The Frogman says that Jarhead sucks:

They might also have named it, “Cliché: The Movie” because it was basically the Gulf War edition of “Platoon” recycling tired military urban legends and patently false anecdotes.

Seems like a pretty pathetic way to celebrate the 230th anniversary of the Corps.

Hugh Hewitt asks:

How much money would a well-made movie honoring the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guard and Marines of the armed services haul in?

Why hasn't it been made?

Good question.

[Friday update]

On Veterans Day, here's another harsh review of the movie (and book).

[Friday evening update]

Oliver North isn't impressed, either:

...why do the power brokers and financial geniuses in Hollywood choose to make a movie such as Jarhead and release it coincident with a Marine Corps birthday and Veterans’ Day? The film has absolutely not one character or scene containing any redeeming virtue or value. It is an excessively vulgar movie without a moral or a point. With our nation at war—this film is not just antiwar—or rotten to the Corps—though it is certainly that. “Jarhead” is anti-everything that is good and decent.

During a week when Americans honor the Corps and thank their veterans, Jarhead cheapens and distorts the heroism, warrior spirit, superior intellect and selflessness of America's fighting forces. Those who participated in making this nihilist flop deserve nothing but scorn in return.

One person's opinion, obviously, but a Vietnam helicopter pilot I talked to described Courage Under Fire (internet movie database title title tt0115956; sorry, link wasn't allowed)as the most realistic depiction he'd seen.

I was surprised because I was asking about which Vietnam film he felt gave the best depiction of what he'd seen.

Courage Under Fire

Meg Ryan
Denzel Washington

Good movie, very entertaining as well as much closer to accurate than others.

Seen it myself, and honestly didn't see much of a problem with it. It's not so much a war movie as a movie that shows the psychological impact of the "hurry up and wait" situation many military members find themselves in.

Do take issue with a scene early on, mainly due to is gross innacuracy: a Marine gets killed when he stands up during an excercise where he has to crawl under barbed wire while live rounds are being fired overhead. THIS EXCERCISE DOES NOT EXIST, despite it being shown is SEVERAL films (there is a similar excercise to this, but LIVE FIRE is not used).

Other than that, it is a pretty accurate potrayal of the psychological effect of training to be a Marine. It may not be 100% historically accurate, but it is not meant to be a historical documentary. Judged as what it is, rather that what people expected it or wanted it to be, and it's fairly decent.

As for the "Why hasn't it been made?" argument... well they do get made. A movie doesn't have to glorify war to honor the soldiers that fight in it. See movies like "The Great Raid" and "Saving Private Ryan" for some recent examples.

So, I'm in line at the Pentagon Starbucks this morning, and a Marine officer is in front of me. I knew that today was the Corps "birthday," so I wished him a happy one.

He thanked me, and then said, you know, the Corps was born in a bar, didn't you? Only place (he said) you could gather the right kinds of guys to be Marines, ya know.

I didn't know that. But it's tickled me pink ever since he told me. And, as always, ya gotta Google things up...

Tun Tavern: (excerpt from Warrior Culture of the U.S. Marines, copyright 2001 Marion F. Sturkey)
Ask any Marine. Just ask. He will tell you that the Marine Corps was born in Tun Tavern on 10 November 1775. But, beyond that the Marine's recollection for detail will probably get fuzzy. So, here is the straight scoop:
In the year 1685, Samuel Carpenter built a huge "brew house" in Philadelphia. He located this tavern on the waterfront at the corner of Water Street and Tun Alley. The old English word tun means a cask, barrel, or keg of beer. So, with his new beer tavern on Tun Alley, Carpenter elected to christen the new waterfront brewery with a logical name, Tun Tavern.
Tun Tavern quickly gained a reputation for serving fine beer. Beginning 47 years later in 1732, the first meetings of the St. John's No. 1 Lodge of the Grand Lodge of the Masonic Temple were held in the tavern. An American of note, Benjamin Franklin, was its third Grand Master. Even today the Masonic Temple of Philadelphia recognizes Tun Tavern as the birthplace of Masonic teachings in America.
Roughly ten years later in the early 1740s, the new proprietor expanded Tun Tavern and gave the addition a new name, "Peggy Mullan's Red Hot Beef Steak Club at Tun Tavern." The new restaurant became a smashing commercial success and was patronized by notable Americans. In 1747 the St. Andrews Society, a charitable group dedicated to assisting poor immigrants from Scotland, was founded in the tavern.
Nine years later, then Col. Benjamin Franklin organized the Pennsylvania Militia. He used Tun Tavern as a gathering place to recruit a regiment of soldiers to go into battle against the Indian uprisings that were plaguing the American colonies. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the Continental Congress later met in Tun Tavern as the American colonies prepared for independence from the English Crown.
On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress commissioned Samuel Nicholas to raise two Battalions of Marines. That very day, Nicholas set up shop in Tun Tavern. He appointed Robert Mullan, then the proprietor of the tavern, to the job of chief Marine Recruiter -- serving, of course, from his place of business at Tun Tavern. Prospective recruits flocked to the tavern, lured by (1) cold beer and (2) the opportunity to serve in the new Corps of Marines. So, yes, the U.S. Marine Corps was indeed born in Tun Tavern. Needless to say, both the Marine Corps and the tavern thrived during this new relationship.
Tun Tavern still lives today. And, Tun Tavern beer is still readily available throughout the Philadelphia area. Further, through magazines it is advertised to Marines throughout the world.
Tun Tavern: (excerpt from Warrior Culture of the U.S. Marines, copyright 2001 Marion F. Sturkey)
Ask any Marine. Just ask. He will tell you that the Marine Corps was born in Tun Tavern on 10 November 1775. But, beyond that the Marine's recollection for detail will probably get fuzzy. So, here is the straight scoop:
In the year 1685, Samuel Carpenter built a huge "brew house" in Philadelphia. He located this tavern on the waterfront at the corner of Water Street and Tun Alley. The old English word tun means a cask, barrel, or keg of beer. So, with his new beer tavern on Tun Alley, Carpenter elected to christen the new waterfront brewery with a logical name, Tun Tavern.
Tun Tavern quickly gained a reputation for serving fine beer. Beginning 47 years later in 1732, the first meetings of the St. John's No. 1 Lodge of the Grand Lodge of the Masonic Temple were held in the tavern. An American of note, Benjamin Franklin, was its third Grand Master. Even today the Masonic Temple of Philadelphia recognizes Tun Tavern as the birthplace of Masonic teachings in America.
Roughly ten years later in the early 1740s, the new proprietor expanded Tun Tavern and gave the addition a new name, "Peggy Mullan's Red Hot Beef Steak Club at Tun Tavern." The new restaurant became a smashing commercial success and was patronized by notable Americans. In 1747 the St. Andrews Society, a charitable group dedicated to assisting poor immigrants from Scotland, was founded in the tavern.
Nine years later, then Col. Benjamin Franklin organized the Pennsylvania Militia. He used Tun Tavern as a gathering place to recruit a regiment of soldiers to go into battle against the Indian uprisings that were plaguing the American colonies. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the Continental Congress later met in Tun Tavern as the American colonies prepared for independence from the English Crown.
On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress commissioned Samuel Nicholas to raise two Battalions of Marines. That very day, Nicholas set up shop in Tun Tavern. He appointed Robert Mullan, then the proprietor of the tavern, to the job of chief Marine Recruiter -- serving, of course, from his place of business at Tun Tavern. Prospective recruits flocked to the tavern, lured by (1) cold beer and (2) the opportunity to serve in the new Corps of Marines. So, yes, the U.S. Marine Corps was indeed born in Tun Tavern. Needless to say, both the Marine Corps and the tavern thrived during this new relationship.
Tun Tavern still lives today. And, Tun Tavern beer is still readily available throughout the Philadelphia area. Further, through magazines it is advertised to Marines throughout the world.
Tun Tavern: (excerpt from Warrior Culture of the U.S. Marines, copyright 2001 Marion F. Sturkey)
Ask any Marine. Just ask. He will tell you that the Marine Corps was born in Tun Tavern on 10 November 1775. But, beyond that the Marine's recollection for detail will probably get fuzzy. So, here is the straight scoop:
In the year 1685, Samuel Carpenter built a huge "brew house" in Philadelphia. He located this tavern on the waterfront at the corner of Water Street and Tun Alley. The old English word tun means a cask, barrel, or keg of beer. So, with his new beer tavern on Tun Alley, Carpenter elected to christen the new waterfront brewery with a logical name, Tun Tavern.
Tun Tavern quickly gained a reputation for serving fine beer. Beginning 47 years later in 1732, the first meetings of the St. John's No. 1 Lodge of the Grand Lodge of the Masonic Temple were held in the tavern. An American of note, Benjamin Franklin, was its third Grand Master. Even today the Masonic Temple of Philadelphia recognizes Tun Tavern as the birthplace of Masonic teachings in America.
Roughly ten years later in the early 1740s, the new proprietor expanded Tun Tavern and gave the addition a new name, "Peggy Mullan's Red Hot Beef Steak Club at Tun Tavern." The new restaurant became a smashing commercial success and was patronized by notable Americans. In 1747 the St. Andrews Society, a charitable group dedicated to assisting poor immigrants from Scotland, was founded in the tavern.
Nine years later, then Col. Benjamin Franklin organized the Pennsylvania Militia. He used Tun Tavern as a gathering place to recruit a regiment of soldiers to go into battle against the Indian uprisings that were plaguing the American colonies. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the Continental Congress later met in Tun Tavern as the American colonies prepared for independence from the English Crown.
On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress commissioned Samuel Nicholas to raise two Battalions of Marines. That very day, Nicholas set up shop in Tun Tavern. He appointed Robert Mullan, then the proprietor of the tavern, to the job of chief Marine Recruiter -- serving, of course, from his place of business at Tun Tavern. Prospective recruits flocked to the tavern, lured by (1) cold beer and (2) the opportunity to serve in the new Corps of Marines. So, yes, the U.S. Marine Corps was indeed born in Tun Tavern. Needless to say, both the Marine Corps and the tavern thrived during this new relationship.
Tun Tavern still lives today. And, Tun Tavern beer is still readily available throughout the Philadelphia area. Further, through magazines it is advertised to Marines throughout the world.

"Do take issue with a scene early on, mainly due to is gross innacuracy: a Marine gets killed when he stands up during an excercise where he has to crawl under barbed wire while live rounds are being fired overhead. THIS EXCERCISE DOES NOT EXIST, despite it being shown is SEVERAL films (there is a similar excercise to this, but LIVE FIRE is not used)."

Actually, I am overwhelmingly sure it exists. It does for the Army and it is called the Infiltration Course. I have personally ran thru it during the latter part of Basic Training at Ft. Jackson SC sometime around July of 1990.

It's purpose is to simulate landing on a hostle beach. Something that is practally the Marines Raeson detre.

HOWEVER, the overhead fire from tripod mounted M-60 MG's were from towers and we were told at around nine feet above ground level so it would have been nearly impossible to have bodily intercepted the rounds. Besides, the Gunners were certainly trained to cease fire in the event someone stood up. I remember crawling on my back under barbed wire thinking how fantastically cool the tracers looked whizzing overhead. I could have literally laid there in the mud for hours watching that fantastic lightshow had situation permitted me such luxury.

My vote for the best .mil flick is Blackhawk Down even though they greatly toned-down the carnage we inflicted upon the Somalis for PC reasons.

Thanks for clarifying Mike. By the excercise not "being real," I meant that it doesn't exist as it's portrayed, which certaintly matches what you've said. Every portrayal I've seen of it in film gives the impression that there is a serious danger of actually getting hit my live fire if you stand up. The way the excercise is designed, it is nearly impossible to get hit, even by accident.

Many decades ago, the fire was low enough to hit you if you stood up.

However, if a Machine Gun barrel slumped a bit from heat, it could throw a live groud toward the ground.

My understanding is this is primarily what induced them to raise the height. I might also add the gunners keep a close watch on their round count and swap the barrels every few hundred rounds.

(Er, well obviously any hit would be an accident. But my point was this excercise is not nearly as dangerous as it would be if it were actually conducted as it is commonly portrayed.)

Blackhawk Down is certaintly the best at portraying what urban warfare is like, that's for sure. I think that you can thank "Saving Private Ryan" for several movies that followed after that gave a more realistic impression of what being in combat is really like by giving a very close-in perspective.

I read froggy's account. His review of the sniper scene bothers me. "Jarhead" is suppose to be "based on a true story", and that of a Marine Sniper. I'll assume that Froggy gives an accurate account of the sniper scene.

If so, is it true that a sniper, tasked to take out an officer, in position, and with permission to engage, would then have a Marine Major show up in his "hide" to call off the shot? That seemed rather messed up to me. If the shot is there, and the permission to engage is there, then I expect a shot to be fired. Froggy then explains that the Corporal spotter begins to whine to the Major about not being allowed to make the kill. I don't know the specifics of the Corporal's rant, but as a taxpayer, I'd want to know why the military would rather risk an aircraft and crew and expend a bomb, when a single bullet would do from a sniper already in position to make the kill.

I'm with Froggy, that seems absurd. Considering the book is by a Marine sniper, maybe he knows better. Still, it seems absurd.

That scene annoyed the heck out of me too... if it actually happened, that corporal had every right to be pissed IMO. If not, I'm annoyed that the scene was in the movie. Seiously, what's the point of training snipers if you're not going to let them do their job?

Let me pass on a story that may answer Hugh Hewitt's question.
I'm about to become a published author early next year (historical nonfiction) and after the race into Baghdad, I wrote a VERY quick draft screenplay called 'Thunder Run' about the last two hours of the assault into the city. As a real-life war story, what we knew THEN (late '03)was pretty damned impressive, and I felt it had the potential to be as good as 'Black Hawk Down'.
I gave it to my agent, who made a few phone calls, and eventually it ended up being looked at by a functionary at Sony/Columbia. My agent got a very nice rejection letter back a few weeks later that essentially said, "Yes, there is probably a market out there for a film like this - but we don't want to make a movie where the good guys win this incredible victory, and then the war goes sour."
FWIW.

Mike

Quote from Leland: "I'd want to know why the military would rather risk an aircraft and crew and expend a bomb, when a single bullet would do from a sniper already in position to make the kill."

Well when we've paid $150,000 for a bomb somebody, somewhere expects it to be used. A weapon that isn't used is a useless weapon.

Quote from Troodon: "Seiously, what's the point of training snipers if you're not going to let them do their job?"

Then what do you say for the millions of dollars spent on the training for a single military pilot? The dollars spent on training a single sniper are nothing compared to pilot development. I agree to an extent, snipers are highly trained to hit there mark and make a killing blow. But if you really want something dead you drop a 500lb bomb on their head.

I would say snipers are best utilized in a kinetic warfare situation supporting mixed mode of regular and mechanized infantry. Basically, using your snipers to surpress their snipers, heavy machine gunners, Anti-tank units. In an expanded warefare situation the sniper is relegated to a intelligence gathering tool and someone that relays coordinates of targets for analysis and interdiction.

Then what do you say for the millions of dollars spent on the training for a single military pilot? The dollars spent on training a single sniper are nothing compared to pilot development. I agree to an extent, snipers are highly trained to hit there mark and make a killing blow. But if you really want something dead you drop a 500lb bomb on their head.

I hope you're being sarcastic here. If you want someone dead in war, you kill them. How is not as important as whether or not it happens. In this hypothetical situation, that officer might not have hung around for the bomb.

Karl states my sentiments accurately.

I have not seen the movie in question, nor read the book.

That said, while dead is dead, a flight of A-10s dropping bombs on the bad guys are going to make a much bigger impact on the survivors than a single bullet taking out the CO.

The point being that in that campaign the effect we had on the opposition was sometimes of more import than actually killing them. On (I think) day two fo the ground war Marine armor was in the habit of rolling over a hill, taking out a single Iraqi tank, letting the rest of the Iraqi tankers abondon their vehicles and then blowing up the rest. I should add the M1s were engaging the Iraqis while still out of view and out of range.

Hard cheese on the guys that got killed. But the rest of the Iraqis learned a hard lesson about night fighting and how outclassed they were. War isn't just about killing them all, it's about breaking their hearts and making them want to quit the game.

Brian,

I appreciate your service and professional opinion. However, the situation you describe for A-10s was absolutely not the situation described by Froggy. It wasn't a field of tanks, but an airfield. And apparently a major force of friendly ground units were close enough that they could send a Marine Major to the sniper "hide" to verbally call off the shot.

Personally, I rather cut of the head and exploit the airfield. Having an operational tower sans enemy officer is helpful. If that didn't occur in Desert Storm, it certainly did in OEF and OIF. I did read Tommy Franks' book.

That situation was totally contrived anyway. And the invasion worked out. Not much point to armchair general that now.

And the sniper scene really sounds bogus. Last I heard, if you're a sniper in position, you're trying to be quiet. So we have a major retardedly swooping in when he can raise them on the radio? And then one of the snipers gets angsty and assaults the major? Quietly, I assume.

Reading the comments to Frogman's review, I'd have to say that this sounds like some sort of anti-war propaganda attempt that says a lot more about the people making the film than it does about the supposed subject of the film.

A weapon that isn't used is a useless weapon.

My gun at home doesn't get used because no one has broken into my home while I was there.

If someone did break into my home and I just happened to get up to go to the bathroom and caught him, with my gun not handy, so I had to beat him up with something else (confident that my wife would hear, grab the gun, and come running in case I had further trouble) and won the fight without firing a shot -- was the gun useless?

Our military arsenal is full of weapons we hope we never have to use. For anyone to say that a weapon that isn't used is a useless weapon, is -- in my opinion -- idiotic.

Quote from Mcghee:"My gun at home doesn't get used because no one has broken into my home while I was there.....was the gun useless?"

Well jeez I hope your home doesn't turn into a battlefield anytime soon also.

Its your failed logic you've exhibited here which indicates you'd make a poor military commander. You can't even properly make the distinction between your living room and a battlefield.

Our nuclear/biological/chemical strategic arsenal remains just as effective and useful in its latent form as it does when actively used because it presents such a extremely high level of threat. When we have stockpiles of iron dumb bombs sitting around for 30 years then yes, unfortunately, they start to become obsolete. Lets not forget that only 10% of the bombs dropped in the Gulf War were precision guided munitions. The majority were dumb free fall iron bombs dropped from airplanes using smart aiming systems.