HaloScan.com - Comments

Thanks for the detailed review. Hopefully the film/movie will be a financial disaster for Hollywood.
Anonymous | 11.09.05 - 7:52 am | #

You should see the mental wank people are having over the movie at IMDB's forums, in a race to excuse harmless "uncle Saddam" , and make fun of Veterans and label them babykillers.

I find it shameful that people would attack veterans on a forum just to poke fun at their service, or even just attack soldiers/marines in general. One could only dream of the day they need the protection of the armed forces. this however is the sort of wetdream of a movie they look forward to, one that encompasses someone having a bad time in the mil (why is it always the ones that say they joined for the college money?) that now paint the picture of soldiers like blood thirsty cave men with guns, -- crazy G.I's just looking for the next innocent citizen to bayonet, or a baby seal to club.

What a marvel that Hollywood would release an anti-war movie, not only to cash in of course, but to get the anti-war crowd frothing at the mouth again.
dave | 11.09.05 - 9:37 am | #

Wow, I'm glad I didn't waste my $8.00 on the matinee here in the DC area over the weekend when my buddies called to go see the film. Something told me it woudln't be worth it.

Glad to know my gut is still right.
David M | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 9:38 am | #

I read the book but will not see the movie. It is well written book but I didn't love the guy at the end.

I kept asking myself why Swofford joined at all. I found myself comparing what he wrote to the Marines I know and had trouble reconciling it all.

Adele
dellbabe68 | 11.09.05 - 10:08 am | #

I thought it was a comedy. I stand corrected. IMDB states the genre as:
"Action/Comedy/Drama/War (more)"

Clicking the "(more)" adds so many keywords to make me wonder if the genre shouldn't just be "Porn".
Leland | 11.09.05 - 11:28 am | #

That sounds a whole lot like that garbage TV show, "Over There”, which aired on FX. Even a civilian like myself was able to complete dissect the show as complete Hollywood propaganda. The entire squad in the show was made up of undisciplined, untrained, out of control mental cases.

Anyway, thank you very much for enduring "Jarhead" for the rest of us. I was considering seeing it sometime, but now I will definitely be sure to miss that one. Thanks!
J Richmond | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 11:37 am | #

Nothing like a little propoganda to move the masses to your side, eh Hollywood? The agenda-driven drivel from most entertainment outlets is increasingly ham-handed and laughable. I saw the TV movie "Catagory 7" and was not surprised to see several underhanded references to the Kyoto protocol and 'global warmeeen'. Bleah.

Thanks for the heads-up; I am glad to hear that my intuition was correct.

Keep up the good work.

Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel
The Holy City of Winston-Salem
Dan Patterson | 11.09.05 - 11:48 am | #

AYE Froggy ,Thanks for the heads up! I WILL NOT not see this movie.
SCPO (SS) RET | 11.09.05 - 12:25 pm | #

Thanks for the tip. My wife wanted to go see it over the weekend, but as someone else said, I had a gut feeling it was going to be typical Hollywood claptrap. Isn't too hard to get that feeling though, most La-La films about the military are one sided leftist garbage.
Remy | 11.09.05 - 12:27 pm | #

What a piece of crap movie from a piece of crap book written by a piece of crap Former Marine.

The only thing the movie did capture was the amazing amount of down time and how it can bring our who the shitbirds are because they have no freakin idea how to use this time for something constructive.

The bottom line here is this jerk off is a liar, thief, and mentally unstable. In my opinion he committed the one crime that is unforgivable; he stole from and betrayed his fellow marines for personal gain.

Was I the only one thinking at the end of the movie when the platoon was firing their weapons in the air that this has got to be the biggest bullshit scene ever in a war movie?

Semper Fi.

DS

USMC 1984-1990

PS. Yes I used the term “Former” Marine on purpose, the adage of “Once a Marine, Always a Marine” does not apply to this Holden Caulfield wannabe.
Doninsocal | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 12:53 pm | #

Grow up. It's just a movie. And how do you know what *every* marine does on deployment?

Sheesh, get over yourself.
crossdotcurve | 11.09.05 - 12:54 pm | #

seems like Hewitt's come through on part of his debt. I figure you he owes you $17 for pain and suffering.
Good reveiw.
PBz | 11.09.05 - 12:54 pm | #

I read the book and did not think it was well written. Most of book was spent in his head and he is/was confused. The movie followed the book with a few exceptions. His sister spent her life in and out of a mental institution and I think he should have spent some time there himself. He came from a disfunctional family and blamed it on the military as his Dad was career military. His friend (Troy) that died at the end died in a motor vehicle accident (not disclosed in the movie), I felt the movie implied he was unstable but not the case in the book.

I liked the theme song. I'm glad I only paid 4 bucks.
CTG | 11.09.05 - 12:58 pm | #

To continue paying those who intend your demise(the greatest percentage of Hollywood media enterprise) is unwise. There is no such thing as a neutral worldview. Even the most seemingly benign production has a tasty morsel for sheep to eat, and be poisoned.
Anonymous | 11.09.05 - 1:15 pm | #

Thank you for your service.

I heard Hugh ask you to attend the movie and write a report on it. This just makes me upset to see the looney's in Hollywood try to ruin our Military. I have the upmost respect for all the work you and your friends do in protecting us. I will not pay one cent to see this. Thanks for the report.

God Bless THE USMC...
auggysblog | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 1:16 pm | #

Thank you for the review ... and your service.
W. | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 1:16 pm | #

In an ironic twist of fate, we now have two former Marine shitbirds fighting over dialog and details of the movie.

Please, whatever you do...DO NOT purchase Turnipseeds' "Baghdad Express". I made the mistake and felt like gauging my eyeballs out with a spoon less than halfway through.

Link to the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/ 0...agewanted=print

Semper Fi.

DS
Doninsocal | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 1:55 pm | #

One explanation for the Vietnam-era anecodtal BS injected into the movie is that the screenplay was written by William Broyles, Jr., who created the antiwar "China Beach" for ABC back in the 80s. He was a Marine Lieutenant in Vietnam before joining the MSM as Newsweek editor. In 1984 he wrote a book called "Brothers in Arms" about his wartime experience and his going back to Vietnam in the early 80s to meet with people he fought against.

Short version of his screenwriting career: recycling stale stereotypes and urban legends about military personnel, when not drafting Tom Hanks vehicles.

Unfortunately, he seems to be the only kind of veteran that Hollywood hires for movies like this. God forbid they should hire a milblogger, who actually knows his stuff!
M. | 11.09.05 - 2:01 pm | #

We saw the movie because it was 2 blocks away and an empty afternoon. We both said, as we were leaving, that it was a ridiculous movie and was an insult to our Marines. We both laughed talking about the people who would be stupid enough to believe it.
Pat | 11.09.05 - 2:09 pm | #

crossdresser,
I know what Marines do on deployment, because I was a Marine. SEALs are no different in that regard and frankly it is probably the only way some people are able to keep themselves from cheating on their wives for being so lonely and shall I say unattended to.
Froggy | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 2:42 pm | #

My husband served in the Corps in the early 1070s. We won't be darkening the door of the theater and I'm sending a link to your post to everyone I know.
I appreciate you seeing, and reviewing the film.
Kim | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 3:13 pm | #

I wouldnt go see this movie if you paid me....

Semper Fi!
USMC 94-99
Cerberus | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 3:59 pm | #

Thanks for running point. I'm not going to that movie.
Charlie | 11.09.05 - 4:00 pm | #

Thanks, I do believe you've saved me 8 bucks. It sounds like this oxygen thief masquerading as a Marine took a few anecdotal elements common to most Marines who served in Gulf War I and exaggerated them beyond belief. Throw in a good dose of individual insanity and leftist propaganda and you have yourself a crappy movie. As for the Iraqi bodies, in reality there were quite a few... mostly in and around vehicles that had been destroyed by airstrikes, armour, and LAV's... none of them civilian. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, the bar is open even if you are a squid.

p.s. Don't let Hugh off the hook on this one...make him review some stupid lawyer movie about the "nobility" of defending terrorists. There will be one eventually, probably starring Clooney and Sarandon.
Steve | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 4:02 pm | #

First let me say that following the publication of his book Jarhead, Swofford has been writing lots of anti-Bush/anti-military articles for Details Magazine. So right off the bat I don't care Swofford's politics. That being said, I saw Jarhead before reading your excellent movie review. Judging the reaction of some of the teenagers in the audience, the movie might possibly increase the numbers of prospects for the Marines. This paradoxical effect has been noted for other antiwar movies (antiwar for the author and the left, but exciting to other viewers who miss the antiwar message). But I still hope Swofford fails at the box office on this film. He does not deserve to get any richer off of a nation he seems to despise.
Anonymous | 11.09.05 - 4:23 pm | #

I'll save my eight-fitty for something interesting.

BTW - Did you see Three Kings? I remember hearing it was also about the '91 Gulf War.
eLarson | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 4:57 pm | #

Froggy,

Let me get the gist of your argument:

Premise 1: I was a Marine.
Premise 2: I was deployed.
Conclusion: I know what Marines do on deployment.

Ohkaaaaay. Time for you to sign up for Logic 101.

p.s. - the "crossdresser" comment was pretty junior high. You know, when adolescents are confused about their sexuality...
crossdotcurve | 11.09.05 - 5:35 pm | #

Crossdresser :"Grow up. It's just a movie. And how do you know what *every* marine does on deployment?",

I think its you that outta grow up dude.
Its "just a movie" so it can't be criticized for being crap?
Hey, movie reviewers are paid to do exactly that every single day.

This movie is a total piece of excreta, the most stupid movie have seen this year, if not in decades.

BTW, you the guys you should be detecting our stupid crack about "And how do you know what *every* marine does on deployment" . are the moronic dunderheads who actually made this pathetic excuse of a movie.
Smithy | 11.09.05 - 6:15 pm | #

Read the book. Don't plan on seeing the movie.

I agree with what has already been stated - Swoffard came across as being a whiny, mentally unstable person who really had no business being in the Marines, let alone being a sniper.

crossdotcurve ~ I WASN"T a Marine and I have NOT been deployed and even *I* have a pretty good idea as to what is done during deployments.

This is Froggy's blog and if you don't like what he has to say, don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.
HomefrontSix | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 6:26 pm | #

HomefrontSix,

OK - I'm outta here. Didn't realize this was supposed to be an echo chamber.
crossdotcurve | 11.09.05 - 6:43 pm | #

I have a hard enough time watching war movies that are good, without sitting through anti-military crap made by lying, self-loathing lefties. Thanks for confirming my suspicions, Matt. (Personally, I think Hugh owes you a steak dinner!)

Scott, your crack about loonies Clooney and Sarandon made me LOL!
Peg C. | 11.09.05 - 6:48 pm | #

I can't even find the words to describe how really stupid this movie is.
They should be paying me my money back, and I might actually write AMC to try and do just that.

Here we have a "War Movie" in which there is no war.
About the only real action we see, apart from the bombing of the Iraqi generals which they managed to turn into yet another anti-American propaganda piece, are US fighter/bombers killing our own troops in "friendly fire" bombings, and the only Iraqi dead we see, are people who are obviously Iraqi civilians that have been bombed to death by US troops.
That is just so pathetic.

Not even a word, let alone any action about our boys taking out the vicious Iraqi vermin who were busy carrying out murder, rape and pillaging in Kuwait City.

And that Swofford, what a creepy looking guy.
Just looking at his eyes is enough to give me nightmares.
Just watching this piece of garbage made me physically sick.
Remind me never to see any movie with this clown or from this America-hating director Sam Mendes again.
Life is too short to waste on movies from brain dead idiots like these guys.
Smithy | 11.09.05 - 6:51 pm | #

I was told many times, over many months, not to bother reading "Jarhead." When it cam out in paperback I broke down and my reaction exactly matches your review. A piece of crap.

I'll probably see the movie just to have a first person opinion.

By the way, our hero "Tony the Masturbator" got himself a Masters in Fine Arts and is now teaching creative writing (appropriate) at St. Mary's College in Moraga, CA.
H.N.Young | 11.09.05 - 6:58 pm | #

And yet the former Marine who posts at "Bloodletting" thought it was pretty accurate in terms of characters.
augustr | 11.09.05 - 7:46 pm | #

augustr,

Your point being?
Your one former marine at "Bloodletting" trumps all other marines who think this stupid movie really sucks, inlcuding Matthew Heidt at this very site, just because your marine is a Bush-hating moron?
Puleeze!
Smithy | 11.09.05 - 8:12 pm | #

The movie was appalling and I walked out about an hour in. From what I hear I missed even more repugnance with my early departure. By portraying the soldiers as undisciplined idiots with homo-erotic tendencies completely incapable of understanding and believing in their duty, and every wife/girlfriend as a cheating whore, Hollywood was actually making a general biography of itself. Unforgivably, Marines had to take the blow.
I expected the everyday humdrum of liberal propaganda, ex: “no blood for oil”. Unfortunately, and naively, I was not prepared for the comprehensive calumniation of the USMC. It’s egregious that Hollywood would defame the very people that risk their lives to allow Tinseltown to safely get rich off American perfidy. However, what else can one expect from a flamingly liberal bastion of morons, a.k.a. Hollywood?
Let’s not forget the screenwriter of the movie is a communist, Naomi Foner. She is the sister of Eric Foner the Columbia professor devotee of Zinn and Chomsky, and niece of Philip Foner, the communist political activist who plagiarized all his writings.
SemperFi | 11.09.05 - 9:53 pm | #

Thanks for your service. Thanks for the review. Saved me 8 bucks.
Sending this link to others. God Bless our Armed Forces.
Levi Rocks | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 10:15 pm | #

HomeFrontSix:

"don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you."

This was very funny!
dellbabe68 | 11.09.05 - 10:17 pm | #

Thanks for the review. I think I'll pass on the movie. Are there any war or military movies you like and would recommend? I never served in the military so I have no personal experience to base my war movie opinions on. I personally like "Bravo Two Zero," and "Blackhawk Down." Neither is anti-war and both are respectful of soldiers. "Bravo Two Zero" is interesting because of how it presents soldiering as a job rather than as something heroic or dehumanizing.
tdr | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 10:25 pm | #

Ummm, go easy on Doc Russia (Bloodletting)... He's going through the final stages of med-school, thus, his perception of reality might be a little skewed. He's no moron...
Annnnyhow, not gonna see this flick, sounds like another shitbird with an axe to grind...
At some point, someone is gonna see the stuff that Neil Paresh (sp?) posted at Armor Geddon, and expand the idea... Now THERE's a bunch of "characters" a feller could go to war with... Or Lex's "Rythmns" series at Neptunus Lex... Heck, I'll bet Froggy got some great leads on some great ideas... (How'd ya like Bruce Willis in "Tears of the Sun"?)
Oh, right, we've got to go through Hollywierd... Ferget it, we're sunk...
Sgt. B. | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 10:51 pm | #

Froggy,
Thanks for the review of this POS movie. It echoes what everyone else is saying.

This is one Former-Marine that won't be seeing this DF's (Disloyal F*ck's) movie.

Swafford is a Shitbird.
thebronze | 11.09.05 - 11:15 pm | #

crossdotcurve...it's one thing to show up at someone's blog and start up an intelligent debate. It's another thing to show up and begin insinuating things about the blog-owner's mental age or sexuality.

This isn't an internet chat board. It's a blog. There's a difference.

sheesh.

- hfs
HomefrontSix | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 2:08 am | #

Sgt. B. stated:
"How'd ya like Bruce Willis in "Tears of the Sun"?"
Personally I loved the movie. WOULD like to know Froggy's "take" on the film.
Ponch | 11.10.05 - 2:54 am | #

Is Sam Mendes anti-Marine? I ask because, prior to Jarhead, in American Beauty, he had a character who was a sociopathic, abusive, repressed-homosexual murderer who also happened to be (surprise) a Marine Colonel.

Is this a running theme in his work?
Tommydagun | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 6:08 am | #

Jarhead is a crummy book written by a pathetic excuse for a Marine. You couldn't hold a gun big enough to my head to force me to watch the movie. Jake Dillhole is a jerk and that sister of his has a face like a mule.

If you wanna read a decent war novel (Vietnam, not Gulf), try The 13th Valley by John Del Vecchio.
Jman | 11.10.05 - 7:56 am | #

Wow. None of that crap was in the book, which was much, much better (though not great by any means) by the sounds of it. Swofford still comes off as kind of a shitbag in the book, stealing gear and MREs for beer money, etc.

Hollywood = The Suck.
rankin | 11.10.05 - 9:22 am | #

For the record, I think Swofford is a tool, who joined up for the wrong reasons and didn't appreciate his time in the service. He pretty much admits that in the movie (Q: "What are you even doing in the Marines?" A: "I got lost on my way to college, sir."). Is the movie anti-war? Yep, and I don't think that a pro-war movie is a great thing. War in an unfortunate reality, an occasional necessity, and those who choose to serve in times of need should be honored, but there's no need or moral perogative to glorify war in and of itself.

The technical details of Swofford's actual tour were undoubtedly chopped, diced, and blended smooth, both for political ends, and for moviemaking constraints; the sergeant staying in place after the training fatality is unrealistic, but it prevents the filmmaker from having to introduce and establish relationships with another character within the short timeframe of the film. We're to infer that he's "deep" because he reads Camus in the head.

All that said, while you can quibble over technical details, the fact remains that lots of DS1 soldiers and sailors faced the reality that Mendes tries to convey in this film; one of seemingly endless waiting, training, and anticipation of and for a war that never came. There was no combat because lots of the deployed never actually saw the enemy. Swofford was trained from early in his military career to perform a job, above politics, above his doubts, and simply wanted to perform that job. He spent months in the desert waiting for his chance, marched across Kuwait for the chance, but never actually got to do it. That's what the movie's about.

If Swofford is a liar and didn't do what he claimed to do or see what he claimed to have seen, then call him a liar and prove it. And technical accuracy/issues has ruined many a film for me. But the conversation here seems to be more about character assasination and not liking the politics of the principles rather than the merits or lack thereof of the film.
junyo | 11.10.05 - 9:30 am | #

He-yar.....
Most of the reviews I've seen aren't nearly as "poetic" as yours, but the SUCK review seems to be common.
AFSister | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 10:13 am | #

junyo,

From your post: "He spent months in the desert waiting for his chance, marched across Kuwait for the chance, but never actually got to do it. That's what the movie's about."

Lots of people come onto this planet, and spend most of their lives sitting in front of the TV, drinking beer, and achieving nothing in this life.
Does it mean they should be making a movie about them too?
If you don't have a story to tell, why make a movie about it?
You gonna go make a movie about someone sitting down and watching paint dry too?
And more than that, why has this Mendes twisted, chopped, and sliced this movie to deliver an anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-marine propaganda tool?

If this clown Swofford, spent his entire time during the Gulf War, playing with his dick and being an idiot, why waste our time making a movie about the sucker, and then slyly try and market it as PRO-marine movie only for us to go see it and realize its a piece of horse hockey??

Especially since we KNOW that many heroic acts were carried out by marines in that war, and the Iraqi vermin were kicked out of Kuwait, which was the purpose of that war in this first place

What exactly is the purpose of this stupid movie again, if not to slime and slander the marines and America?
Smithy | 11.10.05 - 11:19 am | #

junyo.

You say :"But the conversation here seems to be more about character assassination and not liking the politics of the principles rather than the merits or lack thereof of the film."

# 1, this film has no merits to talk of.

# 2, the only one doing the character assassination and slander here is the idiot Mendes, who basically proceeded to slime the US Marines.

# 3, writing an honest review about a stupid movie is not called character assassination.

Its like someone coming to deposit excreta in your back yard, then turning round and screaming murder when you try and defend yourself.
Smithy | 11.10.05 - 11:33 am | #

I wouldn't slime the Marines, but I also wouldn't say anything but the training death scene in the movie was "impossible". Ridiculous, to be sure, but then, military life IS OFTEN ridiculous.

Sure Swofford's a crybaby--that rings through in the whole storyline. But sometimes a crybaby's point of view can shine a new light on things we non-crybabies take for granted.
Ciggy | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 11:53 am | #

Oh yeah. I am sooooo skipping this one now. Thanks for saving me some money.

Let us know when Hugh sends you a check!

*grin*
blondage | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 12:16 pm | #

Saw the movie, didn't read the book.

I was disappointed, but not surprised with the movie, and wish I'd seen this review before I went to the movie. As our host so fully explains, the film includes so many exaggerations/fabrications that one is distracted from whatever story they're trying to tell.

One minor sub-theme that I enjoyed was how the movie depicts the relationships deployed military have with their spouses at home. Despite the ridiculous and unnecessary masturbation/homo-eroticism shown in the movie, deployed military cling to whomever they have back home. I am but a lowly Cold War AF veteran, and speaking for myself only, knowing that someone back home--not just those you're deployed with--was worth fighting for, somehow made the seperation more bearable. These seperations were a strain on my marriage, and some marriages can't withstand them. In my case--and this is my failing--I don't think my wife ever saw how important it was for me to know she was safe at home and supporting me.

Its been obvious to me that despite the new love we all have for those serving in our current GWOT, the service of military spouses goes largely unappreciated. I somehow also think (but don't know) that some of these spouses don't appreciate how important their support of their servicemenbers is to them.
azlibertarian | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 12:24 pm | #

azlibertarian,

From your post : "One minor sub-theme that I enjoyed was how the movie depicts the relationships deployed military have with their spouses at home"

Now that was one major beef I had with this really stupid movie.

Sure marriages break down sometimes, whether you are in the marines or not.
That is just life.

But somehow, this Mendes, managed to have every single marine in this group that had a wife at home, get betrayed by his wife cheating on him with another man.

I mean this is just ridiculous.
Why, the moronic Mendes even managed to gratuitously insert a porn movie, supposedly sent by the cheating wife of a serving marine, who was fucking some schmuck or the other.

I mean how more sick can Mendes get and how much lower can he sink?
Smithy | 11.10.05 - 12:48 pm | #

Thanks for the review. Not really surprised that the Castro loving directors would demean the military in such a manner. I'll probably see it once it is available for rental for only a buck at the store, but I won't let Hollywood profit from me.
Dragon | 11.10.05 - 12:54 pm | #

I blogged about how bad this movie sucked two days before the film was released since I had been able to screen it early.

Matt- I am soooo glad you and I are basically on the same page when it comes to this insult to Marines.

I didn't hold back my thoughts about Swoffard either. Just because you join the marines doens't make you a Marine.
Huntress | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 1:33 pm | #

I work in Hollywood. They have a universal contempt/pity for military. You'll rarely see a movie with the opposite perspective because they don't understand the transcendence of offering
your life for the liberation of the oppressed or tyrannized. Few have endured great difficulty or struggle, unlike the creators of the studios (Harry Cohn, Louis Mayer, Karl Laemmle), many of whom escaped vicious, life-threatening oppression; many of whom depended on the US armed services for deliverance. Their optimism and patriotism defined the pictures of their age. Hollywood also doesn't understand the necessary paradoxes and contradictions behind the political decisions that take us to war. They like those 22 1/2 minute TV episodes where all is resolved with a nice talk, a federal study and some development dollars. Finally, like the news media, they understand their power. And they want to tell people how to think, what to think and when to think it. They drive the culture and will work like hell to keep military marginaled from it.
leah | 11.10.05 - 1:33 pm | #

[i]Do Marines (or SEALs for that matter) masturbate without ceasing on deployment? Yes, but they don’t engage in homoerotic sexual simulations and naked revelries.[/i]

Hmm, somebody should tell that to my friends in the military who regularly send emails back home with digital pictures of their various hijinks... or maybe its only bored Army guys that do that sort of thing.
Rosensteel | 11.10.05 - 1:52 pm | #

Also, for those of you criticizing Swofford and how he had not business being a Marine and was generally a fuck up... its obvious that he is pretty honest and forthright of that fact.

He makes absolutely no attempt to glorify himself or show himself as anything other than the misplaced fuck-up that he was.

"Fuck politics, we're here, thats all that matters."
Rosensteel | 11.10.05 - 1:59 pm | #

Smithy,
...Mendes, managed to have every single marine in this group that had a wife at home, get betrayed by his wife cheating on him with another man....

I guess I didn't express myself clearly enough. I agree that the movie exaggerated your point of the spousal infidelity and porn beyond any resemblance to the truth. My point is that we're often told, as "Hoot" did in Blackhawk Down (watched it again yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind--sorry), that "It's all about the man next to you." That's true--the relationship I had with the guys I flew 3' from my wingtip at damned near supersonic speeds is something I can't begin to describe to my wife (and I don't in any way pretend that my wimpy AF Cold War connections to my collegues comes anything close to relationship a Marine or SEAL would have to his chums.).

My point is that it's not just about "the man next to you". It's also about the woman (or parents, kids, etc) who are waiting for you at home. True--the movie depicts the women at home in at least as low a standing as it does to the Marines. Swofford, in the movie, puts his 'T-shirt girl' up on a mantle, and is deeply affected when she spurns him for the 'Hotel Night Clerk'. I was trying to highlight the importance the Swofford character placed in his girl back home--not just with his fellow Marines, and certainly not Mendes' depiction of the failure of the women back home to recognize how important they are.
azlibertarian | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 2:03 pm | #

azlibertarian,

You write: "My point is that it's not just about "the man next to you". It's also about the woman (or parents, kids, etc) who are waiting for you at home."

I was agreeing with you completely.
I wasn't criticizing you at all.

I was making the point that that , while in real life, most wives of soldiers are loving, loyal, wonderful wives for their husbands, who give great support and love to their husbands and greatly boost the morale of our troops at war, Mendes set out to portray ALL wives and gf's as cheating sluts.

As far as I am concerned, this Mendes is a really a sick in the head pervert.
Smithy | 11.10.05 - 2:31 pm | #

Glad we cleared that up. As clearly as I try to write, this medium sometimes (for me, at least) has be seeing black when it is really white. I'll try to do better.
azlibertarian | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 2:51 pm | #

Smithy and AZ,
I think Mendes (and Swofford) projects his own life philosophy on everyone else with this movie. He's a lib and they lack self discipline and believe in living for the moment, if it feels good do it, etc. Not in doing the right thing but the expedient thing (such as Swofford stealing another soldiers equipment and selling it, cheating spouses and so on...). I suspect he is not a loyal person and doesn't understand or respect loyalty and honor as in families waiting for their beloved serviceperson or servicemen taking up the noble cause to defend their countrymen. I find this lack of morals and integrity disturbing.

I've learned more in the comments section of this post than this lousy movie.
CTG | 11.10.05 - 4:12 pm | #

The scene in the highway with the charred remains were Iraqi civilians. I'm not sure what the problem is.

Just google highway of death.
Sam | 11.10.05 - 5:46 pm | #

"The scene in the highway with the charred remains were Iraqi civilians. I'm not sure what the problem is.

Just google highway of death."

The 'problem' with your hypotheses is the "Highway of Death" involved the destruction of a large retreating Itaqi military convoy and not the parking lot at the local Iraqi version of Krogers or Safeway. The dead were soldiers, not civilians.
Veritas | 11.10.05 - 7:12 pm | #

What else would you expect from a bunch of Hollywood homos?
Anonymous | 11.10.05 - 7:12 pm | #

This movie is gay.
Anonymous | 11.10.05 - 7:41 pm | #

"He makes absolutely no attempt to glorify himself or show himself as anything other than the misplaced fuck-up that he was."

Maybe so, but the complaints in here have very little to do with how Swofford is portrayed in the movie. If he wants to crap on himself, fine. But he crapped on the Marines, the military in general, and America in general, and on humanity in general.

Why is it that Hollywood praises only those films that have such an overwhelmingly bleak, post-modern, nihilistic, pornographic outlook on life, the proctologist's view of America as Dennis Prager likes to say? The question answers itself -- because they are bleak, post-modern nihilists who see nothing in this world worthwhile beyond the next orgasm.
Zhangliqun | 11.10.05 - 7:55 pm | #

"Why is it that Hollywood praises only those films that have such an overwhelmingly bleak, post-modern, nihilistic, pornographic outlook on life, the proctologist's view of America as Dennis Prager likes to say? The question answers itself -- because they are bleak, post-modern nihilists who see nothing in this world worthwhile beyond the next orgasm."

Zhangliqun, the answer is simple. If you set the bar low enough, you are no longer burdened with those tiresome morals and responsibilities. They simply want to pull everyone else down in the mud with them. They know if God exists adn they owe him an account, they are in deep Kimchee. Much easier to convince oneself there is no God so there is no need to change accordingly.
Veritas | 11.10.05 - 9:07 pm | #

And to think I was going to see this on Veteran's Day after the parade!

Thanx for the tip - Boo-yah!
Peter Porcupine | Homepage | 11.10.05 - 9:17 pm | #

I frequent the imdb all the time, it is a very useful sorce of information. However, the message boards there are full of idiots who don't represent the majority of intelligent film goers.

I thought of seeing this film, simply because the actors cast in it are consistently good. But if it offends the people they supposedly portray, I'll have to pass.
Cary | 11.10.05 - 11:23 pm | #

Froggy,

I must say, though, that you're lucky to have paid so little for a movie! Here in NYC, it's up to 10.25 with no matinee discounts! The only break we actors get is during Oscar voting season when nominated films are free to SAG Union members (I'm not SAG, but I tag along with friends)

My uncle served in the first Gulf War, I'll find out what he thinks.

I still maintain, as a civilian who really doesn't know, that "We Were Soldiers" is the best war film I've seen. It sits on my movie shelf as I type this.

I am particularly angry about what's in production now, which is a story which takes place in NYC at the WTC on 9/11. To make matters worse, it's being directed by the worst filmmaker in Hollywood, who reinvents history and does things with the camera that make me want to vomit.. Oliver Stone.
Cary | 11.10.05 - 11:37 pm | #

I'm surprised that the homoeroticism bugs you, Froggy, considering that as a certified right-winger you're all in favor of the homoerotic hijinks at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Or could it be that you're only in favor of homoeroticism when it's violent anal rape perpetrated by American military personnel, i.e., a matter of re-opening Saddam's rape rooms under new management?
Wilson Kolb | 11.11.05 - 2:44 am | #

Check out Wilson Kolb's (not his real name) blog. Not hard to figure out where he stands on homoeroticism.

http://willysnout.blogspot.com/
Anonymous | 11.11.05 - 8:13 am | #

Wilson Kolb,

Listen, moron, the Al Quaeda Supporters Union is at DNC Headquarters, not here.
I think you lost your way here.
On this site, we STRONGLY support the incarceration of your Islamofacist Al Quaeda vermin pals at Gitmo.

So why don't ya take your homoerotic fantasies to your girly man pansies, the super ugly Fat Michael Moore and Al Franken, and copulate with those perverted loony left psychopaths together with your pal Bin Laden in insane wanton adandon?
Smithy | 11.11.05 - 9:43 am | #

Since this thread is still active...

Oliver North on this movie: "...anti-everything that is good and decent." Says it all.
Peg C. | 11.11.05 - 9:58 am | #

Cary, AMEN to your remarks on Oliver Stone. I predict a monstrous dud from his current production, except in England, France, and similar delusional countries.

To think I thought Stone was God when "JFK" came out.
Peg C. | 11.11.05 - 10:02 am | #

"Zhangliqun, the answer is simple. If you set the bar low enough, you are no longer burdened with those tiresome morals and responsibilities. They simply want to pull everyone else down in the mud with them. They know if God exists adn they owe him an account, they are in deep Kimchee. Much easier to convince oneself there is no God so there is no need to change accordingly."

Pretty much what I was getting at...
Zhangliqun | 11.11.05 - 11:40 am | #

"I'm surprised that the homoeroticism bugs you, Froggy, considering that as a certified right-winger you're all in favor of the homoerotic hijinks at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Or could it be that you're only in favor of homoeroticism when it's violent anal rape perpetrated by American military personnel, i.e., a matter of re-opening Saddam's rape rooms under new management?"

99% of what went on at Abu Ghraib barely qualifies as hazing rituals on most lefty college campuses, which makes me wonder why you aren't in favor of MORE such activity in Abu Ghraib or anywhere else, in the hopes of participating in it.

There's no evidence anywhere outside your own mind that any of this was ordered from anyone above Karpinski.

But Even these twisted goofball National Guard troops (whose behavior resembles that of disaffected college students like yourself) didn't throw anyone into a paper shredder, torture your children with a blowtorch and a pair of pliers in front of you, gas thousands with sarin or mustard, shoot anyone and send their family the bill for the bullet, drain marshlands to plunge millions into poverty, or bury hundreds of thousands in mass graves.

Even indulging your homoerotic conspiracy fantasies for a moment by assuming EVERY POW camp run by America was like Abu Ghraib, the "new management" would still be infinitely better.
Zhangliqun | 11.11.05 - 11:54 am | #

I would love to see a "Saving Private Ryan" type of portrayal, or maybe "Band of Brothers". Where are the heroes? Saddam's bloodrooms exposed? Iraqi civilians by the thousands killed by SADDAM's thuggery? Remeber the 101st taking the Eagle's Nest? No triumph in the war on terror, only our magnified shittiness. That's the message of Hollywood. America is stolen property in the first place,(Dances with Wolves) to them. Let Mel Gibson make an heroic portrayal of the Gulf War, and finance it himself. The Hollyhomos will have to eat shit again when it makes a billion at the box office.

Love your site, Matt, and thanks for being willing to kickass in the cause of freedom.
Brian | 11.11.05 - 1:29 pm | #

"99% of what went on at Abu Ghraib barely qualifies as hazing rituals on most lefty college campuses, which makes me wonder why you aren't in favor of MORE such activity in Abu Ghraib or anywhere else, in the hopes of participating in it."

Some fraternity.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/co...s/ 051114fa_fact
Wilson Kolb | 11.11.05 - 5:55 pm | #

Pvt Joker,

"Y'all are a bunch of homoerotic little posers with funny little hats on your heads."

Is your name Al Franken, dufus?
Speak for yourself, clown!
The RATS Party is the party of perverts.
You only gotta look at your leader, BJ Klinton.
'nuff said!
Smithy | 11.11.05 - 7:32 pm | #

Brian,

"Where are the heroes? Saddam's bloodrooms exposed? Iraqi civilians by the thousands killed by SADDAM's thuggery? Remeber the 101st taking the Eagle's Nest? No triumph in the war on terror"

Yep.
The vermin at Hollywood is all about giving as much support to dictators like Saddam and Castro, and terrorist vermin like Bin Laden, as they can.
Last thing you are going to get from the sleazy, corrupt Hollywood low lives is anything close to the truth, that exposes Saddam's genocidal killings or how truly evil Islamofacism is, or a movie that shows our heroic troops taking out Saddam's vicious killers or blowing off the heads of the Al Qaueda leaders.

No surprise Hollywood box office receipts this year keep falling from last year's levels.

Hollywood, like the MSM is going to continue to pay a heave price for their lies, rabid anti-Americanism and their love of evil.
Smithy | 11.11.05 - 7:44 pm | #

Jeff whatever aka Wilson Kolb, aka Pvt Joker,

Boy, who don't ya go play with yerself?
That way, you do less damage to yourself.

BTW, who let you out of the madhouse anyways?
And don't stop taking them lil blue pills, ok?
Or your madness is going to get even worse than it is already.
Smithy | 11.11.05 - 8:33 pm | #

Whoever runs this website has the IP address records that will show that I am not "Jeff" or "Pvt Joker."
Wilson Kolb | 11.11.05 - 8:37 pm | #

Peg,

I've hated every single film I've ever seen of Stone's. Lucky for him, he's not shooting the 9/11 film in NYC, 'cause I don't know anyone here (con or lib) who's happy about it.

On another note, I just bought tickets for the midnight premiere of RENT... each ticket was $10.75 !!! Pretty soon a movie will cost as much as a Broadway show! I keep saying that I'd take a cut in scale pay if I get a big time job, just to bring ticket sales down enough to make my work accessable to everyone, rich and poor.

No bites yet.
Cary | Homepage | 11.11.05 - 9:27 pm | #

Sadly, we may never see a decent movie for the Desert Storm/Iraqi Freedom vets. The honor-stealing of the media and hollywierd is advanced. We have another greatest generation here that simply isn't getting the credit they deserve. For example, if someone made a movie that slandered WWII vets like the movies slander our troops today, they would be hanged and castrated, in that order if they're lucky.

I did like the comment about Mel Gibson making a good OIF movie. Bruce Willis could be in it, and Michael Yon (among others) could write. It would make a mint on sales to SSAMs alone.
MegaTroopX | 11.12.05 - 8:15 am | #

Megatroopx,
I think the Passion of the Christ really spooked the libs in Hollywood. Mel tried to get all the studios behind it, and one by one, they turned him down. Then he put up $30 million of his own money, made it anyway, and it grossed over $1 BILLION worldwide. Also, the entire dialogue was in Aramaic and Latin. Surely a film that is true to the heroism and REAL ethos of the U.S. military (and in english) would do very well at least here in the states. I really enjoyed Band of Brothers, so much I paid $89.00 for the box-set. The appetite among Americans for a similar treatment of more modern conflicts, (such as Operation Enduring Freedom) must be HUGE considering the deficit of truth from Hollywierd.
Brian | 11.12.05 - 2:10 pm | #

I agree all the way. That was the worst movie I have ever seen.

When I saw the part where the Marines were firing their weapons in the air, another thing seemed weird: not only would that never have happened, they were firing at angles that would guarantee someone would get killed.

The movie was a waste of perfectly good film: a rambling, cynical, masturbatory diatribe that does a complete disservice to our servicemen and women, and especially the Marines.
Singlemind | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 7:18 pm | #

Hopefully, Bruce Willis will get his Deuce Four movie project underway soon and we can see a decent war movie. Heck, Bruce doesn't even need to wait for script writing; just take Michael Yon's blog entries as is.
Mike O | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 10:43 am | #

You gonna go make a movie about someone sitting down and watching paint dry too?
Smithy 11.10.05 - 11:19 am

That would be a realistic portrayal of life in the navy. Maybe Tom Clancy can write it.
Anonymous | 11.13.05 - 12:32 pm | #

I have an idea. Get Clancy, Yon, Willis, and Mel Gibson together. They could write a kick-ass war flick.

They could have "John Clark" as the main character.
SingleMind | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 2:14 pm | #

I saw an MTV episode about the music that the military listened to in OIF Phase I. I was ready for it to be another "Support the Troops by Telling Them That They're Fighting and Dying for a Lie," but it was genuinely pro-troops in that it didn't editorialize at all. It was strictly about the music and the people who listened to it.

The scene that moved me the most was these two black hip-hop fans in an armored unit describing how their white fellow soldier had turned them on to the pianist/singer Dianna Krall. These inner-city guys felt a kinship with her because she seemed to know what was important in life, the way all combat veteran do.

Now if MTV can get it right, why can't Hollywood?
Tom W. | 11.13.05 - 4:03 pm | #

It's the Marine version of "Catcher in the Rye". Immature, self-obsessed, cowardly and ridiculous. No sacrifice or courage. Just what you'd expect from Hollywood.
kreizman | 11.13.05 - 8:24 pm | #

Thanks for the great review. I was planning on viewing this film, but I've heard ebough bad things
Jacob Fink | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 11:08 am | #

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and disagree with you froggy. I saw the film, and think you're being overly critical. As for the road of torched cars and burnt bodies, that actually did happen. It was probably the most well documented piece of imagery to come out of that war, and gave a lot of people pause. I guess it showed a glimpse of actual war that made it a little more personal for most people. I feel sorry for the innocent civillians that died, but that's just war. As for the homoerotic antics: You may never have experienced anything like that in the armed forces, but that doesn't mean it never happens. I seem to recall a case where several enlistedmen in a branch of the service I can't recall (possibly the navy) were punished for making a "sex tape." As for the incident with the snipers freaking out on that officer: I think in this case the authors took a little dramatic license with the story to demonstrate the frustration the marines felt because of the tedium and drudgery of their deployment, and the fact that the war was basically over before it started. I can only imagine how that must have sucked. I know my brother in law (a marine involved in logistics) hated being deployed in djabootie and in kuwait city. The heat. The sand that gets in everything. The bobbleheads and hajis (his words for the indian immigrant laborers and kuwaitis) with their incessant gibberish. The fact that there are no available women, no recreation. It would be enough to drive anyone crazy. From what he told me, routine and tedium were the rule. Hardly ever any action. I imagine he'd be pretty pissed if he had to go through all that for nothing. I think that summed up most of the fighting men's frustrations about the first gulf war. That we weren't fighting to win. That we didn't take it to Saddam and solve the problem once and for all.
I'm rambling now. My point is, this movie comes closer to the reality of war than most films of its genre. I do think the scene at the end where they fired their guns into the sky was a little absurd. I imagine a village a few miles away getting peppered by all that falling ordinance. But I think you're being overly critical. I enjoyed the movie. I certainly didn't take everything at face value and accept it as a war documentary. My chief complaint: After freaking out on one of his peers, threatening to shoot him and all that, you'd think that would warrant a psych evaluation and possibly a medial discharge, wouldn't you? I certainly wouldn't stop at making him apologize, were I his commanding officer.
Chauncy Biggins | 11.14.05 - 2:48 pm | #

Thanks for the info. I have put an "X" through this one on my list of things to see.
Teresa | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 2:52 pm | #

And I wouldn't call that film anti-war at all. I think it was a piece of historical FICTION that sought to show one guy's perspective in the conflict. Not everyone had the same experience in that war. I'm sure some had good experiences, some had bad experiences. Some did good things. Some did bad things. I'm sure there were assholes that desecrated corpses. And I'm sure there were other soldiers that were disgusted by their behavior. Worse stuff than that happens back home in a time of peace. Why shouldn't it happen in a war zone?
Chauncy Biggins | 11.14.05 - 2:58 pm | #

I think you guys are having a knee-jerk reaction. I didn't come away from this movie thinking it was anti-war. This character swofford my have had problems with the military. He may not have liked the way the war was fought. But I saw nothing anti-war in it's message. I think the only parts where i take serious issue are the part where he has a mental breakdown and nearly kills a colleague, and nobody seems to give a damn, and the ridiculous scene where they fired their guns in the air.
Chauncy Biggins | 11.14.05 - 3:07 pm | #

I read the book. The author whined about everything, including NOT having killed anyone, and still blamed his next unhappy eight years or so on the military! I work daily with men who served in Vietnam and have a right to PSTD, or do not have PSTD, and this little twerp is moaning because he wasn't part of the horror of war. I will never watch this movie....
Former SSG | 11.14.05 - 4:18 pm | #

Your review would be helped greatly by COUNTER-arguments explaining why each scene is "ridiculous" or "absurd". As far as I know, this is a film based on a factual autobiography. It looks like some truths were released that might have stuck themselves in your craw.

Oh...and at no point did Swafford's book or film make me think that he was making a comment on ALL marines...simply the ones HE knew...and the ones in his company.
Sleeperkid | 11.14.05 - 6:32 pm | #

PS: If anything, the film showed us how hungry the military makes young men for the KILL itself...and how empty they feel if they don't get one.
Sleeperkid | 11.14.05 - 6:34 pm | #

Not an anti war movie?? Let start with the understanding that NO ONE is PRO War..but there are those of us who are pro democracy and pro getting rid of murdering scumbags called "insurgents.

Now, Let's start with Hollywood's new found lovefest with all things military EXCEPT our military.

I'm not easily fooled. Let's just say that years of working in "the biz"has left me acutely aware that anything Hollywood does is driven by the almighty dollar and a leftist agenda.

This industry, for the most part, has been vocal about its contempt for our military, our President, Republicans, and the War in Iraq. Collectively the elites lend financial support to leftist organizations like Code Pink(o) and ANSWER, and enjoy being seen in the company of Castro, Saddam, and assorted Mullahs.

The larger Hollywood community has done little to lend its support to our troups, our war on terror, and the families of those in harms way,This sudden emergence of films and tv shows about our Military seems a blantant attempt to cash in on the blood and sweat of deployed men and women who make huge sacrifices to protect us from scumbags who detest our freedoms, our way of life, and are hellbent on killing those of us they cannot subjucate.

I dislike the film because I disliked the book, alot. Compared to Evan Wright's "Generation Kill", Danjel Bout's milblog, and everything by Michael Yon, the book pales in its ability to leave one with a sense of what life is like in the sandbox, and doesn't offer us a glimpse into a Marine's inner landscape of confused emotions that lie between fear and bravado.

It makes no difference that "Jarhead" takes place during the first Gulf War, the leftist agenda and negative perception of our military today permeates this movie...largely because Anthony Swofford has an axe to grind, and I can't figure out why, since he CHOSE to join the Marines. Oh yeah..wait...he was upset cause he didn't get to kill someone. That says alot about TONY and nothing about other Marines feel empty if they don't get "the kill instead".
Its exactly that kind of MISinterpretation by sheepkid and others which lends credence to the bogus liberal mindset of those who hate our military!

I found nothing endearing about Anthony Swofford. Period! He is angry, dripping with attitude, disappointment, and cynicism. He isn't a grunt...he 's disgruntled!

In his book he writes " I hated being a Marine because more than all of the things in the world I wanted to be—smart, famous, oversexed, drunk, fucked, high, alone, famous, smart, known, understood, loved, forgiven, oversexed, drunk, high, smart, sexy—more than all of those things, I was a Marine. A jarhead.”

His contempt for the Corps combined with his desire to be famous, which is no doubt why he wrote the book, is distainful. All Tony wants is his 15 minutes of fame and he's got it. But he isn't worthy of the attention, nor of calling himself a Marine.

There are many other Marines whose personal narratives are far more compelling. Their commitment, leadership, courage under fire, and personal sacrifices are the highest example of what being a Marine truly is. Their accomplishments are many, and their stories should be put to film.

Instead, we get "Jarhead" - about a messed up arrogant attention seeking jerk who happens to be a Marine sniper.

Under the pressure of war, Tony's tragic weaknesses are exposed, while his band of brothers are consumed with how their wives and girlfriends are being unfaithful, triggered no doubt by having watched a video tape of one guy's wife cheating on him.

What the film lacks in emotion and drama, it more than makes up for on the subject of masturbation! Left hand or right? I'm not oblivious to the reality that time spent in the sandbox is often "hurry up and wait" but there has to be a better way to have translated that boredom on screen.

I'll spare you the details of Anthony's voiceover in the opening, but it's a poetic monologue about a Marine's relationship to his gun; (no, not THAT gun!!) from holding a woman in his arms to changing a baby's diaper, his hands always operate from the muscle memory of holding a gun. While I'm certainly not in a position to know if this is true for every soldier and Marine, I greatly doubt it. Certainly the one I spent time with knew exactly how to hold me...and I assure you he never held a gun that way!

The voiceover's covert message is that the humanity of a Marine is permanantly leached from him during bootcamp, turning him into a souless war monger.

Hardly true, but why not feed into the biased view liberals already harbour towards those who choose to join the military!?

I suspect "Jarhead" is meant to examine the mind numbing boredom and terror of war, instead it turns out to be mind numbing and boring.

As for experiencing terror, milblogger's accounts of their daily experiences, and Michael Yon's "Gates of Fire" offer up evocative chilling moments of the terrifying realities of war far better than anything Sam Mendes attempts to deliver on screen.

You know a film is void of drama and good writing when it has to rely on its music soundtrack to strongly suggest how you should feel. Visually the movie is equally unimpressive.

Jake Gyllenhaal is the son of politically liberal, anti war director Stephen Gyllenhaal, and screenwriter Naomi Foner. His sister Maggie has been vocal about her thoughts on the war.
Jake says he was challenged in the making of this film, and admits that the experience changed him. "I started the movie with a judgement and opinion as anyone does who hasn't had any experience. But now I am not so sure. I think that's the point of Jarhead. It's not pro-or anti-war".

I respectfully disagree with Jake. There is an anti war subtext that runs through the film, and an implicit recurrent message "I don't like being a Marine..and neither will you".
.
"Jarhead" doesnt examine the challenges or celebrate the day to day courage that our Marines and soldiers face; its a 1hr 55min insult to the men and women of the Marines Corps.

The Marines are the Few and The Proud, these marines are the few and the pathetic!
Huntress | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 7:48 pm | #

I thought this film was an intresting and farily engrossing war polemic that was ambivalent about's its political philosophy.

As a pure film review, with no tanget to viable military life, it was thoroughly entertaining, Jamie Foxx and Peter Saarsgard gave excellent perfomances.

Though the screenplay adaptation could have been better i thought the film depicted an interesting slice of time in life :

the existentialist view of a pacifist-warrior in an ostensible non-war that was a precursor to a global battle of terrorism and geopolitics that most people did not see coming.

I feel your reivew is unfortunately blinded by a partisan lack of objectivity. It's less a film review than an aesthetic critique of the "Hollywood" war narrative.

The war movie, like 99% of all movies, has become quite cliche and formulaic, both on the frontlines and behind, both as drama and comedy.

In Jarhead, Sam Mendes and crew tried to capture the millieu of the frontlines, the behind the scenes military experience, a dramatic element and a comedic element simultaneously. No small feat. Only the legendary Stanley Kubrick was able to pull that off that coup in "Full Metal Jacket", arguably the best fictional cinematic war effort ever.

Jarhead is no five star film, but still worth seeing, even if it falls far from the tree as a neo-realistic War experience.

Additionally for anyone who distinctly remembers Desert Storm and the early 1990's it is an interesting look back in time, in a nostalgic and sociological sense, and to reflect where we have come as a society since.

Most bigtime film reviewers with any credibility were put off by this movie, but I'm glad I saw it anyway.
fredweis | 11.14.05 - 8:02 pm | #

Fred,
The point of my review was to say that Swofford was a dirtbag AND a liar. I make no judgements regarding ideology or partisanship. I don't know enough about the process of film making to determine the Director's motivations and I didn't address that. All I am saying is that the film is not accurate to military life in many important aspects. Some parts are, but there are glaring errors throughout.
Froggy | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 5:27 pm | #

well i think everyone who said something negative about this movie is a fool. you seem to simply despise the writer, i plan on becoming a soldier next year and this book is a good book although all movie from hollywood are shite so i aint gonna see it in a hurry but the book was good IRA falls rd company
Seán-Irish man | 12.14.05 - 5:37 pm | #

This is not a review. All you do is list off a bunch of spoilers and say that you think they are ridiculous plot elements without really explaining why you think they are ridiculous. Thanks for ruining a perfectly good movie for a bunch of people instead of letting them decide for themselves if they like it or not.
Mr. Minority | 12.21.05 - 3:35 am | #

I believe this movie is a huge mistake! The first thing is that I did not want to go see an X rated move that was mistakenly rated as R! I have and my son has watched certain war movies and a friend was going to allow his 14 year old to go see it, assuming is was like all the other "war" movies. He and I were glad we spoke before that happened. I am offended at the rating and the lack of censorship that is going on today. I get the point of the movie, but was done in very poor taste.
Kathy | 01.03.06 - 11:29 am | #

Your just a dick m8! he doesnt get shot under the barbed wire, he gets barbed wire in the back of his head and shouts at him because he is upset! sort it out! your just a coward who would never go to war! you 40 year old virgin living in your mums basement!
Yours sincerely Someone taller than 5"5!
Ben | 01.16.06 - 5:55 am | #

a great movie. hard to enjoy it in the most common meaning of the word, but i really liked it.

this discussion reminded me of one polish movie called "symmetry" and what it caused. the director based the script on his own experiences of being in jail (he was put there for drugs and owning a gun illegally). 'twas about life in prison seen by a new prisoner's eyes. some groups hated this film, church disapproved of it, real prisoners hated and denied it. all the ruckus around it made me realize that it was disliked by so many because it was in fact close to the truth and it was not pleasant.
jake | 01.31.06 - 5:24 pm | #

My God.

Are you Americans are so filled with your sense of self worth that you can't step out of your own shoes long enough to see that so many of you are LIKE Swofford?

I can assure you that my experience with the US Marines has been much more similar to the characters portrayed in Jar Head, than it has to any other Hollywood propaganda rubbish.

You people are unbelievable, totally oblivious to what really goes on.

I urge readers not to miss JARHEAD based on this deeply biased, sadly mis-informed review.
Disbeliever | 02.11.06 - 8:12 pm | #

This review really makes the movie sound degraded. The person who reviewed this movie is pathetic, and thinks they know a lot about war and the USMC. Really, this review reveals how much he knows.

A lot of war movies use Clichés so that dimwits can tell what the movie is about, and also because Cliché is close to actual realism.

During the training exercise where the soldier gets shot, the use of live ammunition, although absurd, is certainly not unheard of. Remember this film is based back in the 1st gulf war, some 30 odd years ago.

"During the Gulf War there are horribly burned Iraqis?" The soldier, who plays with the dead body, is seen through out the entire movie as a person suffering from some mental problem to but it bluntly. Soldiers in war coping with the stress do all sorts of questionable things. Therefore this is not absurd.

Where the snipers are stood down for the air strike, I believe they did not obtain permission. The over eagerness of the corporal shows he wants to go home with a kill, and will disobey orders to do so. We never heard the radio approval, so therefore we can assume he never got it. The Major being attacked is very, very possible, and even reality. Not 'ridiculous' but 'real'.

Although the sand party is stupid, if you were going home, and had a stereo, knowing the war was over, I'd bet you would be partying to.

The army, USMC, navy, all the forces in fact would do homosexual acts like they did, it’s a huge amusement and insult, and provides a good laugh. Of course they aren’t gay nor do anything gay.

Obviously who ever wrote this was writing it in a negative aspect, making the whole movie seem fake, when really it has a true feel for real life.
Jason | 02.12.06 - 3:50 am | #

I would like to say taht you are wrong and stupid! You and the other fellow americans commenting are goddamn stupid if you believe the movie was dumb! I would like to see you go over and fight in the war, and see if you dont get mentally fucked up! Thanks for the spoilers dumb shit! Im 17 and joining the USMC and cant wait! You talk trash about the marines or any soldiers for that matter and you dont know what the fuck they go through everyday. Of course there gonna party when they find out the wars over, who wouldnt? I respect all the Soldiers, no matter what they do! They do stuff that pussies like you wouldnt be able to handle! THe guy that wrote the book is neither fucked up nor stupid, you just portray him to be! If you dont like my comments, email me about if, I would gladly email you back in return! For anyone that agrees with me, email me in all respect!
(103rd Battalion Marine Corp.)
Dan | 02.18.06 - 3:00 pm | #

Please get a life, you boring shits.
Name | 02.25.06 - 5:55 pm | #

Yeah forget you this movie rocked...i dont care....while i was watching it..Im 15 and i started realizing all the people who died over there so we could be freem and your sitting there whining cause of 15 things? get a life and thank God for your country
Tom Macy | 03.16.06 - 8:43 pm | #

I've seen this film and I enjoyed it- some people go into films looking for too much.

It is, over and above everything else, a film that is there to entertain - You want something accurate and thought provoking, watch Ghandi.
James | Homepage | 03.24.06 - 10:29 am | #

amen Chauncy Biggins.

I just finished this movie, and i agree that this review was too critical. Yes, some of the plot line was pretty unbelievable, but it was well orchestrated visually, and the acting was top notch. Not enough for any awards, but a worthwhile watch.
Li | 04.02.06 - 7:15 am | #

I am a former Marine, 90 - 95. Unfortunately I did not see this review prior to paying 3.99 on PPV. I have to agree with the review in it's entirety. I was in boot camp in early 90 and was in the beginning of the second week of MCT when Desert Shield broke out. By early 90, DIs were not allowed to curse or strike a recruit without serious consequence. I remember vividly that this was the first time I heard Freakin or Freakhead to replace the favorite four letter word of USMC DIs. Live fire was down range only and strictly observed my many SNCOs and usually a Captain or two.
As I watched this movie, I felt very much that it was a Gulf War "Platoon". I did not serve with any Marines who acted like the ones in the movie, nor did I know anyone who was "fast-tracked" so they could deploy, especially in an MOS so specialized as Marine Sniper. I don't believe there was any part of the movie that bore any truth accept the constant hurry-up-and-wait and the speed at which the front line moved once Desert Storm started. Although I will say that one of my best friends from college, who rose to the rank of Major, and served in both the Gulf War and the War in Iraq, told me how his platoon would get on line and have "jack-off" contests to see who could cum first. I don't find that particularly homosexual.
The author is a psychotic piece of sh*t and does not deserve to even know when the Marine Corps birthday is.
Oooh Rah!!
J. Erskine | 04.17.06 - 11:02 pm | #

I just saw the movie via Netflix. What a stupid, unrealistic, cliched portrayal of the American military. That's 2 hours of my life I won't get back.
TC | 04.24.06 - 9:13 am | #

Hey D....

You're village called....their IDIOT is missing!!!!
Huntress | Homepage | 04.27.06 - 7:15 pm | #

Do not waste your $ buying the book
either and do not line Swofford's
pockets any further than they have
been lucratively lined!!!! Such a
whiner deserves only a kick ass.
Aunt Sally | 06.03.06 - 4:33 pm | #

P.A.N.T.S
pat rule | 07.05.06 - 5:57 pm | #

Idiot, The corpral was getting discharged 2 weeks after they got home anyways so it wouldnt have mattered if he hit the major anyways.

and alot of innocent iraqi's got bombed in accidental bomb drops throught the first gulf war.

and the bon fires thats it is also what alot of the soldiers did apon the war finishing so i think u should do a little bit more research
Ty | 09.25.06 - 2:45 am | #

Although Im about a year late, I must say I think the only ones being fooled by this movie are you Marines. If you honestly think that people believe everything they see in movies then you need a reality check.

Ya maybe the movie portrays things wrong, but there are a reason for stereotypes. In the end I think that most people can critically asses what is real and what is most likely played up for the movie.
Foolish | 11.21.06 - 2:30 pm | #

I just watched this movie on cable. The best thing I can say about the movie is that the photography is amazing -- this movie is beautifully shot.

Jamie Foxx gives a great performance, but that's not an endorsement of the script.

Like the movie Platoon, Jarhead takes things that happened in different units all over the suck and makes it look like it all happened to one unit, and that this was a common experience to all of the units.

What makes Jarhead totally absurd is that there are rarely consequences for breakdowns in discipline. That's where I repeatedly through the bullshit flag.

I never joined the military, but both of my parents were Marine sergents (WWII and Korea). I don't claim to understand the Corps, but people (including Marines) seem to forget that Marines are just people. Some are smart, some are stupid, some are kind, some are insane, ... you get a little of everything.

Regarding the scene where the trainee is shot during a training exercise, I threw the bullshit flag when there was no action taken against the Staff Sergent. He's responsible for all of those trainees. It was his responsibility to get them through training without dying. He failed to keep that trainee alive, and thus failed to do his job, and would have been held accountable.

However, the Staff Sergent's reaction of yelling at the dead traineed was plausible. In that case, his anger is a way of expressing his intense anger at himself for the death of the trainee. The more personal reaction, tears and sadness, is something he'd do in private.

My dad didn't even want us to know he cried when my Mom died.

Regarding the "sniper mission" scene. The spotter's frustration was that he knew he was being thrown out of the Corprs, and this mission was his only chance to feel like he had done his job as a Marine. Being part of the Corps was the most important thing in his life. Taking away the opportunity to complete this mission was taking away his opportunity to feel like he had really done something as a Marine, i.e. that his entire life just wasn't a total waste of time.

This was about a lot more than just losing the opportunity to execute a killshot.

I through the bullshit flag when there were no consequences after the spotter struck the Major. That's a breakdown in discipline that wouldn't be tolerated.

The stuff you're calling homo-erotic was just boys-will-be-boys. They turned the football game into a simulated orgy just to have a joke at the expense of the reporters. Swofford running around with a Santa Claus hat covering his winkie was just a drunk being obnoxious. These scenes weren't about homosexual behavior, they were about guys who were so comfortable with each other that anything goes when it comes to getting each other to laugh.

I have no doubt that Marines encountered dead civilians who had been burned to death. Jarhead only shows the civilian casualties, and that's a problem.

Jarhead doesn't show one of the major problems the Marines faced during Desert Storm, dealing with thousands of Iraqis who couldn't wait to surrender. That's the story of Desert Storm.

Basically Jarhead is an action movie without action. The characters are 2 dimensional, and never face real consequences for their actions.

If Jarhead had any real courage, it would have discussed the aftermath of Desert Storm. President HW Bush enouraged the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam, and then allowed Saddam to slaughter all of them.

And people wonder why we aren't welcomed as liberators!
Egbert | 01.28.07 - 3:05 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan