Rating: 
Summary: A real snoozer! NOTHING Happens for long periods of time!
Review: I didn't expect to see a national Geographic nature film when I saw The Thin Red Line! Director/ Writer Terrence Malick butchered the James Jones Novel of the same title. What an abomination of a story! With all the hype and comparison this movie had with Saving Private Ryan -- I left the theatre thoroughly disappointed. Saving Private Ryan reigns supreme as the definative WW-II movie. The Thin Red Line has three things going for it -- excellent cinematography, well choreographed battle scenes (which don't happen very often in between all the poetic ramblings on why is there air etc etc), and an intense acting performance by Nick Nolte as Lt. Col Tall. That's it. Are you suffering from insomnia?? The Thin Red Line is your cure -- rush to get it when it comes out on video!
Rating: 
Summary: Ignore the star - Absolute tripe
Review: This is the second-worst movie I have ever seen. It's not about war. It's a "boy's school" story set in the Pacific in WWII. "Catcher in the Thin Red Separate Peace of the Flies" about sums it up. Maybe the book was better. Unless you have a really high tolerance for wallowing in the banal and juvenile, don't waste your time on the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: The best film I've seen in a long time
Review: this has to be the best war film I've ever seen...it is also one of the best films I have seen
Rating:
Summary: A different view of war
Review: The Thin Red Line is a brilliant film that depicts the invaison of Guadalcanal. This film has beautiful cinematography and great acting. I would recommnd this movie to every true movie fan.
Rating:
Summary: THE GREATEST HUMAN STORY EVER PUT ON FILM
Review: Most people in the US never liked Terrence Malick's "Thin Red Line," but maybe that's because they didn't see the true essence of what Malick was trying to portray. Using James Jones' 1962 novel as a basis for the film, Malick created a masterpiece that shows not the brutal carnage of war like Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan," but the human soldiers and their thoughts. Malick's narrative voice-overs, which made his previous films ("Badlands" and "Days of Heaven") popular, are excellent and show what the GIs are feeling as they fight a brutal enemy. Even though most of the actors in TRL have not yet achieved nationwide-popularity, they surely deserve it. I read Jones' novel, and all the actors perfectly fit their respective characters, both visually and through their acting. Sean Penn (Sgt. Welsh) is wonderful as the perennial leader, and so is Nick Nolte (Col. Tall). Jim Caviezel (Pvt. Witt) and Ben Chaplin (Pfc. Bell) are definately my favorites in the film, since they play their characters flawlessly. The Thin Red Line's most under-rated actor is surely Dash Mihok, who played Pfc. Doll. He previously appeared in "Romeo and Juliet," in which he played Benvolio. His character's insane scene on the hill and his reactions to situations are extremely believable. Elias Koteas makes the perfect Capt. Staros, as he shows a father-like figure who cares for his mean. Woody Harrelson made a memorable appearance as Sgt. Keck, but unfortunatly Keck died fairly early in the film. Adrien Brody makes a nice big-production debut as Cpl. Fife, even though he was cut down from being a main character. Besides these men, John C Reilly (Sgt. Storm), from Days of Thunder and Boogie Nights, appeared briefly on camera, even though Storm is a bigger character in the book. Lastly, George Clooney made a strong, but short on-screen presence as Capt. Bosche. All-in-all, Terrence Malick's Thin Red Line is a wonderful story of the invasion of Guadalcanal, told through the eyes of the men that fought there. A definate "must-see," as well as an "instant war-film classic."
Rating:
Summary: The masterpiece of Terence Malik
Review: This movie is great. The depicted character of the human being , his inner thoughts, his fears in the battlefield , the sense of no sense proportions of the general inmediatly reminds us to Paths of Glory , where the order to advance is just a suicide as wisely the captain answers by radio.
The Guadalcanal is now part of the story ; but Malick made much more than a war film . The camera shows you the different characters and points of view without tearful manipulation as Platoon , for instance.
Who's the good guy and who's the bad?
Nolte and Penn are magnificent in their respective roles and Harrelson played a very believable role.
Superb photograph and dazzling direction!
A real winner film!
Rating: 
Summary: A profound spiritual experience like few films of the '90's
Review: A lot of people were surprised when Line racked up seven Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture, the year that Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan raked in the bucks and the critical acclaim. Watching Terence Malick's long-awaited followup to Days of Heaven yesterday, I thought a lot about how boldly contemplative, achingly beautiful, and curiously flawed it was and came to a realization: I'd watch this one again before I did Ryan. In an age where modern films have the license to be as complex or manipulative as they want, here comes Terence Malick ready to make a 'war' movie: except, this one carries little logistics, plot, or superficial character development. What Line has in spades, though, is the ability to create a beating heart and soul for those young, scared men who braved the deadly shores of Guadalcanal. There is little dialogue, big-name stars have less, and the movie has the same gorgeous fascination with the natural world as Heaven. What makes Line an arguably more fascinating journey than its same-year WWII flick is that dive deep into the soul that it attempts, and usually succeeds, to make; for proof, look into Jim Caviezel's eyes at any time during the movie. Yes, being a movie that reaches high for metaphors and philosophical musings, it does veer dangerously close to pretention (the voice-overs being the shakiest issue). Not to mention that the movie is three hours long and many characters never advance beyond a faintly recognizable face. I view pretention, though, as a flashy device used to disguise emptiness...and there isn't really any empty moment in the film. The Thin Red Line is far from perfect, but it's as close to capturing the spiritual and philosophical side of war than any movie I've seen. GRADE: A-
Rating: 
Summary: Wildly uneven
Review: 1998 was certainly a stand-out year for war films. With Steven Spielberg's phenomenal "Saving Private Ryan" being robbed of a Best Picture Oscar, most people forget that "The Thin Red Line" was also nominated.
Directed by Terrence Malick, whose recluseness is so extreme that his last movie ("Days of Heaven") was released in 1978, "The Thin Red Line" is a unique and sometimes fascinating war epic. With a story revolving around a company of soldiers attempting to take a Japanese stronghold in World War II, this is just Malick's excuse for jaw-dropping cinematography, courtesy of John Toll. If nothing else, this movie should be seen for its cinematography. Every shot was perfect. It was that good. The movie's unforgettable imagery had an astounding impact on me. And the battle scenes were excellent, powered by a gorgeous--yet subtle--score by Hans Zimmer.
Even so, the movie is nearly three hours in length, and quite boring in some parts. There were so many actors in so many roles that no one stood out, no matter how realistic the acting was. I suppose Sean Penn and Jim Cavieziel were the most notable. I also noticed that George Clooney and John Travolta got high billings, even if they only had cameos.
The film's biggest flaw is that I honestly had no idea what was going on. There was no plot to speak of. I got a feeling that Malick filmed a bunch of acotrs speaking, nature shots, and battles, and simply mashed them all together to make a movie.
Which ever way you look at it, "The Thin Red Line" is a movie worth seeing. I was amazed by the war scenes and the photography, but bored by everything else. This is the kind of film that makes me question its Best Picture nomination. I don't really know what to think about it, other than it partially fascinated me. I guess that's a good thing
Rating:
Summary: Gen-X may like this movie. I recommend the 1964 original..
Review: I give Terence Malick's "The Thin Red Line" two stars for cinematography and production quality, but that's about it! I thought this movie was heavily mis-cast. One wonders what John Travolta, Woody Harrelson and George Clooney are doing in this movie. Nick Nolte fits in but overacts as the deranged Colonal. Jim Caviezel's performance is good, but his role (as of others in this movie) too modern and pacifist for the 1942 WWII situation where the Axis powers' threat to the freedom and peace of the entire world was real and well perceived. (It's barely a year after Pearl Harbour when the Army moved in to relieve the Marines at Guadalcanal). They seem to miss the points in James Jones' book. Justice is better done to the book in the 1964 original movie (available on video), directed by Andrew Marton who, incidently, was involved as secondary director to such top-notch war films as "The Longest Day" and "Catch-22". All the characters in the 1964 original are believable, especially Keir Dullea's unforgettable performance at Pvt. Doll. I also recommend the 1943 film "Guadalcanal Diary" to real WWII buffs.
Rating:
Summary: The greatest war film I have seen
Review: The Thin Red Line is a culmination of two great minds - James Jones and Terence Malick. Jones' novel is a great one, probably the best written by a civilian but it weaves such an intricate and finely detailed web that one would think it almost impossible to translate into celluloid without losing a great deal of its impact, however Malick's film of the battle of Guadalcanal is every bit as moving as Jones' prose.
Malick imbues the story with his own qualities as a director. If you have seen his film 'Days of Heaven' then you will know that he is a very visual director, as concerned with the intricacies of nature, of subtle movement and the dance of light as with the unfolding storyline.
For the most part though he manages to stay quite true to the novel and the strong characters in the book are brought wonderfully to life; Nick Nolte is quite simply perfect as Colonel Tall, that he didn't get an Oscar for that role invalidates the little gold statue as an award of any relevance. Perhaps the only major change to characterisation Malick makes is to that of Private Witt who develops a sort of shamanic insight into the horrific events that unfold around him as opposed to Jones' Pt Witt who is a more earnest Kentuckian.
The deep thinking Pt Witt in Malick's film allows the director to channell the universal themes ever present in Jones' novel through the character and hence he becomes pivotal in the telling of the tale, one in which the fight against a foreign enemy takes a back seat to the battle within the self.
|
