Things about your favorite movie that you dislike

That's not true at all. First of all, that isn't even the case so it's a dumb argument, but just for the sake of it, there are elements from the first "movie" that carry on into the latter section, it's full of them, like the writing on the helmets, the mickey mouse song, Joker and the sporadic encounters on his own side still developing essentially sideways from their "immaturity"; the second section would still be a strong case for modernity's satirical perspective in war, but because the first section exists, unfortunately for you apparently, the film as a whole can be taken as a diabolical critique that is hard to match.

I think it's a misleading question. The fact that the two (three, actually) acts of the movie are stylistically discontinuous from each other makes people think they're 3 separate films when in fact the radical shifts in tone make it more entertaining and insightful because (besides presenting us with some variety) it shows how people behave in radically different but equally real/artificial worlds (the micro-cosmos of boot camp, the "real world" of an alien/hostile culture, and the terrifying, post-apocalyptic world of the battlefield), and what they carry over from one into the others. I also think it's important that Fullmetal Jacket is not just an anti-war film but an anti-war-genre film. That's part of why so many people get thrown off by it, the point is to not let us just settle into some conventional/prefabricated view of the world, which is also why I find it so entertaining. Definitely one of Kubrick's best.

This would be the key phrase

Okay, here are some edits since my top 10 list is quite different than last time.

10. The Shawshank Redemption - could've done more with the Brooks subplot, I guess.

9. The Silence of the Lambs - The ending feels a bit like a typical cop drama show ending. Still done incredibly well, however.

8. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy - A little long, but it engrosses you.

7. A Clockwork Orange - Last third lacks the surprise of the first and second.

6. The Dark Knight - Again, over-explanatory dialogue, which isn't too bad.

5. Inception - Predictable until the last third, which goes off on its own thing.

4. Avatar - Overused main story, but still original in my eyes.

3. The Matrix - Boring Keanu Reeves

2. The Star Wars Saga - Simplistic dialogue and less than gratifying prequels (which I can still bear to watch, by the way).

1. Pulp Fiction - there's an air of pretentiousness in it, which I don't know if it's good or bad for the film.

I'm the opposite, I prefer the second half, some really haunting images throughout the second part of Full Metal Jacket.

In my opinion,Full Metal Jacket is good as it is.First part is good for it's original idea,since I don't know of any other war movie that shows how not only war, but simple training can end tragic.The second half is good too.Haven't seen this movie for a long time,but I think that the main message for the viewer was to show how people change and react to crises or extreme conditions.I can recall one scene where Joker was in a helicopter and he was surprised when guy shooting from helicopter told him that he killed women and children too.At the end of the movie,Joker killed a woman himself.Maybe Kubrick wanted to say that all principles and values are crushed under the extreme circumstances.

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

I agree with you on the interpretation of Kubrik's dual vision.
Just from the technical aspect of movie making, those shoulder mounted cameras did him a disservice.
He could have gotten his message across by maintaining the same tempo and intensity in part 2 ( which he didn't and was a let down to me ) by shooting war in the same manner that certain scenes in Blackhawk Down and Saving Private Ryan were shot. That was war realism at it's best and would not have conflicted with the stark boot camp realism, rather it would have been an integral continuation of the movie as a whole.
In life, boot camp can sometimes be as hellish as war. Why the need to make war look surreal in contrast?

In To Kill a Mockingbird, the only thing that bothers me in the whole movie is when Atticus is questioning Bob Ewell, and asks him why anyone didn't run for a doctor. Bob Ewell replies, "There weren't no need to. I seen who done it." I still can't figure out what that answer has to do with getting a doctor? It's been forever since I've read the book, so I don't know if Atticus follows up on Ewell's answer, but I thought he should have pressed him and asked him what he meant.

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

If anything's wrong with West Side Story, it's the casting of Richard Beymer as Tony. He seemed rather weak and lacklustre. Yet, at the same time, given Natalie Wood's open hostility towards him (she also tried to get him kicked off the set on several occasions), I'd be more inclined to give Richard Beymer a little bit of the benefit of the doubt, and say that, had it not been for the poor rapport between him and Natalie Wood off-screen, he might've played a stronger Tony in the film version of West Side Story.

The Graduate; some of the jokes are a little sick

Sound of Music: Ambivalent feelings about the very story behind this film.

Fantasia (the original one): some parts of it were too cutesy for words.

Wizard of Oz: Somewhat childish, in many respects.

Georgy Girl: Sad. Memories of my lonely childhood and adolescence never fail to come echoing back at me.

Jaws: the fakery in this film was obvious; the shark was clearly fake and didn't look at all real, and, at the beginning, when the girl was eaten by the shark while swimming in the ocean at dawn, when the girl's leg was found at the bottom of the ocean later, it was clear that it was a mannequin's leg that had been used.

__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

Scarface remains one of my favorite movies. Pacino was great in it and oveall the story was well developed and interesting.
What I found a little irritating was the cast of characters around Pacino, once he became the boss. There were a couple of guys there that verged on the comical and seemed miscast to me. I just see a ruthless guy like that having an overall tougher group around him. His kind of character would not demand anything less.

Because war as realism doesn't really compute.

Doesn't compute in what way? What war action part of Blackhawk Down or Saving Private Ryan doesn't "compute" ?

I don't know about doesn't compute, but the 'realism' in both of those films aren't the kind of 'realism' I want in a film, for the most part. I don't want to 'feel as if I'm there' in amongst the melee, I'm watching a film.

I agree with hk. I want to know that I'm watching a film. As long as the "surrealism" is handled well, I see nothing wrong with making war "surreal" in a movie. Besides, it takes more skill to shoot a war movie "from a distance" than just having blood and guts and shakey cam. I don't need Blackhawk Down or Saving Private Ryan to tell me war is hell.

Because realistic war movies arent as thought-provoking as surrealistic war movies.

Well, that's all good and dandy as a personal preferance for you but my point was about making one part of Full Metal Jacket very realistic and than switching the second part to surrealism. It diminished the strength of the first part and made war into a fantasy, which clearly it is not, not to mention the fact that the intensity and continuity of the movie was interrupted and diverted. I would have much rather seen two seperate movies, which in fact is what Kubrick made Full Metal jacket out to be. I, as a viewer, in years to come, will remember that boot camp, wheras Kubrick's war surrealism didn't phase me at all and I've allready forgot it. But hey, that's just me and I wouldn't expect you to feel the same way.

That maybe your personal opinion and a question of interpretation.
For me realism, like let's say in Iron Triangle ( Beau Bridges ) can be much more thought provoking than any surrealistic war movie, as I don't relate well to surrealism or things that can be anything we can imagine them to be.
The reality of life, in all it's spleandor and glory and all it's nastyness and ugliness is much more thought provoking than any fantasy one can conjure.
Watching movies can be an escape for some but shouldn't be an escape for all and for me getting all caught up in the nitty gritty is well worth the price of admission.

What I hate about my favorite movie is that it finished. T2 is a great film

__________________

~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

Lost potential. Legend could have been an even better film with a bigger budget, so that they didn't have to edit Hjortsberg's screenplay to make it more "filmable." Also, in the scene where Jack and the gang discover Lily and the unicorn have been captured, the editing makes it seem like the Great Tree, the domain of the Lord of Darkness, was just around the corner. Kinda silly.

Ok I am prolly going to get flogged for this one but I LOVE Christopher Nolan's take on Batman. BUT I just wish I could have understood Bane better. I was like speak up when Hardy was saying his lines. The mask was OUTSTANDING but it muffled everything he said (yes i know this was the intent) But then again it might have been the theater I saw it. They hadn't upgraded to digital sound just yet...

May have been the cinema... I had the same problem at the cinema.

I've got the DVD though and the sound is fine.

__________________