Review of Full Metal Jacket (1987) by Chris O — 14 Sep 2017

Maybe not as good as it's been talked up to be, but still a solid war film.

Based on Gustav Hasford's novel The Short Timers, the film's first half details the volunteers' harrowing boot-camp training under the profane, power-saw guidance of drill instructor Sgt. Hartman (R. Lee Ermey, a real-life drill instructor whose performance is one of the most terrifyingly realistic on record). Part two takes place in Nam, as seen through the eyes of the now thoroughly indoctrinated marines. Ironically, Full Metal Jacket was filmed almost entirely in England.

"Full Metal Jacket" was one of the movies that was talked about when I praised films such as "Hacksaw Ridge". Apparently, this was the war film to behold, as it was just as good, if not better. I recently got the opportunity to view this movie and by that, it means I was in the mood for it and I saw it on Netflix. I really don't think this film is as good as its reputation suggests it is, but it's still solid. It's certainly the best film ever made, but it's certainly not bad. I guess it's just dated if anything.

I'm not sure if this is a complaint or not, but this really did feel like two different films. The first hour of this film took place at boot camp. It felt repetitive, it dragged a bit, and even though it ended shockingly, it still wasn't enough for an A+ film. Then, when the second half came on, it became an entirely different film. In fact, all the weight the first half had became meaningless. So essentially, this was two different movies. I guess that really is a problem in the end, because by that point, why care about anything that happened in either half?

The acting wasn't that great. The only real solid performance from here was Matthew Modine's performance. I actually thought he did a really good job. I thought his performance stood out amongst the rest, especially when other ones stood out negatively. A lot of the performances in this movie were less than adequate. They were either cheesy, cringe worthy, laughable, or just downright awkward. I don't think the best cast was chosen for this film, regardless of what the persona of their character was supposed to be.

Although it's not the most visually grossing or hard hitting war film, it boasts these concepts and ideas that are pretty tough at times. The overall language and what was acceptable to say back then is completely different than it is today. I liked seeing that difference in past cultures and how we acted compared to how we do today. It also showed some things that did show that war is ugly. It's not pretty, it has its moments, and I think this film showed those aspects well.

In the end, this isn't the best movie by any means. It's good, it has its fair share of problems. Maybe it's a bit dated, but maybe it was really good for its release year. In the end, I'm fairly neutral with it.