Repeated viewings reveal more details and connections

Rating: 8/10 (29 May 2005)

The first third of Stanley Kubrick's take on the Vietnam War is as powerful and shocking as any film ever made about the military
In the film's opening shots, we see close-ups of new Marine recruits getting their heads shaved at a military training post The next shot follows Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) as he strides through a barracks and completes the first stage of the young men's intimidating indoctrination into the Marine Corps The scene also establishes the measured pace that Kubrick maintains throughout
Booming, gloriously profane, and imaginative, Sgt. Hartman is a force of nature that will mold these boys into killing machines At that point, most war films would turn to the young men, sketch out their pasts and then show their transformation into a cohesive unit These kids are names and archetypes who will react differently to Hartman's approach
Kubrick makes Ermey such a mesmerizing force that one key early element is easy to overlook From the first moment we see him in the barber's chair, before we even know his name, it is abundantly clear that Leonard is mad He has that familiar vacant, smiling, dull-eyed expression of evil that Kubrick also uses to define Little Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" and Jack Torrance in "The Shining." The other characters do not see it, and so the inevitable confrontation between Hartman and Leonard is all the more horrifying
The middle section of the film establishes Joker's role as a war reporter, working behind the lines during the Tet Offensive of 1968, and his desire for some "trigger time" with his old pals from basic That's where Kubrick shapes his view of the Vietnam war
In the third part, a new sociopath named Animal Mother (Adam Baldwin) is introduced, and the focus shifts to a patrol searching through the bombed out city of Hue to root out a sniper That is where the filmmakers comment most pointedly on the war itself They see it as a dead-end that serve no purpose That's certainly a valid artistic interpretation of history Many other films have made the same points, often more eloquently But Kubrick isn't interested in eloquence, either
The three sections are unmistakably separated from each other The first stands on its own though key elements are stated again at the end
For the viewer expecting a "traditional" war film, the result is disconcerting, frustrating, and somehow unfinished Most Kubrick fans will admit that "Paths of Glory" and "Dr. Strangelove" are more enjoyable, but even if their man is not in top form, "Full Metal Jacket" is challenging, and repeated viewings reveal more details and connections