blood. Using only his hands and feet (and any useful nearby tool) he manages to wipe them all out.

Far-fetched it may be, but action choreographer Cory Yuen shoots it all in the most realistic and stylish way. You really will believe Lui Jian is capable of such an impossible feat, that's how realistic the action is. And all without glamorising guns.

KOTD uses the rule of increasingly mad set-pieces. The first desperate escape through the corridors and passageways of the hotel, the death-defying escape from the Seine Barge and through the tunnels and sewers, the orphanage confrontation and (especially) the final scene in the police station where Lui Jian takes on a dojo full of martial artist police officers, evil twins and finally Inspector Richard. It's all breathtaking stuff and very, very violent. With far too many sanitised PG-13 minded 'action' movies abundant these days KOTD is a breath of hardcore fresh air.

If you like this then I suggest checking out The Transporter. It may be slightly tamer but it's made by the same people (producer Luc Besson, Writer Robert Mark Kamen and Cory Yuen) and is also set in France, only with a warmer, more exotic look.

The DVD is in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen with a great Dolby 5.1 soundtrack. There are some extras and a commentary if you're into that sort of thing.


What do you want from a Jet Li movie? By the time of Kiss Of The Dragon being released, many of his fans had been vociferous about how his film's were losing realism in the fight scenes. Here, teaming up with Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen in the writing room, Li himself set about readdressing the balance for American produced martial artistry. The result is of course a preposterous plot that should duly have been expected, but without doubt for action fans this is a real high kicker that delivers thrill after thrill as Li beats up Paris.

The plot simply sees Li as Chinese intelligence agent Liu Siu-jian who is sent to Paris to aid in the apprehension of a Chinese drug lord. Things go belly up when corrupt cops led by Insp. Richard {Tchéky Karyo} wipe out the target and frame Liu Siu-jian for the murder. But he ain't going to take it on the chin. So with the help of prostitute witness Jessica Kamen (Bridget Fonda), he sets about clearing his name whilst perhaps helping Jessica get her life back on track too. Cue the odd couple forming a tender relationship as they shift from one death defying encounter to another.

The action on offer here is excellently put together, there's minimal CGI and even less wire work involved. This is stunts and martial artistry produced by a master craftsman. From a unique use of a snooker ball to an exhilarating smack down with a class of martial arts students, and on to a tag team scrap with the blonde twins, this has enough biff and bam to fill the Louvre itself. Li is on fire, not only one of the toughest guys on the planet, but also one of the coolest. While Fonda is hugely touching in a stereotypical role and Karyo continues to be one of the best psycho actors in the new millennium.

Flaws and plot holes here? Of course. Does it matter in a buttock kicking action movie? Course not. 7.5/10


Only this and the Bourne Identity have a car chase that I rate this high, the fact that it was filmed in Paris actually added to the authenticity of the chase.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and aside from the car chase, I still get 'tingles' when watching the fight scene with the tall and short guys in the office, the soundtrack playing during this scene works very well with it.

This is Jet Li at his best, without too much fighting, which (although I love it) can sometimes become a bit tiresome if you just get fight scene after fight scene.

Excellent use of the soundtrack, blistering stuff, which I can't rate less than 10!


This is an excellent Jet Li film, that is really intense, with lots of great action, and fantastic performances!. This is a really intense film, that actually has quite a few shocking moments, and pulls no punches, plus Jet Li is simply amazing in this!. Theis film really has some fantastic fight scenes, in it and the plot and story was really cool, plus i found the ending very touching!. I was really rooting for the 2 main characters as Tchéky Karyo is actually frightening as the main villain, and wanted to see what was coming to him!, plus it also had some good dialog!. The character development isn't too bad, and the finale is great and full of action, plus, i was really surprised by all the violence!. This is an excellent Jet Li Film that is really intense, with lots of great action, and fantastic performances!. The Direction is great!. Chris Nahon does a great job here, with excellent camera work, great shots during the action scenes, and really keeping the film at a fast pace!. There is actually quite a bit of blood and violence!. We get harsh bloody beating, bloody gunshot wounds, bloody gunshot wound to the head with blood and brains splattering,bloody stabbings,decapitation, chopsticks in neck, and a very nasty death scene at the end which i won't spoil. The Acting is fantastic!. Jet Li is AMAZING as always, and is AMAZING here, he does not speak much, but he is very believable, likable, had very good chemistry with Bridget Fonda, kicked that ass, and was just amazing overall (Jet Rules!). Bridget Fonda is very beautiful and is excellent as the prostitute, she is very likable, had very good chemistry with jet and i was rooting for her all the way to get her daughter back!. Tchéky Karyo is extremely menacing as the main villain, and at times frightening he was awesome!. Rest of the cast are good. Overall a must see for everyone!. ****1/2 out of 5


I used to like Jet Li movies purely for the fighting, depicting a rare style and grace; not unlike the master, himself. Li's characters often portray the martial arts code of honor very well. Of course, his evil doppleganger in The One does not apply here. I'm finding that I'm drawn more to his sense of honor that are the cornerstone of his characters; more than the fighting. The action and fighting scenes haven't lost anything, but I think I'm seeing more of his honor code than I used to. He has true style that reminds me of Bruce Lee. His modest demeanor and silence until it's time to use lethal force... it's very refreshing. You can tell he's in control from the second he walks on to the scene without any lame phrases or quirky little acts that are fine for other actors, but not a master.

What worked: It was really cool and mesmerizing to see Brigette Fonda in this film. She does messed up and screwed over really well; and one can actually feel her frustration and hopelessness. A natural prelude to her trust and confidence in Li's character. Of course Li's performance was a picture of style and prowess.

SPOILER - SPOILER - SPOILER What didn't work: Unlike my usual inclinations, I actually wanted the cheesy to happen in this film. I don't want to ruin any ending elements, but for once I wanted the two characters to find love... it definitely leaves that option out in the open. Other than that I liked the film just fine. There were some elements that were a little predictable, but it helped make me feel like I'm smart.

8/10 - Overall, very good... not excellent.

thank you


I had high hopes for this film. I like Jet Li, love Bridget Fonda, and it was produced by Luc Beeson. Sounds like a sure fire hit, right? Wrong!

The film is so over the top that it becomes unbelievable very quickly. The French bad guy, Richard, kills innocent civilians several times yet carries on as if nothing has happened. Bridget Fonda is more of a hinderance than a help to Jet Li, and her character is very degrading towards women. The background of Bert Kwouk's character is never explained, and neither is Jet Li's acupuncture skills which save his life more than once. And what was with the dead rabbit at the start of the film?

Avoid, avoid, avoid. There are much better examples of Li's and Fonda's work available from their impressive back catalogue. I think that this one will be forgotten by all concerned.


I thought Romeo must die, Li's previous movie, was a poor scripted, poor acted, yet very entertaining movie. This one however, is worse scripted, worse acted and in fact not entertaining at all. We are to believe that in the whole of Paris, there isn't a single good cop to be found, and all go shooting around, killing innocent people and destroying entire hotel buildings along the way. And they can blame it all on Mr Li. Even in France people would not buy this!

Add to that that the movie only shows Chinese and French people, and they all insist on talking English with the most preposterous accents heard this side of 'Allo 'allo.

Oh, and it may be obvious that the entire FRENCH police corps uses Kung Fu in their crime fighting, of course. But in that, they're not that spectacular really, so the fighting scenes end up being pretty tame too.


One of the first mainstream pictures that Li made outside of his career in China. And boy of boy,if u are a fan of fast paced kicking and punching and incredible stunts then this the movie for u. The story is quite thin, but that is usually the catch with this kind of movies. But the supporting roles are superbly performed by Mira Sorvino and Tcheky Karyo. Also nice to see was the cameo of Kato (u know the sidekick of Peter Seller's Clouseau) and a young french stuntman called Cyril Rafaelli (or something like that) who plays the little small fast kicking and flying twin. He is awesome in this movie and if u want to see more of him in action. I would highly recommend getting District-13, there he is the co-lead and u can really see what this guy can actually do. Anyway this movie is highly entertaining, but a word of warning tho, it is not for the fainthearted as there are some very brutal scenes in there.


***** out of ***** After starring in the highly entertaining Lethal Weapon 4 and the gravity defying Romeo Must Die, Jet Li has now got 3 excellent hollywood flicks under his belt. Kiss Of The Dragon takes Jet to Paris where he does battle with every gang member and corrupt cop he can get his hands on. Obviously Jet is well known for his immaculate martial arts expertise, so its no surprise that KOD contains a load full of fight sequences that are choreographed to its highest standard by the masterful Corey Yuen.

Jet stars as Beijing cop Liu Jian who travels to Paris to assist Inspector Richard (Tcheky Karyo) in arresting one of the most powerful drug lords in Asia. When Richard murders the drug lord, Liu finds himself framed for the crime and running from Richard and his gang of thugs. But do not think Liu will give up without a fight!!!! He meets a prostitute named Jessica (Bridget Fonda) who was a witness to the murder. Liu and Jessica team up together to clear Liu's name, get Jessica out of prostitution and to rescue Jessica's daughter from the clutches of the evil Richard (sounds like they'll have their hands full).

The story is very easy to follow and gives out a small message, and the entire cast give memorable performances, which makes KOD very different to every other kung fu flick. The martial arts sequences are extremely enjoyable with plenty of blood and bone crunching involved, and it is always a pleasure to watch Jet Li kick the ass of every bad guy in this movie. Certainly not for the faint - hearted (or the children), but Kiss Of The Dragon makes for an excellent action movie with a pace that'll have your pulses racing until you collapse.


As i said, jet li at his best. Nice movie, but with a slightly thin storyline (but i didn't expect a fair drama though) Written partly by my favorite director ...luc besson, quite noticeable though. Credits must also go to the director (Chris Nahon) , making this movie as your first movie ever is a great earning !!

Last but not least, credits to this crazy french guy (Tchéky Karyo)from "bad boys" (fouchet) ...i really like the creepy types he plays so well!

although i really like this movie ....i still wouldn't want a kiss of the dragon though (you'll understand after seeing the movie)

Germy


This was one of the best Jet Li films i've seen for some time, and it certainly surpasses Romeo Must Die. The martial arts performed by Jet Li and numerous others were second to none, just the best.

As for holes in the storyline, does that matter? the action surpassed the storyline in my opinion.

Full 10.


This movie shows us why Jet Li is the bonafide martial arts superstar. With the right people behind the movie's production, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised that I actually found this film to be slick, exhilirating, and VERY STYLISH (much like La Femme Nikita). I walked out from the theatre satisfied and entertained. Thanks to Luc Besson, the movie also gets Thierry Arbogast, who is a GREAT technician when it comes to creating the saturated atmosphere. This movie, essentially Jet Li with a touch of French vanilla flavour, turns out to be a surprising winner in my jaded film logbook.

Sure the movie has plot holes and some unintentionally hilarious continuity problems that will leave some of us scratching heads. But in the end I didn't care; this movie is so stylish-looking and well-acted, sometimes I forgot I was watching a martial arts flick. Great fight scenes, especially at the end where Li's character uses cramped office space to his advantage (a very smart move). To my delightful surprise, Bridget Fonda gave a stellar effort, because she didn't put on lazy acting as if it's just another film project that pays her money - big kudos to her. Jet Li proved to everyone that with the right movie material, he can show that he is rarity among martial arts actors since Li can act pretty well, which helps the audience to sympathize with Li's character. Karyo's character is made too obviously evil from the beginning, but never mind that - he is so much fun to watch. It's great to see that Li and Fonda do show strong on-screen chemistry, because after all I never expected so much quality from any martial arts movies. All in all, not since "Fist of Legend" or "Once Upon a Time in China II" did I felt this good about watching Li in action. Very nice effort!!!


Perhaps we have come back to where we started as Jet Li takes up the mantle of the great Oriental martial arts heroes.

Li is excellent in his role as the police officer who has come to France to assist the Police in Paris with a conspiracy. Things turn sour for him, and, along with the excellent Fonda [who gets better by the film] he has to take control and investigate for himself or lose his own life.

Well directed and with some brilliantly choreographed action scenes, this is definitely one to see.


I saw this with 20 other reviewers (including Barry Norman! name-drop, name-drop), and it was funny how everyone (including me) winced and grimaced at some of the action - the guy in the laundry chute, the guys in the kitchen, the black guy in the shop - and especially the two henchmen in the end fight. I'm not joking - everyone gasped, groaned, winced at how those last two fights ended! Very unusual (in a Hollywood movie anyway). Then we were all watching the last bit through our fingers, as it almost veers off into Clive Barker territory..

But a solid action film, despite the Bridget Fonda nonsense (she's only in this to 'broaden the appeal' to non-martial arts fans).


That line as uttered by Richard the baddie after Jet Li's character told him he had been *Kissed* by the dragon was an instant classic!! Tcheky Karyo was a brilliant over the top villain!

Now that's out of the way, My thoughts on the movie... First the story, It was above average for an action film, but I wont dwell on that because let's face it, No one goes to an action/martial arts film solely for the story. With that in mind, I will focus my comments on the action and martial arts sequences.

On the whole, the movie had a dark sort of feel toward it and thus not as upbeat as Jet's previous Hollywood outing, " Romeo must die ". The fight scenes were a welcome change to the wirefu seen in *Romeo must Die* and *Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon* and were grounded in reality, with Jet using various martial arts techniques modified for street fighting.

This movie in terms of fighting would have been first rate if it weren't for the shoddy camera work and editing during most of the fights.

Western directors MUST learn to pull back the camera and stop using those fast cut MTV style editing when it comes to shooting martial arts fight sequences. The first rule of shooting a martial arts scene,especially when the actor is also a talented martial artist, is to pull the camera back and shoot it with a wide angle with longer takes and not to do so many close ups with excessively fast cutting of scenes to the point where the whole body cannot be seen and consequently the FUlL power, grace and the execution of the technique is lost to the audience.

But even with this flaw, the fight scenes still manage to be very entertaining, My personal favourites are The Dojo fight (where Jet utilises Fillipino Escrima stick fighting) and the fight with the 2 albino twins where Jet outnumbered and outsized by his opponents, uses his environment and his speed to defeat them. Those two fights in particular even though they are choreographed, look very REAL and are as hardcore as they come!

Overall, Kiss of the Dragon is a decent action film with good action set pieces but due to the haphazard editing, The film cannot be used as a true showcase of Jet's Skill. One would have to go back to his earlier work in Hong Kong for that.


*** out of ****

After the disappointing Romeo Must Die it's great to see Jet Li back in ass-kicking form in Kiss of the Dragon, a movie that features a story that doesn't always make a whole lot of sense but features martial arts fights that rank among Li's best. The movie improves considerably on the mistakes made in Romeo and is a thrill ride that moves at a consistently good pace.

Li plays a Chinese intelligence officer on a mission in Paris. He's been assigned to work with a French officer named Richard (Tcheky Karyo), who's obviously corrupt and also calls Li by John since he can't pronounce his real name. Anyway, their assignment involves busting a drug kingpin, but everything goes horribly wrong when the crime lord is killed and Richard pins the fault on John. Thus, John goes on the run in a city he's unfamiliar with; he has almost no allies and is being chased after by the police and Richard's countless cronies.

He meets a prostitute named Jessica (Bridget Fonda) inside a restaurant, and a mutual friendship begins to develop between them. It's also by chance he discovers that she was a witness to the kingpin's murder and can clear his name. But she's reluctant to help him because Richard has her daughter, which is the only reason she continues this demeaning job in the first place. As Richard and his men begin to pin them down, John prepares to fight back with all his skills and strengths and retrieve Jessica's daughter safely.

From the get-go, there's a fault in the story. There's simply no good explanation given as to why Richard actually had the kingpin killed in the first place. My own assumption would be that they were working together and this led to the possibility of his corruption being revealed. That's as good as any guess, I suppose. Luc Besson's script isn't particularly distinguished, but hey, at least it's more comprehensible than the Romeo Must Die's plot, a move which I will probably refer to many times in this review.

Not only is that element improved upon from that film, but Li is actually given a hell of a lot more screen time and the fact that everybody seems to be after him gives the movie a more frenetic pace. That's not to say that Kiss of the Dragon is a lightning-paced film. After an exhilarating opening fight sequence inside a hotel that features Li using props a la Jackie Chan style, the movie does slow down considerably.

But to compensate for this pace is an interesting relationship that forms when Bridget Fonda enters the picture. True, this isn't the most well-written role the actress has had (well, then again, she's not really give many well-written roles in the first place, is she?) but her performance is good, and the chemistry that clicks between her and Li is strong, and even sometimes sweet and touching. Some see the lack of an actual romance blossoming between them as another sign that Hollywood isn't much for interracial couples (much like in Romeo Must Die) but I think it's better this way. Plus, I'm getting tired of seeing the hero bed the heroine in an impulsive moment of passion. Fonda and Li's quiet communication and toned-down feelings are more effective than a kiss or love scene would be. Of course, there are the obligatory moments of cheesy dialogue when she says to him that all he cares about is himself, but the fight scenes kick in before any of this can significantly hinder the film.

Speaking of the action scenes, they are supremely exciting. I'm not sure if director Chris Nahon was in charge of the choregraphy, but if he was, this is very impressive. First of all, there's no wirework, or at least none that I noticed, so there's a feeling of authenticity in all the fight scenes. The film's best action sequence is Li's two-on-one fight with the "blonde brothers" in the finale who, I must say, also display some very impressive martial arts moves (Can Li even do flips like that one blonde guy does?). I've seen several of Li's other films and these fights on par with his Hong Kong work, if not better than some. The only real complaint I have with the fight scenes is that some of the camera movements are too quick, making it sometimes a little difficult to make out a couple of Li's impressive moves. But it's a problem that thankfully doesn't permeate the film.

The action is also very bloody and graphically violent. An early scene with a man being literally blown in half by a grenade let's us know that isn't a family-friendly Jackie Chan film. When someone gets hit, they bleed and they bleed a lot. (Minor Spoiler here) Tcheky Karyo's death scene is perhaps the film's bloody highlight; he bleeds from every orifice on his face until he dies in a frenzy of spasmatic twitching.

What can be seen as a flaw in the film is in some of its settings. Those who think present-day Paris is nothing but a beautiful city will be unpleasantly surprised by Kiss of the Dragon, which almost exclusively focuses on the grungy and seedy side of society in the city. Seeing Fonda in a mess of sweat and dirt in a filthy allieway isn't a fun sight.

As I said before, Fonda is good, and so is Li, who can actually act, unlike so many big-time action stars around. The quiet intensity he displays says more than any dialogue that spews out from Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme. Tcheky Karyo is so snaky and disgustingly vile in his role, everybody will cheer for his death (well, that and the fact that some people in the audience couldn't stop proclaiming how gross his death was).

The actual Kiss of the Dragon the movie's title refers to is a form of Chinese acupuncture, a method that Li uses in the film can put people to sleep or give a very bloody death. It's not mentioned as often in the film as I thought it would and neither is it extremely significant to the plot, but who cares? This film's all about the action and I'm certainly not complaining when it comes to that. It's funny to see that from the so many lackluster blockbuster films of the past summer two of the best have its roots in Hong-Kong filmmaking (the other such film is Tsui Hark's Time and Tide).


This movie simply rocks. It perfectly embodies a gritty, street fighter-esque picture. The action scenes are absolutely amazing and a blast to watch. The plot is pretty good (not spectacular but definitely above average for an action film) and despite what some may say, Jet Li can do pretty good drama. Even though Bridget Fonda comes off as a weak, cry baby as she overacts her way through the movie, it adds another dimension to the action scenes to make them so exciting. This movie is for any action fan mild or extreme. Your heart will race, your jaw will drop, and you'll simply love this movie.


"Kiss of the Dragon" is just my favorite movie. You don't see Jet Li in any of his movie like this before. This is his most violent movie yet. His moves are more realistic compared to his previous movie "Romeo Must Die". In this movie, you don't see Jet Li flying in the air, he stays on the ground doing hand-to-hand combat.

I recommend this movie to any hardcore action fans, but just don't take you children to see it.


I saw this film for two bucks and just got my money's worth. The film suffers from a identity crisis. It wants to have kick ass fighting along with real heart tugging emotion. It is near impossible to have both ,CTHD withstanding. I was bored during the weepy scenes and almost walked out...The ending is the best part. My advice is to rent it while doing chores and stop and watch it during the good parts. AND I DIDN'T LIKE IT "CAUSE THEY KILLED KATO. Bert Kwouk who plays uncle Tai was Kato in the Pink Panther films. Hasn't the poor man taken enough punisment.


This one defintely beats the quite dull "Rome must Die". Jet Li's performance is excellent, however mr bad guy might be a little well too bad. The manuscript certainly could have needed a little more work..but all in all I say they did the best of it. A little more action tho wouldnt hurt :)

7-8 / 10


Warning: may contain some spoilers.

I don't think I have ever gone to a chop socki movie and expected to see the next Titanic or the next American Beauty. I don't want to see a multi layered, subtle film that has lots of plot twists and turns and characters that surprise me. What I do want to see is a bunch of guys beating the snot out each other and doing things that they should not be able to do. I love all the greats in regards to this type of film. From guys like Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, Steven Seagal, some JCVD, Jeff Speakman ( anyone ever see The Perfect Weapon? ), Jackie Chan and of course Jet Li. I have seen every film of Jet's released in North America and every film he amazes me with what he can do. I don't really see the difference between a film like Crouching Tiger and Kiss of the Dragon. They are both fun, entertaining films to watch but they are not by any means worthy of Oscar consideration. but then again, you are talking about a bunch of fossils who think Shakespeare In Love is better than Saving Private Ryan.

KOD is nothing but a pure adrenaline rush. Bridget Fonda is along for the ride and so is the guy from Bad Boys and The Patriot (Tcheky Karyo), but all you really need is Jet Li and you have yourself a great action film. But perhaps what separates this film from some of the other martial arts films if that in most fight movies, the action sequences are good, really good, but KOD takes some of the fights a step further. I was amazed at some of the choreography displayed. Not just by Jet but by some of his opponents. It is thrilling to see a small man fight two bigger men and watch them fall. That is exactly what happens when Jet meets two massive blond twins schooled in martial arts. As they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. And that is true in this case, but not before Jet takes a good beating.

The plot, well, who really cares, but Jet Li gets mixed up in some French plot to smuggle heroine and he has to stop the perpetrators. As I said, the plot is really not the core of the film, even though it was written by Luc Besson. All you really need to know is that if you enjoy this kind of action, then this is one film that you can't pass up. It will please even the most skeptical critics.

One particularly amusing scene is when Jet walks into a police station to go after the bad guys. He opens one door to try to escape and buy himself some time and it is there that he finds a room full of black belts practising their karate. Jet takes his jacket off and invites all of them to bring it on. This reminded me of a funny scene in Wayne's World when Wayne and Garth open a door and behind it there is a bunch of spies doing a bunch of spy things like climbing walls and fighting. They close the door and say something to the effect of " I always wanted to see that." Well in this film, it isn't so much a joke as it is a reality. It is one of the most impressive fight sequences I have ever seen in any film, with all due respect to Bruce Lee.

KOD is not a Martin Scorsese film, nor is it a film by Coppola or Truffaut or Fellinni. It is a film by Chris Nahon that stars Jet Li. I couldn't tell you what Nahon has done before this and to be honest I really don't care all that much. If he continues to make films like this, with a flair for the ridiculous and an eye for action, then I think he will be around for a while. But what I can tell you is that Li is the best at what he does. And this is one kick-ass-action film. There is not much to dislike about it, unless you don't like violence and then I would recommend you stay away. But if action and chop socki and deceit and betrayal is what you crave, then go see KOD.

8.5 out of 10-- Some excellent action and fighting scenes make this one a great summer flick.


KISS OF THE DRAGON is one terrific slam-bang,kick-ass kung fu action movie that reminded me in some ways of the great 1975 Jimmy Wang Yu kickfest THE MAN FROM HONG KONG taking as it does the premise of a Chinese cop using his awesome skills to survive in a foreign city,here Paris as opposed to Sydney in the Wang Yu movie. Jet Li in his third US movie again plays credible and hard and does not compromise his great ability in the martial arts by use of embarrassing buffoonery as Jackie Chan has chosen to do(particularly in RUSH HOUR and its sequel).Li engages in a long series of well choreographed fight scenes against a variety of foes including a lone fight against a gymful of karate students(another nod to THE MAN FROM HONG KONG)and faces a particularly nasty villain in the form of the excellent Tcheky Karyo who is on peak form here. There are flaws in this movie however.The story is weak and derivative, the dialogue mostly sucks and heroine Bridget Fonda is just there so Jet can have a woman to protect.Nevertheless this movie is an action lover's wet dream and bodes well for future Hollywood Jet Li projects. Hopefully his popularity will soar above that of the aging and easily studio manipulated Jackie Chan.One cannot imagine Li selling himself out in the way that Chan has and I follow his career with interest.


I will be honest and say that I did enjoy Romeo Must Die. It was entertaining, with some decent action sequences. But none of them are nearly as intense, well choreographed or as fast as the ones in Kiss of the Dragon. This movie has absolutely excellent action sequences. I was hoping for that and it delivered. It isn't as good a Bruce Lee movie, but its as close as I've had the fortune to see. However, action aside, everything else was awful. The script was horrible. The characters were quite standard, for instance the bad guys were totally horrible without a redeeming quality, and the good guy is pure and honest, and gets into a lot of trouble. The acting is at times laugh aloud bad. I went to see it for the action, however, so I turned my brain off and enjoyed. If you can just watch this movie, not question anything and enjoy the absolutely stunning fighting of Jet Li, then give it a watch. 7 out of 10, purely for the action.


i think itz a really really really really goood film, i saw it 3 times n' still not bored. Jet Li is a really good fighter, his moves are quick n' sharp, fights really well. the film is excellent, well directed, n' he's very good lookin!!!


In two and a half hours Clint Eastwood paints a thought provoking piece on heroism and war-propaganda. The film tells three stories: first it is the WW II battle of Iwo Jima where thousands of soldiers (Japanese and American) died 'conquering' that island. In the style of Saving Private Ryan (Spielberg is a producer of Flags) the viewer gets a astounding look at war with a lot of blood, guts and CGI. Second is the story of a son of one of the flag raisers on that island, who interviews other survivors of that battle to understand his dad a little better. This is very moving stuff, but stands a little pale in comparison to the final storyline. This is where veteran-director Eastwood really shines. Like his meditation on violence Unforgiven, Flags takes a closer look at heroism where soldiers by chance get into the spotlight of the war-propaganda-machine. Some may say that Eastwood made an anti-war film or even an anti-America film, but they're wrong. Flags is very critical on the way war is sold to the public. There's nothing honorable about killing or to be killed on the battlefield. The only thing that matters is that you protect you're friends in your platoon and that they protect you. Flags is one of the best war movies I ever saw, maybe even better than Ryan, because it's never sentimental and always honest in its portrayal of the soldiers and war in general.


I've always felt that when you fictionalize a story about war, you dishonor the memory of so many people who have a compelling story to tell by choosing to make something up instead *cough*privateryan*cough*.

The problem with war movies about real people is that you have to deal with complexities of character and plot that the genre simply doesn't lend itself easily to.

So when the story at hand aims to pose questions like "what does it mean to do the wrong things for the right reasons" and tries to debunk the popular myth of herodom, there's very little margin for error.

Enter Clint Eastwood. Never one to shy away from challenging stories, this is a much bigger effort than his usual understated character dramas. On the one hand, it doesn't "feel" like a Clint Eastwood movie, but on the other, it feels at home in his themes of used-up heroes -- the person behind the larger than life persona. These are complex characters in very difficult situations, and he presents them in a way that's straightforward and non-judgmental, so we're left to decide the answers to the film's central conflicts ourselves.

To a person, the cast is up to the challenge. It's hard not to admire Ryan Phillippe for a restrained and thoughtful performance, but the real kudos go to Adam Beach. Almost every aspect of Beach's character is cliché, with one minor exception - that's really the way Ira Hayes was. So the challenge was to portray Hayes as a real person despite the cliché, and the result is one of the most heartbreaking and troubling performances in the film. Here's a guy who is portrayed as a hero, who really has no answers at all.

There's a lot not to like about the film. It's not "entertaining" per se, in the same way that any war memorial in DC is not entertaining. Nor is it a particularly approachable film. What it lacks in popcorn-munching entertainment value, it replaces with gravitas. This is an important film, about an important time. It's status as a valuable history lesson is secondary to it's reflections on human nature and our society. As such, it deserves to be seen, and contemplated, and appreciated.

I can't wait for Letters From Iwo Jima (the companion piece, also from Clint Eastwood, told from the Japanese point of view.) Taken together, the scope of this project is breathtaking.


(Synopsis) There were five Marines and one Navy Corpsman photographed raising the U.S. flag on Mt. Suribachi by Joe Rosenthal on February 23, 1945. "Flags of Our Fathers" is the story of three of the six surviving servicemen, John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Pvt. Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), and Pvt. Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), who fought in the battle to take Iwo Jima. The picture became one of the most famous images of the U.S. winning a battle during WWII. However, the battle for Iwo Jima raged on for another month with three of the marines being killed in action. The other three servicemen were taken out of battle and flown back to the states. The photo made these men heroes, and the government used these new heroes to promote the selling of war bonds on the War Bond Tour. The three men did not believe they were heroes, even though the American public did.

(My Comment) The film was based on the book written by Doc's son, James Bradley. It wasn't until his father's death that he found out that Doc was one of the Iwo Jima flag raisers. Soldiers with real combat experiences usually keep their war stories to themselves. Clint Eastwood directed the film, and he didn't pull any punches in the battle scenes, even though the battle for Iwo Jima was considered one of the bloodiest against the Japanese in the Pacific. The only problem I had with the movie was that Eastwood used too many flashbacks that jumped around and made the movie hard to follow. The movie would have been better if Eastwood had gone in chronicle order with some flashbacks. During the battle scenes, you actually see the chaos that soldiers encounter on the battlefield. Overall, I found the story to be realistic and very compelling by not glorifying war. It is a long movie, but the time passes very fast. This film will receive many Oscar nominations. Some of the movie is graphically violent and shows the dark side of war, and the effects war has on our returning soldiers. (Warner Brothers Pictures, Run time 2:12, Rated R) (8/10)


As directed masterfully by Clint Eastwood, "Flags of Our Fathers" plays both as a war film and a sensitive human drama. It begs comparison with Orson Welles' screen masterpiece "Citizen Kane" in the film's scope and its structure.

The "rosebud" of "Flags of Our Fathers" is one of the greatest icons of American history: the photograph of the raising of the flag on the tiny island of Iwo Jima and the strategic importance of the bloody combat for the acquisition of a landing strip to nearby Japan for American planes. The questions that the film carefully traces are (1) Who were the Marines pictured in the famous photograph? and (2) Was this famous tableau a "staged" scene, as opposed to a real event?

To answer these questions, the film moves episodically among three time-frames--the horrifying battle for the hill at the western tip of Iwo Jima; the time in which three servicemen are identified as the heroes in the picture and paraded ceremonially around America to promote the sale of war bonds; and the time of the death of John "Doc" Bradley, one of the alleged Iwo Jima flag-raisers, as his son seeks to learn the hidden truth about his dad, much like the newspaper reporter on the trail of "rosebud" in "Citizen Kane."

The outstanding pacing of the film by Eastwood is matched by the creative cinematography and the work of designers who accomplish these extraordinary tasks: the recreation of the Iwo Jima theater of war with location filming; a spectacular amphibious landing; grisly scenes of combat....plus detailed period scenes on the home-front. As a minor spoiler alert: please be sure to stay through the film's closing credits for a thoughtful montage of still photographs of the Battle of Iwo Jima, as well as the three protagonists, Bradley, Gagnon, and Hayes.

Among the fine ensemble cast, it is impossible to forget Adam Beach's sensitive and heartbreaking performance as Ira Hayes, a Native American who is simultaneously made into a war hero and marginalized due to his race. Hayes never felt comfortable in claiming status as a hero for his involvement in the flag-raising. In an emotionally-wrenching scene in a hotel room before a military superior, Beach's character breaks down and poignantly expresses the camaraderie and love felt for the fallen members of his battalion. Indeed for all three of the purported flag-raisers, the true heroes were those veterans who sacrificed their lives so that the flag could be raised on Iwo Jima. For this moving and important message, "Flags of Our Fathers" deserves to be placed not only among the greatest war films of all time, but also alongside classics like "Citizen Kane."


What do you get when you cross an Academy Award winning director whose movies tend to follow the lives of individuals and their consequences of the violence around them, an award winning writer that deals with racism and the map of the human spirit and a producer that has a penchant for World War II history who is a master of telling epic stories on the widescreen canvas? Well, you get Clint Eastwood, Paul Haggis and Steven Spielberg who have teamed up for the first time to bring to the screen the new WWII story of the six soldiers who raised the American flag at Iwo Jima and became media heroes in the new film Flags of our Fathers.

Based on the true (and relatively unknown) story of six regular soldiers that raised the flag atop the isle of Iwo Jima and whose picture of the effort became synonymous with an impending victory of the war, Flags of our Fathers will be one of the most talked about films of 2006.

Flags of our Fathers follows the lives of three surviving members who raised the flag in 1945 atop Mount Suribachi and how the government used these three individuals and the media in an effort to spark interest in selling war bonds to the American public.

Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford and Adam Beach play John "Doc" Bradley, Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes respectively. These three individuals were partly responsible for the second American flag raising on that graced newspapers and magazine covers all over the world.

If you caught it, I did write the 'second American flag raising'. A fact that it seemed not one of us in the packed pre-screening knew before the films closing credits. Six soldiers on the 5th day of the island's invasion planted the flag of infamy just seconds after the first flag was that was erected was taken down. As the picture made its circles in every American media outlet available, Bradley, Gagnon and Hayes were quickly sent packing back to the United States to be used in a cross country marketing campaign to drum up support for the troops spread out over Europe and Asia.

Not one of them believing they were true heroes, the three are persuaded to separate their reluctance from the necessity to boost morale with the American public and ask for funds to continue with the necessary production of tanks, grenades, guns and armor. The film then switches between their tours of sporting arenas and speaking engagements and flashbacks back to the horrors of the taking of the island in full vivid detail.

Flags of our Fathers is an important film, but unfortunately, not a stellar one. The battle scenes are very well done and show the chaotic atmosphere and pace that follows a ground war, but it's the relationship and the manipulation of public interest as used by the media that the movie hits home. In a time where America is fighting two separate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with veterans of Vietnam still being paraded on CNN every evening news to discuss comparisons, Flags of our Fathers is important in that it shows how a single picture or event can change an entire opinion over an effort that will cost young men and women their lives.

But where Eastwood fails is in his attempt to drum up any emotional attachment to the three characters. Haggis does his Crash best to have us 'tisk' at the consistent barrage of racial epithets thrown towards Indian descent Ira Hayes, but Eastwood fails to weave this sympathy and the sympathy for those left behind on the beach into an emotional punch that will carry us to the voting polls in the awards season.

The biggest disappointment with Flags of our Fathers comes with the expectation that the three major players in the production bring to the table. Eastwood in particular has stemmed together three recent films  The Forgiven, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby  that each dealt with a person of persons dealing with the emotional weight of violence that they were witness. The heavy handedness of Flags of our Fathers should be right up his wheelhouse. Add the brilliant writing experience and resume of Haggis and the movie should have been celluloid gold. Instead, we deal with waving veterans, moments of tenderness between the soldiers and the families of the dead they fought beside and the emotional burden of the horrors that surrounded them in combat without any tear tugging or tissue pulling on behalf of the experiencing movie watcher.

Flags of our Fathers was shot back-to-back with Letters from Iwo Jima which will shows the Japanese perspective of the battle and is scheduled for release in February 2007. While watching Flags of our Fathers, there are a few scenes that you can imagine being in the next years release and maybe that is where Eastwood and the gang lost their focus.

So why does Flags of our Fathers still get 3 ½ stars even though the comments seem so negative? Well, it is because what the film does right, it does extremely well. During the battle scenes you are transported to Iwo Jima and the chaos of the situation can be felt in how you inch towards the edge of your seats. The acting too is better than average, especially from Phillippe who might find himself along side wife Reese Witherspoon as an awards nominee come Christmas. Couple these pluses with the importance of revealing a true and important story to the mass audiences and the obvious comparisons with American war efforts at the time of print, and you have a film that will undoubtedly become one of Eastwoods most talked about films. Even if it wasn't one of his best.


This is an honest forthright portrayal of an important historical and cultural event. Mystic River garnered a lot of acclaim but I hated the film. While Flags appears choppy as it sets the stage, Eastwood manages to bring the story full circle giving it a sense of closure. This closure is a pleasant surprise in an era of empty Hollywood films. This is a much richer and more powerful movie experience than River or many of the Hollywood issue films. People of all ages should see the film but a powerful movie for children to see with their parents, especially their fathers. My dad is a veteran of the Korean War and my father-in-law fought in WWII. Unlike many war films, this film carries a sense of hope in a world of chaos. It is a tribute to all our veterans; yesterday, today, and tomorrow.


I can't recall the last time a movie moved me the way this film did. Clint Eastwood presents an honest portrait of war (the beauty of brotherhood, the horror of literally walking through death, the pain of dealing with survival). The images made me feel like I was getting a real glimpse at the lives of the men who served during WWII. The actors more then carried their own weight. They made you understand these were not characters they were acting out, they were representing real men. To often today war movies are used to actively promote war or to demonize it. I appreciated that this film let me make up my own mind. "Flags of Our Fathers" is a movie that will stay with you. Isn't that what great movies are supposed to do? This film reminds you why movies are important.


A great film showing war as it was, and is: ugly, frantic, corporate, confusing, frustrating and very sad. Soldiers accompany their friends into horrific situations with terrible consequences. Ryan Phillippe, Adam Beach & Jesse Bradford are WONDERFUL. Paul Walker did not suck. Neal McDonough & Barry Pepper are great (pepper is older but still hot...fell in love with his bible-quoting sniper in SPRyan). Paul Haggis re-wrote the screenplay, which I really enjoyed. The music is haunting as done by Clint, as well as his son Kyle. Please don't leave when the lights go up. B&W photos of the real people this film was based on are shown during the credits. I will see this film quite a few more times.


I was hesitant to see this because I figured it would be a patriotic appeal for war. What I found was very surprising. First of all, I commend the writer and filmmaker for having a Native American as one of the main characters. Navajo codetalkers were instrumental in our success, but few movies have even mentioned them. In fact, the John Woo film focused more on Nicolas Cage's character than the always excellent Adam Beach. In Flags of Our Fathers, we see how the war has impacted the lives of three men. The most touching story was Ira Hayes, played by Beach. I think he should win an Oscar for his portrayal. He conveyed much more warmth and had much more depth than the other "leads." Even though the narrative was indeed disjointed, if you have the attention span, you can figure it out. Even though the film was two and one-half hours, it didn't feel like it. I found the story very compelling, and a refreshing antidote to a lot of the war films we see. No matter which side you fight on, war is not kind, and Eastwood depicts that well. Overall, a fine effort from all involved.


Clint Eastwood is currently undergoing a renaissance in film-making. In Hollywood, he is one of the most surprising, challenging and honest filmmakers today. Therefore it was with great curiosity when he announced that he would tell the story about the battle on the island of Iwo Jima, February 1945.

The main theme of the story is what makes a hero? Do they exist in war? Eastwood examines this theory in the battle of Iwo Jima. A flag is raised on top of Mount Suribachi that signifies peace and an end to the war. A photo is taken, and it is a symbol of freedom.

The story exists on several levels. There is the battle on Iwo Jima, told in flashbacks, the reception of the three main characters - John Bradley, Rene Gagnon, and Ira Hayes - and the recollection of these memories in present day to James Bradley.

In the story of Iwo Jima, we see the battle through the soldiers eyes. They set out for the island in their buoyant, expectant spirits. We face their anticipation once they touch down on the beach. And we are unsettled when we realise in war, things don't always go to plan. In fact does the "good" side win, furthermore do they exist?

Running concurrently to the account of the battle on Iwo Jima, the three "heroes" of the flag raising are welcomed back home as heroes. Do they deserve such a title? In fact they say they do not. Who has the right to be a hero and what kinds of power do they have? The war had long lasting effects for all of them, sometimes it was the memories that destroyed the men.

The third strand exists in the present day. James Bradley is the author of the book on which the film is based. He is listening to accounts of the battle from war veterans. His father John, played by Ryan Phillipe, was in the battle and forms most of the flashbacks that tell of the combat on the island. We already learn much from history and past evils that it is impossible not to appreciate the power we have today to ensure peace and economic stability in the world.

Because the film is told in flashback, some viewers may find the non-linear structure unsettling and disorienting. The process of deciphering what we see on screen is meant to emulate the way our memory is structured. Just as John Bradley finds it difficult to relive the atmosphere of Iwo Jima due to traumatic experiences, we have to question, what effect does war have on people many years later? Does it change into the person we have become? And how do we live with ourselves after experiencing horror of the worst kind?

The acting is admirable all around: Ryan Phillipe creates a honourable figure persevering throughout war time while his friends fall away. Jesse Bradford copes best after the war but fame is short-lived. And Adam Beach is a man tormented by the effect of war; a man who has lost his personal identity. He struggles with the concept of "we are what we do".

Eastwood's direction is outstanding. He has managed to create a film that makes no judgments, preserves the integrity of these people yet examines their life in war. The screenplay by previous collaborator Haggis, is insightful, thought-provoking and poignant. He takes no simple sides on the good and bad of war but meditates on what it means to the individual. How does a country sustain itself during war. Can a war be entirely truthful?

He finds shapes and patterns in war, that suggest the uncertainty of battle, the serenity of the landscape, and the meaning of victory. The music scored by Eastwood is heartfelt, non-intrusive yet elicits shades of heroism and hope. The use of lighting in the film suggest different ways of looking at the battlefield.

The scenes involving "the three" when they return home are heartbreaking. To protect the identity of their fallen mates, they are forced bend the truth to their parents and the public. People are willing to accept heroes but only under fanfare and while they are still the flavour of the month. Ira Hayes' fall as a hero fades as quickly as his life situation.

It is absolutely refreshing to hear from Eastwood his reflections on war without resorting to boisterous patriotism or feel-good sentimental endings. Such is his take on this turning point in war history, that the film is not primarily about the war, but the effects of it on those who served. We discover there are no heroes. The final scene is a revival on the idea of war and this great American director. This one stayed with me for a long time.


'Flags of our Fathers' is the powerful and moving true story of what happened to the three survivors of the six men that raised the flag on Iwo Jima as immortalized in the Marine Corps Memorial.

The editing of this film, utilizing flashbacks and showing how something as simple as a lightning bolt flashing can bring back memories that haunt veterans of combat is very true to life. My wife is a nurse at a Veterans Home - thunder claps in the middle of the night will invariably bring out cries from the sleeping combat veterans.

What is also true to life is how these men - Rene Gagnon, Ira Hayes, and John Bradley - did not see themselves to be heroes. They felt that the heroes were those who had fallen on Iwo Jima - yet the public was continually holding them up to be more than they thought they were. This is shown very well when James Bradley is going through the box of his fathers possessions and pulls out an envelope with the Navy Cross stuffed in it. The Navy Cross is one step down from the Medal of Honor and is awarded for extraordinary heroism in combat - normally one who earned it would put it on display.

The use of sepia tone at times - plus the sheer starkness of the black sands with the stark white of flares - gave this film a look that was very compelling. As far as how emotional of a movie this was shown in the theatre where I saw it - which was a full theatre on Veterans Day. At the end of the movie, the credits started rolling - and no one stood up. A lot of noses were being blown and tears were being shed, but no comments were made at all - this movie affected the audience that much.

I consider this to be equal to Citizen Kane as far as quality movies are concerned. This isn't light entertainment.


I nodded in agreement when it was mentioned a single photo taken during combat has the power to make or break a war. At a time when the war chest is drained and the battle seemed to be drawn out longer than expected, you need public support to cough out funds and make donations to the manufacturing of arms. In the dying days of WWII, that photo you see above, gave reason to galvanize the American public into making donations for that final push. Now think Abu Graib. Nuff said, on its adverse impact to the war machinery.

For WWII movies, the Pacific theatre has arguably fewer number of films made by the West, especially those whose focus is on the ground troops, as compared to the European theatre, and possibly could be due to the availability of locales, as well as budget and (non) permission to film at the actual place. The Iwo Jima here is a substitute backdrop, not the real Iwo Jima with black beaches that you can see right after the end credits roll, as if in silent meditation of the soldiers on both sides who had given up their lives fighting for their cause.

And the Battle of Iwo Jima had its historical significance given it's the first landing of Allied troops on Japanese soil, and one of the bloodiest yet with high casualties on both sides. It also opened up the American eyes to the tenacity of the Japanese troops and their relentless defence of the homeland from invasion, in a Digital Domain CGI-created massive naval beach landing. Those looking for recreated battle scenes will probably not be disappointed with the level of detail shown in Flags, like the weapons, and the infamous use of flamethrowers to smoke out hidden troops in bunkers.

But this movie is not an all out action film. It's not a macro look at how the Allies secured their first foothold in Japanese soil. Rather, it takes a very personal look at the surviving men who hoisted the American flag over a prominent knoll in Iwo Jima. While there are countless of versions of the circumstances surrounding this lifting of a symbol, be it for morale boosting purpose, or politics, or for abstract ideals like hope, the definitive version as recounted in this story is actually quite ordinary, fueled by a mix of human desire for something monumental, as well as the listening to orders to a T.

Told in a non linear fashion with flashbacks and voiceovers, it is extremely difficult that you'll be bored by the movie, unless your expectations have been set the wrong way. There is plenty of material and themes that the movie touched upon, although it can be argued that each doesn't necessarily have enough focus, issues like racism and prejudice. What makes this film compelling is the story of the survivors, being whisked back to the States to be part of propaganda to raise funds. Accuracy and accountability take the backseat against the hail of heroism, and it evolves very quickly into a media circus.

Flags examines the lives of those in the photo who survived the battle, their reluctance to be called heroes, the demons that they faced while on the battlefield, the constant reminder to kill or be killed, the lies they have to tell to sell, and their sense of morality sacrificed for the lesser of two evils. Being soldiers, they have to do listen to orders, even if at the moment, it sounds absurd (I believe those who have been through service in the armed forces will agree on this). It is the conflict, and the need to lie through their teeth, which makes it all the more a sorrowful struggle, especially when you have to deny a fellow brother his moment of recognition, and denying his family the need for closure.

And of course, we all know how fickle the press can be. On one hand they can praise you, on the other, someone's always looking at ways to demean and cast doubts. Flavours of the moment, potshots of controversy like whether the picture was staged, ring to mind that icons can never escape from the cynical eye. Politicians, rich businessmen and the military brass too are cast in none too positive light, as they get portrayed as men who like association with power, fame, and glory.

Clint Eastwood again never ceases to amaze me. Here's the star of spaghetti westerns, Dirty Harry himself, who has aged but still showing no signs of slowing down. Like fine wine, he has started to show his talents in the films he makes, and award winning critically acclaimed ones too. But what I'm really pleasantly and thoroughly enjoyed, is the score that he wrote for Flags. It's restrained, yet powerful, kept simple in instrument, yet never lacking in grandeur. Being a filmmaker is one thing, but having contribute to a highly effective score complimenting the movie, is another. Not many can do that.

Flags of Our Fathers is a must watch, and I'm already eagerly anticipating the companion movie, with viewpoints from the Japanese, fighting the same war, in Letters From Iwo Jima, and it should be equally powerful.


I have to say that this film was eastwoods better works of history.The ability to bring out the real feelings in people about how we view the human race in general.I enjoyed this film for the simple reason that WWII was a turning point in how we see each other.How to come together in the highest need to overcome obstacles in the darkest hour.As the flag was raised and having a photographer just at that moment to take a picture of the flag being raised,coincidence flew out the door.But the film goes further as we see each one remembering the pain it created,from a simple misunderstanding about who gets what flag and why.If anything the flag should have went to the soldiers who fought there at iwogima.But like the narrations pointed out,it was a forgotten past and the hero's also forgotten.It's sad to think that the human race no longer sees why war is not necessary,just as long as money is made in the name of war is what it's all about.They were right though,without the money it would have been lost to the Japanese at least that part of the world.But in reality it would still be Japanese soil.This film impacted on all sorts of levels,financial gain through war,the soldiers dying because of money being made,artillery paid for by millions of people,and the suffering going home without so much as a thank you for keeping the world safe.In reality the soldiers who fought and died i would like to call real hero's.No matter what flag was planted,and why today most of the yesteryear men and women are nearly gone.I have to say this film gave me a bit more understanding why war is becoming a thing of the past.We don't need it and don't want it,flag or not we need this world safe and i think Mr. Eastwood gave us a good vision of it becoming a reality.So go ahead make his day.


I was really looking forward to this movie and was severely disappointed in it. There is absolutely no story in Flags of our Fathers. If you've seen the previews, then you've seen the movie, because not much else happens. Some guys raise a flag, picture becomes famous, they go home to help raise money...that's it. The rest of the movie is just waiting for the credits to come up. The characters have no journey no conflict, they are just basically existing...which isn't very interesting. You can argue that the conflict was that they were just kids and were uneasy with being labeled heroes, but after you get that message there's not much else this movie has to say. It just repeats that message over and over and over again. Other movies have taken the same theme and done a much much better job. There is no culmination of events, there's no resolution, it's just a giant waste of time. The battle scenes were Saving Private Ryan wannabe's and seemed to just be thrown together with very little thought and in no discernible order. Every time a battle scene/flashback occurred you were basically just waiting to see which one of the faceless, nameless, GIs was going to be killed next. The editing was atrocious cutting from current times to bond drive to battle to post battle to pre battle and back to bond drive for no purpose other than to try and make a movie that has no story, seem to have a story. I cared nothing for the characters, they were just empty shells with nothing to say or do but look scared and get blown to bits. And then the ending third of the movie seemed like an after thought and totally useless, like the filmmakers suddenly realized they haven't bored us enough and needed some more useless, unimaginative, uninteresting, drab filler. The racism inflicted upon the Native American character was heavy handed and unconvincing. It made you roll your eyes in astonishment at the cheesiness of it, rather than feeling any emotion towards the character.

Very very disappointing. I'm amazed that it is getting such kind reviews. Windtalkers was better than this movie, and Windtalkers was terrible!


Clint Eastwood does a masterful job in capturing the immensity of the battle of Iwo Jima with the human drama of the six men who were thrust into immortality by the simple act of raising the American flag on the island. The photo of that event became one of the iconic moments of World War II. The battle sequences are beautifully filmed and the technology used to simulate the immense battle group that supported the landing are very realistic. The stateside scenes are less awe inspiring but capture the essence of the three surviving members of the flag raising group and their newfound celebrity status and reaction to it. This is the weakest part of the film and it doesn't quite ring true at times. The scene of them meeting at the Treasury Department is well done as is the dramatic war bond drive scene at Soldiers Field. I attended the early afternoon showing on Friday and it was mostly senior citizens like myself in attendance. When the closing credits rolled the audience stayed to watch until the end and in complete silence. It was very emotional. The must see movie of the year.


I wanted to see this movie because I had read the book on which it is based and found the book impressive. I thought this was a great film and a great adaptation of the book. Its exploration of the almost entirely different worlds occupied by those fighting a war and those watching from a distance grabbed me from the first moment and kept me totally absorbed until the end of the final credits. I found it moving and thought-provoking in a way that nothing else has since I saw 'Molokai: The Story of Father Damien' a few years ago. It got me thinking deeply about what is really important in life and I can't ask for anything more from a movie than that.


I think that this picture is the finest war story since I saw Saving Private Ryan. Clint Eastwood has outdone himself with this realistic portrayal of the fight in the Pacific in World War 11, There is no outstanding cast in the movie but all the characters did a fine job with their parts. The photograph of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima is well know to most all of us, but the story surrounding the photograph was not as well know. Thanks to Mr Clint Eastwood's fine directing the facts are now spread before us. The actor who played the Indian was outstanding in his part and we should see more of him in the future. I am sorry that I do not know his name but he filled the part with a lot of feeling. If you like war stories, please don't miss this movie and you will be missing a winner!!!!


Clint Eastwood has fashioned a practically perfect film adaptation of James Bradley's and Ron Powers's best-selling book, "Flags of Our Fathers." Echoing the best epic moments from "The Longest Day," "Saving Private Ryan," and "Apocalypse Now," Eastwood avoids the flaws of those previous war films in his superb retelling of the story of "Doc" Bradley and two other soldiers who raised the American flag on Iwo Jima. Photographer Joe Rosenthal caught the soldiers' images in an iconic still that captured a perfect moment and reinvigorated the U.S. war effort against the Japanese. Like "The Right Stuff," Eastwood also raises the question of what is a hero and why even heroes that have been manufactured by bureaucrats and the media can serve an important function. Although the film makes clear that at least two of the trio performed heroically under fire, the three young men all felt that the true heroes of Iwo Jima lay dead on the beaches of that desolate Pacific island. However, the military machinery was in desperate need of a ploy to sell war bonds and plucked the men from battle. With the willing aid of the mass media and staged events that often bordered on tacky, the handlers turned the three into war heroes for a hero-starved public.

From Tom Stern's nearly black-and-white cinematography to Clint Eastwood's spare score, there is hardly a false note. Ryan Phillippe, who was previously best known to this viewer as the boy-toy of "Gosford Park," acquits himself admirably in the role of "Doc" Bradley, although the acting honors arguably go to Adam Beach as Ira Hayes, the American Indian who wrestles with guilt and alcoholism after his unwilling rise from obscurity to national hero.

Eastwood has included dozens of period photographs of Iwo Jima and the soldiers who fought there beside the closing credits. Despite a running time of 132 minutes, never in recent memory have so many audience members stayed glued to their seats until the final image faded. While viewers were likely entranced by shots of the real people that had been portrayed in the film, they may also have stayed in the dark until the tears had dried on their cheeks and they could stand and walk silently from the theater. Rarely does the term "instant classic" apply, but Eastwood has surpassed his work on "Unforgiven," "Mystic River," and "Million Dollar Baby," and he has created a film that is nearly certain to endure and stand the test of time.


Clint Eastwood has created a masterpiece of film. Flags of Our Fathers is poignant and moving; awesome in the literal sense of the word and awe inspiring.

At the conclusion of the story, there was a long silence among the audience, then one person began to applaud. It grew into a soft, respectful applause of acknowledgement. A handful rose from their seats and stepped into the aisle, but stood frozen in their tracks as archival photographic images from Iwo Jima flashed on the screen during the credits. Each and every person in the theater was in a state of enrapture. It was a moment I will never forget.

The portrayal of Ira Hayes by Adam Beach deserves particular recognition. Hayes is a tragic, tormented figure. Adam Beach carries it off with tender sincerity.

Special effects technology has evolved to a new level in the recreation of war. The battle scenes, sometimes gruesome, were realistic.

It deserves Oscar nominations across the board.