'Jarhead'

[dalo]

This movie looks pretty good, coming out on january 16th. Its about a 19 year old US Marine sniper in the first gulf war. There was a book with the same title, and i thought the book was very good.

[Jeg]

Might have to have a look.

[beardo]

yeah the books good, but its all about him saying how bored he was during the war, and the film seems full of action?

[briggfoot]

Looking forward to the film!

Good to hear the book gets better. Im about 1/3 of the way in and i'm finding it slow going, with a lot of depressing, "bored" writing.

Taa
Andy

[Frank S.]

The film is okay, just don't expect much war action, it ain't that kind of film. Cinematography's pretty good, the way they showed the oil rig fires and the highway of death looked fairly real.
I came away from it with a sense that the main character(s) were frustrated by being overtaken by technology after preparing for combat. They didn't get to fire a shot in anger, really. The enemy melted away before them after being pounded from the air.

[harry hackedoff]

The book has been around for a while and there are a few things in it that made me think the guy has an attitude prob.
Jarhead was panned by the Grunts over on Leatherneck.
Swofford doesn`t seem to like the Corps he served in very much and they don`t think much of him for it. Neither do I.
For all the piss taking that we do you`ll find most Royals have tremendous respect for our Cousins over the pond. There are better books about them than this one

[Heckler und Koch]

It's a great movie in my opinion, but there are no war scenes, so don't get your hopes up.

[Chappy]

It's a great movie in my opinion, but there are no war scenes, so don't get your hopes up.

From my post on MFAT:

The soldiers of Desert Storm expected to go to a war resembling war portraited in films such as FMJ or Apocolypse Now, but the war turned out to be a bit different. That's the point of the film.
This film is about boredom, waiting, and some more boredom. That's the point, the uselessness of war. How they go half way around the world, and implode from the fact they cant do what they were trained to do and that their world back in the USA is destroyed as a result of going so far from home.

[harry hackedoff]

Cheppy, it is a well written book but it`s basic stance is farked.
As a counterpoint to my latest review and to illustrate the personality of the author, I included Nate Fink`s review of both book and film. He`s about spot on with the Marines over on Mil.com and Leatherneck. They ain`t best pleased mate.
People read this shite and that`s the mental picture they have. Doesn`t make it factual though. Ask Andrew McNab. He and his variose ghost writers have made a career out of it.

The name`s Aitch, `Arry Aitch

[harry hackedoff]

Heckler und Koch

It's a great movie in my opinion

Your opinion counts for fark all sonny.
It has no value.
Just like you
Er, no offence

The League Of Gentlemen, now that was a great movie , and Bamby obviously

[Tom_running16]

The books so much better then the film. A reccomended read!

[harry hackedoff]

And you would qualify that opinion by your personal experiences would you?
Or is it "just what you think"
It`s a well written book but the content is non-factual. It`s a load of shite. You were sucked into the hype. It`s a croc darling, total load of shite

[Greenronnie]

I went to see it thinking, 'Great, it's been ages since there has been a decent war film.' And it it still is.
There's a couple of decent bits in it though, the bit where the lads are watching one of the blokes' home videos was mega!

[gkayesem]

Once again I think people are failing to see the films intentions.

The film is about the realities of war - boredom, terror and death (although Ive never actually expericened war, thats what the film is about none the less).

Apocolypse now was supposed to show the horrific realities of war, not to glorify it. The annihilation of the village to the sound of the Ride of the Valyerics was to highlight the loss of innocent lives and the apathy and enjoyment of those who carried it out.

The Colonel - that Sheen needs to kill - was a figure who had absorbed the military to such a degree that he was a liability to that military. Sheen says 'I cant believe they want this guy dead.' And the Colonel says 'They teach men to kill but he isnt allowed to write 'f@#k' on the side of an aeroplane.' The whole point was to highlight moral hypocracy - that the armies role is to kill, yet it didnt want to be seen for that alone. The Colonel was a fine example of what the army would hope for - a merciless killer - but the bosses were concerned that he would tarnish America's image. Something along those lines anyway.

Then you have the bridge that is being shelled daily by the NVA, but the Generals rebuild it every time so they can deny the NVA a political victory.

Its about a lost cause, immorality, terror, sheer insanity and irrationality.

I think if you are after a classic war film, then watch something like The Big Red One or the Longest Day. If you are after gunfights then watch thrillers or gangster films or war-set films like Three Kings. The Directors of films like Apocolypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Jarhead want to get a point accross, not to glorify violence.

The fact that these films contain violence means that a lot people will watch the film for that violence, and will not take note of the points being made.

[flo]

Both myself and jed watched it a few weeks ago and while i enjoyed the movie because it was seen from a mental point of view, jed was asleep within the first 20 minutes. (no change there). As much as i enjoy a good gun fight i found this film to be taken in a totally different perspective from others and that is what made it so different. It got the thumbs up form me, apart from the ending which could have been played out a little bit more.