The Thin Red Line - DTS

Rating:
Summary: Self-indulgent garbage
Review: Ick. Yuck. Blah. Such dreck, so boring, so many awful performances, so cliche-ridden, so poorly written and conceived, so loooooooooong. Really, the worst movie I've seen since Showgirls, and in fact worse, because Malick is supposed to know better. Clearly Badlands was a fluke. *Three hours* of my life stolen for lines like "Nature can be so cruel" and "What difference can one man make in such a terrible cataclysm?" and John Travolta's hilariously awful cameo (and John Cusak's awful cameo, and George Clooney's awful cameo, and Nick Nolte's more lengthy awfulness, and the voiceovers, my God the voiceovers, has there ever been anything worse? Maybe -- the endless shots of billowing curtains, birds, snakes, bugs, weeds, etc., meant to show us nature's something-or-other; or maybe the whining, crying, self-pitying, self-absorbed, humorless characters -- all of them -- or the cartoonish Japanese -- faceless automaton killers or snivelling cowards; or the happy care-free natives straight out of Rousseau by way of Carnival Cruise Lines). Alternate titles: The Thin Blue Lagoon, Lady Chatterly's Rifle.

Avoid this movie at all costs, as if your life depends on it.

Rating:
Summary: Awful - save your time and money (1 star is kind)
Review: Don't waste you time on this film - it blows. Even big names like Travolta, Nolte, and Penn generate little interest. You'll fall asleep before you even catch a glimpse of Clooney. The script and the characters generate nothing to make you care if they live or die, you just want it to end. The flashback scenes to other times and places add nothing. This film should be banned for being torture to watch.

Rating:
Summary: Not worth the effort
Review: This movie could not be a tribute to the men and women who sacrified their lives in WWII. It has way too much personal drama and too many messages made it sounds like all the soldiers would kill their chain of command. It couldn't be compare to SPR. There is another movie made in the 50's called "Hall of Montezuma" is much, much better than this one.

Rating:
Summary: I'm physically sickened by those who give this one star.
Review: Um, what's wrong with people? Why do you want all movies to be the same? Why can't you see what's different and brilliant about this film? Why is it that you can't deal with anything that isn't traditional narrative, plot elements, climax, resolution? A reviewer below me thought it was "hilarious" that a question like "what is this great evil in the world? where does it come from? who is doing this?" [and no, "my soul hurts" is never uttered once in this film: this person wasn't even paying attention to what was said.] would be asked. I would ask that person "well where is it coming from? why are we killing these people? why is there evil?" Their answer, even if they didn't have one, would be echoed by at least one of the characters in this film. And to say that the images of nature are being shoved down your throat? That's what's bloody there in Guadacanal, that's what these guys were looking at when they were blowing each other to hell. This is a film about the struggle of truth and beauty and love against the nihilistic, empty, self indulgent aspirations of the "leaders of men," of human society. About abandoning beauty; and for what? Evil horror? That's what this film is about; it's not "Das Boot" or "Saving Private Ryan," it's something else entirely. It doesn't have the overwhelming scent of sentimentality of "Saving Private Ryan," [which I also enjoyed.] It's a touch more subtle than that. And it is wonderful and it is powerful and it is important, so long as cares about things such as truth and beauty and love.

Rating:
Summary: Good movie about soldiers in the Pacific during WW II
Review: Unique film about several US Army soldiers in Guaduacanal during WWII. After the Marines have finished their operation on the island, the story begins with the landing of a US Army force to take over. The film mostly revolves around several select characters, inter-mixed with brief appearances by others. This film is similiar to Malick's previous works, Days of Heaven and Badlands, where there are voice tracks of the character's thoughts as they progress through events. Scenes are also broken up by shots of scenery and nature. The movie spends a lot of time developing several key characters in an infantry company; a young soldier labeled as a non-team player, a battle-wise First Sergeant, the Company Commander who makes a stand against his Battalion Commander during an attack that is causing high losses, and the Battalion Commander whose personal ambitions over-ride his concerns for his soldiers. The film is good, but can be depressing and appear to drag on with the character's thoughts and dreams, but it does approach what life must have been like for the soldiers serving in the Pacific; long periods of bordom and depression, broken up by short bursts of terrifying combat. The film is much different from Saving Private Ryan, but unfortunately receives a lot of critical comparison because it was released shortly afterward. Good film, Nick Nolte was my favorite as the Battalion Commander and John Cusak does a brief appearance in a tense battle to seize a hilltop. Those looking for George Clooney will be disappointed because he only appears for a few minutes near the end of the movie. Somewhat similiar to the earlier movie made in the early 1960's, but the outcome is much different.

Rating:
Summary: good
Review: When THE THIN RED LINE was in the theaters, I read the reviews, and a lot of what I read was, "It's slow. Slooww. Like watching paint dry." So I avoided it like the plague. But I have a friend who is a member of the Academy: as in the Academy Awards. And every year the studios send him free videos of movies, hoping he'll watch them and vote for them come Oscar time. So he loaned me a whole bunch, including A THIN RED LINE. It was free, so I thought, "I'll take a look." I sat down with my remote control ready, because I was prepared to fast forward through a lot of this "slow" movie. Well, now...I didn't fast forward once! I didn't find this to be a slow movie at all. It was original, and moving, and brilliant. I thought the critics who praised it, were basically saying, "It's boring, but it's based on a literary novel, so go see it because it will be good for you." But the critics who said it was a good movie were right. It IS a good movie. I told my Academy member friend to see it, when I returned it to him (since he hadn't seen it yet himself). He saw it and liked it, too. To those who think it's slow: you've gotta stop watching so much MTV, and try to develop what we used to call an attention span.

Rating:
Summary: Not as good as I expected
Review: I agree with the previous reviewers who wonder why this film is compared with Private Ryan. I understand that both are WWII films, both came out in the same year and both were touted and nominated for multiple academy awards. Beyond this they are entirely different films. Having said this, I disagree with most reviewers who attempt to distance this film from Ryan in the sense that I give a negative review. In "Thin Red Line"'s favor I must say that this is a visually stunning film. So much so that it hardly matters whether it is a war film or not. In this sense I would like to equate it with "Apocalypse Now". Both were obstensibly war films but both were really much more than that, so that, in the final analysis, it didn't matter whether the subject matter was war or not. I must say again, this movie was absolutely a visual masterpiece. BUT, as a study of human nature it was decidedly terrible. Nick Nolte's character was a one-dimensional cutout in a way that no intelligent person would dare depict an army colonel in this day and age. Give us a human being for God's sake. And no other character, including the narrator, was any better. I understand that this film is not the same as the novel, but it seems that Malick attempted to communicate the novel to the movie viewing audience and, in my opinion, failed. How else do you explain his obsession with the extended nature images except as an attempt to convey to a viewing audience Jone's existential message (What does it matter whether I am looking at this tree today if I am dead tomorrow). In this he fails terribly. Also, I reject the verdict of some "artsy" reviewers who want to claim that anyone who doesn't like this movie somehow "doesn't get it". As a previous reviewer states: "This is a very deep poetic movie who only some people can understand truly, and that is not an insult to those who thought this movie was garbage. Terrence Malick is a very spiritual man, and he is on a distant plane separate from most of us, and he shows this best through his work." How condescending to say that only a few can understand this truly. What I think Malick and people like this reviewer fail to grasp is that what they see as a complex, textured interpretation of the world is really a one- dimensional, reductionist view of how things really are. In that sense, even though "Private Ryan" had all the standard categories of people (i.e. the trouble maker, the big, dumb Italian, the Jew, the coward, the war lover, etc.) beyond the character types, the personalities weren't at all predictable; not like the people in "Thin Red Line". Furthermore, as a war film, "Private Ryan" is far and away the better. That movie has the ability to create a physiological reaction in its viewers. The combat scenes in "Thin Red Line" leave one cold. I truly felt nothing watching them; no fear, no excitement, nothing. If you want a good existential examination of warfare read "All quiet on the Western Front". If you want to see a visually stunning film and don't care whether it is an honest appraisal of war or not then I guess this is as good a movie as any.

I suppose I am about to do what I warned against in my first sentence, but if you want to see a good war flick, I mean one which really depicts the realities of the experience (not the thoughts-these must be different for everyone) then see "Private Ryan".

Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your money
Review: Like I said above. Good cast of characters, ashame that the majority of them only appear for a few minutes, through out the whole movie.

Rating:
Summary: STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE !
Review: This movie is horrible and extremely boring. I reccomend this film for only the die-hard of fans. It was sad to even watch this horrible film. I love war movies and find this movie as an insult. Nothing compares this movie to war greats such as PLATOON and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. In my opinion the only thing thid video would be good for is to be used as a coaster.

Rating:
Summary: The Inner War
Review: This movie is one that stirs great controversy. Admitted it is not for everyone. And I did not think it so great upon my first viewing either. Many think it is about guns, artillary, and good old fashioned patriotism. This movie is about a different war- the inner war. This beautiful canvas full of poetic beauty and sensual mindflow, is one not to be taken superficially by the viewer, which has lead to a great misunderstanding of this masterpiece. It needs not to be watched on a war movie frame-of-mind, but needs to be experienced like a favorite piece of classical music (if you like classical music). The setting for this movie is stunning although should not be the center piece. The battle scenes are excellent (the taking of the hill), and the cinematics wonderous; backed by a disturbing (sometimes menacing) perfect musical score. The film seems to wander fluidly much like the human mind, and the train of thought unfolding is underappreciated. Fans of strait-forward action may be disappointed. Best advice is to rent the movie before viewing, that way there will be no harsh reviews of people who hated this movie. I believe this film would be more appreciated by the art crowd. The art crowd should not be distracted by its premise or its big name actors. The cast in this picture are supurb and complement Malicks haunting direction without overshadowing it. The unsettling nature of this movie is sure to invoke the same in the viewer. Remember only great movies stir such extreme emotions from viewers. A movie either loved or hated. This movie should be given a chance or even a second chance. email me At ----------> [e-mail]