overrated, lacking inspiration, derivative second half

Rating: Null/10 (29 December 2003)

***MINOR SPOILERS***
Even though Stanley Kubrick deserved the adulation for several of his films, in the case of "Full Metal Jacket" one can't help but wonder at the praise and what he wanted to get across: The dehumanisation in war? Oh, what's new? We know war can be atrocious, but we also know war has sometimes been a necessary tool in history. The problem with most war movies is that they are too one-sided. They hardly ever depict the complex moral considerations leading to war. It seems as though all directors simply take to the anti-war side and they know they are on the safe side because "war is evil" you know. So does Kubrick . Does he give us the lowdown on the reasons for the war North vs South Vietnam? No. It was not as if the USA started this war. It was a conflict between democrats and communists. No doubt whose side America were on. But Kubrick never tries to elaborate on these issues. The American soldiers are merely victimised in a putatively unjustified war. The first half sees the recruits being drilled to inhumane killing machines. But what is the outcome? Are they really so dehumanised afterwards? No, they still display human emotions just before the drill. So what was Kubrick's point in the first half anyway then? Was it just the shock and entertainment factor he was after? It admittedly is very gripping and dwarves the second half which is just not memorable as it does not present the viewer with any new insight on war. The whole movie is inherently flawed and the ending just leaves you uninvolved as it is simply not as absurd or unimaginable as Kubrick might have assumed. First half: rivetting; second half: yawn! No big news from the war front. 5/10