The Thin Red Line

Rating:
Summary: Nothing New
Review: I was highly disappointed by this movie. With such a stellar cast and a topic that is not often covered by WWII movies, the war in the Pacific, I thought it would be a can't miss movie. Not so.

Many of the big-name actors have no more than a cameo appearance. The action scenes were well done; however, there were not enough of them.

I realize that this was supposed to be a movie about the relationships that form as a result of the high intensity situation that is war. The movie did not give the viewer enough of a description of that high intensity state to really appreciate the relationships that these soldiers formed.

The voice-overs were often difficult to understand and confusing. There were a few instances when I didn't know who was speaking. It would have been much better to have these men express themselves through conversations or just through body language.

The movie really did not find a new way of dealing with the subject matter. In the end it felt like many other movies that had come before it. But it didn't manage to improve on those films and in many cases failed to live up to its forerunners.

Rating:
Summary: I nominate this for "Worst War Movie" of all time
Review: Coming out at the same time as "Saving Private Ryan" and having top notch stars like Nick Nolte and Sean Penn I highly anticipated watching this movie.

Finally having seen it on home video and watching it twice, I can tell you "It's a snoozer". I only watched it twice because I could not believe it was so bad on the first viewing.

The dominant theme of this movie seems to be war is full of psychotics. Nick Nolte is a psychotic, ambitious officer, and the Japanese opponents are all psychotics lost in a Buddhist Zen trance who can't fight because they are all sitting around crosslegged in loin cloths chanting "Om.."

I find the film insulting to both the Japanese, and to American veterans who faced the Japanese Empire at its height in the beginning of WWII and defeated them soundly, but not without a lot of hard fighting and sacrifice. Watching this movie makes you wonder why we didn't win in a day or two and with one hand tied behind our backs. The Japanese are portrayed as having less military skills than Saddam Hussein, and as a crying bunch of sobbing wimps and whiners. In the film, the Japanese panic, have emotional breakdowns at the slightest confrontation Americans, and readily surrender. In real life, they fanatically fought until the end and committed suicide rather than surrender.

The battle scenes are not very realistic. Whoever was the military consultant on this film obviously felt the Japanese did not have the military competency to fight their way out of a sandbox, which even casual historians of Guadacanal would tell you is not true.

After the "climatic" battle scene in the middle of the film, which basically shows the Japanese as having no tactical skill at all, (for example, their machine guns are set up to shoot pointblank into their own camp) the film degrades into an hour of philosophical mumblings by Sean Penn. It's great if you have trouble otherwise falling asleep.

Basically the film is not entertaining. It was not well crafted. Instead of reaching into the depths of your soul to encourage you to answer some eternal philosophical dichotomies, which I assume was their intent, the only eternal question is "Why did I waste my time and money"?

Rating:
Summary: One of the worst films I've ever seen
Review: I have to be perfectly honest, I really wanted to like the Thin Red Line. But after suffering through Terrence Malick's much overrated three hour "film," I was thinking more about how I'd lost three hours of my life.

This is not a film for war movie lovers. This is a movie for psuedo-intellectuals who like to consider themselves "artistes" and fall in love with this film only because it is so different from the clearly superior Saving Private Ryan. Perhaps Saving Private Ryan does have a formulaic nature, but at least SPR is focused. The Thin Red Line is three hours of digressive refuse. Malick's attempt at "finding a film" while shooting fails miserably because he never seems to truly find a focus. The film brings up some points about man and nature, the chaotic nature of war, and the role of the individual within war but just the same, the whole thing could've been much shorter and many of those ideas have been done before in other war movies. Quite frankly, taking three hours to find a film and still failing is just an offense towards the good people in the audience who thought they were paying money for a film that had already been found. Aside from this, the celebrity cameos in the film are without question among the worst I've ever seen. Not only are they bad, but you'd think relying so heavily on celebrity cameos would be against the nature of a film that supposedly tries so much to be different. The sole saving grace of the film is the cinematography is beautiful, and full of beautiful imagery. With just that lone quality, I might have enjoyed the film more... however 3 hours is quite a bit of time for a film with one good quality.

Skip this movie if you're looking for anything entertaining or intellectually interesting. Saving Private Ryan is clearly The Thin Red Line's superior.

Rating:
Summary: Does this movie GO anywhere?
Review: I've only seen this movie once, so maybe, just maybe it gets better with multiple viewings.

First the good: excellent cinematography and a couple of riveting battle scenes.

Now the bad: The plot, if you can call it that, involves an US Army company going into Guadalcanal, fighting a couple of firefights, getting shot up, securing the island, then finally getting relieved and pulled out. All the while the characters have highly philosophical thoughts presented to the audience via voice-overs. There is really no plot as one scene shifts to another and "events happen."

Ok, I've seen and enjoyed Apocalypse Now and highly recommend that movie in place of the Thin Red Line. Why TRL fails even in the philosophic/artistic front vs Apocalypse Now is that it doesn't bring to closure any of the philosophical thoughts it presents. I think the movie attempts to present too many different ideas from "war is futile", "playing a role", to "love vs hate" to really do a good job with any one of them.

If I were to rate the movie alone I may have given it 3 stars out of 5 but the DVD treatment falls far short of it's potential. True, the audio and visuals are stunning, the scene selection feature is nicely done, and it includes standards such as widescreen and alternate language(Spanish) subtitles. Where it fall short, however, is the "bonus material." Included on the DVD is not director's or background material to help you understand the point of the movie. No background info on the battles of the Pacific Islands of WWII or even the actors can be found here either. What's included is 12 tracks of Melanesian Songs. That's right! Granted these songs add to the atmosphere of the movie as part of the soundtrack, but a whole CD of them! I got to the third track trying to give it a fair shake before I couldn't take the shrilling anymore! I guess they really cut a CD as it's pictured on screen while the "music" is playing. Is this somebody's sick marketing idea for this movie? For excellent examples of DVD bonus features I highly recommend Casablanca, Saving Private Ryan, and The Right Stuff.

In summary: good artistic approach in videos and audios, no plot, fails to play out philosophical ideas, lame DVD bonus material (2 out of 5 stars).

Rating:
Summary: A Great Example of What IT IS
Review: And what it is, is NOT your standard movie.

Traditional movies are constructed around the narrative with the visuals and sound effects employed to highten the emotional ties to the plot. Whatever else, the narrative must come first This movie is ALL about the image with everything else a distant second.

Whereas Saving Private Ryan may be like a great novel, this movie is like a great painting. For those of you who know it, think of the giant Gaugain that hangs in the MFA in Boston. Because of this, it is MUCH more work for the viewer and is about what the viewer brings to the viewing almost as much as what is actually shown.

If you are looking for a traditional movie, look elsewhere. It is also worth noting that this is a prime example of a movie that should be, make that DESERVES to be seen in a theatre- One with the biggest screen and best projection and sound you can find. If you do not have a state-of-the-art video system with at least a 32 in. screen AND do not plan to watch the movie straight through without interruption, don't bother.

Simply put, this isn't a movie, it's art.

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic - a slightly flawed but awe-inspiring masterpiece
Review: I have to admit that I disliked this film initially. It certianly isn't for every taste, and it's sheer torture to sit through if you're in a restless mood. That said, if you ARE in the right mood, it's absolutely incredible. This was my second favorite movie of 1998, and would have been a shoo-in for first in almost any other year.

Perhaps the big turn-off for many was this film's unconventionality. I'd be hard-pressed to compare it to any other film that I've seen - it is very, very artsy, incredibly slow - and amazingly, it works beautifully.

On my second viewing, I realized that the film follows the Three Act structure (I didn't think it had any sort of structure at all when I first saw it). The first act serves to set up the characters - sort of. It exists even moreso to set a mood of tension and restlesness, and perhaps even feelings of boredom. And then it is shattered by the intense violence of the second (which encompasses most of the movie). The majority of the film is one extended battle scene, intercut with brief flashbacks and voice-overs. The artsier elements do not detract from the action, but add to it - they succeed in briefly letting the viewer peek into the minds of the soldiers, only to be suddenly yanked back into reality when the battle resumes.

The battle scenes are amazing (second only to "Saving Private Ryan" in my opinion). They're brutal, horrifying, and at times beautiful due to the amazing cinematography. The second act is as immersive, brilliant, and haunting as any film that I have ever seen.

The only problems come during the first and third acts. Malick takes a little too long to get the film started. Although the initial scenes - which consist of two soldiers' experiencing a near-eden-like paradise while going AWOL, and the preperations for battle - are effective and necessary, hints of pretentiousness sink in. The film is just a tad too artsy near the beginning, and a lot of people that disliked the movie probably gave up on it because of this.

The final act is effective at winding the film down, but the problems from the first persist - it's a bit too long, and comes over as pretentious at times. That said, there are two sequences (one where a soldier gets a devastating note from his wife, and another where one of the main characters is killed) that are nothing short of incredible.

The performances are phenominal all around. The two standouts are Nick Nolte and newcomer Jim Caviezel, both of whom should have been nominated for Oscars. Nolte is riveting and intense as the colonel in charge of the operation. His character is hard, mean, and somewhat reckless with the lives of his men, and yet Nolte somehow manages to evoke sympathy for him. Caviezel is forever questioning the nature of war, his place in it, and if there's any deeper meaning to the hell that he's going through. He is absolutely perfect - genuine, sympathetic, sincere, and yet strong when he needs to be. Although restricted to a relatively small role, Sean Penn is also very good as the company's pessimistic seargent.

As to how it stacks up to "Saving Private Ryan" - it was my second favorite movie of 1998, "Ryan" was my first. It's really hard to compare the two - they are so, so different - so I won't, beyond saying that Spielberg's film had more of an impact on me. However, the two are comparable from the standpoint of quality (I can easily see why someone would "The Thin Red Line" above "Ryan). I highly recommend both of them, and consider them to be the two best war movies ever made.

All in all, "The Thin Red Line" is filmmaking of an incredibly high order. It's slight faults are easily offset by the sheer brilliance of what is done right. It's a real shame that it tanked at the box office - films this unconventional, powerful, and thought-provoking don't come along very often.

Rating:
Summary: The Thin Red Line - A Contemplation of war?
Review: This film is not like any other war film I have witnessed. It is not an action war movie as for the most part it tends to abstract the enemy, but I certainly didn't find myself bored either. I think the lack of action is intentional. It is not film that really wants to focus on the pain and suffering of the body, it wants you to sit back and contemplate what exactly the war meant for the characters we meet and possibly for us too. I think the lack of very well known actors in the main parts helps us believe we are getting to know these people. (I also think the cameo roles are a bit annoying).

The film has been criticised for being a bit pretentious on Malicks part and this argument is not completely unfounded, but I tend to go for style in my films anyway (like Leon by Luke Besson for example) so I found the shots of the grass blowing and the sun shining through the trees quite enthralling.

A film which has a similar premise is probably Apocalypse Now by Francis Ford Coppola (did I spell that right?), except the thin red line has a better ending, so if you saw and liked this one I would recommend you see that.

Well I hope this review has helped you a bit. One thing I would definately recommend is that you see this film before you ever consider buying it.

Rating:
Summary: Among the great films of the 90's
Review: I was first in line to see this film last year when it opened in theatres. I had loved the book, loved the director, and loved the cast. I didn't know what to make of the film. I originally found it slow, ponderous, and nothing at all like the book that had kept me riveted for 600 pages. I thought the cinematography was terrific and some of the performances (notably Elias Koteas and Ben Chaplin) were excellent. But on the whole I was disappointed.

Then about two weeks later I went to see the film again. On the second viewing, I was taken in. The battle scenes were exciting and the visuals struck me as absolutely beautiful. But still, I was hesitant to give the film a glowing recommendation.

I asked for the widescreen edition of the video for Christmas because the more I thought about the film, the better I liked it. Finally the other night I watched it for a third time...it's one of the greatest films I've ever seen and certainly one of the best films of the past decade. The cinematography, the battle scenes, the performances, the score, everything came together in a riveting three hours. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I found myself awestruck, wondering how Terrence Malick could have choreographed some of the battle scenes. The canvas he paints is so large and so vivid.

Some highlights: Elias Koteas as Staros, the captain with a conscience; Ben Chaplin, the young private who daydreams of his wife back home; the assault on the Japanese hilltop bunker; Woody Harrelson's "big" scene; the attack in the fog; the shot of the soldier crying in hysterics in the rain...I could on.

I do think Nick Nolte is a little over the top and I have a difficult time understanding everything he says, and George Clooney's cameo appearance seems a little unnecessary though I understand Malick originally shot about six hours of film and a lot of performances ended on the cutting room floor.

If you have the time and the interest, give this film a shot. It make take you a while, but if given the chance this hauntingly powerful film with stay with you for a much longer time than most standard Hollywood films.

Rating:
Summary: THERE IS MUCH TO LIKE IN THIS MOVIE, AND MUCH TO HATE
Review: THE THIN RED LINE IN THE END ANALYSIS IS DONE IN BY ITS UNEVEN STORYLINE AND LENGTH. TERRENCE MALICK MAKES HIS POINT ABOUT THE JUXTAPOSITION OF NATURE AND MAN WITHIN THE FIRST HALF AN HOUR, AND PROCEEDS TO BEAT OUR HEADS IN WITH IT THROUGH THE REST OF THE FILM. HE COULD HAVE MADE HIS POINT AND PRODUCED A MUCH MORE COHERENT, EFFICIENT MOVIE BY GOOD EDITING. THIS MOVIE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE THAN TWO HOURS, AT THE MOST. I DON'T MIND LONG MOVIES AS LONG AS THE TIME IS NOT USED TO REPEAT THE SAME POINTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. A GREAT EXAMPLE ARE THE FLASHBACKS TO THE WIFE, THESE FLASHES ARE UNNECESSARILY LONG AND THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEM. STILL, THERE IS A LOT TO LIKE. THE BATTLE SCENES ARE BEAUTIFULLY DONE, WITH SOME OF THE MOST HAUNTING MOMENTS AND GREAT CINEMATOGRAPHY I CAN REMEMBER. IT'S UNFORTUNATE MALLICK IGNORED INTERESTING CHARACTERS TO FOCUS ON INCREASINGLY REPETITIVE PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS. GET A BETTER EDITOR, AND I THINK THIS MOVIE COULD BE REDONE WITH THE EXISTING FOOTAGE TO CREATE A CLASSIC. IT IS WAY TOO GARBLED AND PREACHY IN ITS CURRENT STATE.

Rating:
Summary: Thin Red Lies
Review: I saw this movie and thought it wasn't well done. The movie is hard to follow. One major note to people whole love Gory movies, this one is not for you. No gory scenes at all. The sound track is alright and some of the special effects, but other then that its long and drawn out. if you're interested in a good gory movie look at HAMBURGER HILL or FULL METAL JACKET or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.