Jarhead

[Jeremy Blackman]

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

[takitani]

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.

[Alexandro]

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.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

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.

[Redlum]

*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