Why is this considered a classic?

Rating: 3/10 (15 March 2018)

This week I watched Full Metal Jacket (1987). Let me just start out by saying that I was not the biggest fan of this film and I am surprised that this is such an occult classic. I thought the storyline was kind of weird and directionless. I felt like I kept waiting for a climax that never came. I didn't care for the content of the film and I see why my ex was so obsessed with it. It seemed geared for someone like him -- not me. Being a military brat I get that this film is supposed to represent "how it really is" in the military, and I do think the film gave an accurate depiction in that regard. Who knows? Maybe that's why I didn't care to watch it. Most of the scenes I felt were drawn out for too long and Kubrick took advantage of the shoot up scenes to get a little extra gorey, which I also didn't care for. Some of the music seemed out of place -- and not in a good creative way, but in a weird I don't get it way. Traditional to Kubrick films the cinematography was an artistic manifestation of the internal turmoil of the scenes. The editing seemed to shift throughout the movie, which I also didn't care for stylistically. For most of the movie the editing was traditional cinematic, and about Â¾ into the movie, the editing suddenly becomes "TV news style." Some people might be into that, but I thought it felt out of place, abrupt, and strange. Perhaps that was Kubrick's intent to make the viewer feel strange because he wanted us to feel that war is strange. I think that the film translated Kubrick's vision well. I believe that the point of the film is an anti-war message. I see a lot of undertones for this in the script. The film's plot seemed to be "real-life" war from the perspective a a journalist/soldier. And as for payoff? As I mentioned earlier about the editing, the pacing changed a few times in the film and was strange. There wasn't really a good payoff to this film in my opinion, but I think that's what Kubrick was going for.