Members Yoh Posted August 16, 2006 Members Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Será que dessa vez vai? To torcendo para o Scorcese. O cara já tá implorando por um Oscar faz tempos. Espero que ele ganhe de uma vez, para fazer os filmes que ele quer fazer e não os que ele acha que a Academia quer ver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members texer Posted September 11, 2006 Members Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 Quando eu pensei q as bizarrices em termos de título se esgotaram eis q surge esta: Exclusivo: Título nacional e cartaz de Flags of our fathers Por Érico Borgo12/9/2006 A Warner Bros. revelou com exclusividade ao Omelete o título nacional e o cartaz de Flags of our fathers, filme dirigido por Clint Eastwood (Menina de Ouro). O nome do drama de guerra por aqui ficou A conquista da honra e a estréia está marcada para 1º de dezembro. Veja abaixo - em primeira mão! - a arte do cartaz que será utilizada internacionalmente. Ela mostra dois soldados dos EUA entrando em um dos abrigos subterrâneos dos japoneses na Ilha de Iwo Jima. A conquista da honra adapta o livro homônimo de James Bradley sobre a batalha, uma das mais sangrentas da Segunda Guerra Mundial. Em apenas um mês, 22 mil japoneses e 26 mil norte-americanos morreram para tomar Iwo Jima, ilha do Pacífico cuja importância estratégica incluía pistas de pouso. No elenco estão Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach, Paul Walker, Jamie Bell, Barry Pepper e John Benjamin Hickey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted September 17, 2006 Author Members Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 Conquista da Honra, A Trailer 1 480x360 (? Mb) 320x240 240x180 (? Mb) Trailer 2 480x360 (28,4 Mb) 320x240 (14,8 Mb) 240x180 (7,1 Mb) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted September 17, 2006 Author Members Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 Veja abaixo - em primeira mão! - a arte do cartaz que será utilizada internacionalmente.[/quote']Preferi o poster americano. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Big One Posted September 17, 2006 Administrators Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 Sem dúvida o poster americano é muito mais bonito, vai ver eles não quiseram dar a impressão de que é um filme muito nacionalista ou que seja um filme de americanos para americanos. Big One2006-9-17 16:42:0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted September 17, 2006 Author Members Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 Sem dúvida o poster americano é muito mais bonito' date=' vai ver eles não quiseram dar a impressão de que é um filme muito nacionalista ou que seja um filme de americanos para americanos. [/quote'] Tb acho que foi isso mesmo. Um filme chamado A conquista da honra com a bandeira americana no poster poderia parecer patriota demais. Mas eu vou ficar puto é se ver a capa do dvd americano com aquele poster e a nossa com essa foto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted September 23, 2006 Author Members Report Share Posted September 23, 2006 CLINT EASTWOOD PARECE SER NOVAMENTE O FAVORITO DO OSCAR Pelo já mostrado até aqui durante a nova temporada cinematográfica' date=' iniciada na primeira semana de setembro e que prossegue até o final do ano com lançamentos de filmes sérios, já dá para se ter uma idéia de que a corrida do Oscar 2007 será em clima de vale tudo, como a do ano passado, na qual vários filmes pequenos, vindos do nada, surpreenderam nas indicações. Dália Negra, de Brian De Palma, decepcionou meio mundo. O noir estrelado por Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johansson e Hilary Swank é o pior filme já dirigido por De Palma. E todos os atores estão péssimos no filme. O remake de A Grande Ilusão (All the King's Men), que estréia amanhã, já recebeu várias críticas negativas durante o Festival de Toronto, onde foi exibido recentemente. Esse também não será filme de Oscar, apesar do grande elenco - Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Patricia Clarkson... - poder colher alguma indicação nas categorias de intepretação. O filme que vem ganhando o maior buzz é Flag of our Fathers, que estréia no dia 20 de outubro e tem um grande pedigree, além de uma história interessante. A produção de Steven Spielberg foi escrita por Paul Haggis (vencedor do Oscar pelo roteiro de Crash) e dirigida por Clint Eastwood. O longa examina a história dos cinco jovens soldados que hastearam a bandeira americano no Monte Suribachi em 1945, palco da batalha de Iwo Jima durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, e tiveram esse momento reconhecido numa foto icônica (acima). Clint dirigiu também uma segunda produção, Letters from Iwo Jima, essa com a mesma história, mas contada sob o ponto de vista dos japoneses. Hoje o jornal New York Times publica um grande artigo sobre os dois filmes, dando o pontapé inicial na campanha de Eastwood para o Oscar. Leia aqui. Marcelo Bernardes - http://mediasoup.blig.ig.com.br/[/quote'] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Big One Posted September 23, 2006 Administrators Report Share Posted September 23, 2006 Clint vs Scorsese de novo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted September 23, 2006 Author Members Report Share Posted September 23, 2006 Só que dessa vez é Eastwood quem começa na frente (o que não garante nada, no entanto, como Scorsese viu em 2005). -felipe-2006-09-23 17:34:01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Yoh Posted September 23, 2006 Members Report Share Posted September 23, 2006 Duvido que vire um Eastwood X Scorcese. The Departed, apesar de parecer genial, não tem cara de filme de Oscar. Scorcese pode até ser indicado, mas acredito que não tenha chances de ser considerado um dos favoritos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted September 24, 2006 Author Members Report Share Posted September 24, 2006 The Power of an Image Drives Film by Eastwood By DAVID M. HALBFINGER Published: September 21, 2006 LOS ANGELES, Sept. 20 — Oscar season is only just getting under way, but on credentials alone a presumptive front-runner would have to be Clint Eastwood’s “Flags of Our Fathers,” the World War II epic about the men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, which began screening for selected journalists this week in New York. Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Actors re-enact the flag-raising on Iwo Jima on Feb. 23, 1945, in a scene from Clint Eastwood’s forthcoming film “Flags of Our Fathers.” Mr. Eastwood’s last two movies, after all, were “Mystic River,” which picked up best picture and best directing nominations in 2004, and “Million Dollar Baby,” which won in both categories in 2005. Paul Haggis, who wrote the shooting script for “Flags of Our Fathers,” also wrote “Million Dollar Baby” and was a co-writer of the Oscar-winning screenplay for last year’s best picture, “Crash.” To top it off, the movie’s producers include Steven Spielberg, whose battlefield decorations include Oscars for “Saving Private Ryan” and Emmys for the mini-series “Band of Brothers.” Whether “Flags” ultimately connects will be up to the audience and Oscar voters. But it is already emerging as a candidate for best back story. A big, booming spectacle that sprawls across oceans and generations, “Flags of Our Fathers,” which opens on Oct. 20, was anything but a simple undertaking. With much of film following the surviving flag raisers as they crisscross the country in the spring and summer of 1945 pitching war bonds for a government in desperate financial straits, it is neither a pure war movie nor, given its sweeping and harrowing combat sequences, merely a wartime drama. It examines the power of a single image to affect not only public opinion but also the outcome of a war, — whether in 1945, in Vietnam or more recently. Above all it is a study of the callous ways in which heroes are created for public consumption, used and discarded, all with the news media’s willing cooperation. And it is imbued with enough of a critique of American politicians and military brass to invite suspicions that Hollywood is appropriating the iconography of World War II to score contemporary political points. Yet just when it verges on indicting the people responsible for exploiting the troops, the movie comes round to their point of view. What is more, in a rare and audacious feat of moviemaking and distribution, “Flags” was produced back-to-back with a companion film, “Letters From Iwo Jima,” also directed by Mr. Eastwood, that is told entirely from the Japanese perspective, and in Japanese. The two movies will be released, a few months apart, by two competing studios and the remnant of a third: Paramount, because it bought DreamWorks SKG last year, is releasing “Flags” domestically, while Warner Brothers is to release “Letters” in North America and both films overseas. Mr. Eastwood actually tried to option “Flags of Our Fathers” after the widely read book by James Bradley and Ron Powers was published in May 2000. But Mr. Spielberg had snatched up the movie rights that summer, and in early 2001 he assigned its adaptation to the screenwriter William Broyles Jr., a former marine who also adapted “Jarhead.” The two spent more than two years collaborating on four drafts, Mr. Broyles said, before Mr. Spielberg, still unsatisfied, put the project aside in 2003. The following February, on the night of the 2004 Academy Awards, Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Spielberg fell into a conversation at the Governors Ball afterward, and Mr. Eastwood came into work the next morning saying that Mr. Spielberg had invited him to take over the project, said Rob Lorenz, a producer at Malpaso, Mr. Eastwood’s production comany. Mr. Eastwood was then in preproduction on “Million Dollar Baby,” and he asked Mr. Haggis to tackle “Flags of Our Fathers” in his down time, Mr. Lorenz said. Mr. Haggis said he hit upon a way to tell three stories: of the months of training leading up to the invasion and battle for Iwo Jima; of the stateside bond drive and its life-altering effects on the surviving flag-raisers; and of James Bradley’s discovery of his late father’s well-concealed past as one of the three most famous heroes of World War II. “I wanted to talk about the toll it takes on a man, on a person, when they’re labeled a hero, and how that can destroy a person,” Mr. Haggis said in a recent interview. “Especially now, when we seem to have a need for heroes, and we seem to be creating heroes and villains of our own men and women.” Mr. Haggis turned in a first draft in late October 2004, and with scant revisions, Mr. Eastwood shot that script. But Mr. Eastwood, who read everything he could about the battle, grew eager to tell more about Iwo Jima. “He wanted to show both sides, thus the Japanese perspective,” Mr. Haggis said. When Mr. Eastwood learned of Lieut. Gen. Tadamichi Kuribayashi, the Japanese commander whose letters home revealed a man certain he would die before ever seeing his family again, he proposed making a second film. Mr. Spielberg and executives at Warner Brothers, Mr. Eastwood’s studio, quickly gave their support. Mr. Eastwood, who declined to comment for this article, at first even wanted to shoot both films at once, Mr. Lorenz said, but timing and other practical concerns made that impossible. Yet the producers did achieve some small economies of scale. “Flags of Our Fathers,” which cost $90 million to make, was shot mainly in Iceland in 2005, where the black-sand beaches are an adequate substitute for those of Iwo Jima. And “Letters From Iwo Jima,” a much more modest film at $20 million, will include some of the invasion scenes staged for “Flags.” While much of “Letters” was filmed in Southern California, Mr. Eastwood arranged a scouting trip to Iwo Jima in April 2005. The island was too remote to allow for a full-scale production. But he received permission to return this past April with a small camera crew and Ken Watanabe, the actor portraying General Kuribayashi in “Letters,” to film at the foot of Mount Suribachi, Mr. Lorenz said. Mr. Haggis said that he and Mr. Eastwood had treaded quite carefully in making this war movie, given the continuing war in Iraq. “I was most concerned that the movie would be seen as somehow justifying this war,” Mr. Haggis said. He said Mr. Eastwood wanted to avoid romanticizing World War II as so many older movies have. One result of that was the decision to cast younger actors, few of them household names. “What Clint wanted to explore was the fact that these kids were 18, 19 years old, and having to make terrible decisions. And that even in good wars, the horrors one had to witness, and one had to perpetrate, would just stick with you forever.” For the same reason, Mr. Haggis said, the combat in “Flags of Our Fathers” is particularly grisly, with many scattering limbs, spilling intestines, Japanese soldiers blowing themselves up rather than surrendering, and a flying severed head. That brutality was largely concealed from the American public then, just as it is now, he said. “We don’t see the bodies. It’s sanitized.” Mr. Lorenz cautioned against viewing the film through a political, let alone a partisan, lens. “I don’t think we were trying to make any sort of political statement, or had any sort of agenda,” he said. “I do think it so happens that it’s a movie that the country can use right now.” Mr. Broyles said he saw plenty of resonance between the story and current events, up to a point. “Look at Jessica Lynch,” he said. “What really happened to her didn’t fit the story line. There are lots of stories that don’t make the press, but the kids out there are real heroes.” He added, “The important thing is to present it in the truth of what happened in 1945, without winking about what’s happening in 2006, and people can draw their own conclusions about what’s parallel.” Mr. Haggis said he had made certain in his script to subvert any one-dimensional depiction of the politicians and generals as unfairly exploiting the returning marines. So in a crucial scene, a politician tells the surviving flag-raisers that their crass re-enactments of the flag-raising, however unfaithful to the memories of their fallen comrades, were vital in rallying the nation at a moment when the government was nearly broke. -felipe-2006-09-24 17:01:12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckin Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 Vi o trailer esses dias, gostei. Mas ficou aquela impressão de ser uma coisa bem melosa, a-lá Paul Haggis mesmo . Tomara que eu teje errado... Uma interessante foto nova : Beckin Lohan2006-09-28 17:09:49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Big One Posted October 12, 2006 Administrators Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Flags do Clint é ovacionado... CLINT PLANTA SUA BANDEIRA NO OSCAR 2007 A briga vai ser boa no Oscar 2007: Clint Eastwood está definitivamente no páreo. Em sua esperadíssima premiere, no teatro Samuel Goldwyn da Academia, Flags of our Fathers recebeu, ontem, uma longa e entusiasmada ovação, de pé. As primeiras críticas _ que, como sempre, são dos trades _ esgotaram seu estoque de elogios. (Nota a parte: Existe o hábito, fora de Hollywood, de achar que crítico de trade é um mero vassalo da indústria. Nada pode ser menos exato. Críticos como Todd McCarthy, da Variety, têm a mesma formação teórica sólida de seus colegas na mídia de consumidor. Mas, por mandato do posto, devem, analisar não apenas as propostas estéticas mas também os parâmetros industriais e comerciais dos filmes que vêem. Fui crítica de trade durante quatro anos e me meti nas mesmas encrencas de choque de egos que qualquer um de meus coleguinhas em outras áreas). Back to Clint: Flags é, desde já, o oponente a ser derrotado. Nem mesmo a estranha decisão de adiar para fevereiro a estréia de Letters from Iwo Jima (o filme-companheiro de Flags que narra a batalha de Iwo Jima do ponto de vista japonês) pode abalar a pole position de Clint. Nos Globos de Ouro, a coisa se define mais facilmente, com Flags na categoria drama e títulos como Dreamgirls, Running with Scissors e Pequena Miss Sunshine indo para a categoria comédia. Mas nos Oscars.... Do blog da Ana Maria Bahiana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Administrator Posted October 12, 2006 Members Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 As primeiras críticas (pelo menos, as dos críticos mais renomados) foram de fato bastante positivas. Já o colunista David Poland enxerga uma reação morna ao filme - não sei como, mas ele é do meio e escreveu isso no site Movie City News. E Tom O'Neill, expert em premiações como o Oscar, considera uma espécie de tiro no pé o adiamento de Letters from Iwo Jima para Fevereiro do ano que vem. Outros, em contrapartida, pensam que a estratégia só vai ajudar a refrescar os ânimos dos votantes. Mas será que isso importa tanto... Com essas duas figuraças nos créditos: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Angelo Voorhees Posted October 12, 2006 Members Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Quando estréia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Administrator Posted October 12, 2006 Members Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Quando estréia? 1° de dezembro, no Brasil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted October 15, 2006 Author Members Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 Algumas imagens do filme: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted October 22, 2006 Author Members Report Share Posted October 22, 2006 Movie Reviews: 'Flags of Our Fathers' A bloody battle is being waged among the critics over the worthiness of Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers. On the one hand, there's Chicago Sun-Times critic Richard Roeper, who calls the film "an American masterpiece ... a searing and powerful work." On the other hand, there's Michael Sragow of the Baltimore Sun, whose review is headlined, "Eastwood's cliché-riddled Flags doesn't rate a salute," and who remarks, "The film has all the coherence and lucidity of a fragmentation bomb." Many of the reviews fall somewhat between those two responses to it, observing that Eastwood himself fails to take a stand -- attempting to appeal to jingoists and pacifists alike with his film about the soldiers who appeared in the iconic flag-raising photograph taken during the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II. As Jan Stuart writes in Newsday, the movie "allows everyone to eat his cake and have it, too. It's not anti-war so much as anti-idolatry, a philosophical position that plays to both 'stay-the-course' and 'cut-and-run' camps." But most critics appear to side with Roeper, including Manohla Dargis's in the New York Times. She writes: "It seems hard to believe there is anything left to say about World War II that has not already been stated and restated, chewed, digested and spat out for your consideration and that of the Oscar voters. And yet here, at age 76, is Clint Eastwood saying something new and vital about the war in his new film, and here, too, is this great, gray battleship of a man and a movie icon saying something new and urgent about the uses of war and of the men who fight." Writes Claudia Puig in USA Today: "Flags of Our Fathers is the rare action film that is superbly acted, hauntingly powerful and deeply insightful." And Kenneth Turan concludes in the Los Angeles Times: "We are close to blessed to have Eastwood still working at age 76 and more fortunate still that challenging material like Flags of Our Fathers is what he wants to be doing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted October 25, 2006 Author Members Report Share Posted October 25, 2006 Interview: Clint Eastwood "Flags Of Our Fathers" Posted: Monday, October 9th 2006 2:55AM Author: Paul Fischer Location: Los Angeles, CAThe tall, strident figure who enters the room is unmistakable. Age, as has been said, has not wearied him. Clint Eastwood still looks impressive at 76. No longer the Man with No Name or Dirty Harry, these days he's a formidable force behind the camera, an Oscar winning filmmaker known for his economy of scale. But Eastwood's latest film, the World War 2 drama Flags of our Fathers, is an anomaly for Eastwood, a big-budget epic work that is in sharp contrast to the likes of his acclaimed Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby. A film centered around the tragic Battle of Iwo Jima, one of the most crucial and bloodiest battles of the second world war, it culminated with what would become one of the most iconic images in history: five Marines and a Navy corpsman raising the American flag on Mount Suribachi. The inspiring photo capturing that moment became a symbol of victory to a nation that had grown weary of war and made instant heroes of the six American soldiers at the base of the flag, some of whom would die soon after, never knowing that they had been immortalized. But the surviving flag raisers had no interest in being held up as symbols and did not consider themselves heroes; they wanted only to stay on the front with their brothers in arms who were fighting and dying without fanfare or glory. 'Flags of Our Fathers' is based on the best selling book by James Bradley with Ron Powers, which chronicled the battle of Iwo Jima and the fates of the flag raisers and some of their brothers in Easy Company. A book originally set to be filmed by Steven Spielberg, Eastwood, who picks projects that interest him on a personal level, says that he wanted to tell this particular war story "because there's never been a story on Iwo Jima, even though it was the biggest marine corps in marine corps history," says Eastwood. "What intrigued me about it was the book itself and the fact that it wasn't really a war story." The director, who says he had been involved in a few war films as an actor, says he never set out to do a war movie per se, "but I liked this, because it was just a study of these people, and I've always been curious about families who find out things about their relatives much after the fact. The kind of people that have talked to me about this campaign and many other campaigns, seem to be the ones who have been the quietest about their activity. It's a sure thing that if you hear somebody being very braggadocio about all their experiences in combat, he was probably a clerk typist somewhere in the rear echelon, but there seems to be a commonality with these kind of people." Much has been said of the parallels, if they exist, between World War 2 and contemporary events, but Eastwood denies making any kind of a contemporary parable, and the two wars represent vastly different ideologues. "World War 2 was a different time in history, of course. When the war was brought to us in Pearl Harbor, it became a reality that if we didn't fight this one out, we might be speaking another language today, so it was sort of simple. Most of the young men and women who went to war were about 19 years old. You figured they were probably all born in the late 20s early 30s, and they were over there, but they all had the spirit. So it was important to tell this story for that reason, as it told of a time in our history when there was a lot of spirit. As for today -- I suppose war is war whenever you're in there. If you're in the front lines, there are always various problems you have to deal with that are hard for us to understand who are in a non-combat situation unfortunately. The country seemed much more unified than it is today, because the war we're in today -- excluding the Iraq War in the front lines -- is a different kind of war, incorporating Ideology and religion. There are a lot of factors coming in to it that may make the next war much more difficult, but World War 2 was much more cut and dried." As Flags is, in many ways, an old fashioned, classic war story, for today's audiences, Eastwood hopes that through this film, "they get to know these people, and what they went through, as well as perhaps give the audience a feeling of what it was like in that time, what these people dedicated or donated their lives for." But also, he adds, he wants audiences to know more about what it has been defined as The Greatest Generation. "A lot of people talk about the greatest generation so it was fun to just try to visualize that. We now live in a time where it's different. We have an all voluntary military, the country's a lot more comfortable, economically and is in fact right now probably a lot more spoiled than we were then, so war is more of an inconvenience now where then it was an absolute necessity." Like in much of Eastwood's recent work, his films offer a reflective comment on the humanity, coupled with a certain physicality, and this is particularly evident in Flags, that shows off the two sides to the director. Eastwood says that he has little difficulty in reconciling or balancing these two facets of his persona. "I just kind of go along. I think as I've matured -- which is in a way of saying aging -- I've reached out to different sides of different stories. I started out in movies with a lot of action and that sort of thing, but as I got to this stage in life now where I'm sort of retreating to the back side of the camera, I just felt that it's time to address a lot of different things that are closer to me than maybe fantasy characters that I might have been involved with." In a career spanning half a century, Clint Eastwood can afford to pick and choose what he wants to do on either side of the camera. With little to prove, either to himself or audiences, the director still insists on pushing himself, and that includes shooting not one, but two films about Iwo Jima. Opening early next year is the Japanese perspective, Letters from Iwo Jima, and Eastwood does laugh when asked if these days, making two films back to back is his most serious challenge. "Sometimes I think I'll take some time off, and it goes in waves. I did "Mystic River," and I was going to take some time off after that project, then I read "Million Dollar Baby," and said, boy, I gotta do that, so I went right into that. I had tried to buy this book sometime earlier and DreamWorks at bought it and I ran into Steven Spielberg and he said why don't you come over and direct this film. I told him I liked the book very much, we shook hands and I said, yes, I'll do that. He didn't have a screenplay he was happy with so we had to kind of start from scratch." It was part of the way into the research for Flags of our Fathers that he started getting interested in Lt. General Korubioshi the Japanese commander at Iwo Jima. "I was kind of wondering what kind of person he was to defend this island in a very clever way by tunneling the island and putting everything underground, doing it differently than most of the Japanese defenses were at that time. I sent to Japan and got a book about General Kuribayashi, which was a book of letters to his wife, daughter and son." As Eastwood's films tells of a father and son, asked whether he would want his own children to depict his life on film, the ferociously private Eastwood smiles. "No, no. I don't feel my life is that interesting, which is maybe why I became an actor." In summing up his own life, Eastwood adopts the brevity that has often defined him. "I just feel like I do a job. I've been lucky enough to work in a profession where I enjoy it and still do. Obviously I'm doing it still and I don't seem to have any ambitions about retiring. If I do, I haven't kind of found out about them yet, so maybe I'm just waiting until they retire me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fernando Posted December 22, 2006 Members Report Share Posted December 22, 2006 Comentário de Filipe Furtado , crítico da Contracampo , no seu blog www.anotacoescinefilo.blogger.com.br : Flags of Our Fathers (Clint Eastwood,06) O Homem que Matou o Facinora de Eastwood. Não chega a ser um dos seus melhores trabalhos, mas esta quase lá. Um filme todo muito bem pensado a partir da ideia de representação: por exemplo trabalhando de forma auto-onsciente como as razões que tornam Ira Hayes a figura mais interessante dramaturgicamente entre os três soldados é a mesma que tornava ele um estorvo para a campanha de fundos do exercito.Por esta mesma razão o filme é menos imediato do que os melhores Eastwood, apresentando tudo a partir de um cuidadoso filtro histórico. As partes da guerra incluem algumas mortes ironicas a mais do que devia, mas em compensação o cineasta me parece ter encontrado um equilibrio bem adequado entre a apresentação realista dos combates que fuja da impressão de instalação maximizadora do Soldado Ryan. Dito isso, o filme definitivamente esta mais interessado no que acontece depois de Iwo Jima. É também um filme bastante fordiano na sua relação conflituosa com o mito e a história. Talvez o mais fordiano da carreira do cineasta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members haziell Posted January 15, 2007 Members Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Opa, de novo serei o primeiro a dar minha opinião...q beleza FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS - ou 4/10 Não esperava encontrar um roteiro tão fraco e mal estruturado e uma direção que tenta ganhar em realismo o que perde na trama. É talvez um dos trabalhos mais fracos de Eastwood, que espero que se redima em Letters from Iwo Jima, já que Flags tinha até um bom argumento, mas se perde em flashbacks desordenados e atores fracos, com exceção do ótimo Adam Beach que, mesmo com personagens tão mal aprofundados, ainda consegue se destacar. E olha que o filme tem mais de 2 horas, o que chega a ser cansativo, não via a hora que terminava, já não agüentava mais. Da parte técnica, apenas destaco o som, que é muito bom, mas no geral, não chega perto de filmes como Soldado Ryan ou Além da Linha Vermelha. Por ser a visão americana da guerra, poderia ser mais emocionante ou tocante, coisa que Haggis, que eu gosto muito, talvez não tenha capacidade para fazer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ricardjones Posted January 15, 2007 Members Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 É um roteiro confuso mesmo, mas que apesar de confuso, dá pra perceber bem o objetivo que ele quer retratar. Quanto a fotografia do filme, achei muito boa. Foram um dos poucos aspectos positivos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Administrator Posted January 20, 2007 Members Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 (deve ter um ou outro spoiler) Eu gostei. Não sei se foi porque sou um grande "fãzóide" (como gostam de dizer por aí) do Clint ou porque é bom realmente. Mas eu achei que as cenas de guerra são bem fodas, intensas quando têm e engraçadas (ao seu modo, claro) quando necessitam. É como aquela velha máxima de que eles não são nada no campo de batalha, estão completamente vulneráveis, e daí acaba surgindo, meio que involuntariamente, algumas coisas que não me escaparam o riso. Também acho que a grande força do filme reside mesmo no que vem depois da guerra, do povo estadunidense aclamar e chamar de heróis 3 (ou 6, de qualquer modo) panacas que só fizeram levantar uma bandeira no alto de uma montanha. É, obviamente, uma coisa simbolicamente interessante dentro de uma guerra, mas é muito curioso o povo saudar esses rapazes, enquanto que, talvez (não sei se conscientemente), acabam que se esquecendo dos que deram o sangue e a vida por seu país. No entanto, esse mesmo povo aparentemente esquece seus "heróis" e preferem se focar no mito construído a partir de suas ações. A guerra é um espetáculo para eles e, para muitos, não deixa de ser uma boa oportunidade para fazer negócio com os melhores garotos propagandas da época. Como disse, eles são esquecidos. O índio é abandonado até ficar na merda; o outro, ironicamente, acaba se tornando dono de uma funerária, etc. E não vejo uma cena melhor do que aquela para finalizar o filme: os soldados se divertindo e aproveitando o pouco de momento de alegria que lhes resta SEM a farda, roupa militar ou seja-lá-o-que-aquilo-for. Ali, naquele momento, eles eram apenas homens comuns tendo um pouco de lazer. E a melhor cena do filme é aquela em que estão os 3 sentados numa mesa e servem algum tipo de sobremesa feito com a forma da montanha e dos rapazes ficando a bandeira. Daí alguém coloca um caldo de morango como cobertura. Genial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rubysun Posted February 2, 2007 Members Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Já estreou. Além de ser Clintão, estou ansioso por 3 motivos: - Não fez sucesso nos EUA, o que indica que pode ser um filme fora do habitual; e pelo que parece, o filme foi vendido como uma aventura patriótica e não deu certo. - Os críticos daqui que elogiam o filme fazem principalmente, uma comparação com "O Homem Que Matou o Facínora", do Ford. - E o Pablito deu 3/5 estrelas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -felipe- Posted February 2, 2007 Author Members Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 A conquista da honra Clint Eastwood e a batalha de Iwo Jima 01/02/2007 Érico Borgo Hojeem dia é fato cotidiano o sucesso de filmes devido a qualquer tipo depolêmica que os circunde. Não me recordo, no entanto, de um projeto tersido sensivelmente melhorado por conta do barulho alheio antes dadobradinha A conquista da honra (Flags of our fathers, 2006) e Cartas de Iwo Jima (Letters from Iwo Jima, 2006), ambos dramas de guerra do septuagenário Clint Eastwood. Melhorado porque, sozinho, A conquista da honra seriaapenas mais um filme de guerra (dos modernos, vale dizer, com umpano-de-fundo de denúncia e análise contemplativa). Ao lado de Cartas de Iwo Jima,porém, torna-se uma experiência cinematográfica única na sua escalagrandiosa: dois lados de um conflito observados simultaneamente, semconcessões. A idéia surgiu quando Eastwood manifestou seu desejo de filmar abatalha de Iwo Jima, momento crucial da Segunda Guerra Mundial noPacífico, a partir do livro Flags of Our Fathers: Heroes of Iwo Jima, de James Bradley - filho de um dos "heróis de Iwo Jima". Imediatamente as autoridades japonesas manifestaram-se. O governador de Tóquio, Shintaro Ishihara, pediu ao cineasta que respeitasse os mortos no trabalho. Alguns meses depois, Eastwood anunciava o filme-irmão de Conquista da honra, com roteiro da descendente de japoneses Iris Yamashita e do experiente e versátil Paul Haggis, que cuidou dos dois textos. A visão estadunidense do confronto chegou primeiro às telas. O centro da trama é uma imagem icônica, a fotografia tirada por Joe Rosenthal, da Associated Press.Ela mostra seis soldados hasteando a bandeira dos Estados Unidos notopo do monte Suribachi, suas silhuetas sem face lutando contra o pesode um pedaço de cano japonês improvisado como mastro. Tal registro étão expressivo e poderoso que virou peça-chave da propagandaestadunidense para a captação de bônus de guerra, recursos quefinanciaram o desenrolar da campanha bélica na década de 1940. Famíliasviam naquela foto seus próprios filhos, distantes um planeta, e tinhama esperança de um retorno. O drama, com belíssima fotografia lavada e simbólicos contraluz de Tom Stern (que trabalhou com o diretor também em Menina de ouro, Sobre meninos e lobos e Dívida de Sangue),divide-se assim em dois momentos. O primeiro, os sangrentos combates nailha, que tiraram a vida de 21 mil soldados japoneses e 6,8 mil jovensocidentais, cuja comparação estética com Resgate do soldado Ryan e Band of Brothers é inevitável (até porque Steven Spielberg é um dos produtores). O outro é a turnê dos sobreviventes da célebre foto - John Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), Ira Hayes (AdamBeach) - pelos Estados Unidos, convenientemente transformados em heróispelas autoridades, mesmo que isso não significasse exatamente averdade. Os segmentos se intercalam num bem aparado quebra-cabeças que,quando pronto, revela o claro desdém com que Eastwood vê a guerra -qualquer guerra - e a hipocrisia com a qual governo trata o assunto eseus ditos "heróis" desde então. Fica apenas a ressalva à contratação preguiçosa de Adam Beachpara o papel mais importante do filme, o de Ira Hayes, nativo-americanoda tribo dos Pima, lembrado em canções de Johnny Cash e Bob Dylan pelamaneira como combateu, foi explorado e "morreu bêbado uma manhã, sozinho na terra que ele lutou para salvar" ("The Ballad of Ira Hayes", letra de P. LaFarge, 1964). Preguiçosa porque Beach já havia feito papel de soldado no mediano Códigos de guerra(2002) e um ator nativo, com treinamento militar básico para atuação,deve ter parecido uma solução fácil para o diretor de elenco. Mas,careteiro, ele é incapaz de fazer justiça ao tormento psicológico peloqual passou Hayes, que merecia uma melhor interpretação na telona.Outro problema do filme é a tendência de Eastwood a explicar demais,não confiando em seu público para entender as lições - ou talveztemendo parecer exageradamente patriótico ou desrespeitoso. De qualquer maneira, tais problemas tornam-se meros incômodos quando A conquista da honra é colocado lado-a-lado com Cartas de Iwo Jima etem sua estrutura e intenções, feito a bandeira que sangrou o solojaponês, desfraldadas. Se os filmes anteriores do cineasta têm comotema em comum o remorso, este não foge à regra. Mas o sentimento deculpa aqui é pela humanidade. http://www.omelete.com.br/Conteudo.aspx?id=100003762&secao=cine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.