Rigorously conventional ‘Last Flag Flying’ has few surprises

There is a pleasingness to the predictability of the film, which stars Bryan Cranston, Steve Carell, and Laurence Fishburne as Vietnam veterans.

Wilson Webb
Bryan Cranston, Steve Carell, and Laurence Fishburne star in 'Last Flag Flying.'

Richard Linklater is perhaps the most versatile and innovative filmmaker of his generation. With his early work “Slacker” and on through films as various as “Dazed and Confused,” “School of Rock,” the rotoscoped animated film “Waking Life,” the inexplicably underseen “Me and Orson Welles,” the great “Before” trilogy, and the intimate epic “Boyhood,” you never really know what he’s going to come up with next.

Which is why I was especially looking forward to “Last Flag Flying,” a film that, given the familiarity of its subject matter, cried out for a fresh approach. Set in 2003, it’s about three veterans who served together under fraught circumstances 30 years before in Vietnam – former Navy medic Larry “Doc” Shepherd (Steve Carell), and former marines Sal Nealon (Bryan Cranston) and Richard Mueller (Laurence Fishburne). Doc’s only son, a marine, was killed early in the Iraq War, and, believing that the military has obscured the circumstances of his death, Doc rejects a burial at Arlington National Cemetery and embarks with his mates and his son’s casket on a circuitous journey up the Eastern Seaboard to Doc’s home in suburban New Hampshire. It’s a road movie and a buddy movie and a homefront movie all rolled into one.

The surprise here is that Linklater, who collaborated on the screenplay with Darryl Ponicsan, has made a film with few surprises. It’s a rigorously conventional piece of work. This is not to say that it’s terrible – there is a pleasingness to its predictability, and a couple of sequences, such as the one in which Doc, against the strenuous wishes of the officer in charge, forces himself to look inside his mutilated son’s coffin, slice right through you. But there’s a safety net strung beneath this film that precludes any real risk-taking. “Last Flag Flying” could have been made by any number of proficient directors. “Boyhood” and the “Before” movies could only have been made by Linklater.

If Ponicsan’s name sounds familiar, it might be because his 2005 novel on which this film is based was a sequel of sorts to his novel “The Last Detail,” which was made into a muscular, crackerjack 1973 movie directed by Hal Ashby and scripted by Robert Towne. In that film, the Vietnam trio went by different names and was played by Jack Nicholson (now named Sal), Otis Young (now named Mueller), and Randy Quaid (now named Doc). It’s not necessary to have seen that earlier film in order to experience this one, and Linklater and his actors don’t really attempt to connect the two. With the exception of Cranston, who tries, with some success, to duplicate Nicholson’s swagger, none of the actors recall their predecessors. 

If Cranston steals most of his scenes, it’s because he has the juiciest lines. An aging hell-raiser, Sal is working as a bartender when, after three decades, the reticent, widowed Doc unexpectedly shows up and, after some delay, convinces both him and, soon enough, Mueller, once a roustabout and now a respected preacher, to accompany him on his grim errand. 

As one might expect, the three men are temperamentally poles apart. Doc is meek but resolute in his mission; Sal is profane and raucously unsentimental; Mueller is deeply religious. And as one might expect from this buddy genre, the men’s rough edges are beveled as they bond in their shared distaste for what the military – and the United States – have become. Regrets abound. We hear from them, “What happens when you catch your government lying to you?” Sal, in rare wistful mode, says, “We were all something once. Now we’re something else.”

In attempting to draw a straight line between the catastrophes of Vietnam and Iraq and the effect those incursions had on the homefront, “Last Flag Flying” is a bit out of its depth. Because it seems so generic, Linklater’s fleeting and fragmentary indictment of the George W. Bush-era invasion – the missing weapons of mass destruction, the ban on photos of US soldiers’ caskets, and all the rest – only serves to distract from the evolving bromance, which is only fitfully fueled by their politics, between the three vets.

The bromance often seems generic, too. Fishburne gives a highly nuanced performance, one of his best, as he allows us to see in this man of God flashes of the rogue he once was. But the movie ultimately must be defined by Doc, and we never really get inside his head. Carell has become a marvelous dramatic actor in recent years, and the fault here is not entirely his. He is being asked to play an Everyman, a humble soul who only wants what is right, and it’s all too righteously bland. The same, for all its incidental pleasures, could be said of the movie. Grade: B- (Rated R for language throughout, including some sexual references.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Rigorously conventional ‘Last Flag Flying’ has few surprises
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today