A good film - DESPITE Kubrick

Rating: 5/10 (20 January 2015)

That "Full Metal Jacket" was any good is almost entirely thanks to four men involved: Gustav Hasford who wrote the novel this film is based upon, Michael Herr who wrote the screenplay, and R. Lee Ermey and Vincent D'Onofrio who gave two most memorable and satisfying performances in it.
As for Stanley Kubrick who directed the whole thing, to give credit where it's due, he contributed with a couple of memorable and well shot scenes and the fact that hadn't been for him, the adaptation of "Short-timers" would probably never have seen the light of day. But he also made it disservice the way he handled the material. He took the subversive and satirical source and adapted it into a tedious and old-fashioned (for the 80s' standards) war flick.
I don't know where the reputed effort and meticulousness went when it comes to direction. I don't see it. I used to love Kubrick but I think "Lolita", "Dr. Strangelove" and parts of "Oddissey" were his peak. Here he's clearly out of form and reported numerous retakes of shots indicate that he had no clue what to do. He still had too many static shots that have "made-for-TV" written over them. He missed a lot of bad acting and the fact that his key villain at the end of the film cannot hold the rifle properly. He cast an absolute sleaze-ball in the lead role (Matthew Modine). I don't know if I was supposed to identify with him, I only wanted to kick his arse and I'm sorry Adam Baldwin's character didn't. Also, he didn't seem to notice that his "Vietnam" doesn't look like Vietnam much. And frankly, after Coppola brought us an 'almost' real thing, through the landscape of the Philippines in "The Apocalypse Now", I find it bizarre that anybody thought a couple of palm-trees in the studio back-lot would do it. Even worse is that the sets were amended by a man who once made his name by raising the production standards.
The structure of the film, though, is what really begs for being redone. The inexplicable omission of the third act from the book makes the film look empty and unfinished. and to simply edit it straightforwardly was unwise. We see two separate stories that connect badly to each other. There was some kind of juxtaposition clearly in Kubrick's intentions, but it's heavy-handed and frankly, after 15 minutes of act II you forget all about the act I. The structure of another Coppola's masterpiece, "Godfather II", is what would have benefited "Full Metal Jacket" greatly - to cross-cut between the two stories. There would've been all the juxtaposition one desired and the whole film would seem tighter and better paced. There wouldn't be a need for the third act because every part had its own three acts already, and the point that Kubrick ostensibly had to make, that war machine produces killers, would come across much more clearly.
All in all, a memorable film that could've been so much better with somebody else in director's chair. Of that generation, Robert Altman comes to mind. He handled satire and stories made of bits and pieces much, much better. He has proved it with "MASH" 18 years prior. He also can sneak his attitude in the whole "impartial observer" approach, to make it more engaging for the audience. Kubrick couldn't or didn't want to. His "impartiality" came off as indifference. It made "Full Metal Jacket" pretty cold and, despite the point made, pointless.