United States, 2005Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Brian Geraghty, Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper
Director: Sam Mendes
My Rating: *** / ****
I was one of those kids who in his youth was mesmerized with John Rambo. I mean, who wouldn't anyway? I think that it is safe to say that every kids of '80s would at least catch a glimpse on who is Rambo regardless if he has already seen the film or not. I was one of those who hasn't seen the film but had enough feed on Rambo. Enough that sometimes, i'm re-enacting his actions. A muscular guy with a huge machine gun, taking down a whole army of Vietnamese all by himself, fight for a righteous act, wicked looking combat knife, and of course, that red bandanna. But then again, when i really had the chance to see the film in question (part II, not part I) years later, i decided to dislike it, entirely.
Now, aside from that, since that moment i had a solid concept inside my head about a war movie. That every war movie is different, yet every war movie is the same. Ow, wait, that sounds exactly like the voiceover at the end of this film, Jarhead, which i was about to write.
Over the years, as i grow older, and digested more movies than it's allowed, i learnt of an anti-war movie which is a film that instead of putting the weight on its deliverance upon patriotism-issues (which was a turn-off for me, since i was often at odds against the protagonist's patriotism. Take "Pearl Harbor", or "Black Hawk Down" for an instance), it often, if not always put the word war before a question mark. Such as, "why war?". Take "Full Metal Jacket", or "Appocalypse Now" as an example. Okay, you may disagree with my analogy. But that's how i viewed the anti-war film.
"Jarhead" was undoubtedly was those among the anti-war films. It told about the Gulf war, the first Gulf war, by the way, when Iraqi soldiers tried to "re-capture" Kuwait. But, of course, it didn't justified the war, or taking side. It viewed and told the war from a perspective of a "Jarhead" (which is a jargon that branded to the Marine Corps). A young soldier, Anthony Swofford (Gyllenhaal) who had undergone a harsh basic training only to be sent to the desert with almost nothing to do. Swofford and his fellow-mates must wait for a war that it turns out, never come to the tip of their rifles. And during those wait, their 'personal-war' begun.
Well, unlike most other anti-war film that i've seen, this film doesn't questioned the need of war, nor deal with the soldier's humane perspective in killing others. This film is simply dealt with the soldier who had been trained to kill, trained to love their rifle, trained to make their rifle into the part of their body, trained to believe that they were there to serve their country only to find that their training had been taking its toll more than they could give. "At least, let him kill the man", someone said. And that's how one could summarized Jarhead in short words. Their in-ability to kill, not their guilty-conciussness after the kill that led them questioned the war.
On the other side of coin, this film was like any other war film that i've seen because there were almost no variety to the characters. We see the same kind drill-instructor, we see the same kind mind-insane team-mate, we see the same kind of lead actor, and we see the very same kind leader (who also gave personal speech that was delivered by any other war films only with different style). But, if anything, though it's a little bit too long for me.. (at some point, i wondered if i should turn off the film and sleep instead), i enjoyed Jarhead with its absence of patriotism-issue that could make me slap myself on the temple. I enjoyed the handy camerawork and cinematography (though, what do you expect from desert environment? green mountains?). And, had to admit, even though i never liked Jake Gyllenhaal, i dig him in this film. And this film was among the top 10 of my best-of-2005 films list.
Well, not much of a review, but hope it helps.