Rating: 
Summary: Watch the original, skip this confusing boring film
Review: This had to be one of the worst war films I've ever seen. It was hard to tell the characters apart and even more difficult to identify with any of them. Don't bother with this new version but check out the old original which is really an excellent old WWII genre flick. I saw the original in the theater as a kid and thought it was really cool because it focused on the gi that stole the 45 side arm and how he went beserk. Also, a better and more interesting WWII film is Hong Kong 1941 by John Woo with superstar Chow Yun Fat. This is an excellent action movie with a dynamite plot and sensational acting.
Rating: 
Summary: Challenging
Review: There is no doubt that this is a confusing movie: multiple characters, hard-to-understand dialogue, unexplained actions. Still, it is stirring, depressing, and entrancing. I recommend reading the book just to get a handle on the characters, but you should know that the themes of the book and movie diverge quite a bit. This movie shows us the horror of war. It also makes us think about it. Why do we do it? What does it mean? "Who's killin' us?" wonders Witt, innocently. "Why did the Japs put an airstrip there?" asks Travolta's character. The movie shows us the glory of war and the senselessness of it. It is both anti-war and accepting of war ("Do you want your grandchildren to be fighting this war?"). It revels in contrasts and is rife with symbols. In other words, it is not easy. If you want to fully enjoy and appreciate this film, be prepared to work.
Rating:
Summary: Worst War Movie Ever
Review: This movie is just a waste of time and money. It has nothing to do with the book, and plenty of good talents are wasted. Complete lack of everything, and you'll find yourself falling asleep multiple times. Do yourself a favour, and pick up a copy of the original film, or the book.
Rating:
Summary: this is so stupid.
Review: this is too long and boring and just wasting time. I'm sorry I bought and watched. I'll never watch this director's and actors movies. this is so stupid, they don't know much about it. better learn. haha...
Rating:
Summary: thanks for wasting my time
Review: This is so boring I've never seen. the director'd better learn about more history.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as the book.
Review: I was disappointed. When great war novels like The Thin Red Line or the upcoming film of the WWII novel The Triumph and the Glory (which i hope they don't butcher)can't be effectively brought to the big screen maybe it's time for some new directing talent in Hollywood.
Rating:
Summary: Long, drawn out, and boring
Review: If you think "They Shoot Horses, Don't They" was a good movie, you will love this one. If you are into long searing stares, deep cranial symbolism, long drawn out looks at dead and dying pigeons, consistent views of clouds and sky, then you will like this. Also, please understand that my idea of a movie with lots of depth and symbolism is Lethal Weapon III, then take my review into that context. Take out the extended extra looks at various scenes, cut this movie down to around 75 minutes, and it would not be bad. This one lasts around 7 hours, at least it will feel that way.
Rating: 
Summary: Not even close to Saving Private Ryan!
Review: I am a WWII vet, 1st all-filipino infantry regiment, U.S Army, trained at Fort Ord, Monterey Ca. 1942. Although I was not in the European Theater, I fought in the Pacific, Thin Red Line does not come close to Saving Private Ryan in any aspect of war. Losing many friends on the field and dealing with war itself is something I cannot describe. Watching Private Ryan is as close as you can get to REAL combat. The thin red line is a good movie that takes war in a different perspective, but please do not compare it to a great movie like Saving Private Ryan.
Rating:
Summary: Sketchy and underdeveloped - lacking emotion and breadth
Review: Well, contrary to what the previous reviewer implied, I don't know if it's my "lack of intelligence" that caused me to dislike this movie, and think it disjointed and wholly unmoving. Rather, it is likely that Mallick's sketchy character development, and attempt to cram an extensive psychological novel into a 3 hour Hollywood product is what led me to give his movie only 2 stars.Do yourself a favor and READ THE BOOK! In my opinion, though the scenery is indeed beautiful, this movie is dull where it should be provoking (mentally, I mean), and devoid of emotion in scenes where Mallick tries desperately to tell us "look, look, there is emotion in this scene, solely because someone is commenting on war in a field of grass." There is no emotion, no attachment to the characters, no meaning, because we don't care about the characters. They are underdeveloped; this worked to an extent in Jones' novel, because you can "get into a character's head" in a novel - unfortunately, that's rarely possible in a movie, and especially not this one, where Mallick attempts to do it with seemingly the whole cast, and ends up developing nobody. In addition to these negatives are, of course, the 2 almost insulting performances of John Travolta, so miscast it was laughable, and George Clooney, whose late, out-of-place cameo saps whatever ounce of reality this marathon film had left in it. Pluses include nice scenery, chants, and some great battle scenes (especially the storming of the pillboxes led by John Cusack, and the overrunning of the Japanese bivouac).
Rating: 
Summary: better than "Saving Private Ryan"
Review: Saving Private Ryan, showed the horrer of war. But, the plot was un-beliveable, and watching Tom Hanks cry didn't exactly make me reach for a tissue. The character's just weren't right, they only did it for the star billing. This movie has a big star billing for a war movie, ever since A Bridge to Far. Nick Nolte, Sean Penn, Elias Kostias, George Cloony, John Travolta. This shows you what war does to you, how it affects you. This is more of a psychological drama than anything else, and it's pretty damn good at that.
|
