Xixax Film Forum

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages%2Fjarhead-poster.jpg&hash=74638d99a88fa729ac074bf352aa982eb09aa7e8)

What reviewers review line is that on the poster? Knowles?

Quote from: StefenWhat reviewers review line is that on the poster? Knowles?

i think that's the tagline.

and it's sort of stolen from FMJ: In Vietnam The Wind Doesn't Blow It Sucks

Quote from: Pubricki think that's the tagline.

or an unused/future banner

so far mendes doesnt know how to fuck up a film...so, i owe him to see this on opening day......i am not all that excited b/c jamie foxx is ghey and jake gylehnhanllel is a loser......but sarsgaard and cooper own........

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Funiversal_pictures%2Fjarhead%2Fjake_gyllenhaal%2Fjarhead1.jpg&hash=535742fcf47b8fdc7e95581be5192dbcfaf677d8)

Trailer here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1374069&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300)

Release Date: November 4th, 2005 (wide)

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal (Anthony Swofford), Jamie Foxx (Sgt. Siek), Peter Sarsgaard (Troy), Chris Cooper (Lt Col Kazinski), Lucas Black (Kuhn), Brian Geraghty (Fergus), Travis Aaron (Payne), Laz Alonso (Escobar), Evan Jones (Fowler), Travis Aaron (Payne), Peter Gail (Doc John), Ivan Fenyo, Jacob Vargas

Director: Sam Mendes (Road to Perdition, American Beauty)

Screenwriter: William Broyles (The Polar Express, Cast Away)

Based Upon: Based on the book "Jarhead : A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles" by Anthony Swofford, a memoir of Operation Desert Storm.

Premise: Jarhead (the self-imposed moniker of the Marines) follows "Swoff" (Gyllenhaal), a third-generation enlistee, from a sobering stint in boot camp to active duty, sporting a sniper's rifle and a hundred-pound ruck on his back through Middle East deserts with no cover from intolerable heat or from Iraqi soldiers, always potentially just over the next horizon. Swoff and his fellow Marines sustain themselves with sardonic humanity and wicked comedy on blazing desert fields in a country they don't understand against an enemy they can't see for a cause they don't fully fathom. Foxx portrays Sergeant Sykes, a Marine lifer who heads up Swofford's scout/sniper platoon, while Sarsgaard is Swoff's friend and mentor, Troy, a die-hard member of STA-their elite Marine Unit.

was anybody else laughing during this trailer?

Right on, ive been waiting for someone to properly film those flame gysers (not sure what they're actually called) Look like Mendes did a good job.

What were they thinking with the music? Kanye is good and all, but it really didn't fit for me.  Yeah, it's only a trailer, but umm ewww.

Why didn't they go with something from the early 90s?

yeah the rap is sort of bad in the trailer but this will still rule.

I've noticed trailers aren't very indicative of the quality of the movie.

I thought the song fit well... rythmically at least...

Picking something from the 90s would have been too predictable.

the only proper place kanye belongs to is the trailer.  his songs suck.
but I predict the film will contain more or less the same predictable indictments against the war but to double back on you with sincerity in the end, if american beauty was any indication.

only one question remains: can roger deakins save his ass?

Quote from: Pubrickonly one question remains: can roger deakins save his ass?

Mendes' Ass?

I dont think it needs saving but a few of the shots in the trailer are some of the best scope compositions I've seen for a while.

Welcome to the suck. As in Jake Gylenhall whatever. What has that bozo done to warrant being a movie star? He should be doing soaps.

I didn't care for American Beauty too much. Well, I did when I was younger, but then I grew up and it's just a kind of comedy to me. I had never seen a movie about how bad the upperclass has it.

Wait and see I guess.

Quote from: ®edlum

Quote from: Pubrickonly one question remains: can roger deakins save his ass?

Mendes' Ass?

yes, in the same way conrad hall elevated his previous works above boring.

eh, he's got winslet, so he already won.

I heard Conrad Hall is buried with the best director oscar for american beauty.

Quote from: StefenI heard Conrad Hall is buried with the best director oscar for american beauty.

Ouch.  I hear he's right next to Robert Surtees with his best director oscar for The Graduate.

Quote from: killafilm

Quote from: StefenI heard Conrad Hall is buried with the best director oscar for american beauty.

Ouch.  I hear he's right next to Robert Surtees with his best director oscar for The Graduate.

*head explodes*

...

*brains drip down wall slowly*

Unsentimental journey
"Jarhead" delivers a war story of brutality, anger, survival — and ambivalence, which was Hollywood's first reaction to the project. Source: Los Angeles Times
 
It has been raining in the desert, an inky drizzle of oil from a burning well nearby. The sand is black with puddles of oil and carbonized Iraqi corpses. A squadron of Desert Storm-era Marines sweat and curse, digging holes in the sand for a bivouac. One of them sees a fellow Marine on a rise, poking at something in the ground. "What's Fowler doing digging way up there?" he asks. Another Marine answers, "He ain't digging."

Fowler is mutilating a dead Iraqi. His buddy is furious. He pulls a poncho around the corpse and starts to drag it away. "There's lots more crispy critters here," Fowler growls. "I'll get as many as I want!" The Marine replies, "You won't get this one."

It is 1991, the dying days of the Gulf War. It was a war that did not end all wars, a war fought by thousands of Marines, including Anthony Swofford, whose 2003 memoir, "Jarhead," offers a scathing chronicle of the loneliness and brutality of modern warfare. Though the book was initially considered untouchable for Hollywood, its tone too acerbic in the patriotic wake of 9/11, "Jarhead" has now been transformed into a film whose pedigree drips with Academy Award associations.

Due out Nov. 4, it was directed by Oscar-winning filmmaker Sam Mendes and written by William Broyles Jr., an award-winning journalist turned screenwriter ("Cast Away") who was himself a Marine in Vietnam. The film has a host of gifted young actors, including Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays Swofford, "Ray" Oscar winner Jamie Foxx, and Peter Sarsgaard. It remains to be seen whether America is ready for a movie that will inevitably make it face questions about the current war in Iraq.

Even though most of the film was shot outside El Centro in the Imperial Valley, with the desert doubling for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, today's Iraqi corpse scene is filming on a Universal soundstage, the desert proving too hostile an environment for a nighttime sequence with sand and oil fires. As it is, the actors are practically unrecognizable, their faces streaked with a vile black syrup as if they'd just finished a frat fight with 40-weight motor oil.

"It's actually a mixture of molasses, food filler and black food dye," explains Gyllenhaal, who, having hit the weight room and had his hair shorn, barely resembles the scruffy oddball of such indie films as "Donnie Darko" and "The Good Girl." He grimaces.

The actors have been through the wringer, lugging heavy backpacks in the heat, drenched with a rain machine on cold nights, but they rarely complain. "Being out in the elements, wearing all this equipment, takes your mind off the acting," Sarsgaard says dryly. "It's great not having to think about your hair or your clothes.... You never worry, 'Do I look good?' "

With their jarhead 'dos, even these famous faces look strikingly similar, which of course is the whole point — in the military, no one has special privileges. Foxx, who plays a sergeant in charge of Swofford's scout sniper platoon, says that before filming began, he spoke with a friend in the Marines. "He's African American, so he's always had to work harder and be sharper," says Foxx. "But he said once you become a Marine, that's your family. There's no color except the color of your uniform. You'd never survive without the camaraderie."

In recent years we have seen war movies of all kinds, from "Saving Private Ryan" to "Black Hawk Down" to "We Were Soldiers." But "Jarhead" is a very different kind of movie, one in which the war is always over the next berm, just out of sight. If it has a point of view about the conflict, or its origins, it isn't showing its hand. Swofford's memoir bristles with anger and raw emotion; the movie is just as vivid but more ambivalent, contemplative one moment, irreverent and profane the next.

"If I felt I understood the essential mystery of war, I'd write it down in an article," says Mendes, whose other films, "American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition," are also filled with elusive characters. His work is marked by contradictions. In "Road to Perdition," for example, Tom Hanks is a morally ambiguous hero, both a hit man and a father protecting his son, leaving us as unsettled and unsure of our feelings as we are about the men portrayed in "Jarhead."

"You don't want to make a movie that has a thesis to propound," Mendes says. "You want to go on a journey. If this film leaves you with questions, you could say the same about 'Apocalypse Now' or 'Saving Private Ryan.' It's always a struggle to understand what war means."

Self-assured without being arrogant, erudite but hardly an egghead, the director can speak persuasively about everything from cricket to "Troilus and Cressida." Having made a film with no conventional narrative, Mendes finds himself thinking of Chekhov. "His plays are all about waiting and boredom — he was the master of making something out of nothing," says the 40-year-old filmmaker, who spent years as a London theater director before making his movie debut with "American Beauty." "And that's a key to this film. I loved that it didn't offer any catharsis. You don't get your rocks off. It's a war movie in which the hero doesn't fire his rifle."

MIRRORING REALITY

"Jarhead" arrives at a time when America is mired in Iraq. It is a war that has divided the country and left nearly 1,900 soldiers dead and 13,000 wounded. The flag-waving exultation of the early victories has been replaced by widespread grief, anger and frustration, both here and in Iraq, which is bedeviled by a lethal insurgency. Even though "Jarhead" focuses on the earlier Gulf War, critics will inevitably draw parallels to the current conflict, just as "MASH" was seen as a mocking satire of Vietnam when it was released in 1970, though it was set during the Korean War. However, "Jarhead" offers such an evenhanded look at Swofford's wartime experience that those wanting a devastating indictment or a stirring tribute may find themselves disappointed.

Mendes says that when he began work on the film, "People would say, 'Ooh, you're doing something dangerous!' And I'd answer, 'What's dangerous about making a film about this country's real-life experiences?' As a European, I was shocked how little actual debate you heard here about what was going on in Iraq. When we were in the desert, I'd get USA Today at my door, with pictures of Marines in Iraq today. At the set, someone would say, 'Did you see the cover of USA Today?' And I'd go, 'Yeah, it looked exactly like the shot we did yesterday.' "

If "Jarhead" is crammed with contradictions, it is an apt reflection of its creative team's own ambivalence. The film's young stars, for example, are largely the kind of guys you'd meet at a peace march, yet they are fierce admirers of the soldiers doing the fighting. Broyles has been a critic of the war, yet he fought in Vietnam and has a son serving in the Air Force in Iraq. Mendes opposed the invasion of Iraq but supported America's invasion of Afghanistan. The director says he had eight Marine advisors on the film; all voted Republican, "but very few of them felt it was right for us to be in Iraq."

For Mendes, the Middle East is a complex political landscape, not open to simple answers. "It would be easy for anyone who hasn't seen the movie to imagine it as disrespectful of the Marines, but it's quite the opposite. It's a hymn to their resilience and tenacity. It's not pro-war or antiwar. It's one man's version of this war."

If anyone has seen his beliefs challenged by the experience of making the film, it's Gyllenhaal, who plays a scout sniper trained to take out distant targets with a .50-caliber sniper rifle. Talk about casting against type. The actor grew up in what he calls a "super-liberal antiwar family." His sister, the actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, was recently under attack after saying that the United States was "responsible in some way" for the 2001 terror attacks. Gyllenhaal says his mother "freaked out" when he got his hair cut for "Jarhead."

"She went, 'Oh, my God, what happened to my son?" he says with a laugh. "My dad forced her to hold her breath talking about the war while I'm doing this movie." Gyllenhaal's image of the Marines has been transformed since he took the role. "I'm in awe of what they do," he says. "These guys are no older than me, and they're choosing to go to Iraq and give their lives. I mean, I'm their age, and I don't even know who I am yet. I really wonder if I could handle what they go through."

UNWELCOME CANDOR

The initial Hollywood reaction to "Jarhead" was resounding disinterest. ICM agent Ron Bernstein sent the manuscript to the town's top book buyers, who all promptly passed. It was fall 2002, barely a year after the9/11 attacks, a time when a caustic memoir about the Gulf War fell on profoundly deaf ears. "The response was icy cold," recalls Bernstein. "Nobody wanted to touch it because no one wanted to see anything critical of the military." Even after publication in March 2003, when the book earned rave reviews, industry reaction was, as Bernstein put it, "all smoke, no fire."

However, the book found a pair of admirers in Douglas Wick and Lucy Fisher, producers of the upcoming "Memoirs of a Geisha." They knew that the best way to get a studio interested was to recruit high-profile collaborators, so they sent the book to Broyles, who earned an Oscar nomination for his work on "Apollo 13." With a son already in Iraq, the ex-Marine felt a deep kinship with Swofford's story. "I probably did it because I couldn't bear to have anyone else do it," he recalls.

Although Broyles' script retains many scenes from the book, it radically reshapes the story, putting it in chronological order and focusing on Swofford's Gulf War experience, jettisoning most of his family relationships and his traumatic postwar readjustment. Because Wick and Fisher have a deal with Sony, they took the script there first. When Sony passed, they went to Universal, which bought it right away. Wick recalls being especially nervous about sending the script out to directors. "It was scary because you really needed someone who would get the black humor but not turn it into a comedy."

When the producers heard that Mendes was available — he was actually bidding against them on a spec script at the time — Wick sent him the book. "I'm one of these people who saw 'Three Kings' and thought, 'Well, that's all the juice you can squeeze out of that conflict,' " he explains. "But reading Tony's book, I was fascinated by him — was he a true professional soldier or the ultimate anti-soldier? Were these grunts the victims or the aggressors?"

Mendes and Broyles worked for months on innumerable drafts of the script. Broyles' Vietnam background did not go unmined. One day Mendes asked the writer what Marines had called napalmed corpses. "Crispy critters," Broyles replied. Mendes practically jumped out of his chair, exclaiming, "Oh! You've got to put that in." The men were still tinkering with the film's ending in late August. "Sam was a joy," says Broyles. "The directors I like working with are the ones who aren't completely satisfied. Sam isn't proprietary at all about ideas. If it's a good idea, he doesn't care where it comes from."

With Mendes at the helm, the film had its pick of the town's best young acting talent. Gyllenhaal was dying to play Swofford but had to endure months of characteristic ambivalence from Mendes. When the actor first read for the director, he thought he'd blown the audition. "I knew it was bad because he didn't talk to me for four months," Gyllenhaal says.

When he heard through the grapevine that Mendes was meeting with other actors, he called at 2 a.m. and left the director a message, the desperation clear in his voice. "I said, 'I'm willing to vomit in the sand, I'll do whatever you want me to do, but I'm the guy to be in this movie!' " Gyllenhaal groans. "He never called me back!" A month later, Mendes told him he had the part.

Broyles and Mendes had met with Swofford to obtain information about Marine armament and training techniques. Just before filming began, Mendes set up a lunch with Gyllenhaal and Swofford. It was an awkward moment. "I panicked," Gyllenhaal recalls. "It played on all my fears about being an L.A. kid from Harvard-Westlake. I kept thinking: 'I don't look like him. I don't act like him. Maybe they should've cast someone else in the part.' I barely said a word."

Once the rest of the cast was assembled and the filmmakers had $60 million from Universal Pictures, they went off to shoot.

Mendes loved the desert. "The absolute flatness is amazing. It's very Zen-like — there's something psychologically cleansing about it." But he admits that it presented its own special challenges. "We all went a little crazy out there. You have an entirely blank environment, so you can't say, 'Let's set up next to that tree,' because, of course, there's no trees at all. And then there's the whole idea of communications. I said to [cinematographer] Roger Deakins, 'How on earth did David Lean ever do "Lawrence of Arabia" without cellphones?' "

TWO MEN, TWO WARS

Broyles and Swofford were both Marines, but their wars were very different. "Tony's generation had a more clear sense of purpose," says Broyles. "For whatever reason, they all wanted to be there. We were drafted. And by the time I got there, in 1969, we had no idea what we were there for."

What both men agree on — and what they've both written movingly about — is how much they miss their guns. "When I got back from Vietnam, I missed having my weapon," Broyles says. "There's some kind of primal connection you have with your rifle. It's like a cowboy and his horse. You take the cowboy off his horse and he still walks bowlegged because they are one thing, just like you and your rifle."

In 1984, Broyles wrote an eloquent essay for Esquire magazine, "Why Men Love War." As he put it then: "That's why, when we returned from Vietnam, we moped around, listless, not interested in anything or anyone. Something had gone out of our lives forever, and our behavior on returning was inexplicable except as the behavior of men who had lost a great — perhaps the great — love of their lives, and had no way to tell anyone about it."

In many ways, that sense of experiencing something horrible and exhilarating, which few people outside your insular world will ever truly understand, is what "Jarhead" is about. War, even the monotonous preparation for war, is filled with such a primal intensity that everything afterward pales by comparison. It's why in his memoir Swofford contends that Vietnam-era films are "all pro-war, no matter what the supposed message Kubrick or Coppola or Stone intended." While civilians and parents watch those films and weep, the men who go to war see those same films "and are excited by them, because the magic brutality of the films celebrates the terrible and despicable beauty of their fighting skills."

All through filming, Mendes and the actors were constantly asked if they were making an antiwar film. Everyone wrestled with an answer. "I always said, 'Well, there aren't many pro-war movies,' " explains Sarsgaard. "I think this story taps into our subconscious idea of who we are as a country and what our ideals are. And in some ways, what we feel in our dreams is probably a lot more important than what we think about our country in our conscious minds."

Of course, moviegoers aren't usually on such an exalted plane when they make their decisions about what to see on Friday night. It's an open question, even if "Jarhead" earns respectful reviews, whether Americans who have paid so little attention to the messy events in Iraq will want to experience a film that offers such an unsentimental portrait of men going off to war.

"Look, when we decided to make this movie we were all aware that people were turning a blind eye to the war — all they wanted to do was watch 'American Idol,' " says Universal Pictures chairman Stacey Snider. "But we always believed that Sam and his creative partners could do something great with this material. In recent months it feels like people are starting to engage. It's not just the pundits and the bloggers — people seem to be spending a lot more time reading the front pages. And you always want to believe that if a great movie comes along, you'll find a way to get people not to turn away."

As in Swofford's memoir, there is no neatly wrapped finale in the film, no momentous victory, no bitter defeat. For Broyles, who says that until his son comes home he is terrified every time his phone rings late at night, this is as it should be. "Our story is unromantic and apolitical. It's about young men who join the Marine Corps trying to find a place for themselves in life. And all I want is for the audience to feel what those young men feel."

Theatrical Trailer Here: http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/jarhead/

Still has Kanye, at least we get a little glimpse at Sarsgaard this time around.

'Jarhead' director Mendes examines war's human cost

He shattered the facade of U.S. suburbia, peered into the soul of a Chicago hitman and in his new movie, "Jarhead," British director Sam Mendes is again examining an American subject -- U.S. Marines fighting in the 1991 Gulf War.

But don't expect the Oscar-winning filmmaker to skewer U.S. policy like Michael Moore's election-year documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" or shine a light on the absurdity of the Gulf War as in David O. Russell's 1999 film "Three Kings."

Mendes, 40, focuses on the fighting men, how they got there and what happened to them after they landed in the vast desert. As he did in 1999's "American Beauty" and 2002's "Road to Perdition," he explores complex thoughts and competing ideals in "Jarhead" which opens on Friday in the United States.

So moviegoers looking for a strong point-of-view on why U.S. soldiers were sent to fight in the Gulf War or, by extension, to the current battlefields in Iraq should search beyond "Jarhead."

"People will come to this movie thinking, 'Please, give me a way of treating this conflict,' and I think it would wrong of me to pretend the movie gave them an answer," he told Reuters. "What it does is make them understand the questions a bit better. What movies can do is humanize it."

Mendes' storytelling wowed audiences in "American Beauty," which earned five Oscars including best film and best director. "Perdition" earned one for Oscar cinematography, and "Jarhead" is among the must-see movies in this year's awards race,

But being considered among the best U.S. films will require good reviews and crowds at box offices, and the jury is out on whether audiences want to see a movie about war when the nation and its allies, including Britain, are in one.

"I'd like to think there's a huge interest out there because it's part of our daily life," Mendes said.

20 AND TROUBLED

"Jarhead" is based on Anthony Swofford's best-selling book about his experience as a 20-year-old marine sniper who was sent to fight in Kuwait and ultimately became conflicted over his role there.

Swofford, portrayed in the film by Jake Gyllenhaal, is as drawn to the targets in the scope of his high-powered rifle as he is to the writings of French thinker Albert Camus.

He is trained to kill and eager for action, but boredom is all that awaits him as U.S. planes pound Iraqis from overhead.

"What the film does that's most important ... is it opens up that world to people who don't know it," said Swofford.

Mendes said Swofford's book surprised him with the details about the soldiers' lives: playing football in chemical suits, putting on demonstrations for television news crews, watching "Apocalypse Now" and cheering the anti-war film.

When troops finally advanced into Kuwait, they found charred bodies, smoke-filled skies and black oil raining down from sabotaged wells. "Weird, surreal images all in this empty space," Mendes called them.

Visual imagery has become a trademark of Mendes' films. His fans will remember the falling rose petals of "Beauty" and the incessant rain in "Perdition."

Mendes captures the Marines' wartime isolation through a film bleaching process that makes colors seem bland and blurs images on the edge of the main action.

UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE

"Jarhead" focuses on U.S. Marines, but the experiences of soldiers at war is universal, Mendes said. British, Spanish or any troops could have been affected in the same way.

Still, "Jarhead" is about everyday Americans, as was "Beauty" and "Perdition," and Mendes is at a loss to explain exactly why his only three movies have touched so deeply on U.S. cultural experience.

He hails from Reading, England, and went to Cambridge University. His career began in the British theater and from 1992 to 2002, he was artistic director for the Donmar Warehouse theater in London.

Mendes was responsible for the revival of "Cabaret," which updated the 1970s musical about pre-World War Two Berlin for 1990s audiences. "Cabaret" won four Tony Awards, Broadway's equivalent of the Oscars, and for Mendes it captured the eyes of Hollywood.

"Jarhead" is the director's first film after taking 2-1/2 years off during which he married and had a child with his wife, actress Kate Winslet.

"I wanted to stop. I felt a bit barren. I was working because that's what I did, as opposed to being passionate about what I was doing," Mendes said. But the passion has come back, and "Jarhead" is the result.

Quote from: 72fangsRight on, ive been waiting for someone to properly film those flame gysers (not sure what they're actually called) Look like Mendes did a good job.

You should see Herzog's Lessons of Darkness, ooh rah!

Just saw a pre-screening of Jarhead.

All I have to say is the similarities to Full Metal Jacket are shameless.

Quote from: cowboykurtisJust saw a pre-screening of Jarhead.

All I have to say is the similarities to Full Metal Jacket are shameless.

From Entertainment Weekly:

But Mendes remains well aware that he's far from a pioneer in picturing boot-camp and desert-outpost life as a sort of surreal fantasia. Stanley Kubrick, for one, got there long before him, turning actor R. Lee Ermey into the archetypal drill instructor from hell for 1987's Full Metal Jacket. And as if to remind Mendes just how well-trod a path he'd picked for himself, Ermey sent the director a little gift shortly before he started shooting Jarhead, seemingly as a genuine goodwill gesture. ''I got this package,'' Mendes says. ''It said, 'Compliments of R. Lee Ermey. Good luck.' And inside was an R. Lee Ermey doll. He has patented himself, bless him.''

Mendes maintains he wasn't intimidated by Kubrick's ghost. ''Nobody can compete with those Full Metal Jacket scenes,'' he says. ''All you can do is shoot it your own way.'' And in fact, in a shrewd offensive move, Jarhead deliberately stokes war-movie memories, referencing Jacket with an insane drill instructor (played by Scott MacDonald) spouting baroque obscenities at the start of the picture. The film also salutes the ''Ride of the Valkyries'' scene in Apocalypse Now, which the Marine grunts use in a creepily pornographic way to amp up their bloodlust — just as they do in Swofford's book. (Giant irony: Walter Murch, who coedited Apocalypse and shared an Oscar for its sound design, also edited Jarhead.)

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: cowboykurtisJust saw a pre-screening of Jarhead.

All I have to say is the similarities to Full Metal Jacket are shameless.

Mendes maintains he wasn't intimidated by Kubrick's ghost.

He should've been -

There's that saying - if you're going to re-do something, do it better.

He fails at the attempt.

So...should i see this tomorrow?

Quote from: squintsSo...should i see this tomorrow?

uh.. do u want to?

53% (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jarhead/)

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

Quote from: picolas53% (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jarhead/)

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.

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.

58% (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/jarhead)

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

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).

You should ease up on the conjunctions.

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

Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeEbert'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)

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.

Quote from: Ravi

Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeEbert'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.

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.

asshole

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. :oops:

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.:wink:

Or maybe Xixax already knows. :shock:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa369%2Franemaka13%2Fxixax01.jpg&hash=8af819d0144ae7089f78c25db49677d681188fef)

Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 04, 2005, 02:13:14 PMI'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.

Just got back from this. It was one of the worst screenings I've ever been to. I had to sit in the very front row cuz the theater was packed with college kids. And they just had to laugh at every other line that was spoken.

Anyways, a decent movie. A disappointment considering it's from Mendes. I thought it was gonna be great while watching the opening scenes. But it gets too soft later in the movie. And by soft I mean no bite, not gripping, not emotional, etc... A lot of it was pretty shallow with the exception of one great scene with Peter Sarsgaard.

It has some nice camera work and good performances across the board. But overall I felt like it was just another war movie that doesn't have anything really new to say. It's a little more unusual than most of the recent war movies, but I can see why it's getting some negative reviews.

i feel like the movie allusions were there to make an interesting point. all this generation knows about wars is what they see in the movies. and modern wars are nothing like 'movie' wars and because of that there's less movie-style heroism, dramatics, etc. for one thing, wars aren't fought in a way conducive to producing john wayne-ish heroes...they're fought w/ robots, computers, missles and the like, so nobody's running around killing 100 redcoats w/ bayonets or anything. secondly, and i don't mean to offend anyone, wars today aren't fought for the same reason they used to be fought for...america's independence, stopping nazism, preventing the country from falling apart, etc. sorry, but fighting to save kuwait isn't the same as fighting to save america. and that's not taking anything away from people serving now, but the end results of earlier wars are certainly different, and probably more history book (and celluloid) worthy.

to me, the movie references were there to say, not that the war movie is a dead genre, but that there won't be any more wars worthy of putting on film...at least not in the traditional gung ho, john wayne, green berets kind of way. or maybe i just read into it a little too much...

A lot of the bad reviews for this seem to say that the movie refuses to engage its own point of view or something...I have to disagree and say that Jarhead nails its point home, that war is awful for soldiers and those around them no matter what...how profound or resonant or whatever that point is, is debatable and lies in the eye of the beholder, but that's the point of Jarhead, and it is made clearly and, to me, rather powerfully.

The scene with the horse (yes, my avatar) was overwhelming, beautiful, stunning.

While I was watching the film, I felt that it was missing something.  It seemed to not go far enough.  Yet, while I was leaving the theatre, I like Jarhead more and more.  I think the film benefits by not going far enough and letting itself be a little more subtle.  I think, a la History of Violence, this film will appeal to both left and right.  Depending on your idealogy, you will get something different out of it.  In the end, I think it showed me a) why I would never want to be in the military b) why I understand why people enjoy the military.

Saw This Last Night and other than the ovious comparisons to Full Metal Jacket It was just really fantastic and maybe I'm jumping the gun but sarrasguard might be up for an oscar for supporting actor.

Quote from: RedVines on November 05, 2005, 12:27:38 AMA disappointment considering it's from Mendes. I thought it was gonna be great.  It has some nice camera work and good performances across the board. But I can see why it's getting some negative reviews.

(This new format is really fucking with me.)

Saw this last night.  Liked it a lot.  My girlfriend liked it as well, so I hope this means that it'll be easier for me to get her to sit down and watch Full Metal Jacket and Three Kings now. 

I didn't think that the story was lacking in terms of keeping the audience interested but it didn't quite go where I was expecting, which wasn't all bad.  In fact, I have to give it credit for taking great care to avoid a lot of war movie cliches.  Even little subtle things like Swoff not putting his girlfriend's picture on the wall of shame, even though it was established.  That and the fact that it wasn't an outright blast of the current Bush administration and war was actually a bolder move than trying to use it as a commentary on what's going on now.  It lets the audience bring to the film how they already feel about things rather than use it as a platform to say how shittily things are going this time around; this more than anything else is probably why the reviews are so split.

But Thomas Newman's emotionally dictating score didn't work at all.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 12:18:17 AM

So if critics are stepping on the toes of style in film today, they are only trying to help.

The viewer or filmmaker?

Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 05, 2005, 01:08:15 PM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 12:18:17 AM

So if critics are stepping on the toes of style in film today, they are only trying to help.

The viewer or filmmaker?

both, of course.

Based on the mixed reviews by a lot of you, I'll probably be sitting this one out.   

Well written, GT.  I pretty much hated Road to Perdition except for the way it looked.   Don't know if I agree about American Beauty, but I certainly see where your coming from.   

what's to hate about Perdition?

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 01:15:53 PM

Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 05, 2005, 01:08:15 PM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 12:18:17 AM

So if critics are stepping on the toes of style in film today, they are only trying to help.

The viewer or filmmaker?

both, of course.

i think you give film critics a little too much credit (maybe becuase you fancy yourself one?) 

by the opinions expressed, it seems your afinitiy lies with critcs, while mine leans towards filmmakers - your response to my previous post really didn't adress the topic - I clearly noted that films of no substance were justly criticized. I don't believe one can say American Beuaty has no substanative characters/ideas - Its an easy target because of the praise it garnered - Which usually seems to open the door for unwarranted criticism.

Your post went off on a tangent which was overwrought with psuedo intellecutual/masterbatory thoughts which never provided much insight to the topic - this is the same problem I have with most critics, who seem to be spiteful (yet intelligent), failed "artists" at best.

Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 05, 2005, 02:56:40 PM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 01:15:53 PM

Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 05, 2005, 01:08:15 PM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 12:18:17 AM

So if critics are stepping on the toes of style in film today, they are only trying to help.

The viewer or filmmaker?

both, of course.

i think you give film critics a little too much credit (maybe becuase you fancy yourself one?) 

by the opinions expressed, it seems your afinitiy lies with critcs, while mine leans towards filmmakers - your response to my previous post really didn't adress the topic - I clearly noted that films of no substance were justly criticized. I don't believe one can say American Beuaty has no substanative characters/ideas - Its an easy target because of the praise it garnered - Which usually seems to open the door for unwarranted criticism.

Your post went off on a tangent which was overwrought with psuedo intellecutual/masterbatory thoughts which never provided much insight to the topic - this is the same problem I have with most critics, who seem to be spiteful (yet intelligent), failed "artists" at best.

I answered your post quite fine. First, I spoke generally about the problem of style in films today. Then I said every situation is circumstantial, but a general truth prevails. And then I explained why I thought American Beauty was justly criticized. Where is your defense of American Beauty? I really have no problem with the opposite opinion. I actually love it, but try to explain yourself more.

Does my affinity lie with critics? For the most part, yes. My problem is that many people who aspire to be filmmakers resent critics for never really good reasons. It is true many critics cannot provide insight into the process of filmmaking, but they also are not writing technical journals on how to do so either. It is forgotten film is an art with a history that should be applied to commenting on current films. Criticism is a form of literature. Oscar Wilde once commented it was the harder task to the artist. He said while the artist only has to think of their work, the critic has to think of the work and life around them. I don't necessarily want to make judgments like that, but it should lend some legitimacy to criticism, which I think is out there to help the aspiring filmmaker. Its just many I know have no interest go there. I think it is insane. For me, making good films is the process of making films respectful of all that came before. The responsibility is to make a film that is as interesting as can be without imitating or short changing ideas already applied. You have to know your history to do that.

Do I want to be a critic when I grow up? Not really. I actually do aspire to be a filmmaker and yes, sometimes critics can make good filmmakers. Modern cinema was only created out of that situation.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 03:13:01 PM
making good films is the process of making films respectful of all that came before. The responsibility is to make a film that is as interesting as can be without imitating or short changing ideas already applied. You have to know your history to do that.

but see, a lot of critics make crap-ass statements like this... that a filmmaker has this responsibility to "make films that blah blah blah"... that's ridiculous... a filmmaker can certainly CHOOSE to do this, but a responsibility...   I like critics and criticism, but a good deal of critics are just the loudest upset customers.

What I said was harmless. The problem with criticis who do make over bearring quotes that sum up cinema, they always neglect corners of the film world. What I said was just for whatever film you make, just know the history of the films before that tried to do the similiar things.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 12:18:17 AM

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.

This statement just further solidifies much of my criticism on how one goes about criticizing.

Re-read this statement you wrote - "Never once did he stop to see if the story really rang true or was interesting..." Is that not an extremely ingorant assumption? You seem to be taking many iberties here. Do you think someone as studied and intelligent as Sam Mendes would not think twice about the story he's telling?

You criticize those who's film knowledge doesn't pre-date Star Wars. Same Mendes is probably one the most studied on art and literature of his generation. There are few directors in his peer group that are just as comfortable referencing Shakespeare as they are Scorsese.

You embrace the fact that critics have such a hard job becuase not only do they need to evaluate the film at hand, but countless other facets of information. I'd imagine any knowledge obtained about the culmination of this project, would seem to negate such a statement you made. For years Mendes had been sought after by studios, but waited for a project that interested him - He chose this project obviously becuase he saw an extremely unique persepective, that was palpable, entertaining, which resonated on a personal level to many different demographics. Speilberg saw the same - or he wouldnt have greenlit it. Speilberg was also the one who brought the project to Mendes - obviously respecting his knowledge, insight, talent. On top of the praise garnered by some of the film communities most respected assets, I don't think you can discredit the millions of people which made it not only a critical success, but financial one as well. And if a filmmakers job is to cuommunicate a story to an audience - the proof is in the numbers.

I think this film has become cheapened with time becuase its an easy target.  

Was it ground-breaking? No. Does every film have to be? No. Did it tell a visually elegant story with palpable characters, with a very satisfying take-away? Absolutely. Is your criticism a three-legged table? I think so.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 04:09:08 PM
What I said was harmless. The problem with criticis who do make over bearring quotes that sum up cinema, they always neglect corners of the film world. What I said was just for whatever film you make, just know the history of the films before that tried to do the similiar things.

Thanks for not hurting my eyes with that one.  But what about say, a film that maybe deals with a different subject?  Is it okay then for the filmmaker to borrow or how you put it: imitate or short change ideas already applied?  I won't breathe a word of Short Cuts and Magnolia (wait I just did) but an example would be was when I was watching Raging Bull the other night, and I was struck with how close Boogie Nights' ending is to it.  I know this example is a tired one, but what are thougts here?  Is P.T. being 'respectful' and 'responsible' when he 'rips off' these scenes?       

Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 05, 2005, 04:25:39 PMRe-read this statement you wrote - "Never once did he stop to see if the story really rang true or was interesting..." Is that not an extremely ingorant assumption? You seem to be taking many iberties here. Do you think someone as studied and intelligent as Sam Mendes would not think twice about the story he's telling?

That really was a bad sentence. I shouldn't have wrote it. It assumes I know what drove him. But my thought in essence still stands. Whatever the credentials of Sam Mendes are, the feeling that he settled in the story of American Beauty is still there. When I did say many filmmakers don't have historical references beyond Star Wars, I was not initially claiming Sam Mendes to be one of them. I was just claiming filmmakers can get away with not having having historical references beyond Star Wars.

You made a tidy summation of Mendes. Instead of arguing the worth of American Beauty, you argued against the harshness of my tone toward him as a filmmaker. That is fine. Considering the ambitions he has, I will still be tough. I'll just try next time to be a little more respectful. If you ever do want argue the finer points of his films, beautiful. Until then, you really have nothing to say which I which I can argue. My main points on criticism to film stands.

Quote from: POZER! on November 05, 2005, 04:55:47 PM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 05, 2005, 04:09:08 PM
What I said was harmless. The problem with criticis who do make over bearring quotes that sum up cinema, they always neglect corners of the film world. What I said was just for whatever film you make, just know the history of the films before that tried to do the similiar things.

Thanks for not hurting my eyes with that one.  But what about say, a film that maybe deals with a different subject.  Is it okay then for the filmmaker to borrow or how you put it: imitate or short change ideas already applied.  I won't breathe a word of Short Cuts and Magnolia (wait I just did) but an example would be was when I was watching Raging Bull the other night, and I was struck with how close Boogie Nights' ending is to it.  I know this example is a tired one, but what are thougts here?  Is P.T. being 'respectful' and 'responsible' when he 'rips off' these scenes?       

Both end similairily,  but what they imply for the characters are different. For as much as P.T. does borrow shots, he is able to construct a film of his own around them that the entire film isn't borrowing. It is just shots here and there. Orson Welles invented that act of borrowing with Citizen Kane.

I haven't seen Jarhead, but you wouldn't say Mendes' intentions weren't simply to join in on this act?

Quote from: POZER! on November 05, 2005, 05:14:22 PM
I haven't seen Jarhead, but you wouldn't say Mendes' intentions weren't simply to join in on this act?

*spoilers*
Mendes isn't simply borrowing shots or links to other endings, he is borrowing themes, filmmaking styles and storylines without ever connecting them to a whole identity. On one hand, you have Full Metal Jacket updated with the idea that war promises a false hope for an easy kill. Even a small link to Tigerland that shows characters fall by the way side during boot camp as they struggle to identify with a future of getting use to a normality of constant danger. (personal narrative by Gynlehaal closely resembles one of the main character in Tigerland) Then you have the connection to Apocalypse Now that details one soldier's descent as he goes further into Iraq and becomes disenfranchised with maniacal fellow soldiers and a rough environment. Then a connection to Three Kings on the comedy of modern warfare as soldiers find little to do and treat the new environment as a personal playground. Finally, there is the connection to The Deer Hunter as characters deal with the isolation from home and fear that once they get back, they will be too far gone to reassimiliate back to a normal life. The montage of seeing everyone doing normal jobs and Sarsgaard dying detail that.

This is all in the film. Connections are everywhere and not one theme is told to really stand out above the others. They all fluctuate at the same pace, popping up here and there. There is so little cohesion that it becomes a mess and tough to watch.

i absolutely agree with everything GT just said.

*spoilers*
also, it bothered me that they tried use the relationship with his girlfriend as an important plot device... the introduction to it with them fucking set the audience up not to think of it as emotionally important, and then we were expected to give  a shit when she cheats on him it later. she was introduced as a slut! 

overall, i thought that the movie completely lacked cohesion. visually, it was nice, but not much more than nice. i'd give it 4 out of 10 skulls.

edit: watching the movie, i felt like it was a two-hour trailer for another film with the same characters. there were all of these independent highlights of action revolving around a few characters that i didn't really have any background info about. even after two hours, i didn't have a clear idea of the whole story that they were trying to tell, but i was certainly interested in finding out what it was.

*spoiler* again
the horse scene reminded me of the wolf scene in Collateral

GT, there are only so many themes that war stories can/have explored during the history of literature and film.  I haven't seen the movie yet, but the fact that it doesn't necesarily have one idea that it tries to push forward doesn't seem necesarily like a bad thing.  it sounds kinda interesting. 

Quote from: JimmyGator on November 06, 2005, 03:32:02 PM
GT, there are only so many themes that war stories can/have explored during the history of literature and film.  I haven't seen the movie yet, but the fact that it doesn't necesarily have one idea that it tries to push forward doesn't seem necesarily like a bad thing.  it sounds kinda interesting. 

Multiple themes is one thing, but lack of cohesion and identity of narrative is another. Watch the film and watch how awkward the story structure is and how the film just drags as it has no ability to find a narrative.

I just saw this and I really really liked it.

I also think a lot of people are missing the point.  I think most of the references to Full Metal Jacket, etc... are intentially placed to show that not all wars are the same and things change, but not necessarily expectations.

SPOILERS

I also don't think this was a movie about "WAR", this was a movie about experiences during the Gulf War.  They point this out a lot.

As far as "nothing happening", that's partially the point.  My cousin was in the Gulf War and we corresponded a lot through letters.  What he told me was that they played a lot of football and waited around and it was what he thought it was going to be... it WASN'T Full Metal Jacket!!!  and the Full Metal Jacket references, again, help set up expectations to mirror the expectations that these people had about this war (like Kubrick did with the first half of FMJ).  How many thought that the sniper scene was going to end with a "Fucking Hard Core!" scene?  We expected to see a kill.. and we didn't... and there were different reactions to that.

My only complaint was the last voice over bit at the end, I didn't need that and thought it sounded like amateur high-school poetry.

Quote from: JimmyGator on November 06, 2005, 03:32:02 PM
GT, there are only so many themes that war stories can/have explored during the history of literature and film. 

Then it's unnecessary to keep making them.  Which is exactly the case with Jarhead.  Don't you hate when the trailer was so much better than the actual movie?  These themes have been explored and done so much better through the obvious films referenced.  Nothing happens here (nothing new at least) therefore, I feel nothing for the characters no matter how strong their performances may be.  The worst for me was the cliched squad.  Some of the film was indeed pretty, but the case that GT hit on is relevent through most of the film and is a complete turn off.
Best thing in the movie:  The use of Nirvana's Underneath the Bridge.
Worse thing about that:  I've wanted to use that song in a Richie Tenenbaum/Needle in the Hay type sequence I wrote.  Don't you hate when that happens?

Quote from: RegularKarate on November 06, 2005, 11:21:21 PM
I just saw this and I really really liked it.

I also think a lot of people are missing the point.  I think most of the references to Full Metal Jacket, etc... are intentially placed to show that not all wars are the same and things change, but not necessarily expectations.

agreed.  These kids have been pumped full of these images and ideas of war..both pro and anti-war and I think in the end, Jarhead shows that war actually lies in the middle.

Quote from: RegularKarate on November 06, 2005, 11:21:21 PM
I also think a lot of people are missing the point.  I think most of the references to Full Metal Jacket, etc... are intentially placed to show that not all wars are the same and things change, but not necessarily expectations.

May be a spoiler in here
Yes, but this was already touched on in Three Kings right?  I understand the way the sniper scene toward the end was handled to further this point and maybe the cliches were there for the same reason, but nonetheless, it's a point that's been made before.  Just because this film does it as a whole doesn't mean it has a larger impact on the subject.

I don't think I am out to take away from anyone's experience of what happened in the Gulf War, my point is in how the film was made. A film, any by that matter, is first a work or art or entertainment. This film was quite sloppily made, trying to find an ambilavence between the absurdity and the tragedy in War today. It did so in the elements of these soldier's lives, but instead of trying to find a narrative thread to bring together all the themes, it just kept hitting extremes in bunch of scenes thrown together. Never was a tone established, in my opinion. The film felt clunky, awkward, meandering and finally, boring.

The one thing I also hate to admit, I can't really evaluate the actors. The film was so awkwardly plotted it felt like they were just acting for the individual scene. Renee Zelwegger seems to do that, trying to monopolize dramatic tension as much as she can for every critical scene.

Also, much agreeance with Pozer on the inclusion of the Nirvana song. I even commented to my friend it was a perfect song for the scene.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 07, 2005, 01:32:34 AMNever was a tone established, in my opinion. The film felt clunky, awkward, meandering and finally, boring.

Except for the boring(which i never was) part I really think all of those factors HELP the movie.  They also remind me of how many would describe The Thin Red Line.  I've never been to war, nor do I think I'll ever go to war.  I found the movie to be a little more approachable for us civilians, at least to me, going back to clunky, awkward, and meandering... well that's my sad life right now.  I find it difficult to find fault in the structure when it's mostly/all autobiographical, I don't see how you blame Mendes? Maybe you should just blame Anthony Swofford for living.

Quote from: killafilm on November 07, 2005, 02:30:35 AMI find it difficult to find fault in the structure when it's mostly/all autobiographical, I don't see how you blame Mendes? Maybe you should just blame Anthony Swofford for living.

Uhmm.. how do I respond to that? I have no opinion of Anthony Swofford, just the interpretation of his life and book by someone not him.

First, you misinterpret The Thin Red Line. For how meandering and without focus on a single story it is, it does have a tone. Whatever quality we believe the film to have, every element of that film comes from the identity of a naturally flowing narrative through out the film.

See, Jarhead has none. I think the filmmakers attempted to have a tone, but never really got to one. Yet it really did follow one character. The problem is that it was trying to make points way beyond the ability of telling it through one character so the film drifted to other characters and thus compromised our identification with the main character. Details about his life were skirted in cute voice over narrative and never elaborated on through action. By the time he got into the Gulf War, for the first hour his character and every other became a filler for every topical situation one could discern from the Gulf War. Then when the narrative slowed down, it never became interesting. It was flat the entire way through.

it was Something In The Way, not Under The Bridge though.  :-D

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 07, 2005, 02:48:48 AMFirst, you misinterpret The Thin Red Line. For how meandering and without focus on a single story it is, it does have a tone. Whatever quality we believe the film to have, every element of that film comes from the identity of a naturally flowing narrative through out the film.

You misinterpret my saying "They also remind me of how many would describe The Thin Red Line." I said many not myself.  I doubt anyone here can say they haven't heard someone (their mom, friend, random person) say that TTRL is clunky, meandering, boring, and ect...

You seem to have wanted to have everything happen to Swoff directly.  Well a naturally flowing narrative will indeed have secondary characters that bring wisdom to the hero and the audience.  I don't really know what to say... I just thought it was great.

I'd also like to hear Losing the Horse's thoughts.

I found it far from boring.  I was entertained throughout the entire film.

It's one man's experience in a war and his experience is representative of the overall experience of the Gulf War... it doesn't try to do much more at all.  I think you're placing too much weight on your expectations just because it's a "war film".  I don't think it was trying to do whatever you think it was trying to do.

Yes, I for sure like it now.

Maybe we should change this from "We"

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa369%2Franemaka13%2Fxixax01.jpg&hash=8af819d0144ae7089f78c25db49677d681188fef)

to just "GT"? :wink:

Quote from: modage on November 07, 2005, 08:06:46 AM
it was Something In The Way, not Under The Bridge though.  :-D

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rickcortes.com%2Fnapoleon.jpg&hash=642c1ed7f6f980af7b3afa4130c43125e439d624)

Jarhead wasn't exactly what I thought it would be.  Once I strip away my false expectations, I find that I really, really liked this movie.

Quote from: SHAFTR on November 08, 2005, 08:39:51 PM
Jarhead wasn't exactly what I thought it would be.  Once I strip away my false expectations, I find that I really, really liked this movie.

what is there in the substance of this move to really, really like? for that matter, what is the substance of this movie?

People here think I had expectations about the film. I really had none. And considering its been years since I've seen either American Beauty or Road to Perdition, I wasn't expecting a bad film here at all. I nearly forgot about how much I disliked Sam Mendes' films. Jarhead reminded me of them. I'd also like to think I at least adaquately explained my reasons. I can't say the same for most of those who liked this film. Its sad, but I think for many people here, a film is good until proven not.

Quote from: Reinhold Messner on November 10, 2005, 01:17:11 AM

Quote from: SHAFTR on November 08, 2005, 08:39:51 PM
Jarhead wasn't exactly what I thought it would be.  Once I strip away my false expectations, I find that I really, really liked this movie.

what is there in the substance of this move to really, really like? for that matter, what is the substance of this movie?

Well, I don't know if anyone is really doubting the production values of Jarhead.  Cinematically, it is quite good.  As for the substance of the film, I think the pacing and structure of the film works very well.  We follow Swofford as he prepares for War, arrives, waits and finally sees combat.  As a viewer, I followed along with Swofford and felt what he was feeling in those situations.  At the same time, Swofford comes away a changed man and I can easily see why.

I understand why many are disappointed that Jarhead doesn't do as much politically as everyone hopes, but I think that works.  It gives the film a more objective feel, a recount of a true story (which it is), rather than a preacy political war film.

Finally, the film does have it's flaws.  Swofford's relationship with his girlfriend is never defined, so as a viewer I don't feel the same pain and suffering as he does over her.  I'd probably give Jarhead 4/5 stars, it might not even make my top ten of 2005 but it is a solid film, which I can come to expect from mendes.

Hmmm... I never once thought of PTA.  What scenes are you referring to in particular?

According to IMDB, most of the shit that happens in the movie didn't even happen to Swofford. They're just Marine Corp urban legends.

Quote from: ShanghaiOrange on November 16, 2005, 03:10:36 PM
According to IMDB, most of the shit that happens in the movie didn't even happen to Swofford. They're just Marine Corp urban legends.

I'm not surprised.

yeah the cheating wife thing/deer hunter scene was all legend...never happend to swafford.  i had to read this for my english class, and i found that the majority of jarhead isnt really swaffords personal memoior but of alot of other stories he had heard throughout his career as a marine.

THEY looked at his story and went BOOOORING!  Then they threw in a few ingredients to spice it up, and the AUDIENCE went BOOOOORING! 

Quote from: md on November 16, 2005, 07:46:06 PM
yeah the cheating wife thing/deer hunter scene was all legend...never happend to swafford.  i had to read this for my english class, and i found that the majority of jarhead isnt really swaffords personal memoior but of alot of other stories he had heard throughout his career as a marine.

Hmmm...

Page 65.

One night I'm alone in the barracks, cleaning my M16, while the rest of the platoon watches movies at the Fox Company barracks.  They're hoping for a replay of last night's showing... A homemade porn film had been spliced into a Vietnam flick... The marines were elated that the amateur porn smut had made it past the censors... but that coming woman was his wife... "That's my wife! That's my wife fucking the neighbor, a goddamn squid!"

I must say I haven't read the book, but I mentioned the IMDB thing to my roommate, who was quick to find that.

TESTOSTERONE-ENFLAMED SPOILERS

This was typical Sam Mendes, and that's unfortunate. I'm sick of Mendes, and I'm sick of his formula. This is what I saw for most of the film:

Mundane character development, isolated moment of ironic beauty, mundane character development, isolated moment of ironic beauty, mundane character development, isolated moment of ironic beauty, etc.

These moments seem inserted. They might have been different were they by themselves meaningful, or even meaningful in context, but I don't think they are. They don't belong in this movie as the apexes of meaning.

Did the FMJ structure bother anyone else? It was based on a book, yes, but it does have a selective structure. And it seems at times a thoughtless homage to that film and Three Kings, of which it is essentially a visual knockoff.

Being derivative, Jarhead doesn't have anything to say that hasn't been said before many times much more articulately. And what it does say—that about soldiers being "jarheads," their heads empty receptacles for militarism—it doesn't say particularily well or with any kind of distinction. So this is essentially an unimportant and poorly made film, and it deserves its place among the worst of Sam Mendes's work.

Some of it was valuable. It had some insight into how soldiers can be trained to love violence, although I would have liked more detail—their bloodthirst was not entirely explained. In fact, I don't think it was very empathic. I didn't identify with or even sympathize with the soldiers much, whereas I have very strongly in other films. Their humanity isn't significantly revealed, while their ignorance is.

It just wasn't very well made. And it certainly thought it was. (The wise and omnipotent tone of the narration did not help the film's arrogance problem.)

Also, I think we finally have a film in which Thomas Newman music does not work. Though perfect in other films, his twinkly music does not serve the scenes of excitement and bloodthirst except to slather them with a possibly unintentional irony. And the scene where they play "get it on, bang a gong, get it on" while the soldiers are trying to "get on" their chemical suits (and their superior is yelling "get it on")... that's just stupid.

QuoteOscar-winning film director Sam Mendes claims American viewers don't understand his new movie Jarhead as well as Europeans - because they expect war films to be one-sided. The movie based on the novel Jarhead:  A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by Anthony Swofford, and focuses on the frivolousness of war, rather than the glory - something Mendes feels Americans don't grasp. Mendes says, "I feel they've understood in Europe. In America, it's like talking about a different movie. "Fundamentally, Jarhead disobeys all the laws of American movies, and not just the political laws of American movies right now which demand on some level to tell us which side they're on. "In Europe, there's a sense this film comes from the tradition of absurdist war movies about the futility of conflict. "It has more in common with Beckett, Sartre and Banuel than it does with Oliver Stone. "In America, they assumed I was trying to make an Oliver Stone movie and that I'd failed."

Mendes compares himself to Beckett, Sartre and Bunuel.  I hope europe finds that as offensive as I do.

yeah 'cause Europeans really give a shit about Americans telling other Americans what the Europeans have been saying all along.

Quote from: Sal on January 04, 2006, 02:09:47 AM

QuoteOscar-winning film director Sam Mendes claims American viewers don't understand his new movie Jarhead as well as Europeans - because they expect war films to be one-sided. The movie based on the novel Jarhead:  A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by Anthony Swofford, and focuses on the frivolousness of war, rather than the glory - something Mendes feels Americans don't grasp. Mendes says, "I feel they've understood in Europe. In America, it's like talking about a different movie. "Fundamentally, Jarhead disobeys all the laws of American movies, and not just the political laws of American movies right now which demand on some level to tell us which side they're on. "In Europe, there's a sense this film comes from the tradition of absurdist war movies about the futility of conflict. "It has more in common with Beckett, Sartre and Banuel than it does with Oliver Stone. "In America, they assumed I was trying to make an Oliver Stone movie and that I'd failed."

Mendes compares himself to Beckett, Sartre and Bunuel.  I hope europe finds that as offensive as I do.

I understand the distinction Mendes is trying to make, but to typify the American version as an Oliver Stone fails in all accounts. How do Oliver Stone films align themselves to a certain structure? His films have the comparison of obviously been drawn from the same artist but Stone was as explorative as a filmmaker could get with his subjects. One forgets his Vietnam trilogy actually has a fourth film. Not just Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July and Heaven and Earth, but also JFK. JFK speaks as much as any of the others films to the loss of an innocence a country faced when dealing with oncoming war in Vietnam. The shades of gray Stone is able to draw on the subject does not limit him to the one sided nature of stoytelling Mendes is campaigning against.

My opinion of Mendes only shrinks everytime I see one of his films. Recently having watched 'Road to Perdition', I stood enthralled by imagining that every shot for every scene was chosen merely based on how lushed it looked. There is a distance of photographic beauty through out the entire film that dulls the senses. One may argue it is in the nature of the drama. The film feels very Greek influenced with how already spoken for the death of characters like Paul Newman's is because of decisions he made during the film. When he is killed, there is no suspense. Its a proclamation of character for him. Thing is, the decor is too pronouced to allow the drama to really unfold like that. Every set piece looks beautiful even when its not suppose to be. There is a Coen's brother gloss to the film but for the opposite effect. The film invites us to be involved in the drama when there's too much distraction. One scene had Stanley Tucci behind a desk smoking a cigarrette. What was unneccessary was the smoke coming from the cigarrette was the most perfect line of smoke I've ever seen in a movie. It twirled and sometimes wrapped around itself but still a perfect line of smoke never broken by wind or any puff of smoke above him. It was done to look like a painting. That perfection to something so small shouldn't have been there.

When Conrad Hall was promoted to DP of choice for Sam Mendes before his death his work for Butch Cassiday and the Sundance Kid became idolized. Sure the work was excellent and even garnering him an Oscar I believe but that film was nothing like the cinematic glorification his work with Mendes became. It was pretty realistic through out the entire picture. The stand out is the opening scenes in black and white. Those sequences are shot and edited to get the best photography possible. Hall gave it a perfect tint of black and white to match the period. It was only one scene though. I think the filmmakers knew they could never make an entire film out of that approach. I'm starting to think Mendes believes he can.

Mendes' comments were vomit-inducing (Beckett? Banuel? ewwwwww) .... despite, understanding where he was coming from, he could have worded it in a more humble manner. His swipe at Oliver Stone (whose use of politics onscreen is as shameless as Michael Moore's) wasn't even sufficient compensation for that condescending tone of his.

Anyway, back on the topic of Mendes' work ...  To my utmost surprise (I dislike American Beauty and Road to Perdition very much), I actually thought quite highly of Jarhead - it may just be Mendes' first emotionally honest film (a film about something - as opposed to pretending to be about something). And yes, I think it should have been given more credit (most of the U.S. critics were too busy lamenting its lack of politics).

I'm kinda tired of defending Jarhead right now - I've been doing it for a while now on various boards. So I'll just quote Boston Globe's Wesley Morris:

QuoteWhen Sam Mendes's dismaying and intensely ironic adaptation of Anthony Swofford's Desert Storm memoir came out in November, folks carped that it was apolitical and anticlimactic. But the picture's lack of politics is a political statement in itself. Adapted by William Broyles, ''Jarhead" gives us a generation of Marines horny for the violence they've seen in other war movies. (''Apocalypse Now" is their touchstone.) What do they care about politics or valor? They're itching for a fight that never comes. The film is a series of brilliantly mounting anticlimaxes and surreal tableaux including an amazing sequence where it rains only oil. The war they wind up fighting is against boredom, existential misery, and military impotence. This is a more illuminating account of the soldier's condition than the brutalizing ''Full Metal Jacket" -- lightning to Stanley Kubrick's thunder -- and a key to understanding how futility and dislocation lead to episodes like Abu Ghraib.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/12/25/audiences_may_have_been_thin_but_the_years_best_films_reflected_the_times_in_daring_ways_1135349809/

I really enjoyed the aforementioned sexual metaphor that extends from the military establishment to the outlook imposed upon the Jarheads themselves - as depicted in the film. It is very relevant to issues pertaining to contemporary warfare and occupation.

Quote from: takitani on January 08, 2006, 12:01:45 AM
I'm kinda tired of defending Jarhead right now - I've been doing it for a while now on various boards.

It's nice to have a hobby.

Quote from: polkablues on January 08, 2006, 12:03:08 AM

Quote from: takitani on January 08, 2006, 12:01:45 AM
I'm kinda tired of defending Jarhead right now - I've been doing it for a while now on various boards.

It's nice to have a hobby.

Lol.

But it's tiresome, nevertheless. I sound like a pathetic, broken record. A pill hard to swallow. A contrarian for contrarian's sake.

On a related note, I wish I could've at least liked this some of this year's most acclaimed films (GNAGL, Brokeback). It's much more fun to nod and say yes.

I tried to. But I couldn't. I ended up sounding like the party pooper.

Well, while you're here, why don't you introduce yourself...? (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=2.450)

Quote from: takitani on January 08, 2006, 12:07:17 AM
But it's tiresome, nevertheless. I sound like a pathetic, broken record. A pill hard to swallow. A contrarian for contrarian's sake.

On a related note, I wish I could've at least liked this some of this year's most acclaimed films (GNAGL, Brokeback). It's much more fun to nod and say yes.

I tried to. But I couldn't. I ended up sounding like the party pooper.

touching story, really.

either do what polka said or move on to the next board.

Quote from: Pubrick on January 08, 2006, 03:39:21 AM

Quote from: takitani on January 08, 2006, 12:07:17 AM
But it's tiresome, nevertheless. I sound like a pathetic, broken record. A pill hard to swallow. A contrarian for contrarian's sake.

On a related note, I wish I could've at least liked this some of this year's most acclaimed films (GNAGL, Brokeback). It's much more fun to nod and say yes.

I tried to. But I couldn't. I ended up sounding like the party pooper.

touching story, really.

either do what polka said or move on to the next board.

Sorry, if I came off like a self-indulgent freak wallowing in stupid self-pity. I just came off another board coming off as another stupid contrarian. So that was reactionary...

Anyway, I've been a longtime lurker here, actually. Some of your conversations are quite interesting.

Anyhoo, I think I'll continue to lurk here for most of the time... but yeah, keep up the good work.

Quote from: takitani on January 08, 2006, 09:22:56 PM
Anyhoo, I think I'll continue to lurk here for most of the time... but yeah, keep up the good work.

hey

Quote from: takitani on January 08, 2006, 12:01:45 AM
Oliver Stone (whose use of politics onscreen is as shameless as Michael Moore's)

Umm... why exactly should filmmakers feel ashamed when they're being political?

Title: Jarhead
Released: 7th March 2006
SRP: $29.98 & $39.98

Further Details:
Universal has revealed early details on the Sam Mendes directed Jarhead which stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Jamie Foxx and Chris Cooper. The film will be available to own in either a single-disc special edition, or a two-disc collector's edition from the 7th March next year. The single-disc will retail at around  $29.98, whereas the collector's edition (with collectible photo book) will set you back $39.98. Both of these releases will carry a 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen presentation, along with English, French and Spanish Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround tracks. We'll bring you details on the extra material etc shortly.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Fjarheaddvd2.jpg&hash=3f30ad9d9bed711c0bf4baccee7bfd884c72af9e)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Fjarheaddvd1.jpg&hash=a9684b2c9b0ac11f6c19e6af51435a65c8246a1b)

i don't get that quote "It's more than a movie. It's an experience."

Usually movies are not experiences. Jarhead has broken down that barrier and has thrown all distinctions between reality and fiction into turmoil.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 09, 2006, 12:30:26 PM

Quote from: takitani on January 08, 2006, 12:01:45 AM
Oliver Stone (whose use of politics onscreen is as shameless as Michael Moore's)

Umm... why exactly should filmmakers feel ashamed when they're being political?

I don't believe that they should feel ashamed of politics. It's their morally questionable technical tactics (editing comes to mind) as filmmakers that I don't condone.

Objectively, I would say that they are fine filmmakers... subjectively, well, that's another matter.

well, i thought this movie was a lot of fun...and so did the other 20 or something persons on that theatre with me. well, they laughed a lot at least.

I don't know if I understand all this bashing. It seems it's so personal against Sam Mendes for some weird reason. Not to sound like him, but some of the comments around here are so "i hate sam mendes" like that they sound like comments made about oliver stone when he releases movies.

Jarhead is ok. Is no masterpiece but I didn't find it boring at all. I found it funny and ironic. You're not supposed to feel for these characters that much, you're supposed to mock them, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's an insane war and a stupid stiuation they're in. And like Swofford says: "I'm 20 years old, and I was dumb enough to sign a contract". I liiked that you don't see "the pain" and "the agony" and "the difficulties" of what soldiers go through at war. Cause there are tons of movies like that. This has boredom and a lot of silly situations that can only be described as absurd. And that's just perfect.

I didn't see any eloquent moments of beauty, as someone else said. And its ok that they don't have enough character development. Why should they?? How many personal feelings of soldiers have we actually heard on the news? Is one guy telling his story from his point of view, and sometimes his story is so absurd you just have to laugh, even if it isn't laughing matter for him.

So, American Beauty won an oscar for best picture and best director. So what? We all know Magnolia is better. And I personally think Eyes Wide Shut and The Straigt Story were even better than Magnolia, but to call Mendes a bad director is a stretch. Oone of the reasons american beauty is so cool is actually because of the visual flair with which is directed. In a way, it goes against the rules of domestic comedies that dictate that because a movie takes place in suburbia it should look boring, then how could you understand the main character's discovery of beauty everyhwere and in everything? And Road to Perdition is based on a graphic novel, and is supposed to look like a classic melodrama, is not supposed to be Good Fellas or some sort fo gritty street movie. But hey, most people here hate Mendes and that's that.

I liked it... it felt like a more modern Full Metal Jacket (although not superior, of course)

I got really close to crying at the part where they said Saddam was dead and the war was over, they wouldn't need their uniforms anymore, etc. 

This seemed to focus a lot more on the isolation and chronic masturbation of war, than on the war itself... the only real war was guns going off at a final celebration due to the end of the war...

I would definitely recommend it.

*mild spoilers*

I disagree with the "moments of trascendent beauty" remark in reference to this film. I think thats more a tenet of Alan Ball's writing than Mendes direction. The horse drenched in oil was a standout moment for me. I suppose that could be attacked as being a MOTB but my gut reaction was more of anger than "awww the poor horse".

The most likely comparison is Three Kings in terms tonal confusion but Three Kings had a distinct turning point where it becomes "serious" whereas Jarhead kept a mix of joking marines and jaded marines. I don't know if that worked for audiences, in terms of Mendes getting them to draw comparisons and ask questions. The audience I was with didnt seem to be jaded by the situation or the foolery of the marines, in fact were probably relishing more foolery. The masturbation scene/shot for example - I think everyone was more eager to laugh at that than see it for what it was.

Its a combination that is hard to resolve but I like this less structured approach.

edit:

I recently re-watched this (with and without directors commentary) and I find myself really annoyed at the majority of the reviews at the time criticising it for just being an amalgamation of the great vietnam war movies. Those criticisims seem to me (after re-watching) to be some of the most basic film criticism of recent times.

Mendes's commentary was as insightful as ever. And illuminated/confirmed several things:

- The way he works with actors is extremely skillful. Obviously the rehearsel time but he also mentioned several notes he gave on set that were akin to the "don't stop smiling" note given to Paul Giamatti for the ex-wife confrontation in Sideways.

- The Scorpion fight was CG, something I suspected on my second viewing but didnt contemplate the first time round. ILM's work on this invisible.

- How many great moments or lines were improvised.

- Mendes made a conscious effort to be much less 'painterly' in terms of his shot composition - aware of being "prescious" (his word choice) in AB and RTP