The debate was not limited to deciding whether people liked the movie. Reviews discussed how its training, reporting in Vietnam, and combat sections related to one another, and what experience their differences produced.
Three Reviews, Not a Collective Verdict
Roger Ebert published his review on June 26, 1987. He especially praised the training section and the performances of R. Lee Ermey and Vincent D’Onofrio, but felt that the film as a whole lost cohesion and that the final section relied on familiar war-movie scenarios. His comparison with other films about Vietnam framed the problem in terms of the strength and freshness of the experience the movie offered. His negative assessment of the film as a whole thus coexisted with recognition of specific passages.
Adrian Martin dated his piece September 1987. He also acknowledged the strength of the training section, though his objection was not simply that what followed was inferior. He questioned a formal system that, in his view, built up tension only to release it, subordinating the story of Vietnam to that mechanism. He was interested in the verbal nature of the training, but felt it was inseparable from an overly closed style of filmmaking. The problem lay in how the movie regulated the viewer’s response.
Ángel Fernández-Santos published “Celluloid Corset” in El País on January 24, 1988. He distinguished three movements: training, the reporting section, and combat. He felt their styles worked against one another and made it difficult to become emotionally involved in the ending, while still recognizing its visual skill. His criticism was directed at a unity he considered unsuccessful, not at a total absence of resources or effective moments.
The dates make it impossible to group the three pieces as if they had appeared during the same opening-weekend run. They are texts from different editorial contexts and express individual arguments. Nor are they enough to reconstruct a worldwide reception. Their value lies in allowing a limited comparison: how three critics recognized similar divisions in the movie and what expectations they brought to those divisions. This selection does not turn their points of agreement into a survey of all viewers.
The Disagreement Begins with What Should Unite the Sections
The structure of training and war raises an initial question: should the parts extend a continuous dramatic progression, or can their discontinuity create meaning? A response in favor of the second option does not automatically refute the criticisms. To do that, it would have to show how specific relationships among voice, behavior, and experience work. Saying that the fragmentation is deliberate does not prove that it will convince every viewer, nor does it explain its effects on its own.
The strength of the first section can serve as a measure of the others or as a contrast to them. That difference in criteria is decisive. Viewers who expect the concentrated conflict between the instructor and recruit to continue at an equivalent intensity may experience the shift as a loss. Those who focus on the later dispersal may find another way of organizing the story. Both readings start from visible elements; what changes is the relationship they consider productive among those elements.
The jump from training to Vietnam makes the problem more precise. We do not see a transition that explains, step by step, how all the recruits change. Some faces and names link the settings, but the intervening journeys are missing. That absence requires us to work with partial continuity. Critical debate can examine whether the ellipsis makes comparison more demanding or weakens emotional involvement, without treating either response as an objective and universal description of reception.
The familiar images of war movies point to another difference. A familiar scenario can be read as exhausted repetition or as material put to a new use. The mere presence of a female sniper, a wounded comrade, or an advance through ruins does not determine which reading is better. We have to consider duration, point of view, and outcome. This distinction makes it possible to discuss a critic’s judgment without reducing it to a failure to understand the movie.
It is also worth distinguishing technical appreciation from emotion. Admiring the visual organization of the spaces does not require feeling close to the characters. A review can consider the camerawork precise while judging the experience it creates insufficient. The vocabulary of craft and the vocabulary of emotional involvement address different questions. Confusing them makes an argument seem contradictory when it may be carefully distinguishing between the two levels.
A Later Reassessment Preserves the Difference in Dates
In an introduction added in 2022, Martin acknowledges that his initial reaction was reductive and depended on a contrast between open and closed cinema that he used at the time. He retains the 1987 text but says he would approach the movie with greater sympathy. That does not place it among his favorite Kubrick films. His reassessment changes his position without erasing the earlier document or pretending he always held the same view.
This process makes it possible to observe a change in one person’s criteria. It does not, by itself, prove that all criticism has followed the same path or that time guarantees a better assessment. The reassessment is interesting precisely because it keeps both positions visible. Readers can identify which objections belong to the film’s release and what distance the author brings to them when revisiting them decades later.
Institutional recognition belongs to a different register. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences nominated Stanley Kubrick, Michael Herr, and Gustav Hasford for Adapted Screenplay at the 1988 ceremony. The nomination documents a decision by that institution; it neither cancels out the cited criticisms nor amounts to a win. Nor does it tell us how voters evaluated each narrative section, since the list of nominees provides no individual argument comparable to a review.
The history of this discussion becomes more precise when it preserves authors, dates, and questions. Critics may agree on the power of the training section and disagree about what that power demands of the rest of the film. An assessment may change without every reservation disappearing. Preserving these differences allows us to read the reviews as reasoned contributions open to discussion, rather than using them as proof of the director’s intent or of a consensus that the selected documents do not establish.
References: Roger Ebert, Full Metal Jacket, June 26, 1987. Adrian Martin, Full Metal Jacket, September 1987, with a 2022 introduction. Ángel Fernández-Santos, “Celluloid Corset,” El País, January 24, 1988. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, record of the 1988 ceremony.
View all articles in Full Metal Jacket (1987): A Guide to Full Metal Jacket