hehe, no i agree completely.

but around here, it seems like NO ONE gives ANY grades below C-. So often I come into these threads and read "oh i hated it, man it sucked so bad, worst of the year. C+"...

just seems to be how it happens here.

I give Fs

When I give grades.

I very frequently used to use low Cs and Ds and 3 or 4 Fs a year. C is my middleground.

I would give Jarhead a B-/C+ if I still graded!

Oh, I give out F's and D's.

Here

Kypade - F-

I give F, so far this year I've only seen one F movie: Crash, but I haven't been to theater much. I'd give Wedding Crashers a D, the ending was so just damn long and boring.

Hmm.

I'm not sure what to think. On one hand, the movie was a visual delight and the perfect "war" movie- the buddy relationships, coping with change and violence, etc. On the other hand, did it have a point? Was the ambiguity a helping factor or something that weakens the movie? I really, really can't decide. I'm going with my initial reaction and giving it a B. It was solid, above average entertainment- but probably nothing more.

Decent movie, that did remind me of Full Metal Jacket.I liked FMJ more though.Jarhead had a decent story and some good humor but overall fell a little short.I give it a (B)

Knowing that it was a battle-less war movie beforehand, I came out extremely satisfied. It wasn't one of the best of the year, but certainly a good film that was made excellent by it's fantastic performances. Surprisingly, the film is hilarious at times, something I didn't really expect. I also liked that it was no-holds barred and went above the limit at times with the language, making it more realistic. The best thing about the film, though, is the outstanding performances from Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, and Jamie Foxx. It's a beautiful film with some amazing cinematography. One thing that bothered me, though, was not that it lacked action (as it isn't necessary to have a fun or good film), but that it got really boring towards the middle, which was surprising considering that some scenes were really intense as well. Overall, though, a solid film. B+

Well at least the catchphrase for this movie was honest - Jarhead really did suck. Sam Mendes should stick with his day job as a theatre director...

1 out of 5.

er...i hate to say this for fear of getting 20 more of these posts, but...i wasnt talking about you. :o
see andaroo.

and Kypade is a masterpiece.

see loyal.

It was OK. Im dissapointed, i expected a lot more

Good acting by Jake, Jamie Foxx and Peter Sarsgaard

C+

I give F's and D's, I gave Crash an F, EpIII a D, some of do in fact give D's and F's, I give less bad grades then before because I seel ist films so I am uch choosy and I tend ot seet hings I want to see, and most of the time they end up not being atrocious.

Also Rumour Has it, that gets a D.

B+


I went into the movie pretty mch knowing what was expecting me and that was exactly what Jarhead delivered. If I had to categorize Jarhead in a certain genre, it'd be "war movies" of course. However, I don't think Jarhead is really a war movie per sé since there is basically no war in the film itself. Anyone who goes into this film and expects battles or action scenes of any kind, will be disappointed.

Jarhead reminds me of Full Metal Jacket in many ways. It is similarily structured. The first half of the movie deals with the training of the soldiers and the second part sends them off to war, even though in Jarhead they never reach the war itself. Exactly like in Full Metal Jacket, the first half worked excellently for me, while I found the second to be rather lacking. The first hour was simple excellence of filmmaking and I sensed a masterpiece in the making. After that, however, it went downhill. In the second half, the movie just loses its focus a bit and fails to deliver a clear message by the end of it. Not to mention that it just starts getting boring which peaks with the scenes on the oil fields. The first half mostly makes up for the lackluster second half, though, as it is really an exhilarating ride. I certainly didn't expect the movie to be as funny as it ended up being. In fact, I must say that I laughed at this film no less than at most of last year's comedies. Its humor is bleak and cynical, similar to Three Kings, but it works.

In the acting department, Jake Gyllenhaal is the definite highlight of the movie, but the supporting cast is pretty decent as well. I didn't feel that any of the cast members in particular was Oscar-worthy, but every single one of them delivered a fine performance, especially Peter Sarsgaard.

Technically, the film is top-notch with Sam Mendes doing a fine job directing. The cinematography in the film is one of the best I have seen all year and was certainly overlooked at the Oscars. The desert scenes are a visual eye candy.

I must also mention that I am reading the book "Jarhead" that the movie is based on and I must say that while the movie adaptation is not very faithful to the source, it does manage to capture the book's spirit and most of its intentions. I just wish that the second half of the film was not such a letdown. The events after the end of the war were summed up way too quickly and Troy's death at the end did not have any emotional impact on me. In the end, I simply failed to feel myself attached to any characters. The message the film tried to convey, while clear in the first half, became a little too blurry and unclear in the second.

On the whole, however, I enjoyed the movie a lot. Sam Mendes knows how to keep the viewer interested and I must mention that the guy's films always have excellent cinematography. American Beauty has one of the very best camera shots in film history and both Road to Perdiction and Jarhead are decent follow-up's to that. Jarhead is one of the better representatives of the recent "war movies" crop. Just don't go in and expect elaborate action scenes. It is a movie about the people in the war, not about war itself.

I liked teh film jarhead alot more before I read the book, the film takes nos tance on anything, its like Sma Mendes other films, nice ot lok at but hollow, and after I read the book this highlighted even more. What makes Swafford book so good is that he does have opinions, while still be devoted to the Marine Corp. The film lacked this balance.

I don;t think I am much of a Sam Mendes fan, Road to Predition was bad and I find American Beauty is overrated.

I liked it, it wasn't more Full Metal Jacket and I wasnt expecting it like that. I enjoyed it a lot, but not the best film of the year.

B+

Though many seem to disagree, I think Mendes's two previous efforts, American Beauty and Road to Perdition, are masterpieces.

This one, however...

Not so much. Kind of a frustrating let-down.

I think the assumption that a film about tedium would in and of itself not be tedious was a poor one: The nothing storyline caters to the film's theme but not much else.

But neither does the film succeed in sustaining this theme. The narration that Gyllenhaal gives, one in the beginning and the other that bookends the film, as well as others sporadically placed throughout, is the closest the film comes to conveying any sort of meaning that surpasses that already conveyed by the pent-up aggression. And it's so unsuccessful to the point that I don't even think I could 100% verbalize what I thought Mendes was trying to say here.

I thought the cinematography was perfect, though. Loved the oil field scenes.

C+

What makes up for an extremely slow pace (two hours seemed more like three or four), is made up with very good character development.

That saying though, I have to agree with Dkumto, in that it's very hard to come out of this film wondering what Mendes' point was. Maybe there was no point except to show the extreme isloation of war. I don't think that was it though, because that is too simple a point for what this film seems to want to be.

Still, the film is worth renting for the cinematography and the acting.

B

An extremely "meh" film. It's not bad, but it's not great. It's not even that it is boring or doesn't have enough action. The film just doesn't have that "it" factor. Good performaces, but the movie goes absolutely nowhere. Is that the movie's intent though?

-C+

A good movie about war.
Most time in a war is waiting...well they did.
I give 8/10

Yawn -- I'm starting to fall asleep just being reminded of this snoozefest...

^

What I said as the first hour of The Da Vinci Code drolled on and on.

I saw this when it was in theatres, and really liked it, but I watched it again last night on DVD, and it didn't hold up nearly as well. It really dragged at times. Anyway, my full review:

A war film that's not decisively pro-war or anti-war. In fact, it's not really sure what it wants to be. Some parts of it are artsy, meaningful, and anti-war, while other parts are testosterone-fueled, profanity-laced, and somewhat pro-war. I think most of the problem lies with the screenplay, and thus with the novel from which it is based. Since it's basically a memoir of Swoff's time in the desert, it's not a normal fiction novel with a definitive theme and message - it's just a recollection of what the war was like. The book is much better than the movie because it includes a lot of Swofford's inner musings and reflections on war, which cements all the experiences together. The movie just seems like it took the 'coolest' scenes from the book, and threw them together, not really taking time to establish a constant theme or message. It's my biggest problem with the movie.

Besides that, however, it's a very well-made movie. The performances are all great, with Gyllenhaal standing out as usual. Jamie Foxx is pretty good in a surprisingly layered role, and Sarsgaard is good but not outstanding. It's directed technically solid but not that creatively by Mendes - I would have preferred more intriguing dream/fantasy sequences like when he vomits sand. The cinematography is solid, and the production design is, well, non-existent. The first third with all the training is interesting, but not really necessary. I would have preferred more time showing how they gradually lost their mind to boredom in the desert - I didn't find that part boring at all, but quite fascinating. The end with them wandering around the desert in the oil rain is where it really drags, as it seems to be trying to say something but can't quite get the words out. And the climax (?) is interesting, but not really the peak of the action. In fact, the action never really peaks - it just ends. I suppose that's true to life, but something a bit more exciting would have been nice. The denouement feels a bit rushed, too. Still, it's a pretty good film - well-made, fairly entertaining, and definitely thoughtful.

I found the book to be fairly different from the movie. And better, yeah. I gave the movie the same grade as you trixster, basically agreeing with you on all the aspects. I think as far as the technicals go, cinematography was brilliant. My problem was that the movie is never sure what message it tries to convey.