JARHEAD

Gosh. Where to begin. First of all, this has to be some of the best cinematography I have ever seen. Absolutely stunning. Worth the price of admission right there. All of the actors did an outstanding job. Jamie Fox gave the best performance I've ever seen him give.

This film was hugely complex, not without fault, but not so flawed that it overtook the film itself. Someone earlier had written that the "insubordination" and "disobedience" in it seemed unrealistic. I can see where he was coming from, there were some things that seemed somewhat over the top, but I understand what Mendes was trying to do with it, and it didn't, for me anyway, overwhelm the rest of the film.

There was one scene which could have probably been deleted, altogether, and the film wouldn't have been any worse for wear, in fact it would have been better. Mendes wanted to show the frustration of the soldiers and the pressure that waiting put them under. He could have cut out a good 15 minutes of it and replaced it with developing the characters more, and filling in some missing gaps. No, it was not flawless, but it was good.

One criticism that we keep reading about this film is that it doesn't have a pay-off. I totally disagree with this. It seems that people are becoming more involved in what the characters perceived as a pay-off, rather than a viewer, and are missing the true beauty of this film.

As we see after every war, there are always films that come out that deal with the after effects of war on the participants. This film is the first real film I've seen to deal with this subject with regard to Gulf War veterans. In fact, this film is almost a tribute to them, and, I would think would be lauded by them.

It certainly does not show Marines in a good light, but it is a highly complex look at the peculiarities of the Gulf War in comparison to other, more "dirty," wars. Although I have heard that this film is not political, and it's not in the conventional sense, I nevertheless have to disagree. There are characters who clearly represent various aspects of the political spectrum.

Some thoughts I came away with are:

-- For we, the American public, this was a very sanitized war. We were bombarded with pictures on the news of "smart bombs" hitting their pristine target. Given certain aspects of this film, isn't it interesting to think that the people who were able to kill were the ones who never saw the destruction.

-- And if those who felt they were there and "never got to see 'action'" -- would it have changed them even more if they had? Or was their experience profound enough?

-- So often Americans, because of the neutered journalism of the Gulf War, because in our minds it was so "clean," we don't give Gulf War veterans the respect and understanding they may need and deserve.

There were amazing parallels of this film to "Three Kings." Although "Three Kings" presented the material as black comedy, I couldn't help but to see the similarities. The difference is that "Jarhead" treated the aftermath with a sense of seriousness that was absent in "Three Kings." Yet "Three Kings" treated the politics of war with a seriousness that might have added more depth to "Jarhead." Certainly, the characters were stronger and more developed in "Three Kings."

There were times I wondered if the film was going to go anywhere but, by the end, I certainly didn't feel cheated out of a pay-off. It just wasn't the pay-off that people might have expected or maybe wanted.

This was a truly complex film, on many levels. It had some significant flaws, but not so much as to erase the message. Could it have been better? With the exception of the cinematography and the acting, yes. Is it worth seeing? Yes. But don't fall into the trap of wanting what the characters want. Watch it with an open eye, and an open mind, and allow the full meaning of the film sink in. It will be much more enjoyable for you.

Caat