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: Good view, Bad movie...
Review: This movie is boring... Read the book! It is definitely better. From Here to Eternity is better than all of them.
Rating:
Summary: Both good and bad
Review: 'The Thin Red Line' is a semi-great war film that makes you want to nash your teeth, as it comes very close to being excellent, but falls down. Largely this is due to a mixture of extreme length, and an irritating desire on the part of the director to be arty - not a bad thing in itself, but when the level of insight is that of a Wyndham Hill record, you start to tire of the attempts at poetry. Fully one and half hours of the film could be removed without negatively affecting it - the last hour consists of a series of dull, undifferentiated characters wandering about, muttering to each other, and undoes whatever greatness there had been up until that point. The moral, that warfare is bad, and that western society corrupts nature, is all very nice, but seems rather obvious. That said, it's not awful, not by a long shot. But whereas the same director's 'Badlands' and 'Days of Heaven' were concise and insightful, this film seems as if Malick had been desperate to make up for lost time by filming as much as possible. Over an hour of footage was cut before release. Both the cinematography and Hans Zimmer's score are excellent, and technically it's masterful. The actors generally seem subservient to the imagery, but Nick Nolte stands out as a partially-deranged General, and future star Jim Caviezel seems oddly out-of-place as a New Age Marine. Elsewhere George Clooney, John Travolta and John Cusack fail to register, and Woody Harrelson has enough time for you to recognise him before he blows himself up with the world's least powerful grenade. Compared to 'Saving Private Ryan', it's a very different film - it's less forceful, with a more ambiguous attitude towards heroism, although that does not necessarily make it any more profound. Nick Nolte's character, for example, whilst initially appearing deranged, eventually wins through, whilst the 'hero', although heroic, seems to throw his life away needlessly. In summary, it looks and sounds gorgeous, goes on far too long, seems to think itself a lot more profound than it is, and coule have done with some editing. On DVD? For a film with so much unused material, and even several excised parts (Billy Bob Thornton's narration, for example), you get a booklet. And trailers. Must try harder.
Rating: 
Summary: A Instant Classic
Review: This film shows the true experience during World War II. The film is loaded with drama and action and is worth seeing if you haven't experienced this wonderful touching war film yet. Rent it, buy it. Just watch it!
Rating: 
Summary: Cerebral and engaging.
Review: Everything that's needed to be said about this powerful, revolutionary movie has I'm sure been stated earlier, but I feel compelled to share my view also. First and foremost I have a tremendous amount of respect for any movie and it's director that has the courage to show war in such an unconventional manner. Though there are some particularly intense battle scenes here, this is not, nor was intended to be solely an action movie and thus may leave some viewers feeling disengaged. What it does do in it's breathing spaces is take the time to pose some pretty fundamental questions about the nature of war and ultimately mankind - if often in a fairly oblique narritorial fashion. Without question the cinematography is incredible, but the real acclaimation may be better directed at the actors involved here. I found myself drawn to many of these characters, even though they only revealed their true characters in stages. In this sense I do think it is an actors movie, these are A-list actors involved and it is a credit to them and their interaction that they have the power to have us emotionally locked into their plight with purposefully limited character development. Jim Caviezel, who plays a zen-like, soul searching private completely possesses his role, and looks to be a formidable talent - the interaction between himself and the always dependable Sean Penn is cracking. Nick Nolte is highly convincing as a grainy, world-weary and pessimistic colonel and it would have been interesting to see him having more shared screen time with Caviezel. Unfortunately we see little of John Cusack in his role, but there is so much able assistance from the younger actors here it's all we can do to marvel at the fresh talent. I came away from this movie feeling quite shell-shocked, not as much in the sense that I had been bombarded with action, but that The Thin Red Line had altered my perceptions about war and the realities and limitations of the world in which we live.
Rating:
Summary: an extras perspective
Review: having had the oppurtunity to work on this masterpiece i can only say that terrence malick and john toll are both geniuses.to work with them was both a pleasure and honour.i have worked with both good and bad directors including john frankenheimer,bruce beresford,peter jackson,john woo and others and can only sat that terrence is amazing. as for the film itself i think that you can only make up your own mind.you either love it or hate it depending on your preferences but for all those who hate it all i can say is go back to your mass produced american crap.this might be an arty farty movie but it is among the best.how it did not win best cinematography and best soundtrack(losing both to SPR) just shows the mentality of the academy and how you have to spend money and suck up to people to win oscars.anyway it won most of the awards that matter.i just hope that terrence malick does another movie soom and that i have the priviledge of working with such a visionary director again.
Rating:
Summary: The Most Astounding War Movie Ever Made
Review: First, I think it's safe to say that this movie went as the most unthanked film by the Academy in at least the last 30 years. Had Private Ryan been done by ANY director other than Spielberg you would have heard about it and that would probably have been the extent of it. It would have been viewed as just another gory action/war film, like The Patriot. Malick went so, so unthanked for this film, and that is the reason why I waited so long to see it. I think this is Malick's best work to date, and that is because, like Braveheart and Schindler's List, there are scenes in this film that I will never completely shake. What about those hauntingly gorgeous lyrical memories the one soldier had throughout the fighting of the sensual times he and his wife shared? And that's one of things that works for this movie: it's so personal. Second, for some reason the art venders have attached themselves to this film and like to compliment it for its "art" and finesse and artistic finery (or whatever). Well, I don't know what movie they watched, because the movie I watched was a down-in-the trenches-gritty, emotionally wrenching, and hard-nosed war film. It's an exhausting experience. This is hard-nosed acting and fighting, not a delicate vase. Third, another totally unthanked and snubbed-ever-year-at-the-joke-of-an-awards-show actor is in this: Nick Nolte. I haven't yet been able to figure out what's wrong with the people that don't like that man's acting. He just gives an all-around powerhouse performance, and the scene where he was on the field phone with Sean Penn proves it. The amount of intensity that man put into his acting is outstanding. This movie is absolutely worth buying and watching - multiple times. Also, if you're a Nolte fan like I am, you have to check out Affliction.
Rating:
Summary: Definitely worth revisiting
Review: The first time I saw this film, I was not exactly bowled over by it. I had recently seen Saving Private Ryan and although captivated by The Thin Red Line's stunning cinematography, I felt the elegiac narrative was over-long and somewhat self-indulgent. However, considering it worthy of another visit, I bought the DVD last week, and was totally overawed with its beauty. I am always loathe to describe a film as beautiful, but The Thin Red Line certainly is. Although you miss the grand scope of the glorious natural imagery, the smaller scale of the television screen renders this movie more intimacy and makes it feel deeply personal. The prosaic narrative running throughout, spoken by a host of characters, is sheer poetry. If you allow yourself to be absorbed, it'll make you consider life, the universe and everything. Terence Malick doesn't make many films, and that is a tragedy. But when he does, it's certainly worth waiting for. He has a glorious cinematic eye, and everytime I watch this film, I just want to know more and more about each character. The acting by the main cast is flawless. Elias Koteas and Nick Nolte both excelling. But for me, the most movingly portrayed story strand is the relationship between Sean Penn's battle-weary Sgt Welsh and the ethereal Private Witt, played with utter grace by Jim Caviezel. Another reviewer described his character as 'almost holy' and I agree. Witt is oddly detached from the terrible destruction and decay of war and smiles in the face of death. Sends shivers down my spine. As he proved with Gladiator, Hans Zimmer writes the most stunning scores, and the songs of the Melanesian choir are a brilliant scene-builder. My one major quibble with this movie is the inclusion of unnecessarily starry cameos. John Travolta as the egotistical general is inappropriate and George Clooney is merely a diversion. Here, they should have stuck with lesser known character actors or relative newcomers - as they did with the men in Charlie Company. Just 18 months down the line, time and perspective has worked wonders for this film. In ten, twenty, thirty years time, my bet is history will be kinder to The Thin Red Line than it will be to Saving Private Ryan. It is little short of a masterpiece. Although almost three hours long, apparently a good hour was left on the cutting room floor. Can't help feeling a bit of this could have been included on the DVD. Perhaps a director's cut, Mr Malick?
Rating:
Summary: A Delicate Visual Meditation
Review: Francois Truffaut once declared that no war film can be truly anti-war, because it inevitably presents "an energy and order which appears appealing." I have seen three movies which disprove this theory; Platoon, Das Boot, and The Thin Red Line. Ask a veteran grunt of any war about what they thought at the time, and you might receive something akin to The Thin Red Line. This film is a jumble of images that exist somewhere on the fringes of memory. The film does not have a specific, concise story with familiar elements. Neither does war. It isn't extremely organized or fitting, and it isn't exhilerating or simple. Neither is killing. It doesn't definitively end up on either side of the line between order and chaos. Neither does life. All in all, a contemplative mood piece with more inspired and artistic images than easily-digestible puddles of mediocrity.
Rating:
Summary: To be - or not to be?
Review: It all depeds what you are looking for. Personally I don't feel it's worth the money one is paying for a Fox presentation. On the other hand there one or two good action scenes with some good sound, but nothing to really blow your hair back! Special features - more for our money please.....
|
