"FMJ"'s reputation, combined with Kubrick's name, elevate the film far above its actual merits. Here are my specific criticisms:
1. The plot is simplistic and formulaic. #1: Basic training. #2: Suddenly in Vietnam and lulled into a false sense of security. #3: A heavy firefight for the denouement. And. That's. It. It feels as if Kubrick started with three sheets of paper, labeled the top of each with those three phases, and kept them hermetically separated. There's no sense of flow, of growth, of anything organic. So when separated buddies from basic training are reunited later in the film, their "hail fellow, well met!" shtick feels hollow and forced.
2. Partly because of #1, many of the plot devices are utterly predictable. Private Pyle telegraphs his breakdown to us at least 10 minutes before it occurs. The hubris and languor of the cast, safe in their city quarters in Vietnam, take every opportunity to tell us how nothing bad could happen, because -- after all -- it's Tet, a national holiday. C'mon, Kubrick -- it's 20 years after the Tet Offensive. You can't expect us to NOT know what's coming, when you set it up like that. That day of doom, in which tens of thousands of Viet Cong and NVA troops launched surprise attacks that killed thousands of US soldiers, is rendered utterly devoid of suspense. Prefiguring sucks the air out of a film.
3. Many of the scenes are as clumsy as anything one could ever see from a college Filmmaking 101 class. Case in point: After "Touchdown" and "Handjob's" bodies are brought back and the squad stands in a circle around them, the camera pans from one squad member's face to another for about 5 seconds each, while each says something utterly canned sounding: "You're going home now." "Semper Fi." "We're mean marines, sir." "Go easy, bros." "Better you than me." "Well, at least they died for a good cause." Who provided this dialogue (or more accurately, serial monologue) -- Joe's All-Purpose Elegies?
4. Most of the settings look contrived and "cinematic" rather than natural. In particular, the city scene in Vietnam with the prostitute and the scene where "Joker" and "Rafterman" are hurrying along a road, trying to find the location of the mass grave -- both are stuffed to the gills with "period stuff going on", but one definitely gets the sense that it's all part of an effort to give the effect, rather than being authentic. Other scenes, such as the firefight at the end, look like they were staged for live theater, with strategically-placed fires (what the hell was burning for hours in those concrete buildings?!), atmospheric smoke, fill lighting, etc.
5. Many of the side characters are nothing more than caricatures. A prime example is "doorgunner", who is straight from central casting as "Gun-crazed Child-killer". What? Not convinced by watching him shoot fleeing peasants with his machine gun? Well, then he'll *tell* you that he's a gun-crazed child-killer as well. Just so there's no doubt. Thank you, Captain Obvious.
6. Some of the plot turns and the way they're acted are laugh-out-loud ridiculous. For example, when "Touchdown" is hit by a mortar round, "Doc Jay" immediately starts giving him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and CPR. It's extremely unlikely that concussion from the mortar simply stopped Touchdown's heart, so neither treatment would do much good (and why doesn't Touchdown's chest move even a fraction of an inch when Doc Jay is pushing on it?) Another example is when "Rafterman" finally shoots the sniper with about a dozen rounds and she lies bleeding on the floor with the squad gathered around her. Not only is she still alive, she's saying something. What, you ask? She's _praying_, in Vietnamese. And not just praying, but mouthing the words and enunciating as clearly as possible, as if she has an audience to perform for. Finally, after the slowest death scene in history, she switches to English, saying "Shoot me!" about fifty times. And all the while, we're forced to put up with seeing "Joker's" tortured expression as he has to wrestle with what to do. Ain't war just HECK?!
7. The heavy-handed use of period songs isn't effective, it's annoying. Playing "Surfing Bird" at top volume doesn't add anything to the viewer's experience. Nor does "Wooly Bully" or "These Boots Were Made for Walking". This kind of gimmick is best left to middlebrow action flicks, not serious war films.
8. Finally, a note to filmmakers: the use of voice-over from a character is very seldom effective and almost never necessary. When in doubt, leave it out.
No American born before 1960 is ignorant of the fact that the war in Vietnam was a huge mistake, a tragicomedy of errors and a national disgrace, and that there were acts of bravery, naiveté and inhumanity in approximately equal amounts. We've all heard of Mai-Lai. We've all seen (the vastly better) "Apocalypse Now", made 8 years before FMJ, as well as "The Deer Hunter" and "Platoon", both of which also predated FMJ. And every American born too late to have witnessed the War firsthand, knows almost as much, since America has publicly excoriated itself for the past 4 decades over its involvement. The result is that FMJ breaks no new trails in terms of information or emotional content. We've been down those well-traveled roads already.
In general, FMJ feels graceless, inauthentic, clumsy, ham-fisted and about as uncreative of a film as can be imagined. It's difficult to believe that it came from the same director as "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Dr. Strangelove". How much of this is specifically Kubrick's fault is open to debate but as the film's auteur, the ultimate blame can only be his.
1. The plot is simplistic and formulaic. #1: Basic training. #2: Suddenly in Vietnam and lulled into a false sense of security. #3: A heavy firefight for the denouement. And. That's. It. It feels as if Kubrick started with three sheets of paper, labeled the top of each with those three phases, and kept them hermetically separated. There's no sense of flow, of growth, of anything organic. So when separated buddies from basic training are reunited later in the film, their "hail fellow, well met!" shtick feels hollow and forced.
2. Partly because of #1, many of the plot devices are utterly predictable. Private Pyle telegraphs his breakdown to us at least 10 minutes before it occurs. The hubris and languor of the cast, safe in their city quarters in Vietnam, take every opportunity to tell us how nothing bad could happen, because -- after all -- it's Tet, a national holiday. C'mon, Kubrick -- it's 20 years after the Tet Offensive. You can't expect us to NOT know what's coming, when you set it up like that. That day of doom, in which tens of thousands of Viet Cong and NVA troops launched surprise attacks that killed thousands of US soldiers, is rendered utterly devoid of suspense. Prefiguring sucks the air out of a film.
3. Many of the scenes are as clumsy as anything one could ever see from a college Filmmaking 101 class. Case in point: After "Touchdown" and "Handjob's" bodies are brought back and the squad stands in a circle around them, the camera pans from one squad member's face to another for about 5 seconds each, while each says something utterly canned sounding: "You're going home now." "Semper Fi." "We're mean marines, sir." "Go easy, bros." "Better you than me." "Well, at least they died for a good cause." Who provided this dialogue (or more accurately, serial monologue) -- Joe's All-Purpose Elegies?
4. Most of the settings look contrived and "cinematic" rather than natural. In particular, the city scene in Vietnam with the prostitute and the scene where "Joker" and "Rafterman" are hurrying along a road, trying to find the location of the mass grave -- both are stuffed to the gills with "period stuff going on", but one definitely gets the sense that it's all part of an effort to give the effect, rather than being authentic. Other scenes, such as the firefight at the end, look like they were staged for live theater, with strategically-placed fires (what the hell was burning for hours in those concrete buildings?!), atmospheric smoke, fill lighting, etc.
5. Many of the side characters are nothing more than caricatures. A prime example is "doorgunner", who is straight from central casting as "Gun-crazed Child-killer". What? Not convinced by watching him shoot fleeing peasants with his machine gun? Well, then he'll *tell* you that he's a gun-crazed child-killer as well. Just so there's no doubt. Thank you, Captain Obvious.
6. Some of the plot turns and the way they're acted are laugh-out-loud ridiculous. For example, when "Touchdown" is hit by a mortar round, "Doc Jay" immediately starts giving him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and CPR. It's extremely unlikely that concussion from the mortar simply stopped Touchdown's heart, so neither treatment would do much good (and why doesn't Touchdown's chest move even a fraction of an inch when Doc Jay is pushing on it?) Another example is when "Rafterman" finally shoots the sniper with about a dozen rounds and she lies bleeding on the floor with the squad gathered around her. Not only is she still alive, she's saying something. What, you ask? She's _praying_, in Vietnamese. And not just praying, but mouthing the words and enunciating as clearly as possible, as if she has an audience to perform for. Finally, after the slowest death scene in history, she switches to English, saying "Shoot me!" about fifty times. And all the while, we're forced to put up with seeing "Joker's" tortured expression as he has to wrestle with what to do. Ain't war just HECK?!
7. The heavy-handed use of period songs isn't effective, it's annoying. Playing "Surfing Bird" at top volume doesn't add anything to the viewer's experience. Nor does "Wooly Bully" or "These Boots Were Made for Walking". This kind of gimmick is best left to middlebrow action flicks, not serious war films.
8. Finally, a note to filmmakers: the use of voice-over from a character is very seldom effective and almost never necessary. When in doubt, leave it out.
No American born before 1960 is ignorant of the fact that the war in Vietnam was a huge mistake, a tragicomedy of errors and a national disgrace, and that there were acts of bravery, naiveté and inhumanity in approximately equal amounts. We've all heard of Mai-Lai. We've all seen (the vastly better) "Apocalypse Now", made 8 years before FMJ, as well as "The Deer Hunter" and "Platoon", both of which also predated FMJ. And every American born too late to have witnessed the War firsthand, knows almost as much, since America has publicly excoriated itself for the past 4 decades over its involvement. The result is that FMJ breaks no new trails in terms of information or emotional content. We've been down those well-traveled roads already.
In general, FMJ feels graceless, inauthentic, clumsy, ham-fisted and about as uncreative of a film as can be imagined. It's difficult to believe that it came from the same director as "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Dr. Strangelove". How much of this is specifically Kubrick's fault is open to debate but as the film's auteur, the ultimate blame can only be his.