The Thin Red Line

Rating:
Summary: greatest war movie
Review: this stream-of-conciousness elliptical langorous film is well worth the time. It isn't boring, just different.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent! A very good war movie.
Review: I thought this was a very good movie. It had great acting between Nick Nolte, Jim Caviezel, and Sean Penn. Also the filming, scenery, and how realistic it was made, it deffinetly deserved a four1/2 or five out of five stars. It did start out a little slow, and there was a lot of rizing and falling action throughout the whole movie aswell. But the ending was very interesting and effective. There were realistic and sometimes hand to hand combat secenes to, that showed the fear and the bravery of the men. I saw part of Saving Privite Ryan on TV, and though it seamed good, it just wasn't exactly what I expected of it. I really reccomend the THIN RED LINE.

Rating:
Summary: "You're a magician to me."
Review: Well, it's about time Terrence Malick made another film. His first two films, "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven" both garnered critical praise, then he vanished. Two decades later he returned to make the second version of "The Thin Red Line." What was true for his first two films holds true here. This film collected 7 Oscar nominations, great critical praise, but it didn't win any. Another film by the title of "Saving Private Ryan" steamrolled right over it, as did the film that eventually won the Best Picture Oscar that year, "Shakespear in Love." The style of this film is also reminiscent of Terrence Malick's first two endeavors. When it was initially released in theaters a co-worker of mine was telling me about it. I knew of Terrence Malick's two other films and I quickly asked, "Is there any sort of narration or voice-over in the film?" My colleague was a little puzzled because he knew I hadn't seen the film yet, and then he realized I was correct in recognizing a pattern. Many film directors leave an unmistakable stamp in their movies. Martin Scorsese is an excellent example, as well as Steven Spielberg. I named those directors to illustrate that I think Terrence Malick is a superb filmmaker as well. The largest difference between this film and his earlier work is the sheer size of the cast and production. Just looking at the cover of the DVD shows how much respect so many "name" actors have for this fine director. Many of which took cameo roles just to be a part of the project. The story takes place in the South Pacific during World War II. All the battle scenes scream with authenticity and emotion, while the quieter moments are filled with objective, philosophical narration from many characters. The latter moments are where my only real criticism lies. It was confusing at times which characters were in deep reflection about life, death, the choices we all make when considering our fellow men. A little narration is okay here and there for flavor or clarification, but in this film there were many scenes where I thought, "The tail is wagging the dog." Other than those moments, however, this is a very stong film with brilliant cinematography from John Toll and solid direction from Terrence Malick. I want to emphasize that John Toll's work here is sparkling, and was one of the 7 nominations (Best Cinematography). He has won the Oscar for Best Cinematography twice before: for "Legends of the Fall" in 1994 and for his stunning work in "Braveheart" in 1995. So, as you can see, I'm not the only one who thinks his work is excellent. Thank you. I hope my review was informative and helpful.

Rating:
Summary: The 1964 version was better than this one
Review: I saw this movie when it first came out in the theaters. I have to say I almost walked out of it. The first 45 to 60 minutes I found very boring and hard to follow. BUT then the action-at least a little-started.

In my opinion it doesn't come close to "Saving Private Ryan" but it was good. Once I realized it was showing how the war affected several of the soldiers it made a little more sense. BUT it might have been better if it showed how the soldiers were years later also. John Travolta, appearing as an Army brigadier general on board a ship approaching Guadalcanal, was strange. Once the troops left the ship he was never seen or heard from again. Where did he go?

I found Nick Nolte's character a little like George C. Scott in "Patton." Both officers didn't appear to care what it cost to take a hill or bunker. Don't get me wrong because I do understand that sacrifices have to be made during wartime. BUT when someone says there is a better way to do something, with less loss of life, why aren't they listened to? Nick almost reminded me of John Wayne in some of his war films. It wasn't until almost the end of the movie before Nick showed what he was feeling.

Woody Harrelson had a short part. He portrayed a sergeant who was handling a grenade that went off. His death scene was a bit unbelievable.

Sean Penn portrayed a caring first sergeant. One who was tough when he needed to be and somewhat compassionate at other times. I had to laugh when George Clooney's character said he was the father of the company, Sean-the mother, and the soldiers the children. I kept expecting to see George throughout the movie but he didn't appear till almost the end.

That was it for the big names of Hollywood. The rest of the cast were unknown to me and will probably remain so. This film just did not grab me at all-although there was one scene that may have and another that actually did.

The scene that may have was when the soldiers finally attacked a village that had been taken over by the Japanese soldiers. This scene almost reminded me of the MyLai incident in Vietnam. Although there was no killing of women and children, there was of the enemy. It showed how in the heat of battle anyone could do something that isn't right. BUT this scene also showed that the Japanese soldiers were experiencing the same things that the Americans were. That being fear, shakes, filth, lack of food and water, etc.

The scene that got me the most had nothing to do with the action, or lack of, in the film. Rather it was when one soldier received a "Dear John" letter from his wife asking for a divorce. Throughout the film he had flashbacks of her, their home, and what I thought was their relationship. BUT as he was reading the letter from her, it almost seemed that the scenes of her might have been showing her with another man. I'm not sure. My heart went out to this soldier however as he appeared to really love her and that was helping to keep him alive.

The scenery throughout the film was wonderful: the ocean, the island, the lush tall grass, the bamboo stalks, the mountain stream, etc. Amazingly even after there was a lot of artillery fire on an area there was no sign of damage when the soldiers went into the area. That created a false feeling for me.

Can you tell I didn't really like this film? It was no where near what I felt for Saving Private Ryan, which was an excellent film. I'll be interested to see how others view this film.

Rating:
Summary: Sorry, Too Much Meandering
Review: I was in the mood for a war movie and rented this one mainly because Sean Penn and Nick Nolte are in it. To that effect, Nick Nolte provides the most interesting thing in this movie. I don't consider myself to have too short of an attention span but I definitely found my attention wondering way too many times during this movie; not a good sign. I like a fresh approach to a genre such as Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket". But that was a compelling movie that can be watched several times, unlike this film which I would not recomend to anyone.

Rating:
Summary: Malick's Rejection to Conventionalism
Review: Like many admirers of this poetic masterpiece, I question the lack of relative arguments against the brilliance of this film. I'm not being naive, although I comprehend the misjudgment of thsi film to be a "force-fed" war film such as Saving Private Ryan or Patton (I like both...). However, Malick is ultimately a Transcendentalist who in a sense is unwelcomed by conventionalist attitudes contributed by the growing wakes of post-modernist theory. This film allows World War II to exist as a backdrop to convey intuition provoked by questions of morality, innhabitions, individualism, and systematic existence within nature (A different approach than the Steinbeck-influenced Days of Heaven).

"Are you righteous? Kind? Does your confidence lie in this? Are you loved by all? Know that I was, too. Do you imagine your suffering will be any less because you loved goodness and truth? " - Japanese Soldier

Rating:
Summary: War Turns Men Into Dogs
Review: My bother plays paintball. He likes to pretend he's killing people. He's 30 years old, and until this month when he went to a funeral, he never actually saw a dead person. Me, I'm still trying to understand the attraction. I've never been in a war, but I've zipped young bodies who met violent ends into bags and just from that I can figure out that war is not a video game. (Sure looks like one nowadays, watching our aircraft target the little bodies running around down there--but let me say that again: War is not a video game.)

"Thin Red Line" is not as much a "kill the bad guys, defend our brothers!" kind of movie like "Saving Private Ryan" (far more popular) was, which I find interesting, since both deal with the same war--perhaps the last war that really *could be* discussed in simple terms of good vs. evil instead of politics and finance. This one, from the first voice-over, is an exploration that leaves you to draw your own conclusions.

You ought to do that. However, here's my prediction: if you only like movies where the good guys overcome adversity to kick the bad guy's ass, skip "Thin Red Line." However, if you're interested in the simultaneous beauty and horror of war (and of course of life itself), then this movie may be one you will remember for a long, long time.

Rating:
Summary: Hey, good comparison I just saw, Empires of the Sun.
Review: Ive already wriiten an appropriately disdainful appraisal of this trainwreck 'warfilm',and thats not meaning to say its of the stature of 'Von Ryans Express' or 'the Train' either.But reading some of the other reviews, I retained two comments I realy liked so will bring forward.
This Malick is apparently an arthouse(s-house) director, well, as somebody said, this was an arthouse director turned-loose with a big-house budget, so you get a 50-million dollar serving of pretentious boredom instead of half a million dollars worth . I respected arthouse directors more before this film, because up till this, they hadnt gotten me into their showroom. This ripped me off for whatever the ticket cost me as well, it wont be forgotten. At least I went alone, I didnt recommend and entice anyone else along to be ripped-off.

And the next review I saw that contained something far more profound than 'Line itself was actually a glowing review,5-stars, where among other things the reviewer compared it to 'Empires of the Sun', among one or two others.
Baby, aint that the truth, thats the ideal companion to it. Unfortunately, with THAT, I didnt see it alone, I was responsible for wasting a friends money and evening as well as my own.
Memorable line
'Hey, P-51, Cadillac of the Skies!'
(from a kid whod been in Japanese internment since the fall of Hongkong, obviously the extensive Japanese concentration-camp library contained detailed information about the P51 Mustang fighter that hadnt even been heard of by the outside world at the time of HongKong') Yep yep yep.

You wont find any finer expensive turkeys last 20 years.Amazon should offer them as one of their discount sets.
'Thin Red Line' and 'Empires of the Sun'

Rating:
Summary: Why So Overlooked?
Review: I have read many reviews of this film over the years and I still don't understand why it isn't more appreciated. I have watched "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven" which are both excellent but I honestly prefer "The Thin Red Line".

First of all, the acting is awesome in this movie. Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn and Nick Nolte are all very soulful. I have read stories of how Sean Penn basically begged Mallick for the opportunity to be in this movie and it really shows in his effort. Even John Cusack (I love him in everything) and Woody Harrelson do very well in their smaller parts.

But the true power of this movie is in the questions that it asks. I love the mysticism that fills the whole film. I once read a review that said, "Mallick takes us on his search for God but we didn't want to go with him". Well, I think the person who wrote that must be a superficial, materialistic fool who probably shouldn't be reviewing movies for a career. I guess he would prefer "Bad Boys 2" or something.

The fact is that this movie is very spiritual and beautiful even as it faces the reality of suffering and evil. The cinematography, music and acting are awesome. The movie challenges the audience to consider the thoughts and questions of the soldiers. The answers aren't given. You must answer them yourself. What a beautiful film.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent cinematography but disjointed story
Review: I will try to be more brief than alot of the other reviews.

First, let me say that the cinematography was excellent in this film. Many truly breathtaking shots all around. The combat scenes were generally well done and believable for the most part. The acting was pretty good on most counts and for my money the most memorable performance from the film was that of Nick Nolte as a commander without the true ability to be a leader.

Where I feel that the movie falls apart are at many different turns. First of all, the whole flashback/love story thing with one of the many characters in the film that we really don't get to know or come to like or dislike are done in a way that they telegraph what is going to happen later on. What I mean is that from the second or third one of the scenes that I saw with this particular soldier flashing back to his wife/girlfriend it was already clear that it was leading up to her betrayal of him while he was away at war. Poorly done. Second, as mentioned above, there are many characters in this film, but for the most part we never get to know any of them or get to care about what happens to them. They are by and large just a group of nobodies that we are watching because we really don't get any sort of introduction. A perfect example is how near the end of the film we all of a sudden see John Cusack appear on screen seemingly from nowhere and lead a heroic charge to take over an enemy position. I had no clue he was even in this movie until that point, and while in some circumstances that would make sense, in this one it does not because this film is focused on a small group of soldiers. Throw these characters that are utterly forgettable in with the way that the story jumps around between combat scenes, flashback scenes, and everything else, and I found myself thoroughly disappointed.

This film seemed as though it was aiming to make a good point but somehow missed the mark. Although it is not supposed to be a typical war movie it still has a good amount of combat footage in it. Really it doesn't appeal to the fans of the action war movie because too much of the film is spent jumping around to things not related. It doesn't appeal to those that like a character driven story like you get in Band of Brothers because there is nobody in this film that you get to know or that you even care about. My recommendation is that if you want a more thought provoking movie that deals with the insanity and horrors of war, watch Apocalypse Now.