Osmosis Iron
Vietnam war as depicted by the master itself: Stanley Kubrick. Funny moments, sad moments and everything in between. This movie shows the many aspects of war and it's effect on human condition. Many people seem to think it gets weaker after the boot camp and the second part isn't as good, I like the whole movie, the second half has at least the same amount of memorable scenes if not more!
Matt Greene
A film in two halves, the training segment is a perfect balance of dark humor & dramatic insanity, & the Vietnam segment is depressingly violent & visually impeccable. Though they are disparate, they work together to show the dehumanizing nature of all aspects of war: the ugliness, the complication, the lack of cinematic heroism. One of Kubrick's quickest paced, least opaque & most accessible films...& yet another directing masterpiece.
Imran Ahmed
Full Metal Jacket exposes the futility of war - more relevant than ever for the world today given the incessant wars being fought by the US around the world as I write this review. The movie adds a human touch to a war essentially fought in the Cold War chessboard of the 1960s and 1970s. The movie humanizes the suffering of death and raises legitimate questions about the purpose of the war; or indeed most wars. Living in Southeast Asia and having visited Vietnam several times the movie helps to understand one of the darkest periods in the region's history. No doubt, there were many silent global supporters of the war but still one recognizes the burden of history which contemporary Vietnamese are attempting to shed.The movie is a must watch fictional recreation for anyone interested in understanding the human aspect of war. Stanley Kubrick is a master film maker and Full Metal Jacket will not disappoint even the harshest of Kubrick's critics.
audrablum
This week I watched Full Metal Jacket (1987). Let me just start out by saying that I was not the biggest fan of this film and I am surprised that this is such an occult classic. I thought the storyline was kind of weird and directionless. I felt like I kept waiting for a climax that never came. I didn't care for the content of the film and I see why my ex was so obsessed with it. It seemed geared for someone like him -- not me. Being a military brat I get that this film is supposed to represent "how it really is" in the military, and I do think the film gave an accurate depiction in that regard. Who knows? Maybe that's why I didn't care to watch it. Most of the scenes I felt were drawn out for too long and Kubrick took advantage of the shoot up scenes to get a little extra gorey, which I also didn't care for. Some of the music seemed out of place -- and not in a good creative way, but in a weird I don't get it way. Traditional to Kubrick films the cinematography was an artistic manifestation of the internal turmoil of the scenes. The editing seemed to shift throughout the movie, which I also didn't care for stylistically. For most of the movie the editing was traditional cinematic, and about ¾ into the movie, the editing suddenly becomes "TV news style." Some people might be into that, but I thought it felt out of place, abrupt, and strange. Perhaps that was Kubrick's intent to make the viewer feel strange because he wanted us to feel that war is strange. I think that the film translated Kubrick's vision well. I believe that the point of the film is an anti-war message. I see a lot of undertones for this in the script. The film's plot seemed to be "real-life" war from the perspective a a journalist/soldier. And as for payoff? As I mentioned earlier about the editing, the pacing changed a few times in the film and was strange. There wasn't really a good payoff to this film in my opinion, but I think that's what Kubrick was going for.
AD
