Rating: 
Summary: You are my sons. I will carry you in my heart wherever I go.
Review: This movie touched something in my soul. I truly feel sorry for anyone who doesn't understand or appreciate this film for what it is. ..a masterpiece. It should almost be a requirement to view this film more than once. It helps to be in a reflective mood. This is a film much deeper than your typical war film. I just saw it for the third time and it was almost a spirtual experience. I think all great films are this way, the more times you see it the more you see in it. This story is about caring for others amidst the madness of war. Those who care for others are ultimately emotionally devastated or killed. Those who don't care for others become islands, shells with no spark of life. They survive but they don't really live do they? Its quite a tradeoff. This theme runs through every character in every beutifully shot scene. The fact that the action takes place in a garden of eden makes the film unlike anything I've every seen. I don't know how this didn't win best picture of the year. I could go on and on about the casting and the acting, especially Nick Nolte and Jim Caviezel but I think I'd run out of space. Malick is a genius and I for one will be seeing move of his films.
Rating: 
Summary: Mediocre at best -- should have stayed a novel
Review: This is not a horrible movie, but it is far from good. I will discuss the bad first.1. The characters were terrible. While this film has a big cast, many of the them only have a few scenes, and those even with longer screen time are not developed. There's nothing to these guys at all. 2. The voice-overs are obnoxious. Not only are they often incoherent, but the thoughts are pointless at best. Voice-overs work well in books, not on film. 3. The story: Who needs it? This is a paper thin story. Lots of time is just wasted where there's absolutely nothing going on, which brings me to 4. Overlength. If there ever was a movie that needed to be cut, it is this. This could've been done far more effectively in two hours. 5. This film is not useful for a student of history. Little to no insights. 6. The ending was very anti-climactic. The good: 1. Excellent visuals. The cinematography was great, and there were some very good action scenes as well. The action had a very grand, sweeping feel to it. While it's not up to par with the realism of Spielberg's Private Ryan, it still was well done. Also, the DVD picture quality was first rate. 2. Excellent sound. The gun fire and explosions were awesome, and I don't even have 5.1. You'll definitely be impressed here. That's about it. I highly recommend that you skip this and watch Saving Private Ryan instead. Or even Full Metal Jacket. The Thin Red Line is too long, with no point, and bad characterizations.
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest movies I have ever seen
Review: It seems here that either this movie gets 5 stars or 1. Take a look at the comments under the 5-star reviews. They are all logical and sophisticated. Now look at the 1-star reviews. All usually two or three lines complaining about how the action doesn't measure up to SPR's. That's not what this movie is about. There is so much meaning and themes in each of the characters. Each of the characters feels real. The cinematography is gorgeous. The music, especially when they are taking over the Japanese base is touching. I still have those Melanesian songs in my head... Anyway, I most definitely reccommend this film. It'll make you think on higher levels. You may be somewhat dissappointed the first time seeing it, but once you start it a second time, and start really paying attention to each of the character's insights and soliloquies, it'll sink in. I went to see this movie with my father and an actual veteran of the Battle for Guadacanal. A man on the battlefields. He was enthralled by the picture, saying that this was exactly what it was like. And who better to judge than he? Some complain about the big movie stars' minor roles. I believe this works to the movie's advantage. By using well-known actors as major roles in this film, you don't really think of them as soldiers, you think of them as the actors you see all over the place. I certainly felt that way in SPR. I'm sorry for making this so long, but I honestly think it's one of the greatest pictures of the decade. And I still choke up when I see that photograph in the booklet with the rifle and helmet on the ground...
Rating: 
Summary: If it wasn't supposed to be about war maybe....
Review: OK, there are those out there that want something deep, that's fine by me. HOWEVER, I don't think they should use such a tragic part of American history to glorify ideals that are forgotten in these situations. The soldier who shot a Japanese soldier was babbling something about murder, uh really? Bad things happan in war, bad things happan in life, people put bad things in different context, well keep it faithful to history folks. It's the least we could do for those we left behind on that small island in the middle of the Pacific! Ask anyone who was there and they'll tell you that you are not human in war, and you do unhuman things.
Rating:
Summary: A visually stunning masterpiece
Review: I find it amazing and rediculous that people compare Terrance Mallick's "The Thin Red Line" with "Saving Private Ryan". The only thing these movies have in common is that they take place during World War 2 and that they came out the same year. Mallick's film is quite a masterpiece and it goes beyond the traditional war film like Coppala's "Apocalypse Now". Mallick's filming is like none I have ever seen. This is the first and only film I had seem of his yet I have come to understand that the way he captures nature is quite stunning. That statement stands true in this film and is taken a step further. It shows nature before and after the battles that rage through it. This is something that is rarely shown in war films and is a real spectacle. As far as the acting goes, everyone is perfect. It has an all star cast which is one thing that helped advertise this movie but that also caused a few problems. Due to the heavy amounts of editing (the original cut ran about 6 hours I believe) a lot of actors' screen time is very short and pretty much amounting to an all star cast of cameo roles. Such examples are John Cusak is in a lengthy battle sequence and is never seen again. George Cloony is in the film for about a minute. Is the film bad because of this? No. In fact it does not ruin the film a bit. There is not a whole lot of dialogue for the actors. The film has little to do with acting though Nick Nolte gives a wonderful performance as a drill seargant that should have gotten him an Oscar nomination. It is a film that really proves that classics are still being made even when it seems like they are not. I really enjoyed this film and I think all movie buffs should view it. I have yet to view Mallick's other films but this film certainly made me curious to see them. Though I find it hard to believe they could be as wonderful as this.
Rating:
Summary: Thin Red Plot
Review: This movie is absolute garbage... I wanted to see a movie that would show what actually happened at Guadalcanal. Why were we there? What was it's strategic importance? What about the naval battle that was brewing in the surrounding ocean? This movie answers none of these questions. This is some bizarre film that talks about the effect of war on nature. Mr. Malik's version of the U.S. Soldiers is very unique, but not very realistic. I've read many books and seen many documentaries on WWII, and I have to say that his interpretation is flawed. That's only the beginning. It's lack of historical value and realism is mind numbing. The Marines arrived on Guadalcanal before the Japanese and in superior numbers. So why is it, in the film, that they are the attackers? ... Japanese soldiers did not cower in fear and did not surrender when assaulted by U.S. troops. They were very willing to die for their cause. Ever hear about the "Code of Bushido", Mr. Malik? Probably not...
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful, yet horrific work of art.
Review: This film will move you. It is not so much a war film, but an exploration of how people react to a war-like situation. Please understand, the people who wrote negative reviews about this movie, usually gave superficial reasons as to why they did not like it. They said it was too long, or it didn't make sense, or it was historically inaccurate. Well first of all, the film's length is appropriate to its subject matter. Second, If anyone appreciates movies with deeper meanings, then they will realize that this film does make sense. Lastly, if anyone studies history they will realize that it is historically accurate. Uneducated people sit here and say it is historically inaccurate without being sure. It is though, down to so many minute details. The cinematography in this film is incredible. The acting is so well done that you are forced to identify with each character. Few films are create magic anymore. Do yourself a favor. Sit down, watch this movie. Don't go to the theater and see another senseless action movie. Open yourself up, and realize the many horrors and many beauties of war, through this movie. Thank you for reading this. I hope it helped.
Rating:
Summary: Worst movie ever
Review: I can't believe I actually sat through the entire movie. I kept waiting for the good part. The trailer talked about all the big stars that were in it. Most of the "big names" had only cameo roles that lasted no more that three minutes. I don't understand why this movie received all the awards, etc. that it did. I would never recommend it to anyone...
Rating:
Summary: Grandiose.
Review: You buy a cd listen to it, and after a first listen you might not find the tunes "catchy" enough to stick in your head, you are maybe even dissapointed. But the next time you listen to it you hear more intricate details, you start admiring the subtleties, every time you listen to it you discover something new. These are generally the cd's you end up listening to the longest. This movie is that cd, the 3rd time I saw it, spotting the symbolism I had missed before ; the fire, the open empty bird cage, the use of water throughout, the officer whose wife has left him starring out at the ocean whilst a man can be seen in the distance bathing. Reflection of past and present, change and duality in nature, the mind vs the heart, but more importantly the individual ego vs seeing yourself in others. The movie use the war as a backdrop for these themes. "What stops us from reaching out and touching the glory ?", the mind, for it cannot encompass the infinite, beyond it "light and darkness, love and strife" are one. That is why the movie is not patriotic, not one sided, it goes much beyond the bad vs good guy routine. The director Terrence Malick studied philosophy at MIT....not surprising... If you really have to compare, Saving Private Ryan is one of those cd's that you really like after a first listen, really catchy, but after a while....
Rating:
Summary: How quickly would you turn away from an art treasure?
Review: Would you dart by and simply glance at the Mona Lisa? A still-life by Cezzane? An abstract by Picasso? Or perhaps you wouldn't bother glancing at these masterpieces at all. If you're in this camp, then perhaps the Thin Red Line is not the movie for you. I watched it for the fourth time (the first time on video) and I learned more about the characters and the various themes. I also was made breathless by the beautiful cinematography and the multi-layered score. Mostly, I was amazed by how many thoughts went through my mind while watching this film (on human nature, mortality... the list goes on and on). How can we not admire and praise any artist whose work conjures up such thoughts and feelings. Have patience with this film, learn and grow from watching it.
| 
