Rating: 
Summary: Not a film for everyone
Review: As you can see if you browse the reviews of other members here at Amazon, many did not enjoy this movie. For me, I loved it and saw it a couple of times in the theater. However, I don't know of anyone personally who liked it as much as I did.Several reviewers comment that it is an "anti-war" movie - which it is not - at least not to me. This is a philosophical masterpiece. A painting, if you will, that's open to interpretation. If you're looking for a good action flick, or prefer movies that drive their point home, this one isn't for you. On the other hand, if you've ever been wrapped up in a particular work of art and tried to deduce what the artist is trying to say, you're going to love this picture movie. To me, Director Terrence Malick is showing war vs. nature. And, in the end, we find war is just another aspect of nature. An aspect of man. And something we just have to live, or die, with.
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible beyond belief
Review: This movie is based on the novel of the same name, but that's the end of the comparison. James Jones' book is one the of most finely crafted works in American literature of the 20th century. He describes the inital terror of combat, with the gradual hardening and numbing of the combat soldier as he survives in this environment.
The movie is so disjointed as to be virtually unwatchable, and misses the entire point of the book. We get endless infantile "psychological" twaddle, and Sean Penn in another of his seemingly endless anti-war roles.
Jones describes the terrors of war, but at no point does he become "antiwar". This wasn't Vietnam, and the people responsible for this movie don't seem to be able to tell the difference.
The scene with the soldier pouring dirt out of his hand as he mutters that "it's only for property" appears to be taken straight out of "Das Kapital".
And the scenes of the poor crying Japanese prisoners begging for help was so absurd as to be almost comical. First, Japanese followed the code of bushido, which made the idea of surrender unthinkable. Second, the very few prisoners actually caught behaved with feelings of intense shame, since they had disgraced both their families and their emperor by allowing themselves to be captured.
Thank god I only paid four dollars to rent it. If I had wasted the money to buy it I also would have been consumed by shame.
Rating: 
Summary: War meets Plato
Review: Though it was purely coincidence that this film came out at roughly the same time as Private Ryan a lot of people seem to compare the two as recent examples of great war movies.
Both films in my opinion fall short of the 'great war film' tag for completely different reasons. While Ryan simplifies the most important event of modern history to an almost arcade game, cowboy action movie this one goes the down the complete opposite path and tries to draw the viewer into the psychological realm of the soldier.
While the characters are well defined due to some brilliant performances (Nick Nolte and John Cusack's were oscar worthy) their thought process is conveyed by a voice over which doesn't seem to distinguish one from the other, they all fall under a sort of poet/philosopher umbrella. This pondering is very much the voice of the director who seems to be exploring his inner world rather than the inner world of the individual soldiers. The other shortfall of this film is the script which starts off solidly and takes the viewer into a captivating battle for a hill, definitely the high point of the film. It then meanders into a series of meaningless battles that do nothing for the plot or substance of the film. The script could have been trimmed down a bit more Mr Malick. BTW you made a much better film than Spielberg but it could have been great had you sacrificed a little arty self indulgence for a slightly more objective representation of the reality of Pacific warfare.
Rating:
Summary: Obviously a poor attempt at an anti-war movie.
Review: This movie was such a disappointment. Not because of its blurry plots or subplots, or because of its bad acting. But because of its "toe-tag" liberal attempt to accuse World War II of being wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm like any other person that thinks war is terrible, but some forget, along the way that some things are worth fighting for. The people behind this movie were among them.
Rating: 
Summary: Not your conventional war movie
Review: The Thin Red Line is a very good war movie set during the battle of Guadalcanal in the Pacific theater. This is not just a shoot 'em up movie about blood and gore, although there are excellent battle scenes in this movie. The movie follows the path of a platoon's involvement in the battle through the eyes of its soldiers. Look carefully because some soldiers do not make much of an impression. This movie does not just show the fighting in war, but also the beliefs and fears of the soldiers. For this reason, many people did not like this movie, but it is still very good. There is a very large cast in this movie with some big names. The people giving better performances are Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel, Nick Nolte, and Ben Chaplin. Some of the more interesting dialogue comes between Penn and Caviezel as they discuss the point of the war. Also starring are John Cusack, Adrien Brody, Elias Koteas, George Clooney in a very small and pointless role, and Woody Harrelson. The thing that makes this movie good is the exceptional performances by the cast. Also, Hans Zimmer turns in another excellent musical score that includes the native of Guadalcanal. The DVD is pretty good with widescreen presentation and trailers included, but much more could have been done. Excellent war movie that differs from the usual shoot 'em up fliks with no point. Watch this movie!
Rating:
Summary: Second Worst Film I Ever Saw
Review: I had the misfortune of sitting through this one in the theater, and I am sad to have wasted those hours of my life. The acting was absolutely horrible. There was no reason to feel anything for any of the characters, so the melodramatic deaths that were meant to be tear-jerking and thought-provoking were either unintentionally funny or just plain boring. The films best quality is the copious amounts of beautiful cinematography, showing lush fields of grass. If you like grain, swaying in the wind of helicopters, and fertilized with dead soldiers, then you might get a few moments of enjoyent in the midst of several hours of excruciating boredom.
Rating:
Summary: The Thin Dead Line
Review: This was absolutely the worst movie that I have watched in recent history. I was so disappointed when I watched this movie, I must have had the wrong intentions: I expected to be entertained. Instead I was lulled into a sleepy, lobotomizing stupor. This movie took place in WWII so one would expect some sort of action right? Well the only highlight in this movie for me was when Sean Penn blew his [rear] off with his own grenade, and I only cheered because of the distast I have for Sean Penn! If you enjoy watching the fuzz on channel 1, then perhaps this movie is for you (they both have the same entertainment value). However I recommend you pass on this lemon.
Rating:
Summary: Art, In a Good Way
Review: A brilliant movie that is valuable becuase it human. The director has succeeded in transfering a unique, unpredictable vision to the screen. It is not flawless but somehow it seems altogether more mature than something along the lines of "Saving Private Ryan", which deteriorates into a Disneyesque, manipulative world of stage set scenery and emotion. The greatest moments of the film are ones of beauty -- sometimes a dark, horrible beauty -- or very small, almost secondary gestures that will be different for every viewer, be it the presence of an exotic animal or the fall of water from a jungle leaf. Personally, I have never found the gentle rise of verdant, grass ridge -- the line of sight just slightly obscured -- to be so terrifying. There is a moment when the otherwise anonymous character of 2nd Lt. Whyte forcefully gestures two point men towards the unknown. The viewer suddenly feels the gentle wind pressing against a single blade of grass, the straining and heat of his equipment and uniform, the nervous popping of gum and the energy of the emphatic motion: go forward. The two point men hesitate, then choose to advance. This decision is a crucial metaphor for the entire film. It is one of the great conundrums of war and of life; to move forward into sacrifice when one need not move and instead survive.
Rating:
Summary: Clearly, the worst war movie ever made
Review: It didn't help this movie at all that it came shortly after "Saving Private Ryan". "Saving Private Ryan" was actually a war movie and a riveting one. This was a really bad attempt at an anti-war movie. It tried to be so philosophical that it wound up being laughable. We are supposed to believe that men involved in desperate combat are going to wax philosophic about the meaning of life in the midst of life and death situations. The film just didn't work, because it tried to be a "message" movie and portrayed itself as an action film. This was a real waste of time and money.
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: I loved the way the moviemakers potrayed Nick Nolte, they made him look so wild and crazy.The other actors were very good such as Adrien Brody,George Clooney,and John Travolta. The movie showed how men go through years of war and how they dealed with it emotionally.It ended sadly when one of the main stars of the movie is killed by japanese troopers.
| 
