Jarhead

[squints]

I'm just going to cherish the awesome trailer with the Kanye West song...probably won't dish out the eight bucks to catch it on the big screen

[RegularKarate]

53%

Rotten Tomatoes is only helpful if it's really low (0-25%) or super high (85-100%)... in between it doesn't affect whether I'll like it or not... you just can't tell when it's in the mid-range.

[Ultrahip]

Check out www.metacritic.com , it's far superior to rotten tomatoes in that it doesn't include reviews from jim who lives with his mom and lives in his basement and writes movie reviews. it counts only reviews from legit to quasi-legit sources.

[picolas]

58%

[Kal]

Too bad cause it will all hurt the movie... but I guess we in here know better than judging a movie by some stupid reviews... we have our own reviews to give and most times we dont agree with critics

[The Red Vine]

I'll be seeing it regardless. Although it is kind of surprising it didn't do better with the critics (and they usually love Mendes). But Ebert gave it 3 1/2 stars (not sure whether that's a good thing though).

[Ghostboy]

You should ease up on the conjunctions.

[ShanghaiOrange]

Ebert's ratings have lost all meaning since he had a stroke.

[Ravi]

Ebert's ratings have lost all meaning since he had a stroke.

Four words:  Four stars for Crash


(though he probably would have liked it stroke or no stroke)

[cowboykurtis]

This quote is from A O SCOTT:

"Mr. Swofford's memoir, which has a churning, abrasive immediacy, has been subjected to the aloof aestheticism that is Mr. Mendes's hallmark. While it is not another lacquered, overpriced collectible in the manner of Mr. Mendes's "American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition," "Jarhead" is, in the end, similarly empty."

(the following comment doesn't pertain specifically to Jarhead, just an overall observation)

I've noticed that critcism of style over substance has become more and more prevelant in film criticism circles. Its almost as if critics hold it against filmmakers for putting energy into a films visual landscape, when they should be only concerned with servicing the story. Any distinct "visible" style is considered over-indulgent instead of a palapable thread of the film's fabric.

obviously films that are ONLY an excercise in aestheticsm garner just criticism - However, for instance, calling American Beauty a lacquered, overpriced collectible is going a bit far, if you ask me.

[grand theft sparrow]

Ebert's ratings have lost all meaning since he had a stroke.

Four words:  Four stars for Crash


(though he probably would have liked it stroke or no stroke)

Ravi, that is the most damning thing about Jarhead I have read so far.  I now fear the quality of this film.

[abuck1220]

after being called an asshole for liking crash, i hesitate to say that i liked this a lot.

there are quite a few war movie references/allusions, but i think that were intentional...not mendes just trying to rip shit off. i think it says a lot about what this generation thinks/knows about wars...interesting stuff. and for you c&c music factory fans out there...this is the movie for you.

[brockly]

asshole

[The Perineum Falcon]

I'm going to see this again on Sunday, simply because I promised another group I'd go with them first, but went ahead and saw it tonight.

I always do that.

Anyway, I didn't have too much of a problem with it upon my initial viewing.
I think the main problem people will have with this movie is that "nothing" really happens.
It did feel much longer than it really was.
But maybe that's all intentional, too.

I dunno, I always require a second viewing to form any sort of real opinion or stance on a film.
Or I'll just wait and agree with what everyone else thinks.

Or maybe Xixax already knows.

[Gold Trumpet]

I've noticed that critcism of style over substance has become more and more prevelant in film criticism circles. Its almost as if critics hold it against filmmakers for putting energy into a films visual landscape, when they should be only concerned with servicing the story. Any distinct "visible" style is considered over-indulgent instead of a palapable thread of the film's fabric.

obviously films that are ONLY an excercise in aestheticsm garner just criticism - However, for instance, calling American Beauty a lacquered, overpriced collectible is going a bit far, if you ask me.

When critics do attack films for style, they are only forewarning everyone else how easy it can be for a filmmaker, in search of a story, to fall back on the 'cinematic' - style tricks, cute camera shots, beautiful sets - to duplicate for depth of story, emotion and ideas. To search for a thought provoking story that can stand up to all the novels, plays, poetry, epics ever written and also be wholly tied to uniqueness of a film is really the harder task. Plus the job of understanding everything else that goes into a film and is tied to other disciplines. But, unique is the job of the modern day director, for he can get away with professionalism by having a history lesson in film stretching back to Star Wars and a lesson in all other arts nowhere even near that. Then imagine the work that prescribes those of most other arts. The serious novelist doesn't have Harry Potter standing at the doorway to what it means to be a writer, he has Joyce, Beckett, and Woolf lining up every book store. They are who he writes for and he has to find an identity that will be really worth 400 pages of ink. If I really want to find the films that intimidate me to be better than every other aspiring filmmaker, I have to hope Criterion in the next ten years will release them. Or be thankful they already have. They still won't be shelved on Blockbuster where most film geeks will look. Most of the aspiring in film have no clue what it feels like to be intimidated to step foot in this field of art. So if critics are stepping on the toes of style in film today, they are only trying to help.

Still, every situation is circumstantial. Disagreement happens. The general truth is still there though.

I believe it to be true for Mendes. I'm not convinced American Beauty was the work of maturity. Its suburban family crisis ran through every cliche and can only be memorable for the cohesion of style to badly developed characters and plot. It was almost filmed with the tone and look of irreverence reminiscent of The Coen Brothers or Kubrick, but its drama was really straight laced. It believe that it was storytelling characters first. All it really was was a new hot shot director thinking he had the grail to filmmaking by taking a story we all knew and plotting it through his camera. Never once did he stop to see if the story really rang true or was even interesting. The film just looked fucking gorgeous.

With Jarhead, it continues. Worst, Mendes is dealing with one of the dumbest subjects on celluloid today: Modern War. Every filmmaker is an activist and every filmmaker wants to say something. Most of the times they forget to make a thoughtful and cohesive piece of work. While Jarhead again looks great, it shifts and turns from political issue to irony to dramatic moment and right back to a political issue.  Never once does one of these traits really pop up to develop a thread that is even remotely interesting. The scenes don't even feel connected. They feel lifted from other films. Funny, the marines go nuts over an Apocalypse Now Screening. There is a mild understanding about the fate of the soldier overseas in war in the isolation from his family and isolation in being in a foreign land. There are assumptions about what problems would arise. Where Jarhead could have really detailed an experience to transcend assumption, it just reports the assumptions like a glossy article.

For a shocking reaction, the prettiness in Jarhead didn't even keep my interest. I was actually bored much of the film. Comment on actors are mixed. I'm tired of writing now.