Anyone see Jarhead this weekend?

[LeftNYC]

Without giving away too many details, how was it? I am going this week.

[medeak]

1. read four reviews

they all said nothing happens in the movie...

[RobertSeattle]

5. I've seen those reviews too - I don't get it

I was in a Combat Engineer battalion in Desert Storm and we saw no direct action either - though we were ready for it. I bet 80% of the ground troops in Iraq didn't see any direct action - the Iraqi's had vamoosed well before they had a chance to.

[bryant69]

6. All the reviews I read

Said the book was better and more nuanced.

Said that the Directors anti-Military opinions got in the way of telling the story.

"Swofford's book is both funnier and more horrifying than the movie Mendes has made from it, and he makes no bones about how messed up (by civilian standards, at least), the U.S. Marine Corps is. But his book also addresses a world of greater complexities, and at the very least, it's ultimately about soldiers -- in other words, people. Mendes doesn't care about people -- he's too busy making his art. And 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." That's from the Salon Review - http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2005/11/04/jarhead/index.html

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[RobertSeattle]

2. I'd give it 3 stars out of 4

I was in Desert Storm and I think a movie about what it is like for a real soldier/marine is important. (99% boredom, 1% excitement - unlike the the normal Hollywood movie that hypes the battle stuff). I think it made a couple of artistic "stetches" at points but that's OK - it is a movie after all.

[Danger Duck]

3. Very different

The movie is about inaction, and if you're looking for an anti-war film, this isn't it.

It shows a different perspective on modern warfare, but focuses more on the boredom of modern combat, and the uselessness of the ground soldier with our advanced air infantry.

However, it seems irrelevant to the modern conflict, which is dominating our lives, minds, and hearts currently.

Jar Head could have been released at any time, it's a slice of life about warfare and the first gulfwar. It really isn't that relevant to the modern conflict.

[Red_Viking]

4. My SO dragged me to see it on Friday

Just so you know, he's as left-leaning as they get! I was unsure about the film, although I like many of the actors. The theater was full, and it was obvious there were many there who thought it would be another "Top Gun" type movie. Lots of military as well, judging by the haircuts. The man who sat next to us had a son leaving for Iraq the next day; we chatted with him before the movie began.

Surprise--I thought it was pretty darned good. Definitely not a recruiting tool for the military. Jake Gyllenhaal was terrific; he's definitely star material and carried the movie quite well. Jamie Foxx also gives a great performance. The story is disturbing; it's meant to be. It's not "in-your-face" but rather gives you small insights into what it's like to be a grunt in the military. Ultimately, this film is anti-war, but in a subtle way.

I enjoyed it, after thinking I wouldn't. I hope you like it!

Peace,

RV

[ComerPerro]

7. I figured that such a list of actors wouldn't make a propaganda film

And I have been curious to see it.

It has some good people in it

[Kashka-Kat]

8. ebert and the new siskel (who is that guy) gave it two thumbs up

visually stunning, good cinemtography

[jus_the_facts]

9. Here's a Lounge thread about it.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4254570&mesg_id=4254570

[Angry Girl]

10. Most films with military themes are altered (by military propaganda)

Aside from the very rare movie like Platoon, the great majority of movies that get assistance from the U.S. military are censored and/or altered to fit the party line. From Lassie (!) to Stripes, the military is messing with it.

Was Jarhead done with military cooperation or not?

Check out the book Operation Hollywood, reviewed by Mother Jones here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_403.html

And this is from Amazon's review:

Every year, Hollywood producers ask the Pentagon for help in making films, seeking everything from locations and technical advice to Blackhawk helicopters and nuclear-powered submarines. The military will happily oblige, it says in an army handbook, so long as the movie "aids in the recruiting and retention of personnel." The producers want to make money; the Defense Department wants to make propaganda.
<snip>
Robb shows how, in the Nicholas Cage film Windtalkers, the Marine Corps strong-armed producers into deleting a scene where a Marine pries gold teeth from a dead Japanese soldier (a historically accurate detail). And in The Perfect Storm, the air force insisted on giving the Air National Guard credit for rescuing a sinking fishing boat, instead of the actual Coast Guard heroes.

Even seemingly flawless recruiting vehicles had troubles: in Top Gun, the navy demanded Tom Cruise's love interest be changed from a military instructor to a civilian contractor (fraternization between officers and enlisted personnel being a no-no). At its worst, the author argues, the Pentagon unscrupulously targets children; Robb reveals how the Defense Department helped insert military story lines into the Mickey Mouse Club.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591021820/104-4470271-7503923?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

[sleipnir]

11. No, I didn't see the film.

I can offer no advice.

[frylock]

12. i thought it was a bit long and rather slow in parts..

I was surprised to see a depiction of the Highway of Death in the film, however.

[Javaman]

13. This was my take on it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5262472&mesg_id=5284872