Review: Full Metal Jacket (dir. by Stanley Kubrick)


“You write ‘Born to Kill’ on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What’s that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?” — Colonel

Full Metal Jacket is the kind of war movie that sticks in your craw like old metal shavings. It’s 1987, Stanley Kubrick’s last film released in his lifetime, and it plays less like a traditional Vietnam War saga and more like a taunt packed into two very different acts. One half is a barracks horror show about how the military turns boys into killers; the other is a grubby, almost casual descent into the chaos of combat. Together, they make a movie that feels intentionally disjointed so it can drill down on the same idea from two angles: war doesn’t just brutalize your body, it reshapes your mind into something barely human.

The film follows Private J.T. “Joker” Davis, played by Matthew Modine in one of those quietly watchful performances that’s easy to underestimate. Joker starts as a kind of archetypal smart‑mouth recruit, the guy who thinks he’s above the hysteria until he realizes he isn’t. Around him swirls a platoon of young Marines going through basic training at Parris Island under the merciless Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, played with shark‑like relish by R. Lee Ermey, who was actually a real‑life Marine drill instructor. Hartman’s whole job is to obliterate softness and replace it with drilled‑in aggression, and Kubrick lingers on every insult, every barked command, until the abuse stops feeling like a setup for a war movie and starts feeling like the main event.

The first half of Full Metal Jacket is basically a single, sustained initiation ritual. The camera stays tight, almost claustrophobic, trapping you in the barracks with the recruits, so you feel the same sensory overload they do. The lighting is harsh, the colors washed out, and the camera often locks in on Hartman’s face mid‑rant, making you uncomfortably intimate with his cruelty. This isn’t training so much as a manufactured psychological war waged on the platoon’s collective brain. The recruits are constantly degraded, mocked, and forced into grotesque rituals of humiliation, and the film never lets you forget that this is the system’s idea of “making Marines.” Kubrick doesn’t fake the perverse appeal of this process either; there’s a weird, ugly thrill in how effective it is, in how the boys start enjoying the brutality once they’re inside it.

The standout character in this section is Leonard “Gomer Pyle” Lawrence, played by Vincent D’Onofrio in a performance that’s almost physically uncomfortable to watch. D’Onofrio’s Pyle is this thick‑set, awkward kid who can’t keep up, and the movie doesn’t soften his edges to make him likable. He’s genuinely bad at the routine, slow, clumsy, but he’s also clearly just trying to survive. The film lets you watch, in a very matter‑of‑fact way, how the system turns his inadequacy into a target. The other recruits are instructed to punish him, and soon everyone starts in. The film doesn’t moralize about it; it just shows that this kind of group cruelty is baked into the structure. The infamous scene where the platoon holds Leonard down with piled‑on bed sheets while whacking him with a bar of soap wrapped in a towel is less about a single act of violence than about what it means to normalize dehumanization before you ever see combat.

What’s so unsettling about Full Metal Jacket is that it never pretends Hartman is some rogue sadist. He’s not an outlier; he’s the product of the system, and he’s also the system’s avatar. In that sense, the first half of the film functions like a kind of industrial horror. The Marines are being processed like defective parts on a factory line, streamed through a machine designed to break them and then rebuild them as compliant killers. The film toys with the idea that the military doesn’t want robots so much as creatures that hunger for violence on command. The line about “we don’t want robots, we want men” is repeated with a kind of grim irony because what the film actually shows is the production of something in between: not quite human, not quite machine, but something that can pull a trigger without hesitating.

Jumping from Parris Island to the streets of Huế during the Tet Offensive, the second half of Full Metal Jacket feels like a different movie in tone but the same one in thesis. Joker, now a combat correspondent with a Stars and Stripes hat and a “Born to Kill” slogan on his helmet, is literally split down the middle between observer and participant. He carries a camera and a rifle; he’s supposed to report, but he also has to fight. The film doesn’t resolve that tension the way a more sentimental war movie would. Instead, it lets Joker drift in that gray zone where war is equal parts absurdity and atrocity. The Vietnamese civilians are largely faceless, and the war itself is shown as a series of loosely connected vignettes—raids, ambushes, random firefights—rather than a grand narrative of heroism or tragedy.

Kubrick’s Vietnam is less a country and more a ruined theater set. The cityscapes are wide, desolate, and oddly beautiful in their destruction, as if the war has turned everything into a series of bleak tableaux. The camera doesn’t linger on gore for shock value; it lingers to make the war feel like a permanent, almost aesthetic state of ruin. Individual soldiers pop in and out: Animal Mother, the violently unhinged Marine played by Adam Baldwin; Cowboy, the earnest, almost naive replacement; and the rest of the squad, who oscillate between fear, boredom, and bursts of casual cruelty. None of them are given the kind of tragic backstories that usually make you emotionally invested in a war film. Instead, they’re presented as fragments of a larger machine, each one another cog in the same indifferent system.

The film’s most famous structural trick is its way of keeping politics at arm’s length while still radiating a deeply skeptical view of the war. It doesn’t really bother telling you who’s right or wrong, or why the Marines are there. It just shows what they become and what they do. The movie doesn’t ask you to sympathize with the Marines in the way some war films do; it asks you to recognize the mirror. The famous ending, where the Marines march through flaming ruins to the tune of Mickey Mouse, is pure Kubrick dark surrealism. The cheerful cartoon theme clashes violently with the apocalyptic imagery, and the soldiers chant along with a kind of manic innocence that feels like the last vestige of humanity being cannibalized by the war itself. It’s hard to tell whether the moment is tragic, absurd, or both, and that’s the point.

Full Metal Jacket is also a film about storytelling and the way narratives are weaponized. Joker, as a reporter, is supposed to package the war for a distant audience. He’s there to turn chaos into digestible stories, but the movie quietly undermines that idea by showing how unreliable those narratives are. The soldiers’ own stories are laced with jokes, bravado, misogyny, and casual racism, and the film doesn’t clean them up. It lets you sit with the ugliness, even when it’s delivered with a laugh. The film doesn’t romanticize the Marines’ camaraderie or soften their cruelty; it just lets you watch them behave like ordinary guys who happen to be doing something extraordinary and monstrous.

The cinematography in Full Metal Jacket is cold and precise, which is exactly what the material needs. The camera behaves like a reluctant witness, framing the Marines in symmetrical, almost clinical compositions that make their brutality look routine rather than spectacular. The score is minimal, and the film often relies on diegetic sound—machine‑gun fire, jeep engines, distant explosions, Hartman’s voice echoing off concrete walls—to ground you in the sensory overload of military life. Even the few moments of levity feel like concessions to show business more than true relief. The soldiers’ jokes are rarely funny in a wholesome way; they’re the kind of gallows humor that keeps you from noticing how broken you’ve become.

What ultimately makes Full Metal Jacket endure is that it refuses to offer catharsis. By the time the film ends, nothing has been “resolved” in the way Hollywood usually expects. Joker survives, but the war doesn’t; it just keeps going, and the Marines keep marching, chanting, and killing. The film doesn’t build toward a big speech about the futility of war or a tear‑jerker about fallen comrades. It just suggests, quietly and persistently, that the process outlined in the boot‑camp half is drafted, again, in the streets of Vietnam. You go in as a boy, you’re molded into something sharper and meaner, and then you’re sent out into a world that rewards that sharpness. The movie doesn’t need to say this out loud; it just shows it happening in scene after scene.

In that sense, Full Metal Jacket is one of the most honest anti‑war films precisely because it doesn’t pretend to be a plea for peace. It’s a portrait of a machine that feeds on itself, and of the people who get caught in its gears. It’s funny, disturbing, infuriating, and occasionally mesmerizing, sometimes all at once. It’s not a movie that wants to hold your hand or make you feel better about the human race. It wants you to stare at the gleam on that full metal jacket bullet and wonder what it took to make someone pull the trigger. That’s the real power of Full Metal Jacket: it doesn’t try to redeem the war, the soldiers, or the audience. It just makes sure you can’t look away.

Scene That I Love: 2001’s Stargate Sequence


Today would have been the 84th birthday of special effects maestro, Douglas Trumbull.

Today’s scene that I love come from 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.  The famous stargate sequence was designed by Trumbull and it remains one of the most influential science fiction moments of all time.  In one of their greatest oversights, the Academy neglected to include Trumbull when they nominated the film for its special effects.  As a result, the Oscar only went to Stanley Kubrick.  Trumbull was not happy about that and, sadly, Kubrick and Trumbull did not speak to each other for years afterwards.

Despite not being included in the nomination, Douglas Trumbull’s work has stood the test of time.

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special 1975 Edition


4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

Today, we pay tribute to the year 1975.  It’s time for….

4 Shots From 4 1975 Films

Barry Lyndon (1975, dir by Stanley Kubrick, DP: John Alcott)

Deep Red (1975, dir by Dario Argento, DP: Luigi Kuveiller)

Mirror (1975, dir by Andrei Tarkovsky, DP: Georgy Rerberg)

Three Days Of The Condor (1975, dir by Sydney Pollack, DP: Owen Roizman)

Scenes That I Love: President Merkin Muffley in Dr. Strangelove


Since today is Presidents Day, my scene that I love features one of my favorite fictional presidents!  In this scene from 1964’s Dr. Strangelove, President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers) attempts to explain why something funny might happen with the bomb to his Russian counterpart.

Sellers reportedly based President Muffley on Adlai Stevenson, the self-styled “rational intellectual” who twice ran for President against Dwight Eisenhower.

Ah, Eisenhower.  There’s a President that I wish I could have voted for.

4 Shots From 4 Holiday Films: Christmas In the 90s


4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films is all about letting the visuals do the talking.

4 Shots From 4 Holiday Films

Home Alone (1990, dir by Chris Columbus)

Home Alone (1990, dir by Chris Columbus)

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993, dir by Henry Selick)

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993, dir by Henry Selick)

The Santa Clause (1994, dir by John Pasquin)

The Santa Clause (1994, dir by John Pasquin)

Eyes Wide Shut (1999, dir by Stanley Kubrick)

Eyes Wide Shut (1999, dir by Stanley Kubrick)

Scenes that I Love: Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory


Today’s scene that I love comes from 1957’s Paths of Glory.  In this scene, Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) fights a losing battle to save the lives of three soldiers who have been accused of cowardice after refusing to take part in a suicidal attack during World War I.

Douglas not only starred in this film but his also production company also helped to finance it.  The film was co-written and directed by Stanley Kubrick.

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special Kirk Douglas Edition


4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

Today would have been the 109th birthday of actor Kirk Douglas!  It’s time for….

4 Shots From 4 Kirk Douglas Films

Champion (1949, dir by Mark Robson, DP; Franz Planer)

The Bad and the Beautiful (1952, dir by Vincente Minnelli, DP: Robert L. Surtees)

Spartacus (1960, dir by Stanley Kubrick, DP: Russell Metty)

Saturn 3 (1980, dir by Stanley Donen, DP: Billy Williams)

4 Shots From 4 Horror Films: The 1980s Part One


This October, I’m going to be doing something a little bit different with my contribution to 4 Shots From 4 Films.  I’m going to be taking a little chronological tour of the history of horror cinema, moving from decade to decade.

Today, we begin the 80s!

4 Shots From 4 Horror Films

Friday the  13th (1980, dir by Sean S. Cunningham)

Friday the 13th (1980, dir by Sean S. Cunningham)

The Shining (1980, dir by Stanley Kubrick)

The Shining (1980, dir by Stanley Kubrick)

The Beyond (1981, dir by Lucio Fulci)

The Beyond (1981, dir by Lucio Fulci)

The Howling (1981, dir by Joe Dante)

The Howling (1981, dir by Joe Dante)

Horror Film Review: The Shining (dir by Stanley Kubrick)


The Shining is one of the few horror movies that still scares me.

I say this despite the fact that I’ve lost track of the number of times that I’ve watched Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 adaptation of Stephen King’s third novel.  It’s a film that I watch nearly every October and it’s a film that I’ve pretty much memorized.  Whenever I watch the film, I do so with the knowledge that Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), the caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, is eventually going to start talking to ghosts and he’s going to try to kill his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and his son, Danny (Danny Lloyd).  Whenever I watch this film, I know what Jack is going to find Room 237.  I know about the blood pouring out the elevator like the Tampax commercial from Hell.  I know what Danny means when he says, “Redrum….”  I know about the twins and their request of “Come play with us, Danny.”  And, of course, I know about the film’s famous ending.

Whenever I start watching this film, I know everything that is going to happen.  And yet, as soon as I hear the booming beat of of Wendy Carlos’s theme music and I see the overhead shot of the mountain roads leading to the Overlook Hotel, I start to feel uneasy.  Whenever Barry Nelson (played the hotel’s general manager) starts to blandly explain that a previous caretaker got cabin fever and chopped up his twin daughters, I smile because Nelson delivers the lines so casually.  But I also get nervous because I know Charles (or is it Delbert) Grady is going to show up later.

(Incidentally, Barry Nelson never gets enough credit for his brilliant cameo as the friendly but guarded hotel manager.  In Stephen King’s original novel, the character was a stereotypically unsympathetic middle manager, a martinet who existed largely to be told off.  In Kubrick’s film, the manager is one of the most fascinating of the supporting characters.)

I still get nervous when I see Wendy and Danny, sitting in their disturbingly sterile Colorado home while Jack interviews for the caretaker job.  Wendy smokes and Danny talks about how his imaginary friend, Tony, doesn’t want to go to the hotel.  With her unwashed her and her tentative voice, Shelley Duvall is a far cry from the book’s version of Wendy.  However, Duvall’s Wendy is also a far more compelling character, an abused woman who finds her strength when her son is put in danger.  Duvall is the perfect choice for Wendy because she seems like someone who you might see in the parking lot of your local grocery store, trying to load the bags in her car and keep an eye on her young child at the same time.  She seems real and her reactions remind us of how we would probably react if we found ourselves in the same situation.  Wendy makes the mistakes that we would all probably make but she refuses to surrender to her fear.

Why does The Shining remain so powerful and so frightening, even after repeated viewings?  Most of the credit has to go to Stanley Kubrick.  Stephen King has been very vocal about his dislike of the film, claiming that The Shining was more Kubrick’s version than his.  King has a point.  Film is a director’s medium and few directors were as brilliant as Stanley Kubrick.  (Along with The Shining, Kubrick also directed Paths of Glory, 2001, Barry Lyndon, Dr, Strangelove, Spartacus, Lolita, The Killing, A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wife Shut, and Full Metal Jacket.  Stephen King directed Maximum Overdrive.)  From the minute we see the tracking shots that wind their way through the desolate mountains and the empty hallways of the Overlook, we know that we’re watching a Kubrick film.  Those tracking shots also put us in the same role as the spirits in the Overlook.  We’re watching and following the characters, observing and reacting to their actions without being able to interact with them.  King has complained that Kubrick’s version of The Shining offers up no hope.  But, honestly, what kind of hope can one have after discovering that ghosts are real and they want to kill you?  Once Jack Torrance finally accepts that drink from Joe Turkel’s Lloyd and meets Phillip Stone’s Grady, there is no more room for hope.  King’s book ends with the Overlook destroyed and Jack Torrance perhaps redeeming himself in his last moments.  Kubrick’s film suggests that Jack Torrance never cared enough about his family to be worthy of redemption and that the evil that infected the Overlook is never going to be destroyed.  In the end, not even the kindly presence of Scatman Crothers in the role of Dick Halloran can bring any real hope to the Overlook.

The Shining is unsettling because, more than being a ghost story, it’s a film about being tapped.  Physically, the Torrances are trapped by the blizzard.  Mentally, Jack is trapped by his addictions and his resentments.  One gets the feeling that he’s deeply jealous of Danny, viewing him as someone who came along and took away all of Wendy’s attention.  Wendy is trapped in a bad and abusive marriage and there’s something very poignant about the way Duvall both captures Wendy’s yearning for outside contact (like when she uses the radio to communicate with the local rangers station) and her hope that, if she’s just supportive enough, Jack will get his life together.  Danny’s trapped by his psychic visions and his knowledge of what’s to come.  The victims of the Overlook appear to be trapped as well.  Grady’s daughters are fated to always roam the hallways, looking for someone to play with them.  The Woman in 237 will always wait in her bathtub.  Were these spirits evil before they died or were the twisted by the Overlook?  It’s an unanswered question that sticks with you.

As I mentioned earlier, Stephen King has been very vocal about his dislike of both The Shining and its director.  (King once boasted about outliving Kubrick, a comment that showed a definite lack of class on the part of America’s most commercially successful writer.)  Why does King hate the Kubrick film with such a passion?

I have a theory.  Both King’s second novel, Salem’s Lot, and The Shining feature a writer as the man character.  In both cases, King obviously related to the main character.  Ben Mears in Salem’s Lot is charming, confident, articulate, and successful.  He’s a writer that everyone respects and he’s even well-known enough to have a file with the FBI.  Jack Torrance, on the other hand, is a struggling writer who has a drinking problem, resents authority figures (like the hotel manager), and has issues with his father.  Torrance is a much more interesting character than Ben Mears, precisely because Torrance is so flawed.  (King, and I give him full credit for this, has been open about his own struggles with substance abuse and how he brought his own experiences to the character of Jack Torrance.)  I’ve always suspected that, at the time that King wrote Salem’s Lot and The Shining, Ben Mears was King’s idealized version of himself while Jack Torrance, with all of his struggles and flaws, reflected how King actually felt about himself.  (That the Wendy Torrance of the novel is a beautiful blonde who sticks with her husband despite his drinking problem feels like a bit of wish fulfillment on the part of King.)  When Stanley Kubrick made his version of The Shining and presented Jack Torrance as essentially being a self-centered jerk who, even before arriving at the hotel, had a history of abusing his wife and son, it’s possible King took it a bit personally.  Since King had poured so much of himself into Jack Torrance, it was probably difficult to see Kubrick present the character an abusive narcissist whose great novel turned out to be literally a joke.  And so, Stephen King has spent the last 45 years talking about how much he hates Kubrick’s film.

King’s opinion aside, Kubrick’s The Shining is probably the most effective Stephen King adaptation ever made, precisely because Kubrick knew which parts of the book would work cinematically and which parts were best excised from the plot.  As opposed to later directors who often seem intimidated by King’s fame, Kubrick was able to bring his own signature style to the story.  Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining is a masterpiece and one that I look forward to revisiting this October.