Jarhead

**meatfinger** · 11-07-2005, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneHope

Supposedly the movie is pretty bad according to www.pluggedinonline.com although I still think I want to see it.

Don't listen to them. They are ridiculous.

PaidInFull · 11-07-2005, 10:04 PM

I was planning on seeing it with my dad, since its our tradition to see every war type film together. I've heard positive reviews and negitive ones. I might wait for PPV.

OneHope · 11-08-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meatfinger

Don't listen to them. They are ridiculous.

I agree, sometimes I think the commentary is a little ridiculous but they do give a list of all the bad stuff in a movie which is for the most part objective.

**Epaphras** · 11-08-2005, 10:59 AM

I saw it last night. Artistically, it was well-done. The sexual content was unnecessary for the most part - especially Swoff's bathroom/girlfriend pic scene

.

I found some parts to be disturbing, especially the Apocolypse Now! scene. It brought to mind the Two-Minutes Hate of Orwell's "1984". Also the highway scene and the *semi-spoiler warning* oil well mutilation scene *end semi-spoiler warning* were quite gruesome (the latter more for its implications not necessarily what is shown). The breakdown in the control tower was poignant. Peter Saarsgard is a great actor.

My good friend is in Marine Corps combat training right now. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say when/if he sees this movie after he's done (around Christmas time).

Looking back, I'd say it's a rental at best. Unless you can get a student discount at a matinee or something, don't waste your money. It's not that it's a bad movie - it's just that it's a movie about nothing. There is really no moral lesson to be gleaned. I find that to be mindless entertainment.

**Skeeter** · 11-08-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneHope

I agree, sometimes I think the commentary is a little ridiculous but they do give a list of all the bad stuff in a movie which is for the most part objective.

Bah, completely removing content from its context is hardly objective...

**Sean** · 11-08-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeeter

Bah, completely removing content from its context is hardly objective...

I'm not familiar with the website at all, but I did take the time to read this particular review. I'm not certain how context would change the fact that there theres a scene about masturbation, a scene where they get a video of two people having sex, etc. The site was just listing stuff in the movie. How is that not objective no matter what the context?

**bread man** · 11-08-2005, 02:30 PM

I remember their review of Sin City said that the film 'showed a man cutting off another man's head with a saw' and had 'graphic sex'. Niether of these were present the two times that I have seen the movie.

**meatfinger** · 11-08-2005, 08:37 PM

They consistently report content without any consideration of context, intent, whatever. If a movie portrays a violent murder in a negative way, it is simply listed as a violent murder. If a movie glorifies violent murder, it is simply listed as a violent murder.

In the music portion of the site, they reviewed Kid A by Radiohead. The criticized a song for having a lyric that reads "Cut the kids in half," even though the song is obviously not advocating child mutilation.

**Skeeter** · 11-08-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

I'm not familiar with the website at all, but I did take the time to read this particular review. I'm not certain how context would change the fact that there theres a scene about masturbation, a scene where they get a video of two people having sex, etc. The site was just listing stuff in the movie. How is that not objective no matter what the context?

I was speaking in more general terms regarding the site.

KingdomHeart44 · 11-10-2005, 04:02 PM

I have heard mixed stories of this movie. Some said that it was a war movie, because they are all snipers and there is a lot of blood and things. Then another said there was virtually no action and the whole thing is just the story of him going through the mililtary. Which one is correct?

Grasshopper359 · 12-06-2005, 07:56 PM

My apologies for being late here, but I just got around to seeing it (the French version just came out here). There's almost no blood whatsoever, and only two people die - one in a training accident, and one presumably commits suicide after the war.

I think it was an attempt to re-create introspective war movies like Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, etc. It was amusing, but it didn't meet up to my expectations. I laughed myself silly during his explanation of what they did to kill time (partly because it's so incredibly true), and though the stall scene was somewhat lewd, I've seen worse - in real life. Maybe I'm desensitised.

Overall, it wasn't a bad movie, I guess - it's worth watching once, but if you're looking for an introspective war movie, The Officers' Ward (La Chambre des Officiers) has it knackered. If you're looking for an action movie...Rent The Last Castle. Although I didn't find Jarhead to be a terrible film, I'm not going out of my way to buy the DVD.