Rating: 
Summary: So this is what it feels like to fall flat on your face...
Review: At least, this movie falls flat on its face, and if you've ever wondered what it feels like, then just watch and see.So many people say that this movie is deep and insightful, that it is trying to analyze the dichotomies of nature and war, and how they fit together and yet, at the same time, contrast one another. The only problem is that this movie is even more 'shallow' than any action-oriented war movie simply because the 'depth' within this movie is a complete joke, nothing more than a rehash of pop psychology. I mean you may as well sit on the grass and say aloud "ponder the many facets of a droplet of water, see how the light reflects from it... wow. Then again what do you expect when a movie begins with "What's this war in the heart of nature, why does nature vie with itself, the land contend with the sea", and later continue with a superior officer telling one of his men that he won't make any difference and that if he dies there he will die for nothing. And then the way that the military is commanded and controlled... Well, I've never known anyone who served who was even half as unprofessional as any of the 'soldiers' that you see portrayed in this. Talk about dereliction of duty and an embarrassment to the uniform. You would have thought they were all pulled from the local daycare and shoved into a uniform. Truly sad. I mean, if someone has a history of going AWOL he should just be shot, not someone who is treated like a hero by the filmmakers. After all, in their eyes, he was the one that was trying to avoid the war... In short, if the USA was in a war, and the enemy wanted to rally their troops, they could just play for them this movie, and say, "Look at what the Americans think of their own military". This film is an embarrassment to us all. And in saying this I am not saying that it needs more action or anything, I don't mind the lack of combat. I wasn't expecting an action movie. I wasn't expecting a bunch of leftist anti-war propaganda either, however.
Rating:
Summary: An arthouse anti-war film that misses the mark
Review: I was very disappointed. In my opinion, The Thin Red Line is the best novel in James Jones' trilogy of World War Two ("From Here to Eternity", "The Thin Red Line" and "Whistle"). Instead of being true to the spirit of the work by giving the viewer an honest, gritty portrayal of infantry combat on Guadalcanal, Terrence Malick chose to create some post-modern mess of an anti-war film. A shame, because Jones' work delivers an overwhelming anti-war message through simple, brutal honesty. There was no reason to cloud the story with cranky, cheap poetics. The masterful art of James Jones deserves a better effort than this. Indeed, the director would have done better to make up the story out of whole cloth instead of trashing a great novel. (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Malick didn't read the book at all). I found the film false, empty and an insult to those of us who cherish the work of one of our nations most brilliant authors.
Rating: 
Summary: Not any ordinary action movie
Review: I hope that more people can see that this movie isn't intended to be like any other action movie out there, as the few reviewers below me can, that it was meant more as an examination of human thoughts and on life itself; a truely unique and well-done piece of work. Those who give "The Thin Red Line" bad reviews are mainly the people who are really looking for an action-packed war film, who have such select taste for action that they get bored and can't pay attention when there isn't a combat sequence going on - well, this movie isn't intended to be another shallow, thoughtless movie like that, so it only makes sense that one would be dissappointed if they expected it to be. The Thin Red Line is more of a drama than an action movie, so why complain about too much talking and not enough action in it? You may as well review it as a comedy, in which case I can say that this movie was terrible and very dissappointing, but come on. If you're looking for an ordinary action film, then sorry, but "The Thin Red Line" isn't for you. The film is thought-provoking, enjoyable, stays away from cleches and is well-made. I reccomend it for those looking for a good movie in general, not simply an action flick.
Rating: 
Summary: War is hell, not heaven
Review: I saw this movie at the theaters when it was first released in 1999, and have watched it several more times on DVD, and own a DVD version of my own. I'm writing only to bring some balance to the polarized reviews I've read on this website. People who compare "Saving Private Ryan" and "Thin Red Line" and conclude by praising one and panning the other (it doesn't even matter which) are clearly missing the point of BOTH movies. Malick's film is almost an allegory...a visual and sensual evocation of both primitive and profound human feelings. I doubt that it was ever Malick's purpose to deal with war per se, other than as a medium to expose the inner heart of man. When I have enjoyed watching "Thin Red Line" the most, I have watched with that expectation. If you're in the mood for bare-bones war, however, this film won't satisfy. "Saving Private Ryan", while certainly also portraying the human emotions involved with war (most brilliantly and realistically, fear), was more concerned with gritty realism. The cinematography contrasts between the two movies alone ought to tell the viewer what he is in for. Malick's film is almost surrealistic in its imagery- "Private Ryan" has the gritty realism of a documentary. Both methods have an undeniable effect.
For my money, however, "Private Ryan" is what most people look for in a war film. "Thin Red Line" certainly conveys the inner personal anguish, doubt, fear, and even savagery of its combatants, but it doesn't show the real, external face of war.
But please, folks, don't delude the readers with the idea that one of these two films is "better" than the other. They both have their respectful place in moviemaking about war.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible War Movie
Review: This movie had no plot, no character developement, and barely any action. In Saving Private Ryan(I gave 5 stars) you are taken from one place to another knowing exactly what is going on. In The Thin Red Line nothing makes sense. You are taken from one scene to another without much explanation of what is going on. The acting was nothing special in this movie either. Half of the actors in the top credits barely have a 5 minute part. I wrote this because of a review I read about Saving Private Ryan. Some guy gave it one star and said that this movie was brilliant. I guess you have to decide for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: am i the only one?
Review: I've watched this movie with a few different people, and everyone I know that closely watched it did not like this movie at all, and felt that Saving Private Ryan overshadowed it and made this film a big disappointment. But I watched it 3 times and loved it. Yes it was slow but it dealt with very real characters and took on a big task of trying to show every aspect of a soldier's life in the war. The only downfall I see is, its almost too big of a movie, so many characters and small stories.
Rating:
Summary: Worst movie EVER!!!
Review: Boring, boring, it drifts..... it flashs back..... drifts some more.... strange camer shots....more drifting.... is this a war movie or some strange acid trip?
Rating:
Summary: High Art - Malick's Genius Shines Through
Review: The Thin Red Line ' isn't a movie for everyone. Especially not the vegetable-brained. If you're one of them, go back to your ' Saving Private Ryan's ' and ' Windtalkers '. ' The Thin Red Line ' is the kind of movie which needs a little heart, soul and mind to appreciate. Terrence Malick shows that he might have left hollywood for 2 decades, but his genius has'nt diminished one bit. Jim Caviziel, Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, John Cusack and Elias Koteas turn out hauntingly brilliant performances and do justice to a beautifully written script. A must for all those who appreciate good art. This, my friends, is one of the best you'll ever see.
Rating:
Summary: a fine and powerful war movie
Review: probably right up there with Saving Private Ryan. this one has to much talking but its the point of the story people, if you didnt like it, dont watch it. this is also about World War II. Nick Nolte, Ben Chaplin, Sean Penn, Adrien Brodiey, George Clooney, Nick Stahl,Elias Koteas, Jared Leto, Jim Chaviezel, Woody Harrelson, John C. Reilly, John Cusack, John Travolta, Matt Doran, Tim Blake Nelson, Dash Mihok, Miranda Otto and Thomas Jane head a incredable cast in this powerful and dizzying look at that part of the war. with powerful performances by Penn, Nolte, Koteas, Chaplin and Caviezel. I thought George Clooney was gonna have a big part in this movie but what the spit. one of 1998's best
Rating:
Summary: Confused exercise in pointlessness
Review: What a mess! This film was the directorial reemergence of hermit-like director Terrence Malick after a twenty-year absence. A darling of film buffs, Malick had dropped out of sight after 1978's DAYS OF HEAVEN. The critical community awaited THIN RED LINE with childlike eagerness, ready to gush over any pearls that Malick was willing to cast before the viewing public. It was this hero worship that motivated most of the reviews that praised THIN RED LINE as a work of beauty and introspective genius. These reviews were exercise in not pointing out the emperor had no clothes. While film critics described LINE as a "tone poem" or a "philosophical exploration into the nature of man" few described it as a good (or even comprehensible) movie. This is not to say LINE is very deep. Most of Malick's observations (war is bad, men are brothers, Cain slew Able) have been made before and better in other films. THIN RED LINE is a self absorbed exercise in failed editing, the vanity piece of a small budget director allowed to go mad with a major studio's money. What appears on screen is a jumbled mix of footage from a National Geographic nature special and a preachy and poorly directed anti-war screed. Lush nature scenes are followed by incoherent bits of method acting and disconnected plot. Malick had some of the finest young actors of the period to work with, but won't let them act. Few have much time on screen, and much of their dialogue is drowned out by intrusive voice-over telling us what the actors are thinking. He fails to remember that the point of drama is to have the actors ACT and allow us to figure out what they are thinking. There is no character development and no discernable plot thread. Added to this is the bizarre casting of a pudgy and longhaired John Travolta as a General (!?) and an over-the-top Nick Nolte as a deranged and glory hungry Colonel to make a confused stew that only the pretentious or hopelessly Malick smitten could love. The only watchable segment is a combat scene where John Cusack (playing an Army Captain) leads an assault on a Japanese bunker complex, a sequence that stands up to any in film history. Seeing the quality of that scene actually makes one a little sad, to think of the film that Malick could have made with more focus and self-control. If he could do such a fine job there, what a shame that he wasted so much talent (his and the actors) and time (his and the film viewing public) on what is essentially a college film project made with a 50 million dollar budget. For a better picture of the harshness of war close-up read James Jones' original novel THE THIN RED LINE upon which this film and a 1964 predecessor were based.
|
