1. ClarisseP.

   10

   A wonderful, funny, exciting movie ! We don't see movies against war nowadays and this one is brillant!

   • Helpful?

     0 of 0 users said yes
2. AndrewK.

   5

   Boring. This movie has such a lack of a plot. Its one of those films where they try to pull off showing you just a bunch of stuff that happens, without any clear storyline to carry it along. Obviously, when it comes to real life, we don't have perfect little conclusions to different parts of our lives, but I think that that's a good reason not to turn some true stories into movies. I don't know about the actual book, because it might have had a much more clear plot. Or not a plot, really, but at least more of a sense of closure. A lot of people on here have been railing at the REAL critics for saying not enough happened during the film, and mistaking this to mean that the critics were expecting it to be an "action" film. Honestly, I don't really care for action films. And if I thought that that was all this movie was going to be, I might not have gone to see it (though I do like war films, as long as they have some kind of meaning; this film had neither action OR meaning). On the bright side, many of the actors did a tremendous job with a less than brilliant script. Its not to say that the movie isn't entertaining at times, but it just leaves you feeling empty at the end, and unsure of what you're supposed to take away from it. Yes, there is the argument that the whole idea is that a lot of these guys didn't actually get to do ANYthing in the Gulf War, but that's no excuse for a lack of a real story. There are a lot of loose threads that could have been made into something more to help better translate the feelings these soldiers felt about not really doing much. Every time an occasion like this comes up, it doesn't lead anywhere. David Denby, of The New Yorker, noted that the characters are mysteries. There is obviously something bothering each of them, but we never get to find out exactly what. The end of the film is extremely anticlimactic. The film didn't have a political statement to make, nor did it need to. When one soldier starts to bring up politics, another chastises him saying, "F*** politics. We're here now." I took this line to be like an aside from the writer, or maybe even Sam Mendes, as if to say, "That's not what this movie is about. This movie is about the soldiers." Except it’s not really. As Homer Simpson once aptly put, "It’s just a bunch of stuff that happens." Back to the actors themselves, Jake Gyllenhaal did a very good job. Not a GREAT job, but it was very good. Only the script kept him from being able to do anything actually emotionally challenging. We’re not completely sure why his character takes such an extreme jump and shoves a loaded automatic rifle in a fellow soldier's face. I wonder how he came to this point in real life, and I suspect there is much more detail in the book. Chris Cooper, sadly, is barely featured in the film. Evan Jones, who many may remember as Cheddar Bob in “8 Mile”, plays essentially the EXACT SAME character in this film. Only unsympathetic. AND he's an asshole. Peter Sarsgaard, who I've never seen in a film before, is another victim of the film's poor screenwriting. He turns in a very good performance, but again, is limited in that he has nowhere to go with it. The greatest performance in the film, for me, was from Jamie Foxx, who one person on the comments board had the audacity to say was "phoning in" his performance (HE of course LOVED the movie). Bulls***. This is another great performance from a very skilled actor, who is beginning to show himself to be more than the ordinary Hollywood star, and one of those rare character actors that always delivers. I totally believed him in his role and I felt that he was a type of person that I've met in real life. With the brilliant cinematographer, Conrad Hall, gone, Sam Mendes was forced to go with someone else for his third film: Roger Deakins. Deakins is a very experienced, and very talented cinematographer, but I found his visuals lacking compared to those of Mendes' last two films. At many points during the film I was reminded of "Full Metal Jacket," especially in the opening scenes of the film, although, I don't agree with Jonathan Rosenbaum, of The Chicago Reader, who said that it was a complete rip-off of the opening half of Kubrick's film. I imagine that marines go through very similar circumstances in their training, so I don't know how one could make such a statement. There is also a part, right before they get shipped out, where they are all watching a special screening of "Apocalypse Now." I think directors have to be very careful when including such pieces in their films, because of the fact that they might be making reference to a film which is SO much better than their own film, that the audience might start to wish they were watching THAT film instead. Which by the end of "Jarhead," I was. So I give this film a five. Very disappointing. I was geared up for another masterpiece from Mendes, but I guess we all have our lesser accomplishments as artists. And this will be remembered as one of his. More bashing of critics and movie-goers alike: Two Thumbs up for Sam S's wonderfully worded review, with gems like, "Captures all aspects in perfect unicin," "Understands it is not a big was and captrues that," "powerful interactions and preformences," "supurbley acted, incredibly beautifal film," and "Sarsgaard diserves a oscar." Brian G. said, "It is basically a bunch of men wondering aimlessly around the desert looking to kill something..." Yes. They WERE wondering. One soldier was heard to say, "I wonder why we're wondering the desert instead of wandering the desert?" Ken Fox, of TV Guide said, "Viewers hoping for a brutal, pitch-black war comedy along the lines of M*A*S*H are in for a major disappointment." I agree. Especially because nobody would have ANY f***ing reason to expect something along the lines of M*A*S*H. What preview was THIS guy watching? Jessica said, "…even tho many will agree that the movie was slow through the middle to the end then i would have to say the film accomplished exactly what it wanted. To show the disappointment and the experience of waiting." Yes. Much like the movie "Gerry" was so successful at making one feel the boredom of its characters, by showing a thirteen minute shot of Matt Damon and Casey Affleck walking, thus making the audience EXCRUCIATING BORED. Here's a REAL reviewer that I COMPLETELY disagree with. Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek says, "…with Jarhead he pulls off, effortlessly, what so many pro-and antiwar individuals since Vietnam have tried so conscientiously to avoid: His movie is antiwar and anti-soldier." Where the f*** is this coming from? As stated before, the movie seems to PURPOSEFULLY avoid such political statements. There is nothing in the film which feels antiwar or anti-soldier. Another ridiculous review from a supposed "professional" critic, Kyle Smith of the New York Post: "Marines did not play football in full anti-chemical suits in 112-degree weather; men would have been collapsing and perhaps dying because it was so hard to breathe in the gas masks." Really? Did anything about this being a TRUE story get past you? Here's a quote from an online review of the original BOOK of Jarhead: "...in an early scene in 'Jarhead,' a commander orders his battalion to play football in the blazing heat in their full hermetically-sealed chemical protective gear, for the benefit of a couple of journalists bussed to the base for the day." Hmmm. Well, unless Swafford completely made that story up himself, I guess it really happened. You can read that full review of the book at: http://www.flakmag.com/books/jarhead.html Here is a statement from an actual Gulf War veteran, Rick K: "It's funny how the only 2 'negative' reviews by 'professional' critics ARE negative because of minute details they don't care for. Being in OIF in the Army I saw Iraq first-hand, not from a movie theater whining about not enough butter on my popcorn like the critics who didn't like this movie. The moral of this you ask? It's simple: don't talk s*** about something you don't know about aside from a movie you watched." Uh...they weren't talking s*** about anything OTHER THAN a movie, now WERE they, Rick? And since movies are what critics know most about (well...usually), I guess that maybe they were criticizing the MOVIE. The bottom line here? The movie sucked, and I wanna read the book.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     0 of 0 users said yes
3. CooterPatooter

   3

   A film that keeps you thinking the big payoff is just around the corner... then nothing happens. Perhaps this is an intentional analogy of the main character's military life or perhaps the film is just stilted and boring. I felt completely disconnected from the characters and their attempts to convey the emotions of overseas deployment elicited nothing more than a shoulder shrug.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     0 of 0 users said yes

See all 94 User Reviews