I am putting this in drama because having read the book, I would not consider it "action." Is anybody else excited to see this? I read the book shortly after it was published and was blown away(pardon the pun). I love the cast and am excited to see how Sam Mendes handles the story and setting. On a side note, I am not sure I have seen a more impeccably placed song on a trailer than "Jesus Walks" for this film.

Dang, I need to check it out

quote:

Originally posted by PRG:
I am putting this in drama because having read the book, I would not consider it "action." Is anybody else excited to see this? I read the book shortly after it was published and was blown away(pardon the pun). I love the cast and am excited to see how Sam Mendes handles the story and setting. On a side note, I am not sure I have seen a more impeccably placed song on a trailer than "Jesus Walks" for this film.

I thought the movie was amazing!

I have recently finished the book by Athony Swafford for a Cultures of War class at my Univeristy and have seen the moive Jarhead as well. We talked about in class how Anthony Swafford is so explicit in his tellings of his Gulf experiences (or lack thereof) but we wondered if he was still sensoring himself or was he being completely honest about how things were and how he acted. I personally felt that Sawfford was not being sensory about this retellings and I think that came through in the movie Jarhead as well. Jake Gyllenhaal does a great job of portraying Swafford's described anger and frustrations during his pointless misions of moving rocks.
Our class also discussed whether Swafford was a participant or simply an observer of the war. At first I thought we was only an observer since he really didn't do much in the short weeks he was overseas. Then I realized that of course Swafford was a participant, it may have only been to watch an unseen enemy or "move rocks" but he was as much in that war as any of the other Marines. I think Swafford would consider himself an observer rather than a active participant, more or less becuase he admits he was disappointed he didn't even kill one person on his tour. I think these feelings of disappointment also stem back to his Father's military history as well and Swaffords underlying want to impress and live up to his father's glory. Not that Swafford necessarily wants to be like his father, but I think with all the years he grew up in the military 'world' he has a need to have the same accomplishments as his father.
From reading Swafford's book and seeing the moive as well, I get a better sense of what the war tour was like for marines and other military branches serving in the Gulf War. It makes me realize more how soldiers can develop things lke PTSD and other post war issues, just from the tellings of Swafford and his men. The movie and book are very entertaining and it got me more interested in learning about the Gulf War and hearing about other veterans that have had similar or completely different experiences in the Gulf.

my problem with this movie is that some of the best movies ever made were war films and therefore it has some very stiff competition. obviously it is going to be compared to not just the apocalypse nows and saving private ryans, but even vastly superior contemporary films on iraq like 3 kings. if you're going to make a war movie it really has to meet a certain level of expecations or at least do something unique. I couldn't help thinking it just bites all the typical war movie cliches created by these much better films without having enough of its own style to warrant its production.

quote:

Mark f posted:

When the Marines went to Saudi Arabia, the film seemed to lose some focus. There was some surreal imagery and some satirical points, but it just didn't gel into any big or even slightly-enlightening statement to me. It certainly wasn't exciting or even very interesting. In fact, that seems the main problem with the movie to me. It doesn't really give you anything or anyone to care about, even with some pretty good performances from Jake Gyllenhaal and Jamie Foxx. I understand that much of combat is just waiting, being bored, and trying not to go out of your mind.

The boring and waiting and the surrealistic experience was the message for me and thus made my top ten movie of the year list. It was just because there was not anything big, exciting, or interesting that this movie was so powerful and important as a movie going experience. I think that too many times the American public needs to be entertained with violence, sex, something deeply compelling, but just like Lost In Translation(2003), it is the actual reality of the experience that the American public rarely gets to see or experience that makes such movies so good and authentic.

Jarhead (Sam Mendes, 2005, Grade: B-)

Jarhead, at least the movie, seems to follow the arc of Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, except it's set during the first "Gulf War". While watching the film, I was struck how closely they resemble each other, especially in structure, but also a bit in theme. The opening section of Jarhead seemed to be the best part to me. It was focused on basic training and then a stay at Camp Pendleton (about 45 minutes south of my house). When the Marines went to Saudi Arabia, the film seemed to lose some focus. There was some surreal imagery and some satirical points, but it just didn't gel into any big or even slightly-enlightening statement to me. It certainly wasn't exciting or even very interesting. In fact, that seems the main problem with the movie to me. It doesn't really give you anything or anyone to care about, even with some pretty good performances from Jake Gyllenhaal and Jamie Foxx. I understand that much of combat is just waiting, being bored, and trying not to go out of your mind. The film could have used a more original or poetic take on that, at least in my opinion.

I realize many people also complained that Full Metal Jacket fell apart after its opening act, but I disagree with that assessment. Even if it seems episodically-random or like it's treading water, I find the earlier film all leading to a powerful overall statement which connects the final scene with the first. Jarhead, at least after one viewing, is a well-made movie, but it seems to have cut out the heart and soul of the story (or book) and replaced it with some cold craft and nothing too original.

I hadn't realized that discussion about this movie has been widely advertised. Perhaps, I must have been thinking of about website. Anyway, I've discussed this particular movie at length elsewhere and I consider it to be among my most favorite movies of the year. This deeply compelling movie about the absence of military action of war provided a Lost In Translation experience for me raising the level of vicarious sensations of horror, fear, and the mentally confusing elements that war can sometimes bring out. This movie exposes important human experiences about war that the general public is to often shielded from when it sees war footage on the television news.

I too read the book and liked it and looked forward to seeing it. I probably enjoyed the film a bit more than the critics did. I thought it should have been better reviewed and caused more of a splash. It kind of came and went.

Jake Gyllenhaal was good as the protagonist and I though Jamie Foxx was excellent as his sergeant. I had my problems with the unfocused Peter Scarsgard character, but all and all a pretty good take on war.