Why females hate this movie?
-
sammy_mendel — 16 years ago(June 11, 2009 02:59 PM)
Woah there, laddie. Full Metal Jacket is NOT an action movie. First of all, it is profoundly anti-war and secondly, there's barely any action in it.
Technically speaking SPR wasn't either, although I agree with you that it made war enjoyable in places (the sniper stuff was slightly too cool). Action movies follow very specific trends, and require an action hero, a love interest, a baddie, and above all must downplay the cost of human life (imagine if Rambo cried a single tear for every goon he downed). You can say that it was a less poweful war movie, but it is a war movie nonetheless. -
A.P. — 16 years ago(November 07, 2009 05:18 AM)
I agree. Full Metal Jacket is in no way an action movie and certainly doesn't glamorize war. Kubrick was a staunch anti-war activist who made two other anti-war movies aside from FMJ: Dr. Strangelove and Paths of Glory.
While Saving Private Ryan might have been a bit glamorized here or there, it certainly didn't promote war as anything exciting or enjoyable. -
Dantu00e8s — 15 years ago(September 27, 2010 01:49 PM)
Calm down, defensive-pants. This movie is clearly not an action movie, but it does contain a far amount of war action, so it's not beyond the pale to call it such. That's a reasonable, if badly phrased reason to not watch this.
A more accurate reason would be that it's a turd. -
carrick-3 — 17 years ago(February 13, 2009 11:48 AM)
Do they hate this movie? I wonder if many have actually seen it -
although, judging by my female friends then I suspect that many
would opt for another genre. And while I myself wouldn't (and am female 47yrs)
then I can, in a way, understand them (or at least have a theory)
War is very much a male domain - the women involved are almost always
victims.. in smaller rolls. People tend naturally to associate themselves with
thier own sex on the screen - seeing 'yourself' portrayed as either an object or a rape victim in a situation created by and dominated by men and in which we have no control becomes a bit wearing in the long run.
Now, PLEASE don't think I'm a man hater (hardly! : ) and this is just a general thought regarding war films. Neither do I think that women only watch films that make them feel good - but I couldn't help thinking while reading through the 'most disturbing scene' thread 'I don't hate this film but I'm not sure I could bear the distress of seeing it again'.
A final comment - is it just my imagination, or do many/most men baulk at the idea of seeing a film consisting of almost only (clothed!;) women?
I think this film is worthy of all the praise it gets - it's so good, and so disturbing, i'll probably never watch it again. -
chrissyharker — 16 years ago(August 17, 2009 01:27 AM)
As a young female I can't empathize enough how powerful this movie is for young women.
There's a scene at the end where a girl is stumbling back from being raped and beaten by the Germans and all she can mutter is "to love, to have children". Two of the very basic rights that should never be taken away from anyone, let alone a woman. -
Mannex17 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 01:20 PM)
"War is very much a male domain - the women involved are almost always
victims.. in smaller rolls. People tend naturally to associate themselves with
thier own sex on the screen - seeing 'yourself' portrayed as either an object or a rape victim in a situation created by and dominated by men and in which we have no control becomes a bit wearing in the long run. "
this. -
EinarH — 15 years ago(November 08, 2010 03:21 PM)
by - noveltylibrary on Fri Jun 19 2009 19:08:28
where did you get those stats?
Why, from the ratings page of the movie. To view it, click on the the number of user votes next to the user rating), or go here:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10091251/ratings -
kzavarin — 16 years ago(July 24, 2009 12:47 AM)
I find this to be one of the most memorable and harrowing war films I've seen (female, age 49). I've watched several times; then again, I'm of Russian origin, and as somebody once told me, we were born to suffer
Anyway, not something to watch casually, maybe once every 10 years or so to remind us of the atrocities of war. -
Nova_UB313 — 16 years ago(July 26, 2009 12:28 PM)
I'm female, and I rated this film a solid 10. I would have rated it higher if there was the possibility to do so. I watch a number of war films, and this film stunned me in a way that most war films cannot. I was speechless for some time to come after viewing this.
There was no sense of heroism, no pomp and circumstance, no overwhelming score or guys high-fiving each other. But instead only ugliness, bleakness, hopelessness, and how war ages a person and robs them of their innocence and hope. Much in the same way that young Florya changed from an enthusiastic child into a beaten old man without even one year passing. This is the truth of war, as opposed to the sensational Hollywood portrayals.
More science, less fiction. -
Akkarogg — 16 years ago(January 04, 2010 12:25 PM)
"I'm female, and I rated this film a solid 10. I would have rated it higher if there was the possibility to do so. I watch a number of war films, and this film stunned me in a way that most war films cannot. I was speechless for some time to come after viewing this.
There was no sense of heroism, no pomp and circumstance, no overwhelming score or guys high-fiving each other. But instead only ugliness, bleakness, hopelessness, and how war ages a person and robs them of their innocence and hope. Much in the same way that young Florya changed from an enthusiastic child into a beaten old man without even one year passing. This is the truth of war, as opposed to the sensational Hollywood portrayals.
More science, less fiction."
Yes. Truth right there! This is what more media. Films and also Video Games eventually should aspire to show more of! -
combatreview — 16 years ago(December 04, 2009 11:46 AM)
Not to say I disagree with everything you've just said, but surely it's obvious that we absolutely ARE defined by our biology, at least in part? Our thoughts are chemical processes, and biochemistry differs based on a number of factors, including gender.
-
combatreview — 16 years ago(December 04, 2009 01:56 PM)
That's double-balderdash right back at you, sonny jim. Nothing is certain and we all have free will - but it's naive to suggest that our physical bodies do not affect our thoughts and behaviour.
I mean, unless we bring in god, souls, spirituality
Because if we don't, then we are our physical bodies and there aint nothing else of us. Our physical bodies include our brains, and our brains are the seat of our behaviour and thought processes. And our brains are affected by physical influences, such as chemical balances - and tumors. Software aint nothing without hardware, and Neuroscience agrees with me.
The philosophical idea of Free Will is unaffected by this fact. -
combatreview — 16 years ago(December 05, 2009 04:28 AM)
Quadruple sir. We ARE our bodies. Our thoughts, our personalities, ARE chemical processes.
Gender affects body chemistry.
Now sure, being of a given gender guarantees nothing about who we are, and does not overwhelmingly determine anything about us - but it absolutely IS a factor. Of course it is.
People are always frightened of the idea that who they are may be determined by their physical selves, because they mistake it for a form of determinism or predestination. For example, some object to the idea that a pedophile may be caused by their genetic heritage, because they think that it makes an excuse for them. It does no such thing, because all humans have free will and are capable of choosing their own actions, regardless of their genetically-determined inclinations.
We exist physically. Every thought we have takes place on a physical level. Our Gender IS determined physically, in both bodily form and our brains.
Not to say socialisation isn't a massive part of what 'programmes' us - every computer needs to have software to run. But you can never escape the confines of the physical engine that contains that software, and its limitations. I think its naive to imagine that the human mind is in some way physically transcendent or metaphysical, whatever our ideologies might like us to think.