Rating: 
Summary: Simply a masterpiece
Review: The Thin Red Line has been a hotbed of debate between its supporters and detractors ever since its 1998 release. Many people consider it among the greatest films to which they have beared witness. Others loathe it as three hours of their wasted. If great art can be defined as something which evokes powerful emotions, then The Thin Red Line certainly will meet that criteria. Just take a look as the impassioned arguments for or against the film in any of these reviews. I think the reason the film has such a mixed response is that it reached a far greater audience that it probably was catering to. The director, Terrence Malick, made two critically-acclaimed masterpieces in the 70s that, while certainly influencial, never reached a wide audience outside film-buffs. With the The Thin Red Line Fox pictures made shrewd (financial) decisions in marketing it as a competitor to Saving Private Ryan as the year's best war flick. Certainly this caused the film to make significantly more money and also have the opportunity to be seen by some who otherwise would have probably missed it if it only played in art-house cinemas. On the other hand, The Thin Red Line was subjected to the invetible comparisons to Saving Private Ryan despite the two being worlds apart. Because of this the standard American-movie going public was treated to a nearly post-modern film lasting three hours with endlessly complex messsages and themes. With the requisite background aside, The Thin Red Line to be a masterpiece. Martin Scorcese may have put it best when he described The Thin Red Line (he ranked it the 2nd best film of the 90s) as a film where one doesn't have to watch from the beginning to end. While there is certailny a linear chain of events in the film. There is no specific delineation of time and the flow of action is vastly different from typical Hollywood fare. The story ostensibly follows a company of recruits and their endeavors to take Guadalcanal. Malick uses about six different narrators and doesn't feel the need to differentiate between them. Some people decry this as confusing. However, Malick's use this technique relates to his theme of oneness. Certainly on the first viewing one will probably not be able to follow all of the plot, but that makes the film watchable and intriguing repeatedly as the beauty and complexity of the individual stories become more clear. Even without interesting characters The Thin Red Line would be remarkable for its gorgeous, gorgeous, cinematography. Though the DVD will never be able to recreate the awesome experience of screening the film in a theater the transfer is excellent with rich and full colors. Possibly even worth buying a 75" HDTV just to see the film in all of its glory. In summation, The Thin Red Line is a film to watch again and again. I think the more times one sees the more complex and ineffable the film becomes. Recommended for anyone wanted to experience beautiful, complex, though-provoking, and memorable filmmaking.
Rating:
Summary: Better than Ryan
Review: Ryan is more action ... Red Line is more subtle ... Red line is about trying to 'escape' ( into one's thoughts ) while still trying to do your job ( be a soldier ) ...
Rating: 
Summary: Too bad there aren't negative ratings
Review: This is the biggest waste of film stock (and a LOT of it) ever. While Saving Private Ryan is probably the best war film ever, this is without a doubt a contender for the worst. Suffering from incredibly poor direction from an overrated buffoon, this film fails on technical, as well as artistic levels. It probably has at least 20 minutes of closeups of leaves, and suffers from an all-star cast without a decent script (no fault of the original author) and a director that has less talent than he believes. All in all, a waste.
Rating:
Summary: Not Just the Best War Movie, But THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!
Review: For anyone to say that this movie was trash is completely disturbing! Terrence Malick is a genius. Jim Caviziel is EXCELLENT. He definity ripped off from not being nominated for his performance. But then again, is the academy ever right? Shakespeare In Love? COME ON! Give Malick a little respect. Saving Private Ryan was good but a long shot from this one. To say there is not much action is rediculous! This movie had the GREATEST BATTLE SEENS to ever be put on the screen. Not great as in, "cool dude, blood" but great as in bringing about emotion and the harsh brutaliy of war. Great spiritual aspect along with a great look at the beauty of nature and life. Certain scenes in this movie give me "Goose bumps". The Melenesian songs are AWESOME and the movie has an excellent score. Something the Saving Ryan's Private lacked. When you watch this movie do not watch it as just a war movie, but instead put yourself in character's shoes and try to see the awesome meaning behind this movie. Appreciate the acting in this movie because you don not see much of this superior acting in cinema these days. I do not give it 5 stars but intead INFINTE STARS because no movie will ever outdue this one. Buy this DVD it has the melenesian songs on it!
Rating:
Summary: Worst movie i ever saw
Review: This is by far the most boring and slowest movie i ever saw. And I do like a wide variety of movie. THe message this movie tries to portray takes forever and by the end i wanted to just toss the dvd in the trash.
Rating: 
Summary: DVD clears up some confusion
Review: With captioning on, we can see that most of the narration is (surprisingly) by Train, the soldier who talks to Welsh in the bathroom of the ship. I remain stunned by how sympathetically portrayed the people are. Few war films look into the eyes of the soldiers and reveal the humanity. I'm rare in finding that even Tall is rendered with compassion, pressured from above, exposing the cost in his own soul in his final shot. I would have preferred a director's cut DVD, but the economics argued against it. Docked a star for slanting the field on the relative atrocity issue - the Japanese aren't shown as having motivated the retribution they receive. Also, for being tactically unclear how the small group did take out the strong point. Someone said, "philosophy is for people who like that sort of thing," and this film is a similar litmus. If you liked the second half of Apolalypse Now, there's a good chance you'll appreciate this. Otherwise...
Rating:
Summary: You who don't "get it" don't need to lambast the movie
Review: Terence Malick, the director of The Thin Red Line, is an artist. He's only made three films, but there is no doubt among discerning people his films are art and worthy of acclaim, period. Considering a lot of the American public's mentality ("sports and action=good; books and art=bad"), and our outrageous obsession with the crass, trivial, and mediocre, it's no wonder there's a lot of people who cannot appreciate this film. I notice three things about many of the people writing negative reviews of the Thin Red Line: 1. They display poor spelling, grammar, and writing skills in general, signalling that they probably don't read much. As a writing instructor, I've seen that people who read a lot generally have better-than-average writing skills. And if you don't read a lot, you don't develop much curiosity about the world; you're operating from a quite shallow pool of knowledge, which limits your ability to appreciate depth. 2. They lack the ability of acute observation. Malick's films are famous for noticing and pointing out what the average person doesn't see--and for this he should be celebrated, not demeaned. I seriously doubt Malick makes his films for those of you who lack acute observation anyway! 3. They lack the ability to analyze coherently and fairly. If you're going to "trash" a movie, you need to either start with at least ONE good point about it OR give solid, well-thought-out, coherent reasons why you do not recommend the movie, otherwise you lose credibility. One of the negative reviewers lost credibility with me in just one misspelled word. He mentioned Malick's "philosiphy" (sic). Speaking for myself (and maybe others): If you cannot even take the time to look up a word that most people of average intelligence already know how to spell, you're not going to sway anyone's opinion, so why bother? I don't expect to sway anyone's opinion either--I just had to say something about what I see as a disturbing phenomenon--the deliberate "dumbing down" of America.
Rating:
Summary: Read the book first
Review: For those who dislike the movie, I suggest you read the book. The movie is a very interesting adaptation of the book. And I would suggest that anyone interested in writing a movie script that they should read the book. Then watch, study and learn. It was a clever adaptation.
Rating:
Summary: Positives Outweigh the Negatives
Review: First off, this is not your average movie. The incredibly galvanized opinions other reviewers have left show that. Overall, though, this is a very good movie. If you are looking for high art, you'll get it, if you're looking for high action forget it! On the plus side, the cinematography is amazing. It is almost like the camera is an auxilliary actor. The beauty of the jungle set against the uglyness of battle is striking. I don't want to sound too artsy-fartsy, but it's true. I don't recall seeing another movie that affected me in the same way. On the down side, character development is hit-or-miss. Perhaps Malick wanted it this way, but most of the soldiers don't really come across as individuals. The career soldier played by Nick Nolte and the moony Pvt. Witt (Caviezel) are notable exceptions. Some of the other characters appear so briefly they don't really leave any kind of impression. Also, the movie is sort of free-form. There isn't a clearly defined plot and I'm sure this put off a lot of viewers. Please don't expect this movie to be "Saving Private Ryan." It isn't and wasn't intended to be. However, if you watch this movie with an open mind its power is bound to affect you.
Rating:
Summary: SPR and TRL
Review: Like many of you, I'm an avid filmgoer and have a very eclectic taste, ranging from an appreciation of films like There's Something About Mary to Happiness. I've seen both Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line, and I think they are both very innovative and brilliant in their own way. And I don't really see a need to say one is better than the other, because I'm sure that Spielberg and Malick have a mutual respect for one another and would not care to engage in such petty comparisons (one cast member of TRL stated in an interview that during shooting Malick seemed almost oblivious to the presence of SPR and had only positive things to say about its success). Both Spielberg and Malick made names for themselves in the '70s, and just because they took different routes in terms of their artistic ventures does not make one a "better" filmmaker than the other...just different. As for the films themselves, Spielberg made it clear from the outset that he wanted to make a movie that honored the men who fought and died in the Last Great War (meaning that it was the last war this country was involved in that actually meant something). Despite the fact that many film critics attacked the bookends of SPR (the opening and closing scenes involving the aged James Ryan visiting the military cemetery) as unnecessary and overly sentimental, Spielberg stated in a recent LA Times interview that he was completely happy with the film and had added those bookends specifically for the veterans. He said that when WWII veterans wrote letters to him about SPR, they almost always mentioned those cemetery scenes as being the most moving. It's hard not to admire a filmmaker who is willing to take artistic criticism so that he can most fully honor a group of older citizens who have largely been disrespected by American cinema up until Saving Private Ryan. As for The Thin Red Line, Kenneth Turan of the LA Times said it best when he closed his review of the film with: "Though there are moments to cherish throughout, 'The Thin Red Line' remains a stubbornly personal film, an artwork that only one person will understand and appreciate completely. No one need ask who that person might be." I think that TRL was a beautiful and daring work of art, but it cannot be doubted that it WAS a very personal film. It was a 10 year labor of love for Malick, and much of what we see onscreen is a reflection of Malick as a person: a passionately anti-war philosopher with a deep-rooted love of nature and peace and the fragility of the human condition. Many of you did not like the film and got nothing out of Malick's vision; many of you did. Those of you who did are no better than those of you who did not. That's the beauty of art--the artist creates it and then leaves it for the world to take from it what it will. It is also important to remember that few living filmmakers equal Spielberg in his ability to tell a story and to hook his audiences in. That's what he's good at, but it is NOT what Malick is concerned with. In fact, Malick has a well-known reputation for spurning conventional narrative and character development. No, Malick is more concerned with setting a MOOD, with allowing his viewers to go beyond sitting back and watching a story unfold. He wants people to FEEL every aspect of what is happening onscreen. Thus, his films are full of long, fluid camera shots and dark, cerebral music that many find off-putting. Indeed, just as Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan has much in common with Oliver Stone's Platoon, so Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line has more in common with Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now--another deep, dark, brooding piece of philosophical filmmaking. The point is, these are ALL great war films; they are just different and have different purposes. Let's try and appreciate them all for what they are.
| 
