Rating: 
Summary: Directorial Self Indulgence
Review: A visual feast. A forceful menagerie of color and motion. A psychological drama... blahblahblah. Alright, I've said all of the stereotypically "good things" that can be said about the movie.When I get right down to it, the movie had so much potential, but it was sacrificed at the altar of Malick's "vision." Too many shots that try to scream, "look at the colorful nature scenes," and, "watch the contortions on the soldier's face while I play a tortured soundtrack." They say that Malick is a "demanding director"... well, I am a "demanding viewer", and my demands were not met. The plot points that come up along the course of the movie are introduced almost with embarassment. It also seems that Malick expresses contrition when the story arc involving Koteas' and Nolte's characters develops and continues for a block of the movie, as though he is upset that the inclusion of a story is ruining his poetry. Finally, there are too many characters to really get inside the heads of any of them. They come and go, but Malick casts too wide of a net. There's too little time to care about the psyche of any of the characters. I'm reluctant to call it a bad movie, and its lack of story or plot prevented it from having an awful or hackneyed one, so I'm giving it 3 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best movies of all time.
Review: I can't believe people didn't love this film. Who says war is all action, and that being shot at, or being pursued by the 'enemy' is the only way a soldier can experience trauma and fear? This film better portrayed the horror of the unexpected than did Saving Private Ryan, and it had far superior scenery and cinematography. It did not have the same impact on me as did SPR, but it is definitely in the same league. It saddens me to know by the other reviews that people have reduced war to guns, bombs, tanks, and planes. Why do so few people give credit to the psychological trauma soldiers went through when forced to 'kill, or be killed', or to having to fight off bodily urges (like thirst, hunger, fatigue, pain, and loneliness), and being so paranoid they would rather die than be awake?
Rating:
Summary: Pales by comparison to "Saving Private Ryan".
Review: This DVD pales by comparison to "Saving Private Ryan". It tries to philosophize too much -- as if it were giving second graders morality lessons. Because of this, it was painfully slow to view. The transfer is good, but not great.
Rating: 
Summary: Ponderous mess
Review: This film doesn't know that it is a war film; it thinks that it is nature documentary. We get long lingering, loving scenes of natives at frolic, owls, insects, bats, trees, parrots, etc. The human characters, when they appear, are most often engaged in psycho-babble musing accompanied by the heartfelt drone of melancholy strings. The effect is one of an ethereal travelog. Egads what a mess! The director tries his best to re-create "Apocalypse Now", but he forgets a few minor cinematic elements: Character development; Plot; Continuity of action; Style above all in this boring, confused, over-long mess. I will avoid any work by Terrence Malik in the future.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Film With Some Very Good Performances
Review: I feel a bit conflicted about this film. I once took a film appreciation class in college. There were certain films that we saw that were made primarily to illustrate certain cinematic concepts. The stories themselves weren't all that important. As I sat and watched The Thin Red Line, I had flashbacks to watching those kinds of films in college. It just all seemed a bit contrived. Now, there are some excellent performances in this film. I thought Nick Notle did a wonderful job. So don't misunderstand me; I like this film. This is a good film with some terrific visuals in it that reaches a bit too far at times.
Rating:
Summary: War as a personal vision
Review: Suffering in comparison to the utter masterpiece 'Saving Private Ryan,' Terence Malick's 'Thin Red Line' feels like a foreign director decided to use war as film auteur exercise du jour. What I mean is that it's so philosophical and diffused that one doesn't really get a sense of what war is about (unlike the almost unbearably visceral 'Ryan'). I read James Jones' novel in the early 70s and can still vividly remember certain combat scenes, which are entirely lacking in the film. 'Thin Red Line' may be admirable on its own terms--scenes of physical beauty, introspective mood, musing on unpredictability of life and man's perspective against the majesty of nature. But it has an identity crisis. I can't see it capturing the art house crowd since it is, in many ways after all, a war film. And people interested in learning more about war after seeing 'Ryan' will realize that, at heart, it's trying to be an art film. High marks for originality and some truly striking scenes--like the warm wind rippling through tall, golden grass as the Americans inch up a hill toward danger. Actually, the timing of 'Ryan' and 'Line' reminded me of 1978-79, when 'Deer Hunter' and 'Apocalypse Now' came out. To me, 'Deer Hunter' was a 'Ryan'-class masterwork while 'Apocalypse' was histrionic fantasy. But 'Apocalypse' stood taller over the years in its own right, and maybe 'Thin Red Line' will, too.
Rating:
Summary: Spielberg bashing is tiresome
Review: Let me get this out in the open first and foremost: I was genuinely impressed with Thin Red Line. while I found it to be a meandering, unfocused film, I was still drawn in to Terrance Mallick's examination of the soul of a soldier. I liken this film to Apocalypse Now, my favorite film of all time, in that it is a surreal examination of the psyche. I feel that many of the reviewers that gush over this film do so as an attempt to establish themselves as 'lofty" and "discerning of taste" while bashing a great film like Saving Private Ryan. I view these people as types who rave about Merchant Ivory period dramas and wear this love like as badge of distinction and taste, yet wouldn't watch a foreign film because " I don't like to read." Mallick is considered an artist, since he has made exactly 3 movies in 25 years. Spielberg is labelled a pop culture craftsman with no subtlety and a tendency to over sentimentalize. I will not debate the merits of either man's careers here, but I question the validity of many reviewer's comments. Many ring so much of pretentiousness, something this movie is oft accused of doing.
Rating: 
Summary: Soap Opera Dramatics
Review: If you are more philosophical by nature you will certainly enjoy this movie. But if your traits lean towards the analytical side, be advised, skip this movie.Militarly, this movie is so full of holes it distracted me from the supposed real message of the film.I was more involved with the mistakes made than with the struggle of man,war and nature.(Which in most war movies I always felt that it was implied that war created fear and anxieties). In reflection, I could see where this movie could stir a lot of emotion, but I get enough human drama in every day life that I don't want to watch it for entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: MOVIES LIKE THIS ARE WHY I LOVE GOING TO THE MOVIES
Review: This movie is the closest thing to poetry on screen in recent memory. At last a movie that addresses your soul instead of assaulting your senses! Though I liked "Saving Private Ryan", the only real connection those two films have is that they both are set during WWII and both were released the same year. That is where the similarites end, though. "Ryan" was powerful in its own way, but mostly because of its depictions of the "horrors of war". "The Thin Red Line" was beautiful because of its more ethereal qualities. ... I watched this movie twice in the first 36 hours I owned the DVD, and I could almost feel my own soul and spirit lifted at times -- sort of like reading a great poem. Okay, okay, I'm getting a bit cornball perhaps. But true movie lovers know that a movie that can sometimes place you in an almost meditative state is testimony to great filmmaking on many levels, and that is why I go "The Movies" in the first place. A fella can get tired of seeing the same old Jerry Bruckheimer-produced, Michael Bay-directed shlockfests (see: Armaggedon or The Rock as examples) after all, right? Try a movie that challenges your soul, not just your eyes and ears.
Rating:
Summary: extremly boring
Review: This movie drags on and on and on half the time displaying only scenery shots grass blowing in the wind for 10 minutes while the actor talks about his philosphy in a monotone voice out of all the battles in ww2 they picked the wrost one to make a movie about I can recall only a 30 min. of action through out the whole what? 3 hour long movie I fell asleep in the theater for awhile only after 30 min. of the movie a total disapointment this is nothing compared to Saving Private Ryan.
| 
