3/4
Is this film all about the duality of man? Is it about something else? Or is it just a neutral observer, an emotionless picturette. With Stanley Kubrick, it could be any of the three. Or we can consider him an unreliable storyteller, perhaps slightly mad, and assume there to be no purpose here. Maybe it is a statement, maybe it is just a story, maybe it's nothing. It may be nothing.
But it holds your attention, and that's enough. The dialogue isn't anything special, the characters are uninteresting, but it's Kubrick so there are subtleties that make it enjoyable.
Perhaps it is just dated. People consider this great--sometimes the best war film or Vietnam war film. I don't see it. It is eight years after Apocalypse Now, so the great Vietnam war film was already done. What more does this possibly add? It is brutal in its morality and visuals, but so is Apocalypse. Apocalypse has more tone and purpose. FMJ isn't really linked to itself and doesn't affect you much. There's no beauty, only meaningless brutality. And maybe that's the point. The meaninglessness of the brutality of war.
I'm really not sure why drill sergeant Ermey is appreciated so much for his acting. It's not acting... He was literally this role in his own life.
No comments:
Post a Comment