Rating: 
Summary: Malick gets lost in his own artistic skills.
Review: I cannot deny that Terrance Malik is a master with the camera. The visual imagery in The Thin Red Line is remarkable, but as I watched this movie I had the sense that Malik was just being overtly self-indulgant. I have a feeling that if the studio would have let him, Malik would have added another three hours to a film I frankly stopped caring about after 20 minutes.What is the story of war if it isn't about the individuals who fight it? Malik tries to tell some deeply emotional stories, but in the end I didn't care about what happened to any of the characters because I lost any interest in them during Malik's mushy and unmoving narrative. I don't mind films with unconventional methods of storytelling, but in the end, The Thin Red Line played like a three hour Haiku. I think I understood what Malik was trying to do, I just think he failed miserably at it.
Rating: 
Summary: Saving Private Who?
Review: I was completely baffled by the overwhelming reaction of the majority to this profound work by Terrance Malick. "Saving Private Ryan"? Not only are Malick's character's not trite and undeveloped, like "Ryan's", they are people who represent ideas and who ultimately become ideas. They only seem undeveloped because most filmgoers have become accustomed to movies which are easily accessible, so the truth in these characters is hard to recognize when they don't correspond to the format that most movies stick to, call them part of the fast-food culture that America has long been sinking into. Malick directs his movies the way a photographer or an artist would compose their works. They will stand as pieces of art for years and years, while Spielberg's movies will ultimately be called by their own name.
Rating:
Summary: poetry for the soul....
Review: SUBLIME .great great great! magnifico
Rating: 
Summary: War is Hell...Again
Review: This just in: war is hell. This motif has been played out time and time again in films ranging from "Apocalypse Now" to "Saving Private Ryan" to "Full Metal Jacket." Do we really need another one? Even if we do, why waste so much talent doing it? Many of the best actors here: Travolta, Cusack, and Clooney to name a few, were relegated to almost characterless roles that could have been filled by the far less skillful thesbian. This film dragged considerably and could have made its points in an hour's less time. On the good side, the cinematography was excellent, the natural environment beautifully filmed, and not ALL the talent was wasted.
Rating:
Summary: Very intelligent film...
Review: I must say all the films nominated for best picture this year were great choices other than Elizabeth (good film but not for me). I feel that this is a great war movie (one of the best ever made) but not as good as Saving Private Ryan. I think everyone should at least see this because no one knows enough about history...
Rating:
Summary: A Haunting Film Experience
Review: This film is definitely flawed, yet despite its flaws (or maybe because of them) I found myself fascinated and drawn to THE THIN RED LINE. The film is slow and contemplative and it does have some narrative problems. On the first viewing, I had trouble telling whose voice over I was listening to. Despite all this, the film resonates deeply with me. The contrasts between the beauty and the darkness of man's nature (and of nature itself) are haunting. The beauty of the score and the images is almost overwhelming. The film is not a traditional type of war film (it actually is much less traditional than the excellent SAVING PRIVATE RYAN which was promoted as breaking the mold of old war films) and would be a big let down for someone expecting that type of film. For people who want a slower more contemplative look at human nature, the film is deeply satisfying. It is to me one of the finest and most interesting American films that has been made in the last decade.
Rating:
Summary: Time will reveal the genius of this movie...
Review: When I left the theater my mind was full of the beautiful images I had just seen. I feel that a movie to a great degree is a visual story. Take the first 30 min. of Stanley Kubricks 2001 for example, were there is no dialog at all. This movie had a ton of visual ideas that some may have been bored with. It said a great deal, sometimes without using a single word. For example the scene were the soldiers are first walking onto the island and a native walks by without even looking at them! Once again it made me think of 2001 in the sense that much of the film could be interpreted in different ways. It was a personal adventure for everyone who saw it. Some people just got more out of it than others. You had to put some thought into it to get anything back. Some people saw a bunch of good actors that had small undeveloped parts that they couldn't relate to. I saw that same thing as a statement that as a soldier you are part of a larger machine and that individually you mean nothing. I loved the scene where one of the soldiers gets a letter from his beloved wife saying she is leaving him for someone else. Because you know that that really happened to some of them. They came home to find that there lives did not wait for them while they were gone. This movie was brilliant. I can't say enough good things about it. I think it was widely misunderstood and was wrongfully compared to Saving Private Ryan. I feel Ryan was meant to be instantly gratifying were the Thin Red Line was meant to get under your skin and slowly develop and boil. They were two different kinds of movies and really can not be compared. I think time will reveal the true genius of this film. Give it another chance if you already saw it and if you missed it, you missed a classic and a beautiful work of art. This movie was quickly added to my personal top 15 films ever made.
Rating:
Summary: Movie-making at its finest
Review: Terence Malick delivers unforgettable scenery as well as undetectable acting by Hollywood's greatest stars. His dichotomy created by a juxtaposed paradise in nature and the demolition of war seduces the viewer gradually and builds without histrionics or grandiose theatrics. Malick poses a question instead of supplying all the answers, namely: how does one justify such carnage within such immense beauty? And, how can men remain unchanged or truly righteous after unleashing such monsters from within? True cinematic adventures or risks should force us to ask these types of questions instead of preaching.
Rating:
Summary: Obviously something special
Review: You can tell how great and daring this movie is just by reading the reviews. How many other movies have only either one or five star reviews? And how many are now considered classics? Any movie that sparks this kind of dissent is something special and should be treasured. Malick didn't break out the old Hollywood cookie cutter. He did something original. And for that we should thank him. Ten years from now people will be embarrassed to say they didn't like this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: a very unconventional film
Review: I don't think that it is nearly as profound or revolutionary as some say it is, but I also don't agree with those who say it is ridiculous and boring. The film does a superb job of conveying the mood of each scene. First we are totally drawn into tranquility by the simple beauty of life with the island natives. We are then drawn into a slight sense of tension as the troops prepare for their invasion of the island. Malick does a splendid job of letting the tension build up as the troops make their landing. But then we are overwhelmed by uncertainty as the landing is unopposed and the company begins searching through a seemingly empty jungle. Where is the enemy?? Just when you are starting to doubt if they're even out there at all, the patrol comes across the mutilated remains of friendly troops. Now we are all of a sudden filled with dread and it seems that we are stumbling in the dark and looking for an enemy we can't see, but we know is there. And through the entire time it is hard not to be enthralled by the astounding beauty of the island and its wildlife. This blend of fear and admiration works well to create an immersive setting. The excellent score and cinematography also help to draw us in even further. Every beautiful camera shot seems to be symbolic of something and that coupled with the melancholy music gives the film a constantly contemplative nature. That aspect of the film makes it unique but also hurts it as well. It gets too contemplative as it jumps into the minds of so many characters, trying to convey their deepest thoughts through abstract images and cheesy monologue. What makes these thoughts even harder to grasp is the fact that we are never properly introduced to all these characters. Some of them look so much alike and they all have such uninspiring names such as "Witt", "Welch", "Bell" and "Tall". This makes it hard to differentiate between them and remember whether it was Witt who thought this or Bell who thought that, etc. Even if you are sharp enough to tell them apart throughout the whole thing, it doesn't help much since the message is so abstract to begin with. Once the film dives completely into contemplation, all remnants of a clear plot disappear. As for well developed characters- they were never there to begin with. The sad thing about that is that certain characters in the film had so much potential. But since the film never allows us to focus in on any of them long enough, they all(or at least most of them) end up paper thin and under developed. But the nature of the movie is very unconventional. I don't think that Malick intended it to be driven by characters or plot. That is what makes this movie hard to judge. It is more of a meditation on nature, life and war than a depiction of the battle at guadalcanal. The symbolic images created by the awe inspiring nature scenes and unique camera work make watching the thin red line more like gazing at a beautiful symbolic painting than watching a war movie. But it ultimately fails to create the same effect of a great painting because the images of a great painting leave the viewer open to his or her own interpretation. There is no right or wrong answer. The Thin Red Line on the other hand seems to use a lot of confusing and unnecessary means in order to force the viewer to receive a simple message: Life is cruel and war is hell. In other words, it tries to seem profound but really isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that it paints a truly vivid picture that can be appreciated by those that are intrigued by such things. But keep in mind that if you enjoy this film it is simply because the unique style of film making appeals to you. It doesn't mean that you're any smarter than someone who didn't like it.
| 
