Rating: 
Summary: not a film for everyone, but a film everyone should see.
Review: Artistically speaking, the film is a masterpiece, full of breathtakingly beautiful images and moments of genuine magic (love the bit in the jungle early on where a black native glances at the nervously advancing American troops, and then walks right past them as if they aren't there). Malick certainly succeeds in taking you to another time and place, and asserts himself throughout as one of the true visionaries of modern film. However...despite the film's achievements as art, dramatically speaking it is far from as a masterpiece, erring instead (especially in the last hour) toward being a contradictory, rambling, and repetitive mess. Off the top of my head now... How come John Travolta asks Nick Nolte to take the Japanese airfield, only for the troops to spend most of the film instead trying to take the hill, with the airfield only seen for about five seconds two hours later? And do we ever find out why that hill is so important? Because around 80% of Elias Koteas' scenes are concerned with his conflict with Nick Nolte, it's difficult to work out why his men are so cut up when he gets sent home. What happened to John Cusack? What happened to the letter that the dying Woody Harrelson begged his friends to send to his wife?They squabble over it for a few seconds and then it's forgotten. How come John Cusack's crew are behind a rock at least 20 feet in front of the Japanese bunker, and then in the very next shot seem to have somehow gotten on top of it? Creating a surreal work of art is one thing, flying in the face of all logic is another. Four flashbacks to Ben Chaplin's wife are affecting. Five make the point. Six is enough. Seven is pushing it. And what happened to the character after said wife dumped him?The last we see of him is him sitting in the grass moping. how many of you think this is a satisfactory conclusion to a major subplot? Questions, questions. I'm sure a longer version of the film would give us the answers, and indeed it's widely believed that Malick's first cut ran for over four hours. My hope is that one day he'll come out of hiding long enough to let us see it. Until then, buy the video or dvd, but be sure to check that it's letterboxed, because seeing this visual astonishment panned and scanned is rather like seeing the Mona Lisa on a postage stamp.
Rating: 
Summary: Eerie, brutal and beautiful
Review: I agree with another reviewer that this movie should be seen at least twice before you can review it. As with all masterpieces, some people like it and some do not. Terrence Malicktook a big chance and he succeeded. If you are looking for a conventional, yet very good Hollywood war movie, then see "Saving Private Ryan". It's a pity both war movies were released so close to each other in time. Both deserve an Oscar for best picture. Fortunately, this is not a flag waving piece of Hollywood Americana. I don't think Terrence Malick intended to pay homage to the US Army for saving the world from the Japanese. This movie is about the futility and horror of war. When you see the Japanese soldiers holding their dead comrades in their arms and sobbing like a child you realize that they are just as human and confused as the Americans. War makes all men brutal and equal. It is only the generals and *** kissing officers -except for Capt. Stanos-who are interested in Purple Hearts and promotions. The antediluvian scenes were Witt is seen to live in harmony with Pacific islanders, images which he cherishes and remembers throughout the movie, even during his last dying moments, are the counterpart of the brutality he sees during the battle. He is practically the only one who shows any compassion for the enemy. Some reviewers have complained this is a movie that philosophizes about war. That's what makes it so valuable. That "red line" that divides the sheer brutality of war and the awesome beauty of nature, the higher human sentiments of love and compassion and the lower brutal ones of hate is the same red line they see at the turn of dawn, when the peaceful darkness of the night brings forth the dangers of daytime battle. This is a grandiose film. Twenty years from now, "The Thin Red Line" will still be regarded as a masterpiece. Saving Private Ryan will just be another excellent war movie.
Rating:
Summary: Best movie of 1998!
Review: The Thin Red Line is the best film of 1998! It's not like any other war film. It's lyrical and poetic. The acting is tremendous in it. The acting reminds me of an earlier time, with the greats such as Stewart, Wayne, and Bogart. An unforgettable screenplay with the absolutely stunning and gorgeous cinematography and with the haunting and mesmerizing score adds to the tremendous acting and makes The Thin Red Line a classic film of all time and one to be bought and witnessed by all.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best films of all time
Review: This film is thick with the stuff of dreams. All those who have criticized it for its lack of realism must look to this question: do you truly know what would go on in another man's mind? I cannot argue with the fact that some of the situations are implausible, but they are always deeply revealing with respect to the human condition. As for the "distraction factor," anyone who has any knowledge of systems of mysticism or transcendence will appreciate Malick's attempt to incorporate such questions. Private Ryan, go home. You are realistic and gory, but you are cheap Hollywood trash in the end. You do not let the audience think for themselves, and your deus ex machina end is far more contrived than anything of Malick's. It is my opinion that most of the people who disliked this film did so because it ran counter to their expectations and not to any general aesthetic guideline. SPR made me think: "My, that's a lot of blood." TRL made me re-read the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao te Ching, and parts of the New Testament. Kudos, Terry.
Rating:
Summary: only malick could make this haunting, strange movie
Review: it's not perfect, not for everyone, probably not a masterpiece, but only an artist with malick's eye for beautiful images and ear for poetry could make such an interesting and moving movie. only malick could give us soldiers who quote homer before the battle...
Rating:
Summary: A Stunning Work of Art
Review: I assume that this film does not accurately reflect the experience of war. But I really don't care, because I don't expect every film I see to be realistic. (Do we expect this for novels or paintings?) This movie is incredibly beautiful and sophisticated, though it certainly isn't for all tastes. Yes, it's slow, but so are many of the best films ever made. When I saw this film in the theater my jaw was on the floor--first because of what I saw on the screen, and second because I realized I was in a crowded New York theater watching what amounted to an expensive (and amazing) Hollywood art film. If you haven't seen it yet, you will want to wait for the widescreen VHS or DVD release--much of the film is missing (literally) in the regular VHS version.
Rating:
Summary: TANTALIZING
Review: This movie is non-traditional. It is unlike any movie which I have seen. It lacks what a traditional Friday night movie has and still enrapts your soul. The wave riddled current of the narrative has the ability to enter your mind and become part of you. You sit watching the movie and understand the thoughts of these characters; you understand their questions and realize that they are questions not very different than the ones you ask yourself when you fall asleep. You realize that these aren't traditional movie soldiers; they have no more courage or blood lust than you do. You realize that in another time these "philosophes" could be you. It scares you. It makes you uncomfortable. It touches you in a way that few movies do.
Rating:
Summary: Can a film which incites this much passion be bad?
Review: Look at the ratings people gave this film: all fives and ones or twos, with very few threes and fours. The fact is that even the people who say they hated it felt strongly enough to write and not only that, to heap abuse on the film and everybody who liked it. A bad movie, an average movie, is one which people watch and say "Oh well, that was a waste of time and money." But greatness of any kind inspires strong, polarized feelings. The United States is truly a great nation; the proof resides in the fact that there are those who revere it as the greatest country on earth and those (and there are many of them throughout the world) who despise and envy it, who blame it for most of the world's problems (which is also to some extent true). Nobody feels lukewarm about a great nation, and nobody feels lukewarm about a great film either.One could go on for pages about what makes this film superior: the cinematography, the music, the acting, the keen sense of tragedy and redemption, the sensitive protrayals of beauty in the midst of horror and horror in the midst of beauty. It may be true that these things appeal to "chin-stroking intellectuals" (whoever wrote that obviously doesn't spend much time around intellectuals and got the image from some television sitcom) and "coffee house liberals" (so right wingers don't go to Starbucks?). So what? If that doesn't apply to you, don't see the movie. It's a free country. And for those of you who say that if real soldiers acted the way Malick's do, the war would have taken a different turn, tell me: if real soldiers acted the way Spielberg's do in Saving Private Ryan, running all over the countryside, sacrificing entire companies for one guy, would we have won then? All movies have a point to make, and they all distort reality to do so: it's called poetic license. The testimony of veterans is important, and we owe them our undying gratitude, but memory is selective, and we often wind up remembering what we want to, what wounds us the least. Therefore, going on about "My grandpa the vet said such and such" is kind of beside the point. My point is that this film has a special and unusual power. You cannot watch it and remain unaffected, one way or the other. Nobody can deny@that. If it offends you, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that there's nothing you can do to stop people watching it, and you can't shut up the people who like it. If you like it, I suggest not making a superiority trip out of the whole thing and focussing and what it is that moves you so much. Let history be the judge.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, Jazz on Film
Review: Ever seen Jazz? This is Jazz on film, Malick takes a theme and riffs on it for two hours, it is brilliant
Rating:
Summary: This movie requires at least two viewings........
Review: This is truly a movie that gets better every time I watch it. The battle scenes are magnificent, and the storming of the machine gun nest with supporting artillery is simply the best battle scene ever put on film. This movie was NOT as good the first time as it was the second time I watched it, and if you only watched it once you should not even review it. Gritty, unflinching and raw, this is an unpatriotic view of a grunts life in the Pacific. Everyone wants instant gratification, and if something is a little hard to understand, the insults rain down. Disregard the cynics. Watch this movie, and you decide. Then watch it a month or two later. Then you might understand how special a movie this is.
|
