Jarhead

[cowboykurtis]

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.

[Pozer]

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?       

[Gold Trumpet]

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?

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.

[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.

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.

[Pozer]

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

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[Reinhold]

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

[JG]

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. 

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[RegularKarate]

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.

[Pozer]

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?

[SHAFTR]

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.

[Pozer]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[killafilm]

Never 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.