Rating: 
Summary: The Emperor's New Clothes Indeed!
Review: There is no other way to describe "The Thin Red Line" other than as a really bad movie. I know it received seven Academy Award nominations, ended up on many critics Best Films of '98 lists, and has a small but vocal fan base (see glowing reviews posted here). To me it's the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes brought to life. Malick's eccentricities fooled alot of people into thinking he was some sort of "genius," when he really is nothing more than a slightly above average director. And he was only that when he was at the top of his game 20 years ago. Whatever Malick knew about film-making he forgot during his 20 year hiatus. FILM IS NOT POETRY! It's a narrative artform- it's supposed to tell a story. Thus, plot and characters are vital to film. Malick forgot about all of that. Allegedly, Malick had to do major cuts on this film to make it releasable. He must have cut out all of the plot and character development because that's the only excuse for why this movie is so awful!"The Thin Red Line" is a nearly 3 hour snoozefest of National Geographic footage, interminable, pseudo-intellectual voice-overs, scenery chewing par excellence by Nick Nolte, and cameos by big name actors who were desperate to be part of this awful film. "Oh, look there's Woody Harrelson! I see fat John Travolta! Hey, wasn't that George Clooney in the end?" Why are so many big name actors in this movie? I think it comes from the pretentions of actors. They like to think of themselves as artists, and artists are supposed to be "deep and philosophical." Thus, by appearing in a movie that they believe is "deep and philosophical," they can prove to the world that they truly are artists. The problem is that most actors aren't very bright. I have no doubt that these actors read the incoherant script and then thought to themselves: "This makes no sense, and thus it must mean something!" The similarities between actors jumping to be included in this film and lemmings jumping off a cliff are quite evident upon seeing the finished product. As a war movie, "The Thin Red Line" is a joke! Nobody in this film acts or looks like a WWII soldier. It certainly didn't care to recreate the actual tactics or situations that soldiers on Guadancanal would have encountered. Did they even have a military advisor for this movie? And some of the actors just didn't even bother looking their parts- Sean Penn's haircut is circa 1998 Hollywood not 1940's regular army. ...The people who defend this movie as a "classic," who named it to their top ten lists, and who nominated it for Academy Awards are the same sort who "oohed" and "ahhed" in admiration at the Emperor's new clothes as he walked naked down the street.
Rating:
Summary: awful
Review: Awful, boring, and pretentious. It boggles my mind that people like this film. Newsflash - the emperor has no clothes. One of the worst films I have ever seen - and no I am not a diehard action devotee
Rating: 
Summary: Thin Red Line
Review: My father (A vietnam vet) suggested I see this movie. He recomends based on PTSS triggers. Yes this is a WWII movie, but the results of combat on a man are the same. It shows the exaustion, frustration, fear, anger, and downright indifference among other things.
Rating:
Summary: Pretentious
Review: If you've ever seen a Terence Malick film, you know he enjoys attempting to speak in images rather than words. This was a great idea for experimental filmmakers in the silent era or Russian masters like Sergei Eisenstein. However, it's totally out of place in an adaptation of a book like The Thin Red Line. While people who hang out in coffee shops stroking their goatees aqnd talking about Nietschze will invariably fawn over this movie as great because they don't understand it and thus think it profound, the fact is it's a poorly crafted movie. The character's are undefined and many of their actions seem arbitrary. Malick's visual asides only rob the story of momentum and leave the viewer confused. Malick's refusal to use very much dialogue is only frustrating, not liberating. Don't listen to those who would make this movie out to be a brilliant commentary on human nature. Only extreme interpretative skill and knowledge of the book can lead one to that conclusion. The movie itself is boring.
Rating: 
Summary: Poetic
Review: Travolta's Worst Acting
(Which says quite a lot, you know)
Film still great, Thanks Penn.
Rating:
Summary: TRL forces you to think for yourself
Review: This movie was long, but interesting. The film was accurate and was a good portrayal of fighting in the Pacific in general and of the fighting on Guadalcanal. Throughout this movie I noticed three reoccurring themes: the horror of war, brotherhood, and birds.
Battle scenes are an obvious reference to the horrors of war, and there were plenty of combat scenes in this movie. After the GI’s take the bunker, the audience can hear the thoughts of a GI: “You see many dead people… no different than dead dogs once you get used to it. You’re meat, kid.” When the GI’s are sent back to the camp for a week’s rest, the boys are swimming in the ocean and one thinks, “Can’t nothin’ make you forget it… War… poisons the soul.” Later, two GI’s have conversation about how war desensitizes a combat soldier:
1st GI: It’s a mater of luck whether you get killed… I look at that boy dying, I don’t feel nothin’. I don’t care about nothin’ anymore.
2nd GI: Sounds like bliss. I don’t have that feeling yet.
The movie shows how awful war is and how it can change a person forever. I like movies that show war for what it is. Some movies glorify war or show the “PG” version.
The film also talks a lot about the bonds that are formed between the men who fight together in a war. Early in the movie one soldier thinks: “maybe all men have one big soul that [everyone is] a part of… one big self.” Even the Captain has strong feelings of brotherhood. The night before their first mission, he prays that God will not allow him to betray his men. After the GI’s are sent back to camp, one thanks the Captain for saving their lives by keeping them together and asking to make the flanking move. He responds by telling them in Greek that they are all his sons. He thinks to himself: “You are all my sons, my dear sons. You live inside me now. I’ll carry you wherever I go.”
Perhaps the most moving portrayal of the brotherhood was the scene where the GI who was AWOL at the beginning of the movie led the Japanese away from his company. He gets himself into an open field and is surrounded by Japanese soldiers. He just stands there, remembering things from his life. Calmly, he gave his life for his brothers and his country. The bond of brotherhood and the cause made the men fight. This is summed up at the end of the movie:
Where is it that we were together? Who were you
that I lived with, walked with? The brother, the friend. Darkness, light, strife, and love: are they the workings of one mind, the features of the same face? Oh my soul, let me be in you now. Look out through my eyes. Look out at the things you made, all things shining. The other theme in the movie was the reoccurrence of birds. From the beginning, I realized that the director was adding shots of birds, some seemingly meaningless. While in the field, there is a shot of a baby bird, dying. There is a scene where there is a bird in the tall grass of a field where the GI’s are. The bird gets scared and flies away. A GI hears the bird, gets scared, and shoots at it. After the GI’s take the Japanese camp, buzzards are flying overhead, showing the dark side of life and nature. Back at the American camp, the Sergeant and the AWOL Private have a conversation in a house that was taken over by the GI’s. Hanging on the porch of the house is a birdcage with the cage door open, but two birds are still inside. Maybe this tells us something about the illusion of freedom or the illusion of imprisonment. The theme of the birds comes to full circle when the audience can hear the Sergeant thinking:
One man looks at a dying bird and thinks there is nothing but unanswered pain, that death’s got the final word. Another man sees that same bird and feels the glory, feels something smiling through it. More than anything else, this film looks at the bond of brotherhood that forms between soldiers in a time of war. I felt there were scenes that could have been left out and there were scenes that probably should have been added, but all in all it was a good movie.
The film raised more questions than it gave answers. I liked the fact that it wasn’t a “package movie,” one that tells a story from start to finish and wraps it up in a nice box. This film left me feeling as though something were unfinished. I like to feel that way about a movie, it means I’m thinking for myself. This film brought a subject to the foreground and asked the audience to come up with the answers for themselves. The writer and the director didn’t get together and show us exactly what they wanted us to think. The film was not telling the audience what to think; it was asking the audience to think.
Rating:
Summary: takes you in
Review: The Thin Red Line is the best war film I have ever seen. But I hate to classify it as that, because if you do and someone reads that it's a war film, they're going to expect Saving Private Ryan. The two were compared when first released because they were released the same year and were both up for Oscars. However, the two are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FILMS WITH DIFFERENT INTENTIONS. So, I won't waste time, energy or space comparing the two. There is a stellar, all-star cast, but there really is no star. The film has a flexible narrative and the story adapted from James Jones' novel is told from different points of view. This is a problem for today's audiences who are not open minded when watching a film that doesn't play like a standard popcorn flick or T.V. movie. Like Mulholland Drive a viewer can come in the middle of it and not really miss anything as far as not understanding what's happening now. It's like an or circular film that just keeps going - like the war for the soldiers that never seems to end. This film has been criticized so many times, for so many different reasons. And those who criticize it, also criticize those who like it, saying that they (the people who like it) think that film is philosophical, when really it isn't. Or theat the philosophy is only sophomoric. But the film is about the soldiers and I would doubt that these soldiers were Philosophy majors, so if the philosophy is sophomoric (which I don't feel it is) it's because they are. But I should point out and remind people that Terrence Malick taught Philosophy at MIT, and I would think he has a better comprehension of it that the people who are criticizing his use of it. I also think that the people who criticize this film are the same hypocrites who hated 2001: A Space Odyssey, until it became a classic, and then started to like it. The Thin Red Line is a film that is ahead of an audience. Like the work of Stanley Kubrick or David Lynch, the film takes more than one viewing to fully understand, which may be impossible. But if you're open minded enough, it is such an enjoyable movie in its grandeur. That is another thing people dislike, its pretensions. But how do they expect Malick to deal with a subject as broad as WAR, and not just a group of soldiers, and avoid the possibility of pretension? I am however, open minded enough to realize that - unlike some other of the films advocates - this film, like any film, will not be a universally admired work. Everyone has the right to their opinion. That's what makes film and art in general so special, everyone sees something different. And I think that it is more impressive to have a film that can recieve such divergent reviews. This insures that the film will never be forgotten. Only the films which people are indifferent to are the ones we don't remember. Most war film deal with a select few that we as an audience get to know. We don't here. We only get to glance. And we glance at so many people it's hard to KNOW any of them. I have not fought in war, but I would assume that is what it is like. You'd get to know who you're close to, but the others, you would just see. I think that this film is more realistic about war than most. We don't just see a constant attack. We see the quieter moments. Not all war is fighting, sometimes the hardest times are when nothing happens in life. People always say to "keep busy". Well what happens if you don't? We see the women in these soldiers' life (another thing criticized). I don't know about you, but if I was alone in a war, I'd probably be thinking about the good things in life too - which unfortunately may also turn out to be bad. The acting in the film is superb. Nick Notle, Elias Koteas, Woody Harrelson, Jim Caviezel are all fantastic. The music is awe inspiring. When the main theme hits a certain point, a few minutes in it's breathtaking. The cinematography - the island - is like a character in itself. Man's war is at the same time a war against nature, against our environment. I can't remember any other film that took such an effective turn in using the camera to make the viewer seem like you are in the film. I can still remember some of the images. They're imprinted like a photograph burned onto paper. Whether people admit it or not, this film is a masterpiece. It is one of the best films I have ever seen. And I am glad that I had an open enough mind so that I could see that film for what it is - a work of true art.
Rating:
Summary: Pure ingeniousness
Review: I must say that this movie is the greatest war movie ever created, and in my opinion, the greatest movie ever created. The whole story is about C-for-Charlie company, a company from the United States Army that serves in Guadalcanal. It takes you deeply into the heads of at least ten differant soldiers, who explain to you(via narriration) what is going on in their heads. The narriration is not like any in other movies though, because they describe their feelings, and don't always tell you what is going on at the moment. Although the movie can seem boring at some parts, it really never is, especially if you've read the book(which I highly recommend).The war scenes are superb, better than Saving Private Ryan's(excluding the Omaha beach scene, which is perfect). It is quite depressing and I wouldn't recommend you to see it after a reletive died, because it won't cheer you up, but it will make you think, and realize that there is nothing glamorous about WW2. The Acting I rate a Ten, simply because of the all star cast, including Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel, Woody Harrilson, John C. Reilly, Nick Nolte, John Cusack, and "guest" appearances by John Travolta and George Clooney(who gets way too much credit, considering he's in it for like two minutes). The cinematography is also a ten, you'd have to see it to believe me. Directing is a nine, everything is very well organized, the sound and music are absolutely perfect,and finally the script, I give a six, because some parts follow the book exactly, and some contradict what the book says, which in some parts is good and some parts it's bad. Oh I forgot to rate the extras, considering this is the DVD version. Well I give the extras a zero, because there aren't any. The VHS version is alot better, because there is no widescreen(which I think is better) and your paying more for the DVD when all you're missing is widescreen. I love this movie, and everything about it, though some vital parts in the book were left out, it still turned out pretty much immaculate. A must see for any war, or drama fan.
Rating:
Summary: Best film ever?
Review: I have to admit upon first seeing "TTRL" I was less than impressed.However,for some reason I couldn't give up on the movie.I rented the video,about a year after I originally saw the picture.Lightning struck!I saw or maybe felt the movie in a whole different way."TTRL" is a film so unlike anything I've ever seen.You can't be a passive viewer and "get" this film.It demands your full involvement, emotionally.This is what sets it apart from even the better Hollywood productions."TTRL" draws you in in a way that's almost addictive and deepens your ability to feel.
Rating: 
Summary: Needs a Director's Cut
Review: The movie as a whole was weakened by the constant voice-overs. The actors' facial expressions conveyed enough emotion. Perhaps the director will take a cue from Blade Runner and produce a version without the voice-overs?
|
