Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Jarhead: Law of Return. With just five months to go until retirement, Gunnery Sergeant Dave Torres (Amaury Nolasco), the leader of a Marine special forces team, is sent to Israel for a training exercise. When Major Ronan Jackson (Devon Sawa), an Israeli fighter pilot and the son of a US Senator, is shot down over Syria, Torres and his squad join an IDF black ops team on a covert mission to rescue him from a militia group.

Jarhead: Law of Return is a budget action movie about a joint US-Israeli rescue mission. Torres and his men are sent into war-torn Syria in search of a pilot being held by the Ghost (Georgi Zlatarev), a cunning militia leader. Jarhead: Law of Return is a straightforward action movie that packs a lot of firepower relative to its budget. Expansive firefights and decent storytelling make the movie a modest but enjoyable pick for action fans.

Jarhead: Law of Return sticks to the basics but largely gets them right. The action scenes include a nice variety of gunplay, explosives, and vehicle action. The plot holds few surprises, but it is well-paced and keeps the focus on the action. The characters are simple but fill their roles well, with just enough characterization to flesh out Torres and Jackson. Even the movie’s missteps—minor plot holes and some weak dialogue—are not too damaging.

The result is a action movie with limited scope that knows how to play to its strengths. Jarhead: Law of Return does not have the jaw-dropping stunts, the rich characters, or the mind-bending plot of other movies, but it does manage to avoid any major mistakes. Viewers who are used to budget action movies will find it to be a solid entry into the genre. Viewers looking for something that stands out more will want to skip it.

For a rescue mission with more heart, try Saving Private Ryan. For an even more combat-oriented budget action movie, try All the Devil’s Men. For a more grounded look at the life of a Marine, try the original Jarhead.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for competent but unexceptional action.

Today’s quick review: Jarhead 3: The Siege. Corporal Evan Albright (Charlie Weber), an up-and-coming Marine, gets transferred to the security detail of a US embassy in the Middle East. There his hotshot attitude puts him on the wrong side of Gunnery Sergeant Pete Raines (Scott Adkins). But the Marines must put their differences aside when the embassy is attacked by Khaled al-Asiri (Hadrian Howard), a terrorist with a deadly amount of firepower.

Jarhead 3: The Siege is a budget action movie about a terrorist attack on a US embassy. Jarhead 3 follows in the footsteps of Jarhead 2, trading the introspection and anticlimax of the original Jarhead for more conventional patriotism and action. The movie does pack a fair amount of firepower for a budget flick, but not enough to stand out in a crowded genre. Combined with a weak story, this makes Jarhead 3 a movie with limited appeal.

Jarhead 3’s main failing is that it gambles on a shallow main character. Albright is meant to be a talented Marine who has to put his ego aside and learn to work with his squadmates. But the movie never figures out how to pull off this character arc, resulting in a weak setup that vanishes entirely when the fighting starts. The rest of the story is similarly bare-bones, a token plot that succeeds in moving the action along but doesn’t do much else.

Jarhead 3: The Siege has the sheer quantity of action to appeal to fans of the genre, but its plot and characters are lacking. Those just looking for a few firefights may want to give it a shot. Those looking for more impressive stunts, deeper characters, or an insightful war movie will want to steer clear.

For an intimate take on the life of a Marine, try Jarhead or Full Metal Jacket. For budget action in a similar vein, try Jarhead 2, Unlocked, or Close. For a drama about the aftermath of an embassy attack, try Rules of Engagement.

5.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for passable action but not much more.

Today’s quick review: Jarhead 2: Field of Fire. Corporal Chris Merrimette (Josh Kelly) and his squad are supply Marines stationed in Afghanistan, tasked with moving valuable supplies through hostile territory. On one such mission, they run into Fox (Cole Hauser), a Navy SEAL survivor trying to escort Anoosh Hassan (Cassie Layton) out of the country. Ambushed by Taliban forces, Merrimette and his men face an arduous journey to get Hassan to safety.

Jarhead 2: Field of Fire is a war drama about a squad of Marines stranded in a Taliban-controlled region of Afghanistan. The movie follows Merrimette, the squad’s newly appointed leader, as he tries to salvage what’s left of a mission gone horribly wrong. Jarhead 2 is a by-the-numbers action movie that sticks to a basic plot and simple character development. Its safe choicese make a passable watch, but not one that leaves much of an impression.

Jarhead 2 takes a very different approach than its predecessor. Where the original Jarhead was a true story about the day-to-day life of a Marine during the Gulf War, Jarhead 2 is a fictional, action-oriented story set in Afghanistan. The extra action does make the sequel a little more exciting, but it robs the movie of much of its identity. Mediocre firefights, thin character development, and a predictable plot keep Jarhead 2 from standing out.

Jarhead 2: Field of Fire will hold some appeal for fans of the budget action genre, but anyone else will want to steer clear. Jarhead 2 tries to convey the ideals of the United States military, especially regarding its presence in Afghanistan, but its execution falls short. The movie has some value as a quick source of action, but it’s missing the spectacle, the heart, and the thematic depth found in the best war films.

For a rescue mission with a larger scale and better emotional payoff, try Saving Private Ryan. For a war movie that tries something similar with more success, try Act of Valor. For a more cynical take on war, try Full Metal Jacket. For a more mundane look at life in the Marines, try Jarhead.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for decent execution without much to say.

Today’s quick review: Jarhead. Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal), a freshly trained Marine, finds his place in the Corps when Staff Sergeant Sykes (Jamie Foxx) recruits him to become a scout sniper. At the outbreak of the Gulf War, Swofford and his spotter Alan Troy (Peter Sarsgaard) are sent to Saudi Arabia to guard the oil fields from Saddam Hussein’s forces. But as months go by with no action, Swofford begins to question why he’s there.

Jarhead is a war drama based on a true story. Jarhead captures details of military life that are often overlooked in other movies. It follows Swofford through training, hazing, and the boredom and uncertainty of a war still waiting to begin. Jarhead’s greatest strength is its honest, balanced depiction of life in the Marines. The brotherhood, the hardship, the twisted moments, and the discipline are all shown on camera with only modest embellishment.

However, Jarhead’s commitment to realism is also its biggest weakness. Unlike other war movies, Jarhead does not have flashy battles or intense drama to capture the audience’s interest. Swofford’s time in the Middle East is relatively quiet, and the greatest source of conflict is the restlessness of him and the other Marines. Jarhead does have a handful of truly shocking moments, but they are diluted by plenty of what, for Swofford, is ordinary life.

Jarhead is a decent watch for anyone interested in the military lifestyle rather than combat proper. The movie provides a more balanced look at life in the Marines than most, but this balance comes at the cost of the visceral drama found in other war movies. The result is a competent movie with an eye for detail, but one that lacks the punch normally found in war movies. Steer clear if you’re looking for something more sensationalist or action-packed.

For a more shocking depiction of life in the Marines, try Full Metal Jacket. For a more sentimental story about a soldier serving overseas, try Dear John. For a Jamie Foxx thriller set in the Middle East, try The Kingdom. For a deeper look at the effect of war on soldiers, check out Flags of Our Fathers.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a frank portrait of Marine life, the bad as well as the good.

“What is your major malfunction?” —Hartman

Today’s quick review: Full Metal Jacket. Private Joker (Matthew Modine) is a fresh recruit to the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. Under the harsh discipline of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (Lee Ermey), Joker and his fellow recruits are molded into killers over the course of eight weeks of training. But as tough as their training is, nothing can prepare them for what awaits them in Vietnam and who they will have to become to survive.

Full Metal Jacket is a war drama from director Stanley Kubrick. Full Metal Jacket takes a hard look at the ugliest parts of the Vietnam War, from the deliberate cruelty of boot camp to the atrocities seen during the war itself. Matthew Modine stars as Joker, a Marine with a smart mouth and no real combat experience, who sets out to see if he has what it takes. The movie features several excellent performances and a memorable script.

Full Metal Jacket has a knack for creating vivid moments. From the invective-laden tirades of Hartman to the raw callousness of the troops in Vietnam, Full Metal Jacket knows exactly what it needs to say or show to leave a lasting impression on the viewer. The sharpness of its script is backed up by some impressive performances, especially from Lee Ermey as a vituperative drill instructor and Vincent D’Onofrio as the much-abused Private Pyle.

Still, Full Metal Jacket will not be for everyone. The movie paints a cynical picture of military life, with no trace of idealism or a higher calling. The frankness of the film can also make it a grueling watch, thanks to its rampant swearing, fair amount of gore, and dark and dehumanizing themes. These aspects of the film are fully intentional and are deployed to good effect, but sensitive viewers may find them to be too much.

Full Metal Jacket is a memorable war drama that is well worth a watch for anyone who can stomach it. The combination of a sharp script, skillful performances, and the striking nature of its subject matter makes Full Metal Jacket a movie that accomplishes what it sets out to do. How much you get out of it will depend on your stance on idealism versus cynicism, but those interested should give it a shot.

For another drama set during the Vietnam War, try Apocalypse Now. For a brutal war drama with more heart, try Saving Private Ryan. For a more satirical criticism of the military, try Catch-22. For a psychological drama about one man becoming a killer, try Taxi Driver.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for great acting and some memorable scenes.

Today’s quick review: Catch-22. Captain Yossarian (Alan Arkin), an Air Force bombardier stationed in Italy during World War II, wants just one thing: to go home. Forced to fly more and more missions for Colonel Cathcart (Martin Balsam), Yossarian tries everything he can think of to get relieved of duty. But as the lunacy around him escalates and his fellow officers begin to die, Yossarian has to confront the possibility that there may be no way out.

Catch-22 is a dark war comedy based on the novel by Joseph Heller. Alan Arkin stars as Yossarian, an Air Force officer trapped in an insane squadron where only he seems to understand the horror of what’s going on. Catch-22 uses absurd humor to highlight the terrors of war and the inhumanity of the bureaucracy that carries it out. The story depicts these themes with energy and wit, but its particular flavor of dark humor won’t be for everyone.

Catch-22 has a knack for surreal humor. Even at their most relatable, the characters have a skewed perspective on reality. Combined with the movie’s disjointed presentation style, this turns even perfectly explainable situations into exercises in abusrdity. The ensemble cast includes Bob Newhart, Jack Gilford, Martin Sheen, Jon Voight, and Orson Welles, while a suitably distraught performance from Alan Arkin ties the whole thing together.

At the same time, Catch-22 channels its humor for something verging on horror. Yossarian is trapped by the whims of his commanding officers, by the circular logic of the military, and by a war that offers him no respite. Much of the film has a light, if exasperated tone, but there are some darker moments that are made all the more chilling by the way Yossarian’s comrades treat them. The effect is a subtle but disturbing disconnection from reality.

The catch is that the movie can be hard to follow. Catch-22 has a bevy of characters who only receive brief introductions before being put to work. The nonlinear storytelling jumps around between three or four points in the timeline, and scene transitions are often based on lines of dialogue or thematic connections rather than causality. The result is a puzzle that takes a fair amount of attention to sort out, even if the lunacy shows through clearly.

Catch-22 is a peculiar movie that will not appeal to everyone. Those willing to roll with its dark moments and jumbled story will be treated to some truly brilliant comedy with a unique flavor. The movie looks at a particular type of bureaucratic nightmare and reacts to it in the only way possible: to laugh. Those hoping for a simple, feel-good comedy or a straight war movie may want to steer clear.

For another war satire in the same vein, try Doctor Strangelove. For a more direct look at the traumas of war, try Dunkirk. For another dose of insanity, check out One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Those who want a more conventional war comedy may want to check out Stripes or No Time for Sergeants. For a purer comedy that hits some of the same notes, try It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for capturing a specific form of madness.

Today’s quick review: Inglourious Basterds. During World War II, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) takes eight Jewish-American soldiers behind German lines to wage a campaign of terror against the Nazis. As the war nears its climax, Raine seizes an opportunity to take out the Nazi leadership all at once by attacking a film premiere in Paris. Meanwhile, Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), the young Jewish owner of the theater, plots her own revenge.

Inglourious Basterds is a World War II action thriller from director Quentin Tarantino. Inglourious Basterds follows the Basterds, a fictitious band of Nazi hunters, as they mutilate and kill German officers. The movie is a slow burn that focuses as much on the infiltration tactics of Shosanna and the Basterds as it does the actual violence. The movie’s premise and craftsmanship make it a strong revenge flick, but one that may be too sadistic for some.

Inglourious Basterds shows the same care that Quentin Tarantino puts into his other movies. The plot consists of seemingly inconsequential events whose meaning gradually becomes apparent, culminating in a complex finale that ties together all the threads. The film also features an ensemble cast with a superb performance from Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa, a dangerously savvy Nazi officer who is on the Basterds’ trail.

Still, the strengths of Inglourious Basterds come at a cost. Tarantino’s signature violence is on full display, in the form of both gory gunfights and graphic mutilation. The pacing of the film is slow, even for a Tarantino flick. There are multiple drawn-out conversations that verge on interminable. These cinematic choices are part of the film’s appeal for the right viewer, but they can easily put off one who isn’t sufficiently bloodthirsty or patient.

Inglourious Basterds is a fascinating movie with a unique premise and a high degree of craftsmanship. Fans of Tarantino will find it to be slow but rewarding, and anyone who can stomach the violence will get something out of it. But those hoping for either an all-out action flick or a more traditional war movie may be disappointed, and sensitive viewers should steer clear.

For a more action-oriented revenge flick from Quentin Tarantino, try Kill Bill or Django Unchained. For a more serious story about an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler, try Valkyrie. For a less violent action movie about a group of talented soldiers, try The A-Team.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a unique blend of tension and violence; your score will vary considerably.

Today’s quick review: Valkyrie. As Adolf Hitler (David Bamber) leads Germany down a path of atrocity and self-destruction, Colonel Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) joins a conspiracy among Hitler’s highest-ranked officers to overthrow the Fuhrer and put Germany on the correct path. Stauffenberg plans a bold coup by hijacking Hitler’s emergency plan, Operation Valkyrie, and using it against the SS. But pulling it off will require perfect execution.

Valkyrie is a World War II drama based on a true story. Valkyrie follows a cabal of generals and politicians as they plan a coup that could save Europe from destruction or condemn all of them to death. The movie covers the inception of their daring scheme and the numerous complications they run into along the way. Valkyrie succeeds in capably depicting a unique moment in history, but its pacing and emotional arc leave something to be desired.

Valkyrie’s greatest strength is its grasp on the logistics of the coup. Unlike fictional coups, the plot of Valkyrie is full of petty setbacks. Bombs malfunction, allegiances change, and even minor incidents threaten disaster. Seeing Stauffenberg navigate around each bump in the road gives the film a reliable source of drama. The movie also benefits from a distinguished cast that includes Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Kenneth Branagh, and Terence Stamp.

Still, Valkyrie has an unusual story structure. Stauffenberg begins the movie with all the motivation he needs; it’s not something the audience gets to see develop. Much of the early part of the movie is spent hashing out the politics and logistics, while the crucial moments of the conspiracy are oddly mundane, even when the stakes are high. These choices line up with the subject matter, but they dampen the film’s personal angle and emotional impact.

Valkyrie will appeal to history buffs and fans of real-world drama. The movie offers an interesting glimpse into the political and military situation within Nazi Germany, while its acting and writing do not disappoint. But Valkyrie lacks the pathos of other movies that deal with similar subject matter, keeping it from being as powerful a watch as it could have been.

For a more sweeping look at life in Nazi Germany, try Schindler’s List. For a fictional story about an assassination attempt against Adolf Hitler, try Inglourious Basterds. For a plot-driven thriller about a military officer acting according to his conscience, try The Hunt for Red October.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for solid craftsmanship and a story that doesn’t quite come to life the way it should.

Today’s quick review: Defiance. As German soldiers slaughter Jews across Belorussia, the Bielski brothers—Tuvia (Daniel Craig), Zus (Liev Schreiber), and Asael (Jamie Bell)—take to the woods with a group of Jewish survivors. Stealing weapons and food, the survivors hide from German patrols as they try to eke out a meager living. But as winter sets in and conditions grow worse, the conflicting personalities of Tuvia and Zus drive the brothers apart.

Defiance is a war drama that tells the true story of a band of Jewish survivors during World War II. Defiance follows the Bielskis as they struggle to keep the group alive and united in spite of hunger, disease, and slaughter. The film does a capable job of capturing the hardship, trauma, and difficult moral choices faced by Eastern European Jews during Nazi occupation. Still, it lacks some of the artistry and emotional impact found in similar stories.

Defiance is a sober tale of survival that’s carried by its frank portrayal of its subject matter. Tuvia, Zus, and Asael shoulder the burden of leading a motley group of survivors who have lost everything. Every setback brings another choice for the brothers to make: take the risks of showing compassion, or sacrifice their humanity to survive. The unpredictable ways these choices play out make the movie a tense watch with unusual moral depth.

However, Defiance will not appeal to everyone. The sober tone and relatively static plot will fail to engage some viewers. The emotional moments for the characters are satisfying enough, but they are not given the same emphasis as the broader tragedy of the situation. And while the craftsmanship is sound, Defiance is missing the superlative quality found in some of its peers. Defiance avoids any major mistakes, but it also misses a few opportunities.

Defiance is a well-crafted drama that does justice to the hardships faced by a courageous group of people. Those who are interested in historical drama, difficult moral choices, or the personal side of World War II would do well to give it a shot. However, Defiance is difficult movie that will not appeal to everyone. Steer clear if you are looking for a more optimistic war movie or a more triumphant tale of survival.

For a more artistic, moving tale about the Holocaust, try Schindler’s List or Life is Beautiful. For the fictional story of a band of survivors in conquered territory, try Red Dawn.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for weighty moral drama.

Today’s quick review: Flags of Our Fathers. After the Battle of Iwo Jima, a photograph of six American troops raising a flag takes the nation by storm. To capitalize on the publicity, the surviving men from the photo—John “Doc” Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), and Ira Hayes (Adam Beach)—are shipped back home to raise money for the war effort. Amid fanfare and accolades, the men struggle to cope with what they truly went through.

Flags of Our Fathers is a war drama from director Clint Eastwood. Flags of Our Fathers tells the true story of the famous photo taken during the Battle of Iwo Jima, including the impact it had on the American public and on the lives of the men involved. The movie is a sober look at the nature of heroism and the lengths the United States had to go to during World War II. Strong subject matter and thoughtful presentation make the film an effective drama.

Flags of Our Fathers splits its time between the Battle of Iwo Jima and the press tour that followed. The battle scenes are visceral and disorienting, following a few troops out of thousands as they fight to take the island. But the heart of the film is the aftermath. Doc, Rene, and Ira are forced to go on a press tour for the good of the nation, but they’re tormented both by the friends they lost and the act they have to put on for the public.

The catch is that Flags of Our Fathers is not a conventional war movie. There’s no specific plot, just a collection of meaningful moments stitched together to form a pattern. The film only shows portions of the battle, and even those are scattered. Flags of Our Fathers does have the same visceral impact as other big-budget war films, but it channels it in a different direction, opting to focus on the aftermath as much as the war itself.

Flags of Our Fathers is a solid pick for anyone with an interest in the history of World War II. The movie does not have as much to offer viewers whose main interest is in plot and combat, but it manages to capture the magnitude of a pivotal battle while painting a very human picture of the men involved.

For a Clint Eastwood movie about the same battle from the Japanese perspective, watch Letters from Iwo Jima. For a more focused story about World War II, try Saving Private Ryan.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for solid craftsmanship and historical significance.