Funniest movie lines.

[Smokey]

PeruvianSkies

Have you seen the review of this movie from Roger Ebert?

Here are some excerpts:

"The opening passages of "Full Metal Jacket" promise much more than the film finally is able to deliver. They tell the story of a group of marine grunts undergoing basic training on Paris Island, and the experience comes down to a confrontation between the gunnery sergeant and a tubby misfit who is nicknamed Gomer Pyle. These are the two best performances in the movie, which never recovers after they leave the scene."

"There is a surprise to come, however: the complete abandonment of the sexual metaphor once the troops are in Vietnam. The movie disintegrates into a series of self-contained set pieces, none of them quite satisfying."

"But Full Metal Jacket is uncertain where to go, and the movie's climax, which Kubrick obviously intends to be a mighty moral revelation, seems phoned in from earlier war pictures. After what has already been said about "Vietnam" in the movies, Full Metal Jacket is too little and too late."


He gave the movie 2-1/2 star out of four stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...706260302/1023

[PeruvianSkies]

PeruvianSkies

Have you seen the review of this movie from Roger Ebert?

Here are some excerpts:

"The opening passages of "Full Metal Jacket" promise much more than the film finally is able to deliver. They tell the story of a group of marine grunts undergoing basic training on Paris Island, and the experience comes down to a confrontation between the gunnery sergeant and a tubby misfit who is nicknamed Gomer Pyle. These are the two best performances in the movie, which never recovers after they leave the scene."

"There is a surprise to come, however: the complete abandonment of the sexual metaphor once the troops are in Vietnam. The movie disintegrates into a series of self-contained set pieces, none of them quite satisfying."

"But Full Metal Jacket is uncertain where to go, and the movie's climax, which Kubrick obviously intends to be a mighty moral revelation, seems phoned in from earlier war pictures. After what has already been said about "Vietnam" in the movies, Full Metal Jacket is too little and too late."


He gave the movie 2-1/2 star out of four stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...706260302/1023

and your point? Or should I say..and Eberts point? I could care less what Ebert says. Just because he feels that way doesn't make it so. I could pull up dozens of reviews that say just the opposite and feel that the film needs both halves in order to feel complete. Ebert also hated THE USUAL SUSPECTS...does that mean it's a terrible film? I don't think it is. Ebert also likes to change his mind, like the time he said that he loathed AMERICAN PSYCHO, but has since changed his mind and now gives it two thumbs up. Wow, talk about being wishy washy...I am sure since 1987 his opinion of FULL METAL JACKET has changed as well.

[Worf101]

It's not really an entertaining type of film. Most are "entertained" during the first half only because they are not really there in person. Otherwise that scene (if you were one of the soldiers) would have a completely different tone. Just like war. It's kinda sad that this film has been boiled down to a film about one-liners. What's next...putting it in the comedy section of the local movie rental place? It's become a sound-byte and I try to see this film for both halves, not just a humorous realistic boot camp experience.

Then again, that's just me and I realize that I probably take film more seriously than most.

I take my film as seriously as anyone here. I only mentioned the quotes I did because they resonate with me, primarily because I've seen and heard those quotes in REAL life. FMJ is a movie a decent movie, but a FLAWED movie. I enjoyed the first half more than the second but I'd never confuse it with a comedy. I won't go into the complexities of trying to turn a fat, doughy, simple minded civilian into a killing machine, nor will I discuss the morality of it here. But as a vet, the language made me wince, laugh and cry from experience. That's all I meant to say in my original post. I'm sorry the thread got "hijacked" into FMJ/Kubrick slugfest.

Da Worfster

[Smokey]

Worf

I don’t think any body here said this was a comedy movie, as it is not. “Wars” are not funny. I think the argument was whether the second half of movie was as strong enough as the first half. And as you can see, the opinions vary on that subject.

Not to be sorry here. After all, it is just a movie. While back I mentioned that the movie Good Burger was one of funniest movie I ever seen, but Kam said it was [in his opinion] one of the worst. I guess everybody to his/her own.

[PeruvianSkies]

I take my film as seriously as anyone here. I only mentioned the quotes I did because they resonate with me, primarily because I've seen and heard those quotes in REAL life. FMJ is a movie a decent movie, but a FLAWED movie. I enjoyed the first half more than the second but I'd never confuse it with a comedy. I won't go into the complexities of trying to turn a fat, doughy, simple minded civilian into a killing machine, nor will I discuss the morality of it here. But as a vet, the language made me wince, laugh and cry from experience. That's all I meant to say in my original post. I'm sorry the thread got "hijacked" into FMJ/Kubrick slugfest.

Da Worfster

Worf,

I don't doubt that you take your movies seriously. In fact, you are one of the few people on here that I can count on for a good movie discussion or thread. The fact that you found the lines in FMJ funny are obviously related to your experience in the service and that is a valid reason because it resonated with you. However, I am referring to the people who use this film primarily as a soundbyte type of film, especially people who are military-wannabees. I've never been in the service, but I have a huge respect for them. My father-in-law is retired from the Army, my biological father is a career serviceman going on his 30th year. My grandfather was in the reserves and my other grandfather was in the Navy. So I have lots of people in my life that enabled me to appreciate and respect those that fight for our country to make it free.

Hope I didn't step on your toes with this. I think FMJ is one of the most memorable films of all time, especially for a war film and this is without a doubt due to Stanley Kubrick who has forged some of the most meaningful and memorable images in celluloid history. My position on the issue of the two halves of FMJ is this...

Is the second half as strong as the first? Well, they are different and therefore, just like two wings on a plane...both are important. Which wing on a plane is more important? Both. In my opinion you need both parts of this film in order to make it complete. Some feel that it is flawed and that the second half doesn't "live up" to what the beginning offers, my position is that they are expecting something different...maybe something more like APOCALYPSE NOW or PLATOON, but that's not where this film was ever headed. I stand by my position on this film, unlike Ebert, I won't change my mind, but I can say that only thing that would change is that I might love this film more and more with time, never less.

[Worf101]

Worf,

I don't doubt that you take your movies seriously. In fact, you are one of the few people on here that I can count on for a good movie discussion or thread. The fact that you found the lines in FMJ funny are obviously related to your experience in the service and that is a valid reason because it resonated with you. However, I am referring to the people who use this film primarily as a soundbyte type of film, especially people who are military-wannabees. I've never been in the service, but I have a huge respect for them. My father-in-law is retired from the Army, my biological father is a career serviceman going on his 30th year. My grandfather was in the reserves and my other grandfather was in the Navy. So I have lots of people in my life that enabled me to appreciate and respect those that fight for our country to make it free.

Hope I didn't step on your toes with this. I think FMJ is one of the most memorable films of all time, especially for a war film and this is without a doubt due to Stanley Kubrick who has forged some of the most meaningful and memorable images in celluloid history. My position on the issue of the two halves of FMJ is this...

Is the second half as strong as the first? Well, they are different and therefore, just like two wings on a plane...both are important. Which wing on a plane is more important? Both. In my opinion you need both parts of this film in order to make it complete. Some feel that it is flawed and that the second half doesn't "live up" to what the beginning offers, my position is that they are expecting something different...maybe something more like APOCALYPSE NOW or PLATOON, but that's not where this film was ever headed. I stand by my position on this film, unlike Ebert, I won't change my mind, but I can say that only thing that would change is that I might love this film more and more with time, never less.

I wasn't offended, just a little pooped and snarky. I looked at your posts and after re-reading and reading this I realize what you were saying. I apologize if I appeared cross. I shouldn't type after gigin' into the wee hours. You're a valued voice here as well and your positions are well thought out and heartfelt. Thanks..

Da Worfster

[kexodusc]

I always felt FMJ was very overrated as far as war movies go - the first half was brilliant, the second half, meh....really brings the batting average down. And as a movie, I can't separate the two and say the first half was so good that the second gets a free pass. I know a lot of people only watch to the point Pyle's brains are splattered, then shut it off.

To be fair though, I think the dialogue of the first half of the movie was intended to be comical while painting the whole boot camp picture at the same time - c'mon..there's no way anyone in their right mind could write that stuff down and not have a chuckle. Quite simply, Kubrick could have substituted far more degrating/motivating/testing language into those scenes and accomplished all of his other goals for those scenes...but they were funny for a reason.

[GMichael]

It's not really an entertaining type of film. Most are "entertained" during the first half only because they are not really there in person. Otherwise that scene (if you were one of the soldiers) would have a completely different tone. Just like war. It's kinda sad that this film has been boiled down to a film about one-liners. What's next...putting it in the comedy section of the local movie rental place? It's become a sound-byte and I try to see this film for both halves, not just a humorous realistic boot camp experience.

Then again, that's just me and I realize that I probably take film more seriously than most.

Very true. IMO it was like two movies rolled into one. The second half was a very abrupt change from the first half. Maybe that's what they had in mind all along.

[PeruvianSkies]

What would have happened if FULL METAL JACKET had been released when it was planned to in the Summer of 86. Due to some injuries (Ermey got in a car accident and Modine seperated his shoulder), plus some other setbacks the film was pushed back to the winter of 1986, but when PLATOON was announced for that release date they pushed FULL METAL JACKET back to the Summer of 1987. Of course PLATOON received numerous Oscars and such, which it certainly is a good film, but I often wonder if these two films had been released in opposite order if more attention would have been given to FMJ???

[kexodusc]

What would have happened if FULL METAL JACKET had been released when it was planned to in the Summer of 86. Due to some injuries (Ermey got in a car accident and Modine seperated his shoulder), plus some other setbacks the film was pushed back to the winter of 1986, but when PLATOON was announced for that release date they pushed FULL METAL JACKET back to the Summer of 1987. Of course PLATOON received numerous Oscars and such, which it certainly is a good film, but I often wonder if these two films had been released in opposite order if more attention would have been given to FMJ???

Yeah, timing does play a major role in it for some people. In this case, I didn't see either until the mid 90's and just found Platoon to be a better film, though I enjoyed both.

I always wondered how Fox got those Twister and Armageddon rip-off movies made-for-TV on the air before the Twister and Armageddon made it to theaters???

[PeruvianSkies]

Yeah, timing does play a major role in it for some people. In this case, I didn't see either until the mid 90's and just found Platoon to be a better film, though I enjoyed both.

I always wondered how Fox got those Twister and Armageddon rip-off movies made-for-TV on the air before the Twister and Armageddon made it to theaters???

Well, to answer your question about TWISTER and ARMAGEDDON is this: there is usually a few similar scripts that float around Hollywood. It's like a hot-topic list. Therefore, a few projects get greenlighted and the made-for-TV's typically make it first since they are not huge productions and are slapped together quicker. Then comes the blockbuster version a few months maybe even a year or two later.

[GMichael]

Yeah, timing does play a major role in it for some people. In this case, I didn't see either until the mid 90's and just found Platoon to be a better film, though I enjoyed both.

I always wondered how Fox got those Twister and Armageddon rip-off movies made-for-TV on the air before the Twister and Armageddon made it to theaters???

I think that rip-offs are just easier to do. Less attention to details ect.

[PeruvianSkies]

Very true. IMO it was like two movies rolled into one. The second half was a very abrupt change from the first half. Maybe that's what they had in mind all along.

From Stanley Kubrick: A Life in the Pictures...

Kubrick is experimenting in FMJ by not using traditional dramatic and narrative structure, which is why the second half moves out from where we just were in the first half.

I am also mindful of the complexities of this film furthermore. I think that in this case Kubrick was taking a story "The Short-Timers" and adapting that into a war film with no agenda. Unlike his earlier film PATHS OF GLORY, which is an anti-war picture, FMJ is a non-polical, non-moral vantage point of war. Here, we see in the second half of the film that Joker has on his helmet "Born To Kill" and as pointed out in the film...a "Peace Button". Then he is asked if that is 'some kind of sick joke', but he has no answer to why he is wearing both (other than his commentary on the 'duality of man' ....he is confused, disillusioned, and in many ways this is a commentary for once again ...Vietnam and in broader terms...War. The "Fog" of war as it is often referrred to. This is heartfelt and well-executed in Peter Davis' HEARTS AND MINDS (1974). The contrast of the second half is also seen in the beauty of the images, yet with the ugliness of death and battle in the foreground. Notice how the scenes are shot in the gasworks and a bombed out section of town during 'magic hour', which gives a beautiful lighting effect and glow.