|
Directed by: Sam Mendes (American Beauty) Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Jamie Foxx, Peter Sarsgaard Just saw an advanced screening of Jarhead. I sat down with high expectations, not really because I personally had been anticipating it, but because many of my friends were practically creaming their pants over it. And in the end, it was good, but not great. The film is visually stunning, the acting is great, but the screenplay just doesn't cut it. The structure of the film is reminiscent of Full Metal Jacket's "from boot camp to war" progression, except Jarhead is not in two distinct segments. It omits no details from the very beginning to the very end. Some scenes seem to exist only for the sake of completeness; they don't seem to add anything to what's trying to be said, and because of this the film really crawls along at points. The film seems to have many themes, but each is not given enough attention to really be worth their inclusion. In the end, I wasn't nearly as drawn into the story or as interested in the characters as I should have been. This movie should have been either a lot longer, or appreciably shorter. On the upside, the cinematography is excellent. Some people may be annoyed by the rather cliched washed-out look for the war scenes, but Jarhead doesn't have the traditional false-color bleached chemical appearance. Instead, it's just overexposed. The colors are still accurate, but details are lost in the backgrounds of sand and sun, bringing focus to the characters, even when the depth of field is wide. I really liked it. Yay for Roger Deakins. Don't let me scare you away from seeing it. The performances are great, and maybe I just went in with expectations set too high. Everyone else I talked to was only lukewarm about the film, though, so it wasn't just me. RATING: 3.5 PROS: Cinematography, performances CONS: Too long (or too short, maybe?) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418763/combined ryangs fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Oct 27, 2005 |
#
?
Oct 26, 2005 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Jarhead joins "The Constant Gardner" in the ranks of really well done movies based on acclaimed novels that simply aren't very entertaining. Keep in mind I never read the book, and I never served in the Corps, so I can't judge the movie on faithfulness to the book or nostalgia or anything like that. This movie is by no means your typical war movie. It focuses more on the camaraderie and lifestyle of the marines as they go through training and preparation for the war, rather than just showing them engaged in combat the whole time. As a matter of fact, there is basically no violence or combat in the whole movie, so don't be surprised or disappointed when you realize this isn't 'Black Hawk Down' or 'Saving Private Ryan'. The main thing Jarhead has going for it is the compelling cinematography. Some of the shots (specifically the scenes at night with the oil fires) blew my mind. Jarhead is an interesting and refreshing alternative to your typical blow-poo poo-up war movie, but quite frankly, it's not very entertaining. Gyllenhaal and Sarsgaard were extremely bland and made it difficult to empathize with either of their characters. Jamie Foxx definitely stole the show as the intense, overbearing CO, but his performance can't compensate for the relatively weak acting by the rest of the cast. Imagine 'Full Metal Jacket' without the violence. That would be Jarhead. A very unenthusiastic 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2005 09:46
|
|
|
The Potting Bench posted:Jarhead joins "The Constant Gardner" in the ranks of really well done movies based on acclaimed novels that simply aren't very entertaining. I disagree with this as it pertains to Constant Gardner, but I agree with this as it pertains to Jarhead. I loved the shots in this movie, but the characters didn't resonate with me at all (save for Foxx). Their actions were so random that they seemed almost like cartoon characters. One minute Gyllenhall is morose and hating the army, the next he's going nuts over the chance to go to war and shoot some Iraqis. All of his voice overs seemed hackey. Nevertheless I was only a little disappointed, the movie's not bad. 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 00:25
|
|
|
schmitty9800 posted:Their actions were so random that they seemed almost like cartoon characters. One minute Gyllenhall is morose and hating the army, the next he's going nuts over the chance to go to war and shoot some Iraqis. That said, I don't agree with the movie's sentiment (i.e. I dislike most everything about my life in the military and think it's an absurd clusterfuck 90% of the time and a futile endurance test the other 10%), but I thought it was really well-made and enjoyable for fans of "alternative" war movies such as "Three Kings" or "No Man's Land." It really captured the surreality of life in the military, the quirky characters who populate most units and the point at which a soldier (or a Marine, in this case) completely realizes how much is at stake. This is by far one of the best films I've seen this year, but then again, I'm biased and this has been a fairly lukewarm year for film. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 04:05
|
|
|
Ugh, I'm having mixed feelings about this movie. I read the book which was great although was really preaching towards the end. The movie did a great job of not preaching too much. THe movements through the different parts went quickly, almost too quickly. I especially enjoyed the part in the desert waiting for the war, it matched the book the best and was really just enjoyable. Some of the composition characters annoyed me, but that's a problem with transfer to film. Overall I thought it was great, although anticlimatic. I knew it would be like that so maybe I was more prepared for it. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 07:42
|
|
|
I went in this movie with a friend knowing nothing about it. Twenty minutes later I was ready to leave. The whole thing was more or less "Here's a guy in the army, he did some stuff, the end." It never felt like it had a real point. There were moments in the movie which were obviously trying to make statements, but either they didn't even fit in with the overall movie, didn't really make sense period, or seemed to just be a contradiction to something else happening. It's a great idea and I could see myself enjoying the book, but overall I found this movie to be a complete and utter waste of time. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 08:14
|
|
|
As a huge fan of the book, I was extremely excited about this film. I only have two beefs with this movie. they could have fleshed out the ending a bit more.To me, this film ended on a weak note. In addition, I would have liked them to delve into Swofford's history. I recall there being several flashbacks in the book that would have made good scenes, and would have made the audience care about Swofford more. Pros: Excellent cinematography.Jake Gyllenhaal and Jamie Foxx give excellent performances. Cons:Ending needed to be longer. More backstory would have been nice. Rating:4.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 08:45
|
|
|
I went to see this hoping it might have something to it. It didn't. In a time where hundreds questions fly about over the war in Iraq, the film doesn't even attempt to explain any of them, and barely even approaches them. Basically, imagine if Full Metal Jacket had zero critical subtext to it and you get a good idea of what jarhead is like. Pros: Good acting and cinematography. Con: Rather pointless. Bottom line: Watching the film is little like talking to a soldier who's been through some nasty situations but doesn't really have anything interesting or thoughtful to say. 3.5/5 Spacedad fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Nov 5, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 08:50
|
|
|
Being a former Marine, I would simply say, Yep. Thats pretty much the life of a Marine. Its pretty much a movie about a typical marine with nothing realy exciting happening. The only real advice I could give is, if you plan on joining the marines, watch this movie. Some of it was exagerated but pretty good representation. The only thing it realy did for me was bring back some fun memories, and some of the not so fun memories. I don't realy think a movie needed to be made about a typical enlistment in the marines, and I agree with others, I was unable to attach my self to most of the characters which killed the movie. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 17:23
|
|
|
(From a perspective standpoint, I was in the USAF with over a year of time deployed to Kuwait, KSA, and Oman from 95-99) In a few ways, I think the trailer for this film is both very disingenous and completely accurate. I'm certain, from some of the audience reaction, they were expecting a rah-rah war movie with action. Instead, they were likely frustrated by a constant build up, eternal promise of action, and growing feeling like there wasn't going to be any. And that's exactly as it should be. It was very moving that they watch staple war movies like Apocalypse Now when this works very well as the contemporary version of it. Categorize this less as a 'war film' and more as a slice of life, as you'd find in many more dramatic films. It's as telling of a geniune military experience as I've ever seen, and filled to the brim with authentic texture. I, as well as nearly everyone I served with, had seen more than our share of war films and they were never right for us. They always presented a thrill and some kind of nobility or weight to everything. Instead it's stress, preparation, and waiting. You leave your life behind and your life leaves you behind, your friends and girlfriend moving on (or worries of). The movie really represents what happens when you constantly and obsessively sharpen a knife on a whetstone so much that it becomes weak and brittle from preparation and anxiety to actually cut something, anything. I can only wonder, but I expect that this film would be as relevant to those who participate in combat this very day in the desert. I've spent some time with the deployed Army and Marine guys and the way they constantly try and keep their war up despite being (at the time) in a position to do absolutely nothing because all we were doing at the time was bombing SAM sites that play chicken turning their radar on. This movie perfectly captures what I saw there. The movie is well shot and has perfect set design. What I saw perfectly brought back sounds and smells from that weird alternate world. The acting is extremely strong, Jake and Jamie both do great work. Mendes was just right for the job considering the goals it had. I'd recommend this absolutely to anyone who wants a peek into what military life is like or will be considering it at all. I can't believe we get a movie like this and Good Night and Good Luck all in the same year. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 18:20
|
|
|
This movie pretty much proves tha Sam Mendes is a one-hit-wonder director. He shows his true colours as a derivative pop director who likes to use snappy music and neat cinematography to look cool. Oh, ironic use of music? Bitter and sarcastic characters? The same stereotypical war movie characters that have been used for years? Wow, I've never seen this before! This movie was so incredibly derivative that I found it painful to watch at some points. You have your good dosage of Full Metal Jacket, some Deer Hunter, and some Three Kings. Very disappointing considering he talent the director had to work with. This movie basically has nothing fresh to say other than featuring a bit of disappointment that the soldiers felt about warfare after expecting it to be like the movies which they watch. Some of the characters are fairly well-acted, but for most of them their stereotypicality just drags down their performances. The rest is just some crazy and random stuff happening without andthing really concrete holding it together before the war ends and the movie follows suit shortly after. Also, the ending just made me roll me eyes. They went into the desert, sat around, got strafed at by an A-10, met some guys with camels, went into the oil fields, and almost killed someone, and the main character reminisces about it like he was fighting in WWII? Sadly, it's still much better than most of the poo poo out right now. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 19:16
|
|
|
I've read the book probably ten times. I've got friends in the Corps. I met Anthony Swofford when he visited a campus near me. That said, I might be a bit biased here. Having read and enjoyed the book, I knew exactly what the movie was going to be like the second I saw the trailer for the first time. The book and the movie were never intended to be a typical chest-swelling action-fest tale of the horrors and the honor of war. It is an active duty Marine's experience fighting in Gulf War I - where the Army pulverized the gently caress out of targets from miles out with their armor and the Airforce stole the show with some of the most spectacular air-to-ground strikes the world had yet seen. The Army (at least the infantry) and the Marines took a backseat to all this and it pissed a lot of us off. The NCO's from my battalion that served in the war, and some of the officers, agree that one of the biggest disappointments to any service member is training for years for war and then, once you get there, the action and the glory are taken away from you and you never get to put that training to use. Swofford expresses this throughout the book and in a few places in the movie, as do other Marines in STA 2/7. They feel useless in the war. This movie is a nice change from the usual Saving Private Ryan / Black Hawk Down tales of war and combat. It gives you a good picture of just exactly what a lot of us experience. You sit around and you wait for something to happen. Then nothing happens and you wait some more. "Hurry up and wait." 4.5/5.0
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 20:16
|
|
|
Kibblesnbits posted:
Right on. I am also a serving member and while not combat arms and having never been deployed operationally, the life is just as it is. Many parts are uncomfortable to watch for that very reason, and the last chunk (after the war) really messed with my head. I'm not disappointed at all, and am very glad to have seen it. My only niggle was the first portion, which very much glossed over the scout/sniper training. I can almost understand that it had to be in order to make the book-to-movie transfer, but it still annoys me. Same rating, 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2005 00:58
|
|
|
One of the most powerful film experiences I have ever had. I would go so far as to say this is now one of my favourites. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2005 04:15
|
|
|
I just caught a late showing, and I really enjoyed it. The humor was realistic, the characters were likable, hateable, and everything in between throughout the whole movie. The ending lacked something that I can't describe, but overall I was able to be absorbed by the movie. 4/5 Pros: Funny, dark, serious, intense, and really makes you think about the people put through this. Cons: I don't know if this counts, but I bet someone out there would think that the movie was too long. The ending wasn't as good as the rest of the movie, but nothing to push you away from watching it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2005 07:26
|
|
|
If I were to type out my entire opinion on this, it would be probably a page long and basically just be an extended version of me saying, "Oh man, that was an amazing loving film". 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2005 01:52
|
|
|
I came in after hearing my friends say it was sorta funny but not enough action knowing this i thought the movie was amazing and im pissed with critics looking for a satire of some sort on todays war cause thats not what it is. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2005 04:01
|
|
|
I was seriously relieved that this didn't end up being some preachy government-hating/loving movie. I was very pleased that it was about the guys and not the war. I liked "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brian for the same reasons. I keep telling myself I don't like war movies, but I liked this and I love "Glory" with Matthew Broderick. Maybe because I don't care much for war, but I really like people. I felt, in a rather uneasy way, that my emotions were getting jerked around. Some parts are really, really funny. During other scenes, you hold your breath. More than once, I ducked away from the screen in anticipation. And sometimes these changes were very abrupt. But I liked that, I liked that this movie made me feel something. That's important to me. Also, I really want the soundtrack. Nirvana, the Doors, what's not to like? A refreshing break from all the romantic girl movies I've been seeing lately. 4/5, losing a point because it definately dragged in places.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2005 08:53
|
|
|
I thought it was a great film. After coming out I noted to myself that it felt that it "dragged" a lot, almost like Seinfeld episode where nothing really happens. I noted that the movie could've been shaved down in time but then I realised that would've killed the entire point of the movie. Spoiler just in case but I don't think this is really a spoiler: The whole point was that the marines had trained to kill people. They were told "you will see combat. Some of you will die. You will kill people." And then... nothing. Nothing happened. They sat out in a shithole desert for months and months, their personal lives fell completely apart for absolutely loving nothing. Once you understand that the movie is a lot more enjoyable. To be fair, a lot of what the movie presented had already been done. The boot camp, the psychological problems of war, the psyching up for battle. What WAS done differently was that nothing happened and how that affected the soldiers. 4.5/5 Taking off a .5 because it still did drag in parts and even though that was the point it doesn't mean it makes it super entertaining. Still a great film. doctor 7 fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Nov 8, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2005 12:32
|
|
|
I have to agree with about half the comments in here. The movie wasn't SUPPOSED to be a shootout, yee haw movie. If people would actually read reviews of the movies before they went to see them they would know this. Before I went to see it I read some reviews online that expressed that it wasn't a typical war movie. I processed that information and came to the movie ready for something different. I really enjoyed the movie, it showed perfectly the blandness that can be miliary life especially in a time like this when much of war is faught with aricraft and missle strikes. It almost hints that in a modern war between two conventional forces, that the whole war could be decided without ground forces. I digress, I really enjoyed the tone of the movie, and the cinematography. As said before they didn't use the washed out (Saving Private Ryan) look, but a more realistic color-wise look. The imagery (ie. Desert oil fires at night) was beatiful at points. The Jamie Foxx character sort of annoyed me because everyone in the audience laughed at his jokes hysterically, but thats not his fault it's a retarded audience. Nevertheless the scene in the desert at night where Foxx is like, 'I could be at home doing whatever...but I am out here because I love my job' was great. It was like the opposite of the depressive Saving Private Ryan leader (Tom Hanks). I would give it a solid 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2005 19:33
|
|
|
I loved the movie. Not much action, but some very interesting and intense things happen, and you see these Marines trying to cope with all of it. It did drag a bit, but I thought Jamie Foxx's character was a great contrast to Swofford. Rating : 5
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2005 20:09
|
|
|
I couldnt agree more with the referals to no mans land. Its certianly sublte in the plot department, but then almost makes things overbearing with the overly dramatic cinematography and (im my opinion) overacting for almost all the character except for Peter Sarsguards. Sarsguard is indeed a briliant actor, especially in movies like Shatered Glass, but dont even get me loving started on the assfuck of a movie known as Garden State. He keeps his emotions repressed for almost all the movie but brings intensity only when it is absolutly called for. As for Jake gyllenhaal, its certianly an overdue departure from movies like The Day After Tomorrow, but I'll still always think of him as the guy from Donnie Darko. I aslo had high expectations coming into this movie, mostly becuase its directed by Sam Mendes. You can deffinatly tell its him by the cinematography and his sense of irony. But where No Mands Land succeeds, Jarhead fall on its face. No Mans Land really captured the absurdity of war while Jarhead just made it seem like a big joke. I suppose the reason that nothing really happened is becuase its just the story of some guy and thats the point, but then why make a movie about it? 3.0
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2005 23:55
|
|
|
I loved Jarhead: its intensity, its characters, the cinematography. It is everything that a war movie shouldn't be.. and it succeeds brilliantly. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2005 21:28
|
|
|
I'm just gonna copy-and-paste the review that I wrote for the school paper. Jarhead, one of the most-hyped films of 2005, was posed to bring a fresh look to the war genre. It attempts to show how tedium and lack of purpose can be as psychologically painful as combat. Unfortunately, it does not succeed. Jarhead stands as a monument to uninspired mediocrity. Its main character, Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal), begins in Marine Corps training at Camp Pendleton. He is selected by Staff Sgt. Sykes (Jamie Foxx) to try out for a sniper detachment. The film proceeds to cover his indoctrination into the military and his eventual deployment during the First Gulf War. I started to notice recurring problems at this point. For example, the physical and mental abuse suffered by Swofford seems just a bit too much like similar material from Full Metal Jacket. I only wish that the remainder of the film had swiped from other war films, as it would have been much more enjoyable. Instead, it's extremely uneventful. Granted, the film is about how lack of action can drive a soldier insane, but there's no reason to bore the audience to prove your point. Eventually Swofford does go into action against some members of the Iraqi army, but by that point in the film it's too little, too late. The acting in Jarhead is unremarkable at best. Gyllenhall paints the picture of his character's growing psychosis with an especially thick brush. His acting ranges from “so subtle as to be nonexistent” to “ridiculously over-the-top”. Rather than seeming insane, as I was expecting, Gyllenhaal acts as if he's angry at his parents for grounding him. Even his plea for another soldier to kill him at one point seems as petulant as that of an emo kid who cuts himself as a “cry for help”. Other actors aren't much better. Chris Cooper, playing Lt. Col. Kazinski, seems like a caricature of a warmongering military commander. The everpresent leer on his face reminded me of Snidely Whiplash without a mustache to twirl. Peter Sarsgaard doesn't excel in his role as Swofford's spotter but does show an occasional flash of talent. The actor who really makes something of his role is Jamie Foxx; he displays a versatile talent for acting in all its aspects and can perform equally well at both comedy and drama. There are other elements of this film which don't live up to their expectations. For example, rather than using a large selection of period music, as in Platoon and Apocalypse Now, Jarhead instead relies on lame world music and “Don't Worry, Be Happy” (the ironic usage of which should be a crime punishable by death). The one bright spot in the soundtrack, “Something in the Way” by Nirvana, is marred by its placement in a bizarre and totally out-of-place dream sequence. Jarhead could have been the harbinger of a new type of war film, one which displayed a more-realistic view of a soldier's life. Unfortunately, it fails on several counts: acting, soundtrack, cinematography, and so on. The fact that it's irredeemably boring is simply the coup de grâce. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2005 05:01
|
|
|
It isn't fashionable to call modern warfare a cock-tease for those who serve, but there you go. Jarhead points out the discrepancy between a military culture focused on endlessly stroking GUN-PENISes, and the GUN-PENIS-CONDOM reality of modern warfare. There just isn't any feeling or action for most of the guys who think they are on the front lines, only to constantly realize that they have been downsized by the airforce. At least, that is how it feels to Tony Swofford, who has to cope with what he reflects upon as a Sysephean challenge. I had read the book years ago, so I was happy to find out that the film-maker's didn't crap the script up with gun fights that never happened. Where a war movie typically focuses on homo-social bonding and vague philosophical question designed to dampen the viewer's enthusiasm for awesome war stuff, Jarhead stays zeroed in on Swoffords frustrating experience. Peter Sarsgaard steals the film at the very end, although I won't reveal why. Finally, the craft that went into this movie is phenomenal; every shot is perfect, and if you can throw out your preconceptions, you should have a great time. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2005 06:19
|
|
|
I want to smack the reviewers who are griping that the film doesn't say anything. It's one of the most politically charged war films I've ever seen. The Soldiers having bum equipment 90% of the time, and how the film really drove this home with several sequences. Clearly showing that the government did not give them what they needed and we were unprepared. 'We are still in the desert' The soldiers resentment of the other branches of the military. The emphasis on theburning oil fields, and the scene with the horse. "The earth is bleeding". The film actually says quite a lot if you're actually paying attention and not expecting an lol bombs lol war movie. 5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2005 16:56
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing this film, and luckily I was in a mostly empty theater so I got to see it without interruptions. I enjoyed this film a lot. I drew many parallels to Full Metal Jacket when watching this movie. Full Metal Jacket's most powerful emotional moments, to me, were throughout the entire first 3/4 of the movie involving Private Pyle. These moments are also the most memorable for most people. The first time I saw FMJ, I thought once they headed to VIetnam, the war scenes felt a bit "tacked on," and drew attention away from that personal intimate view you get of a soldier's psyche that was so prevelant in the first half. I enjoyed that intimate view quite a bit, and I was pleased that this aspect is the main focus of Jarhead. Jarhead, to me, was a more powerful film than it would have been if there were a ton of wham bam explodey moments. I thought the acting was phenomenal, and it really brought out the mental state of the soldier in "the suck." I thought the fact that they weren't involved in nail-biting war action scenes all the time was true to the actual way Desert Storm was fought. It wasn't hand to hand combat with two forces rushing at each other from behind trenches by any means. This movie showed it was a war in which fighting was very much removed from personal involvement. Yet there are still soldiers that are affected mentally, even if it's not by anything obvious or visceral. Now I want to check out the book. 4.5 / 5 Mental Midget fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Nov 10, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2005 06:01
|
|
|
My favorite part was when they were in the smoke fields. There's one part right at the beginning of that part of the movie, where they have a bunch of marines digging ditches, there's fire and smoke billowing in the background, and there's just one marine standing with his rifle, sillhouetted like the others with dark orange and black in the background. I wish I had a huge poster of that one picture. It was so beautiful. What really got in my head was "I wanna know what it's like to see someone else loving your girl." It was just so humourous and bizzare at first but when the marine started yelling that he wanted to go home, I started to feel what he was feeling. Then I started to feel what Swafford was feeling. That scene from beginning to end was excecuted flawlessly. My friend commented on that part where they're in the tent showing off pictures of their girls. He liked when that one marine asked to see Swafford's picture and sees her half naked with his USMC shirt, and Jacket. Then says "Doesn't she have any clothes of her own?" He says it so subtly amidst all the other marines shouting out insults about their fat/preggo girls. He says it so quietly and it turns out to be the most insulting thing anyone says. It's like in Swafford's eyes, he was mixing his two favorite things, but in everyone else's [even mine] he was desecrating a sacred symbol. Great movie. Pros: Subtle things like the Deer Hunter, Great scenery and atmosphere. Cons: Many people will be expecting a war movie, not American Beauty II. 5.0/5.5 I love the F5 button. It's so refreshing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2005 19:13
|
|
|
totosushi posted:
In the book that Marine whose girlfriend sent him the tape did get to go home. I bet that neigbor had a rough time. In my opinion, if you went into the movie thinking it was going to be Blackhawk Down, then you would hate it. Most movies just have lot's of explosions and its a hit. But with Jarhead, It was all about acting. It had some good preformances and showed a diffrent aspect to war. I liked it. 5/5.5 Kanish fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Nov 11, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2005 02:52
|
|
|
No coherent plot, no characterization, a hasty ending, and inapt musical counterpoints. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2005 05:45
|
|
|
This movie was not entertaining at all, i was bored throughout the entire theatre experience save a few tense moments. 1/5, good acting though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2005 08:27
|
|
|
from someone who was over there as regular Infantry, I have to say this hit home on so many drat levels it wasn't funny. That was 8 months of my life to the exact detail. They really captured it all (the video of the wife, the loss of a girlfriend, the smells, the sunset..it is all there) esp. the anxiety and let down. All in all, if you really want a good reflection of what happened to a lot of us over there..this is it. It wasn't a ground soldiers war...only tanks and aircraft which was a big burden on the mentality and stress levels of those who trained, and trained, and trained for months only to have it taken away quicker than it started. highly suggest it!! 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2005 15:24
|
|
|
Kanish posted:In the book that Marine whose girlfriend sent him the tape did get to go home. Dear Allah I hope he did. I didn't go into the movie with any significant expectations; however, my friend in the Marines spoke positively about the book, so I was at least expecting a pretty gritty look at the Marine's experiences. The movie definitely delivered that and then some. There were some surreal images throughout the movie, but they didn't disrupt my favorite thing about the movie, and that was how the director actually made me feel all of these different marines' emotions. That's how effective of a film it was to me. 5.0
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2005 16:11
|
|
|
It was a very visually stunning movie. I really loved the parts where they were in the burning oil fields. It looked almost like Mordor. The oil-covered horse was also really neat. I really liked the part where they were watching Apoclaypse Now (?) and they were all cheering and screaming. Then, they got all pissed about the movie being cancelled. Then, they switched right back to blood thirsty when they found out they were being deployed. The hurry up-and-wait is also very accurate. My friends all said it was very sad. I didn't think it was either supposed to be happy or sad, just be like a slice of life, like someone else said. It was kinda difficult to get interested in anyone besides Troy and Swafford, except maybe ferguson. 4.5 AquaVita posted:I want to smack the reviewers who are griping that the film doesn't say anything. It's one of the most politically charged war films I've ever seen. did you like the little barb by fergie at the end, "now we'll never have to come back to this poo poo-hole ever again!" 
space pope fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Nov 11, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2005 17:31
|
|
|
I pretty much agree with everything the OP and several others have said. It's a visually impressive movie, had me on edge the whole time and even got me a little upset when Fergus comes and tells Swoffard the bad news and they go to the funeral. The screenplay was just not 100% up to my expectations. I'll agree with the politics behind the movie as well, I love how subtle they were done. It's amazing to see how much of Operation Desert Storm still pertains to Operation Iraqi Freedom today. The end was way weak and left me wanting more. A bit too "hollywood" of an ending to a movie that could have potentially been emotionally moving, imho. I will definitely be purchasing it when it comes out on DVD, and if there's a collectors edition, I will certainly buy that. Perhaps we'll see some kind of alternate ending in the bonus features? 3.5-4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2005 17:49
|
|
|
I liked this movie alot. As a war movie it was quite unique becuase of the fact that it really had no action. I loved the way it kept building you up like there would be some action, but once again there was none. It made you (the viewer) feel kind of like the marines, all prepared for the action, but never actually getting to see any. The cinematography was great. I like the acting, I was suprised to not be annoyed by Jake like I usually am. I don't know how anyone could think that Mendes is a one hit wonder, American Beauty was great, but Road to Perdition was a very good film too, and this one is quite good too. I liked that we got no insight into the life of the soldiers back home except for a few minute references. This movie really did a great job of sucking you in and making you feel like you were there. I was frustrated when the Marines were frustrated, etc. Pros: Paced well, Cinematography, Acting Cons: Might be a letdown for people expecting war action and the typical war movie themes of honor and dying for your country. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2005 18:02
|
|
|
totosushi posted:My favorite part was when they were in the smoke fields. There's one part right at the beginning of that part of the movie, where they have a bunch of marines digging ditches, there's fire and smoke billowing in the background, and there's just one marine standing with his rifle, sillhouetted like the others with dark orange and black in the background. You mean this scene? (grabbed from the trailer)  I really liked this movie as well. I didn't really go in expecting to see a movie about breathtaking infantry exploits because the Gulf War never really had any. I thought the way that they built up battle blueballs was well done. I would have preferred that the movie tied up the characters lives afterward but I understand why it wasn't (as the corps was their lives). 5.0
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2005 01:55
|
|
|
I just got back from watching Jarhead, and while I enjoyed it, I can understand why some people wouldn't like it. If you're expecting to see a "war movie", you aren't going to like it too much. (Forrest Gump probably had more action sequences). If you are going to see a story about a solider's experience in a modern day war, then you wont be too disappointed. I could jaw on about my opinions about the movie, and compare it to other stories I've heard, and talk about my experiences in the Navy, and how I related to the movie but I'd like to keep this short Pros: Not the typical "lol kill em all"  war movie. If not realistic, it was believeable. The expected preachy parts of the movie were pretty subtle.Cons: Slow moving at times. The ending was a little dry. Parts of the movie seemed rushed (especially the ending). I'm going to read the book, then I'll post my review in the book dump, and compare the two. I give it 3.5-4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2005 08:01
|
|
|
As most of what I would say has already been said, I think that a few things kept this from being an excellent movie- 1. Military innaccuracies. I wasn't really scanning for equipment fuckups, but I remember a few times in the basic training sequences that swofford used the word "I" in talking to his Drill Instructor. definitely a no-no. he would have been dropped the second it came out of his mouth if it were really Parris Island. he also uses "this recruit" a few times, and the inconsistency was confusing, to say the least. 2. complete lack of character sympathy. Mendes does a pretty terrible job developing sympathy for about half of the characters in the movie. the only ones we really come to know are Swofford and SSGT Sieks. the other characters, who he could have easily developed more, take the backseat, thus ruining his sappy sentimental ending with them walking in the desert. It's hard to relate to that when it seems that Swofford really didn't give a poo poo most of the time, and they only really come together once or twice during the movie. 3. Inconsistencies with the book. I feel that Mendes did well in removing a lot of Swofford's history, as that wouldn't have transition well to the screen, but there were a bunch of things I feel he should've kept. Explaining Troy's death would've been a good start. I don't remember a lot of it so well, but there were some scenes omitted and some added that just seemed like dead weight. Overall, I thought that if Mendes had worked harder to develop the characters and the overwhelming sense of frusturation, he would have had a much better movie. Still, he could've done way worse. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2005 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
This film was perfect. One of the best I've ever seen. Beautiful cinematography, and manages to be really funny most of the time. There were about 10 points during the movie where I wanted to stop it some-how, freeze frame, and grab the picture and make it into a poster I could put on my wall. Awesome. 5/5 Liface fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Nov 13, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2005 09:10
|
|