Jarhead

[The Red Vine]

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.

[abuck1220]

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...

[Ultrahip]

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.

[SHAFTR]

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.

[SiliasRuby]

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.

[modage]

A 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.

[grand theft sparrow]

(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.

[cowboykurtis]

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

The viewer or filmmaker?

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[JG]

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.   

[modage]

what's to hate about Perdition?

[cowboykurtis]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[RegularKarate]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.