Having served three years in the Marine Corps as an enlisted man, two in Vietnam with an infantry company in combat, I found the film to be a major distortion of the Corps. The film generally sets out the Corps as a unit that has no direction and their officers and staff NCO's are idiots (i.e the Bn Commander acting like a rock star during his speech to the troops in the tent). I assure you this simply not the case. I spent 27 months in Vietnam and never saw anyone in that type of setting that conducted themselves anything other than serious and professional. As aside, during my time in Nam I had six Bn commanders, so I know from experience these facts.
In addition, the film suggests that the Corps operates with poor equipment, and again I assure the reader the equipment may not be the latest (such as the Army enjoys), but it always operational, notwithstanding normal wear and tear issues. A great example is the battery problem shown in the film. Being a 2531 field radio operator, I take exception to that scene in the film. No properly trained radio operator ever goes into the field without two batteries, both of which are checked for charging prior to leaving a rear area. This is only one of numerous such operational distortions in this movie, which leaves the viewer wondering about the professionalism of the Corps.
Being somewhat of a film buff I found the entire film to be fragmented (poorly edited, poorly filmed - almost surreal), and without any direction to guide the viewer. Finally, the acting was shallow at best, including I am sadden to say, Mr. Fox's performance. Comparing this film to "Full Metal Jacket," which I found to be factual and well executed, is like comparing a college freshman film director's work to one of the greats like Houston.
This film served no one, not the viewing public, not the actors and other technicans who worked on the film, and most certainly not the Marine Corps. Honest critical thinking about war and the military presented in a film is always welcomed by an informed society, but historical distortion pretending to be art is simply that, a pretender.
In addition, the film suggests that the Corps operates with poor equipment, and again I assure the reader the equipment may not be the latest (such as the Army enjoys), but it always operational, notwithstanding normal wear and tear issues. A great example is the battery problem shown in the film. Being a 2531 field radio operator, I take exception to that scene in the film. No properly trained radio operator ever goes into the field without two batteries, both of which are checked for charging prior to leaving a rear area. This is only one of numerous such operational distortions in this movie, which leaves the viewer wondering about the professionalism of the Corps.
Being somewhat of a film buff I found the entire film to be fragmented (poorly edited, poorly filmed - almost surreal), and without any direction to guide the viewer. Finally, the acting was shallow at best, including I am sadden to say, Mr. Fox's performance. Comparing this film to "Full Metal Jacket," which I found to be factual and well executed, is like comparing a college freshman film director's work to one of the greats like Houston.
This film served no one, not the viewing public, not the actors and other technicans who worked on the film, and most certainly not the Marine Corps. Honest critical thinking about war and the military presented in a film is always welcomed by an informed society, but historical distortion pretending to be art is simply that, a pretender.