The Thin Red Line

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Cinematography and little else
Review: I can only assume that this movie received Oscar recognition because of its beautiful cinematography. The scenery was spectacular and I appreciated the inclusion of exotic South Pacific wildlife in this movie.

My problem with this movie was that the soldiers acted and behaved as though they were senselessly fighting the Vietcong in 1969 as opposed to the Japanese at the WWII Battle of Guadalcanal.

I was in neither war, however what validates my belief that this movie was a joke (historically speaking) is that few if any WWII Vets came out to speak in favor of the film. Not to my recollection at least.

I also disliked the cast. The only soldiers in the film that I found believable were the extras. The casting of Nick Nolte and John Travolta each as military officers was unbelievable to me.

Rating:
Summary: To those who only put 1 star.
Review: The Thin Red Line has a hell of a message which you seemed to miss by a hell of a long way.

Rating:
Summary: Torn Between Two Movies
Review: Firstly, I do realize that the purpose of this movie was not to shock the audience, as Saving Private Ryan did, but to portray war in an entirely new manner by concentrating on the soldier's thoughts rather than the battle. Unfortunately this movie failed in its objective. If you want to make a movie based on spirituality and the aftermath of battle then do it in a way the audience will understand. These narrations and flashbacks make absolutely no sense at certain times. Maybe if you are reading the script as you watch the film you will be able to fully grasp the message intended. Narration just for the sake of narration is not a good idea in any genre, especially war movies. Furthermore, there was absolutely no explanation as to what the characters are musing over. These flashbacks offer absolutely no insight because we have no clue as to what is going on. One moment we are in preparation for battle the next we are whisked away to dreamland memories of a man, and who we can only guess is his wife, in a loving embrace. While this may make sense to someone reading it on paper it becomes supremely confusing while watching it on the movie screen. Also, in every one of these narrations there is a feeling of melancholy and remorse engulfing the narrator but no insight is offered as to the cause of these emotions. Whether or not they feel this way because of their current situation or because of some great event which hurt them earlier in their lives or possibly both is never explained. So we are left with a movie that is plagued with ambiguous and morose narrations from two-dimensional characters. Now some may argue that the beauty of this movie lies in its ambiguity. That everyone takes away what they want from this movie and form their own opinion of the film free from any bias. But I don't share that opinion on this movie at all.

Now don't get me wrong it is possible to portray war in a spiritual manner without taking away from the movie itself. Namely, Apocalypse Now and Platoon. Two of the greatest movies of all time made great not only because of their grandure but beacause of their message. In both these movies there was a set objective and purpose which the main characters followed. Martin Sheen's purpose, in Apocalypse Now, was to seek out and eliminate Marlon Brando but we are able to understand the enormity of this task by listening in on his inner monologue. Offering us insight into the workings of his mind. Charlie Sheen's purpose, in Platoon, is to survive his tour in Vietnam. We follow him as he matures from a naive FNG to a seasoned and cynical marine. His metamorphosis is further illustrated through his to his grandmother back home. At first he is unsure of himself and his decision to join expressing that all he wants is to go home. But in the end he realizes that he has no home anymore and noone left to write to who would understand. But in TRL there is no set pattern that the audience can understand. We are lost, almost immediately, in the inner workings of this film.

The reason I gave this movie three stars is even though it is a confusing film it is still a tremendous work of art. The grandure of this film is awsome as well as the acting and the direction of every aspect of the film. If you watch this movie while on mute you will undoubtedly be blown away by its cinematography and realism of the battles.

So just to recap. If you want a movie that will portray the emotional side of war as well as the realism of battle then you would be better off with a movie like Platoon or Apocalypse Now instead of TRL. Only after you have seen those types of movies will you be able to sit through this movie and even partially appreciate what the director had intended.

Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your time!
Review: This movie was so bad I turned it off halfway thru. It's not worth the time or effort of even renting this flick. Go take walk instead, go to the dentist, it will be less painful then sitting thru this movie.

Rating:
Summary: The Thin Red Line is a Masterpiece
Review: Saving Private Ryan is typical Hollywood -overproduced, overhyped, and succumbs to artificial devices when it wants the audience to react - see it once, then forget it. Frankly, i had high expectations for SPR and was dissapointed, I had low expectations for TTRL and was utterly amazed. Everything about this movie will haunt you - the cinematography, soundtrack, acting. As far as its historical accuracy, i had no idea that it was supposed to be about the battle for Guadacanal even after seeing it 3 times - the battle is a stage for a wider set of issues that could be placed in any battlefield anywhere - if you want historical accuracy watch the History Channel. If you want to see film at its finest get The Thin Red Line.

Rating:
Summary: Merits "Zero Stars"
Review: This movie is terrible. Poorly cast, horribly acted, boring dialogue, so inaccurate to history or the book as to be unrecognizable. One of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Rating:
Summary: Fundamentally flawed...what a shame!
Review: I want to like this movie! I really want to like it! Perhaps I would, if it WEREN'T the THE THIN RED LINE! I am a life long fan of the James Jones novel, and I was deeply anticipating this film. I liked Malick's other films, and I think he shot this movie beautifully and majestically. Too bad that THE THIN RED LINE is NOT a beautiful or majestic story! Jones' novel is one of brutality, graphic violence, moral depravity, hypocracy, and uncertainty. The movie is more like a transcendental haze, a walk-through Guadalcanal. Man as a lost child of the pure beauty that is the natural world. At times, it is a poignant, and fulfilling movie. But, it is NOT THE THIN RED LINE.

Flaws beside the interpretation show up as well. I am a film buff as well as a reader. I enjoy non-linear films such as Malick's. However, his effort here is really the magnification of all of his directorial flaws. All directors, all artists have flaw, weaknesses, (Speilberg's is sentimentality) Malick's is glorifying the image. The star of the film is the island, and that would be fine, if it were a painting. The characters are weak, many of those who play prominently in the book are only given lip service here. It dwells and drags out certian points and ultimately looses its message (quite different from the novel). By the end of the film it had already said everything it can, yet it rolls on, as if Malick cannot let go. It's not that its a long movie, I have nothing against long movies. It's that it seems long.

The character of Witt is another problem for me. going back to its deviation from the novel, Witt is as close as the movie comes to a hero, but in the book he is a minor character and a racist. Far from Jim Caviezel's transcendental reluctant warrior (although it is a standout performance).

Finally, the film touches the darker issues of the novel with kid gloves, it looses the strait forward brutality, the depth of characters, the subtle plot points, the unique homosexual undertones at some points, and the final reluctantly eloquent statement on war: that it is THERE, that is is a brutal fact, unescapable. Jones hated the glorification of war, but he acknowledged the existence of heroism, though not as a superhuman adverism, but as a tragic, forced event, a last resort, somehing to be respected, honored, but not cheaped by the trivialisation of violence. The movie misses this, and its beautiful cinematography and music cannot bring that back.

Though I know most of the reviewers will disagree with me here, SaAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a far better film, a far grittier film, a more realistic and purposeful film. Though it does not address all the aspects that Jones' novel does, as a student of warfare, I see far more of what THE THIN RED LINE is about in RYAN, than in Malick's opus. Not that SPR is perfect, its just better. Better message, better directing, better movie. Sorry.

Rating:
Summary: comprehensive summary of reviews
Review: Since the site won't access any of the reviews past the last 10 I'll do a summary of all previous reviews. Either people loved this movie and believe it's the greatest movie ever or people thought it was the boringest movie ever. The people who love it spend a lot of bytes insulting the people who don't. That's about it.

Rating:
Summary: Bang Bang, Dum-de-dum, Bang - Fin.
Review: An interesting movie in its own way. It doesn't actually have an end though. We basically follow a group of GIs, but one in particular as he ponders the weirdness of war, not coming to any real conclusion. Perhaps that's the "message" in the movie. The DVD does include a CD full of pacific islander music which is a nice bonus. This movie doesn't come close to the realism or emotion of "Saving private Ryan" but looks quite authentic nevertheless. PS. I didn't fight in WW2 so what do I know anyway.

Rating:
Summary: War of the combat film: Private Ryan v The Thin Red Line
Review: Inevitably, 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'The Thin Red Line' will always be compared. It's a curse that can be a good and a bad thing. For starters, each film shows what the other is not - but what one musn't forget is how the film speaks on its own terms. Since each film is so different they require different readings. However, because they share the same moral goal, that is, to convey the horrors of war - it is useful to compare them.

'Saving Private Ryan' for the most part has a linear narrative with straighforward goals. It is much more visceral and aims to convey the horrors of war through excesses of blood, guts and artillery.

'The Thin Red Line' on the other hand, conveys its moral message by showing how soldiers react AFTER each battle scene. Thus, its drive comes from emotional power.

Having said that, 'The Thin Red Line' takes you one step further. It won't be everyone's cup of tea as it breaks conventions of time and space - forcing the viewer to work hard at making logic of the film. However, once you can accept this cinematic device then the journey is an unforgettable one that will etch a shadow in your memory and haunt you over time.

Here, Terrence Malick worked on instinct that allowed him to free himself of a constraining storyboard (which is not to suggest he didn't use one). The multi-voice over narration can be very confusing and I would suggest multiple viewings. Maybe it doesn't really matter that much if you don't fully recognise who is 'speaking' because the soldiers (American and Japanese) are all in the same boat. For instance, in one scene you see Witt (Jim Caviezel) look down upon a dead Japanese soldier's face buried in the dirt. The narration is heard from the dead man's perspective -"were you loved...know that I was too".

I said earlier, that the function of the battle scenes were to show emotional reactions. Malick achieves this with an impact that is frightening. The main battle scene is super intense with changes from slo-mo to regular pace and exchanges in foregrounded/backgrounded music and sound - all to convey the chaos of the scene.

However, the reaction from this scene is even better with sweeping camera fluidity, a touching score, and poetic narration that it virtually transcends the physical world. They are dealing with emotions after all. I can understand that many people don't buy into the poetic narration but hey James Jones whose book the film was adapted from was there at the Battle of Guadacanal - and that's good enough for me!

After repeated viewings on video, I finally got to see the film on the big screen last week and was as moved (if not more) as the first time I saw it. Once again, I cannot stop playing the soundtrack. It was interesting that at the end of the film nobody left the theatre as all watched the film's credits spellbound and leaning forward. If you can't see it on the big screen then watch it at home and be spellbound as many others have. But to be true to the film is to watch it from start to end and most of all be prepared for something different.