- Review: John Wick 3 (C)
Scott Sycamore - Weekend Box Office
May 17 - 19 - Crowd Reports
Avengers: Endgame - Us
Box office comparisons - Review: Justice League (C)
Craig Younkin
Movie Review
Jarhead
By Lee Tistaert Published November 5, 2005
US Release: November 4, 2005
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal , Jamie Foxx , Lucas Black , Chris Cooper
R
Running Time: 122 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $62,647,540
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal , Jamie Foxx , Lucas Black , Chris Cooper
R
Running Time: 122 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $62,647,540
B-
15 of 143
So what is Jarhead really about? I was asking that myself when I came out of the screening. I knew that I had liked it, but I was also questioning its point, and wished it had been a bit better.
Jarhead is the new war film by Sam Mendes, the acclaimed director of Road to Perdition and American Beauty. But those who actually take the ?war film? term too seriously might be disappointed by the proceedings, as Jarhead is not an actual combat picture; it takes more of an intellectual glance at war by showing the impact on the soldiers? psyche as they?re forced to ?wait? for war. Probably the most interesting and controversial part of Jarhead is that it doesn?t take any political sides, and it also doesn?t have a lot to say. As a result, it is going to split moviegoers down the middle. Jarhead is in the most appropriate hands, though. On paper it is a bit of a mess ("confused" might be a good term), but Mendes has the right cast to do the job. And he also has a fine eye for cinematography and uses music well ? even if he does overkill it a few times. With any other director onboard, Jarhead would probably be mediocre ? as is, it works, but is still disappointing considering Mendes' pedigree.
Jake Gyllenhaal stars as a twentysomething who enlists in the military because he had nothing else to do. He leaves behind a girlfriend who sends him erotic photos of herself so he can ?get off.? In a voiceover, he notes how masturbating is one of several rituals you do on a frequent basis to keep occupied, as waiting for the war takes a lot of patience and can play with your mind. Boredom seems to be the common symptom amongst most of the men gearing up for battle, and the weird thing about Jarhead is that it is actually about just that: Boredom. Men join the military for patriotic reasons and hope to kill other men in the field to say that they served their country. The men depicted in Jarhead don?t kill any men, and that is one of the controversial points of this film. And since the film doesn?t spark political controversy, that makes this entry even stranger. So what is Jarhead really about? I was asking that myself when I came out of the screening. I knew that I had liked it, but I was also questioning its point, and wished it had been a bit better.
Jarhead seems to be a commentary that opposes the dream behind joining the military. Contrary to classic war pictures, these characters don?t express any profound lessons about war?because they don?t get to fight one. If anything, they learn how overrated fighting one is ? or really, waiting for one to unfold. Much of the screen time simply involves the troops mingling around and wondering when they can finally shoot off their guns that they worked so hard training with. It sounds like a bore just describing this film, but I did not find Jarhead boring?although various people might; built up to be a possible Oscar contender, this isn?t looking to go out strong.
Sam Mendes keeps the film alive with a sharp eye for cinematography (presenting the desert with a haunting sensation) along with a solid soundtrack. Although Jarhead feels a bit too much like Elizabethtown at times in its reliance on music to pave scenes, the acting keeps it afloat and patches up some of the weakness of the script. Gyllenhaal doesn?t join the ranks as one of the genre?s best leading men, but he shines in little moments when it?s about subtlety ? when he isn?t staring with a comatose expression (which he does a lot of here). Though not subtle, there?s a scene about halfway through when his character loses it and takes out all of his aggression on a young guy in his unit ? it seems peculiarly similar to Martin Sheen?s nervous breakdown sequence at the beginning of Apocalypse Now. Whether such an homage was intentional or not, the scene stands out, and is one of the best moments to represent the film?s possible theme.
Jarhead is more concerned with letting the viewer think about what its point might be rather than outright expressing what that is (and some people will claim that it?s pointless). This isn?t a real war film by the classic definition of one, and so, many moviegoers might not get the experience they were hoping for (those looking for another Saving Private Ryan are better off watching that film again in place). I didn?t get the experience I was expecting (I anticipated combat), but I also like films that stray away from the norm. Regardless, I wish Jarhead had more to say. The film is terrific on a technical level, which makes you wish that the script had been developed more, and offered more biting material. It?s a pretty safe genre piece in terms of having avoided controversial subject matters, which can be looked at as a good or bad thing depending on your tolerance. Jarhead is a pretty good film that could?ve been great.
Jake Gyllenhaal stars as a twentysomething who enlists in the military because he had nothing else to do. He leaves behind a girlfriend who sends him erotic photos of herself so he can ?get off.? In a voiceover, he notes how masturbating is one of several rituals you do on a frequent basis to keep occupied, as waiting for the war takes a lot of patience and can play with your mind. Boredom seems to be the common symptom amongst most of the men gearing up for battle, and the weird thing about Jarhead is that it is actually about just that: Boredom. Men join the military for patriotic reasons and hope to kill other men in the field to say that they served their country. The men depicted in Jarhead don?t kill any men, and that is one of the controversial points of this film. And since the film doesn?t spark political controversy, that makes this entry even stranger. So what is Jarhead really about? I was asking that myself when I came out of the screening. I knew that I had liked it, but I was also questioning its point, and wished it had been a bit better.
Jarhead seems to be a commentary that opposes the dream behind joining the military. Contrary to classic war pictures, these characters don?t express any profound lessons about war?because they don?t get to fight one. If anything, they learn how overrated fighting one is ? or really, waiting for one to unfold. Much of the screen time simply involves the troops mingling around and wondering when they can finally shoot off their guns that they worked so hard training with. It sounds like a bore just describing this film, but I did not find Jarhead boring?although various people might; built up to be a possible Oscar contender, this isn?t looking to go out strong.
Sam Mendes keeps the film alive with a sharp eye for cinematography (presenting the desert with a haunting sensation) along with a solid soundtrack. Although Jarhead feels a bit too much like Elizabethtown at times in its reliance on music to pave scenes, the acting keeps it afloat and patches up some of the weakness of the script. Gyllenhaal doesn?t join the ranks as one of the genre?s best leading men, but he shines in little moments when it?s about subtlety ? when he isn?t staring with a comatose expression (which he does a lot of here). Though not subtle, there?s a scene about halfway through when his character loses it and takes out all of his aggression on a young guy in his unit ? it seems peculiarly similar to Martin Sheen?s nervous breakdown sequence at the beginning of Apocalypse Now. Whether such an homage was intentional or not, the scene stands out, and is one of the best moments to represent the film?s possible theme.
Jarhead is more concerned with letting the viewer think about what its point might be rather than outright expressing what that is (and some people will claim that it?s pointless). This isn?t a real war film by the classic definition of one, and so, many moviegoers might not get the experience they were hoping for (those looking for another Saving Private Ryan are better off watching that film again in place). I didn?t get the experience I was expecting (I anticipated combat), but I also like films that stray away from the norm. Regardless, I wish Jarhead had more to say. The film is terrific on a technical level, which makes you wish that the script had been developed more, and offered more biting material. It?s a pretty safe genre piece in terms of having avoided controversial subject matters, which can be looked at as a good or bad thing depending on your tolerance. Jarhead is a pretty good film that could?ve been great.
Lee's Grade: B-
Ranked #15 of 143 between Innocent Voices (#14) and Broken Flowers (#16) for 2005 movies.
Ranked #15 of 143 between Innocent Voices (#14) and Broken Flowers (#16) for 2005 movies.
Lee's Overall Grading: 3025 graded movies
A | 0.4% | |
B | 30.0% | |
C | 61.7% | |
D | 8.0% | |
F | 0.0% |
'Jarhead' Articles
- Weekend Outlook Chat (November 4 - 6)
November 4, 2005 "The tracking said Jarhead's on track for high teens and Chicken Little $30, but the studios didn't even seem locked on Little at #1?as if Jarhead could surprise." -- Staff of LMI