Rating: 
Summary: SACRIFICE.....
Review: Alongside the never seen "THE VICTORS", 'A TIME TO LOVE AND A TIME TO DIE" [the excellent remake - John Gavin - of the unsurpassed "ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT"] - THIS vision of hell on earth - counterpointed with scenes of creation is another mandatory experience for the visionary.Superb performances [?] by Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn [Major Star turn], Nick Nolte, Elias Koteas, perfect casting. Mr. Caviezel is the central figure ~ watching and commenting on the senseless slaughter of lives on both sides - with the flashback to happier times at home ..... This one leaves you dry-eyed, but very moved - only the third movie from Mr. Malick. Great sound and image transfer to DVD - no extras though ..... Very diffent from the original with Kier Dullea [1964] - also noteworthy.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Anti-War Flick
Review: Picked this up at the library and was blown away. If you understand that film is an art form and a political medium, and not just entertainment, you are certain to appreciate the genius behind the production. Great cinematography, score, acting, editing, and message. No, it's not a Sean Penn Film, or a George Clooney film, or a Nick Nolte film, or a Woody Harrelson film, or a John Travolta film, etc. That's the very point. This is an extremely realistic and thoughtful look at the devastation that war brings, both on physical and moral levels. I'm sure all the actors were happy to assume supporting roles. This is the modern equivalent of "All Quiet On The Western Front," and is superior to "Apocalypse Now" and "Platoon" in my opinion. Strangely, as I watched it, I knew that nothing changes the fact that we must still engage in war, no matter how terrible it is.
Rating:
Summary: One of all times' best war films
Review: One great movie from one of the best directors the XXth century has seen. Along with Badlands and Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line is another Masterpiece by Terrence Malick. Some people, who expect another of those 'traditional' war films full of frantic action, will not like this movie, which gives a much more intimate view of the human relations in war. This movie is OUTSTANDING, and if you are a true lover of the seventh art, then it is a must !!
Rating:
Summary: "ONLY THE DEAD HAVE SEEN AN END TO WAR"- Plato
Review: Set in Guadalcanal in 1942, this film is obstensibly about a group of soldiers taking the Islands back from the Japanese; the essence of the film, however, is a contemplation of men in war. Reading the other reviews, this is obviously a love it or hate it film. Speaking for myself, and as a human being, I immensely enjoyed the spiritual narrative and the existential contemplations supported by sumptious cinematography (hence the 5 stars). On the other hand, for a former corpsman of the 2nd Marine Division and someone who got his degree in history, as a portrayal of actual events, this is merely yet another Hollywood anti-military vehicle belittling the role and substance of our military and the people within it.. This film is also more about Hollywood 's interpretation of Vietnam than about Guadalcanal, where America began their offensive on their island hopping campaign to the Japanese home islands. Why Hollywood has such an intrinsic and pathological hostility to our military can be argued on several levels, but the main thing to remember (in my opinion, take it or leave it) is that it would be incredibly naive to think that our safety and security is a natural condition, and that we could live our lives as we do without the presence of our military abroad, or the presence of our police on our streets, whose role is predicated on the threat and occasional use of force. Anyone who thinks otherwise, including the director of this film, who seems to think we have a choice of whether to fight our not, need to see the world as it is and not how they would like to think it is. We had no choice to fight the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, we had no choice to fight the Germans after Hitler declared war on us the day after Pearl Harbor, and we really don't have a choice fighting Islamic fundamentalists (although I am ambiguous about invading Iraq). I'm not against a thoughtful movie on war, but they should be thoughts based on accurate historical facts and realistic interpretations of those facts, not a cut-and-paste manipulation of facts. So while Thin Red Line was, for me, a great film, I'd still reccomend Band of Brothers as a far superiour portrayal of Amerian military men fighting in World War II. The art-house crowd denizens who say otherwise live in a hypothetical world that has no basis in reality..
Rating: 
Summary: The Naysayers are Simpletons
Review: If you want lots of action go rent T2 or something. And, all else aside,to get a couple of no-name guys like Caviezel and Koteas turning in the performances they did is a massive tribute to them, the script and the director. The entire cast here definitely outdid 'Ryan' and everything else that year.
Rating:
Summary: A piece of art
Review: This is one of the best war films and an extraordinary Terence Mallick’s coming back. It combines the flair of good, old war movies with a touch of poetry. Perhaps it is a little more academic than an average viewer expects, and it is based on real drama and not on the plot. Not strictly commercial as «Saving Private Ryan», for instance, but just a piece of real art.Ã
Rating:
Summary: A good WWII movie
Review: The story is interesting and well filmed.
Rating:
Summary: The Thin Red Line - WWII in the Pacific
Review: This movie steps away from the norm for World War II films and for that matter, war films in general. It is a hauntingly realistic view of a US Army Infantry Battalion and its men fighting the bloody battle for Guadal Canal. This film is wrought with an almost spiritual sense of moral chaos as these men face the brutalities of war without and within themselves. Despite its all star lineup to include; Nick Nolte, Woody Harrelson, Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel, John Cusack and brief appearances by George Clooney and John Travolta, the films overall atmosphere is melodramatic and at times, tedious. One point of note would be that given what appears to have been a large enough budget, none of the American soldiers wore any rank whatsoever. I found this oversight, slightly distracting considering that the filmmakers were apparently trying to make as realistic a film as possible. The premise: MINOR SPOILER World War II in the Pacific and Nick Nolte's character is a Colonel in charge of a US Army Infantry Battalion charged with the task to take Guadal Canal from the Japanese in order to secure an airfield. The film opens up with some beautiful scenery and a couple soldiers who are, by all appearances, living with some Pacific Islanders. A naval vessel approaches the island and we then meet Sean Penn's character who is the company First Sergeant, sent to retrieve these two AWOL (Absent without leave) soldiers. We're then taken to where the rest of the company is, preparing for a beach assault and the rest of the film. Overall, I found this film worth watching, yet not quite up to the expectations I had with reference to the 7 Academy Award Nominations & Including Best Picture boldly labeled on the DVD Jacket. Special features: Several Melanesian Songs which are quite beautiful in and of themselves, but that is about it with the Special features. {ssintrepid}
Rating: 
Summary: Worst movie to be nominated for Best Picture
Review: Critics raved about the director's past work. Were eager to see new work, especially such an attractive cast in such an ambitious subject. They saw the movie. The movie was "artsy." They raved. But did anyone understand it? I don't care how "philosophical" it was, or how pretty the flowers on the island looked in contrast to the brutality of war. I know it was an anti-war statement (at least I imagine it was). But any "issue" movie still needs to have a coherent plot. It was virtually impossible to follow the strategy of the soldiers or frankly to care what was going on or to care about the characters. Most of the major actors in the movie had very few scenes (as though they wanted to pad their resumes with this film). In SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, for example, we saw the utter brutality of war, but we always knew what the soldiers were doing, where they were in relationship to each other, and we had a stake in their actions. In THIN RED LINE, we flat out have no idea what their military goal is, how they are working to achieve it and how it's going. I think no critics were willing to say that the movie is actually too-long, boring, ploddingly paced (inexcusable for a war movie) and poorly acted by most. YUCK!
Rating:
Summary: Superb, but not not for everyone
Review: It is an excellant, beautiful film in all regards, but definitely do not buy this movie if you are looking for a gung ho, heavy hitting, action oriented war movie. I don't belive that it was ever the director's intention to tell a war story at all, fact or fiction. The battles in this film don't have a beginning or an end, they just sort of flow by. The reality is that this is more about psycology than anything, and NO it does not make Amercan GIs in the Pacific out as cowards. It does offer us a look at how different people responded to their fear in different ways, presented essentially as one long stream of conciesness. It is stunning to watch but, but it is not for everyone. If you thought the scenes in Saving Private Ryan where the "old Ryan" visied the cemetary were pretty clever film making, then you will not like this movie. If you are unsure, rent it and you will either want to own it forever, or you will join the one star crowd of Thin Red Line haters.
| 
