Rating: 
Summary: Terence Malick should go back into retirement
Review: Some reviewers have called this movie realistic. I think they're right. It is a realistic depiction of a drug-addled director's view of Guadalcanal. The only military action depicted is American action against Gifu strongpoint, and not the much more significant American defense of Henderson field, where the bulk of Japanese forces were annihilated. Combat scenes are hallucinatory, both from the standpoint of camerawork and its departures from what happened as described by actual participants in the battle and official history. For instance, the movie depicts the attack as occurring across grasslands. In reality, dense jungle impeded the advance of the American Army's 25th Division every step of the way. Japanese defensive positions were invisible until US troops were within 15 feet. In the end, tanks were needed to end the bloody stalemate. None of this is shown in the movie. The director seems to be trying to make the point that war is stupid. In this respect, there are far better and more coherent movies, such as All Quiet on the Western Front and Go Tell the Spartans. It fails both as a war movie and as an anti-war movie.
Rating:
Summary: I've seen better films on public television
Review: This film could put a chain smoker to sleep during an earthquake. It's so boring you won't believe it. The combat doesnt look real either. The actors portraying Japanese soldiers act like a bunch of twelve year olds who have never seen a gun go off before. They throw their hands up at the first sign of an American soldier without putting up a fight (yeah right!). In addition to all that, the history is all messed up. The US soldiers are portrayed as attackers when in fact they dug in and defended the island from the Japanese. What a joke.
Rating: 
Summary: It's not Private Ryan
Review: I think that the main issue a lot of people have with this movie is that it is not a rock'em, sock'em, blow'em up flick like Private Ryan was. Since they came out in theatres around the same time I think that the film gets unfairly compared to Ryan on a real regular basis, whether consciously or not. It comes down to this: if you're looking for a Pacific-theatre version of that other movie, you're going to be disappointed. (Go buy Starship Troopers or something.) I read the book before I saw this movie (on DVD) and really enjoyed it as a novel. This film treatment takes liberties but is entirely appropriate in tone and absolutely superior in its shooting, angles, and virtually every other technical detail. Some of the grotesque humor from the book survives and the essential struggle of the characters is faithfully portrayed. The acting is simply amazing as well. It's definitely not your typical war movie, though. It's not even your typical action movie. It's just completely atypical in its approach to war, an approach which is - for lack of a better term - artistic.
Rating:
Summary: Most boring movie of ALL TIME
Review: This big bad 3 hour movie has about five minutes of combat action in it. During which, the Japanese soldiers act like a bunch of cowards who surrender (!?!?!?) at the first hint of danger. George Clooney and John Travolta are each only given about two minutes in this humongous film. Buy it if you are an insomniac looking for a cure.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a superb movie, but still good.
Review: If the movie were shorter, say within 2 hours, then it would be better. It just didn't need to be that long. The movie itself is good, senses are beautiful, but sometimes it can get boring, and unclear.
Rating:
Summary: I wish I'd never seen it.
Review: How can I convey how utterly boring this movie is? This is one of two movies that I have ever wanted to leave the theater mid way through. I kept thinking it would get better; the previews looked so cool! So I sat through it and let me tell you, I will never get those hours back.
If you like extremely dramatic movies that are more interested in showing you mostly nature footage, then you may like this. It is not a war movie in the sense of "Full Metal Jacket", "Platoon", or "Saving Private Ryan". Those movies had well written stories, great acting and plenty of appropriate action. "Thin Red Line" has none of that. For every minute you see of fighting or real concerns of war, you are subjected to ten minutes of National Geographic style nature footage. There's only so many times a director should aim the camera at the nice green grass and then slowly pan up to the sky. This movie far exceeds that limit.
Rating:
Summary: American Masterpiece
Review: This film beatifully captures the psychological aspects of war and envokes thinking and emotion and therefore goes farther and deeper and is more meaningful than any other war film ever made to this point. It was a relief to see a film like this after enduring the superficial and boring and frankly pathetic attepmt Speilberg made in "Saving Private Ryan." Other films about War i like were "Platoon", "A Bridge Too Far" and "Full Metal Jacket."
Rating:
Summary: The
Review: This is one of the Top 10 war movies of all time. Brilliantly directed, this was nominated for 7 Oscars, including Best Picture. It has an all-star cast: Sean Penn, John Cusak, Woody Harrelson, Nick Nolte, John Travolta, Ben Chaplin, Jim Caviezel, and they're all wonderful. But what makes this movie so incredible is its atmosphere--the astounding cinematography takes you right into the jungle and shows you the thin line between beauty and horror, an island paradise ravaged by war and the effects it has on men. This movie is not about blood and guts; it is a mature film about the damage war does to men, both in body and soul. War does not build up and glorify, it strips down and destroys and this film portrays very accurately how war affects each individual differently, and how "each man fights his own war." If you haven't read the book it's based on (The Thin Red Line), it is very good at reproducing it. The author was himself a WWII vet in the jungles, just like this story, and shows war at face value. This movie has no "ulterior motive," no "special message" and no phoney emotions drummed up by some Hollywood screenwriter. This is one of the most realistic films you will ever see, and has been called an "anti anti-war film," meaning it breaks all stereotypes and clichés associated with war films. This is not Saving Private Ryan--in many ways it is far better and makes you think in a way no other film can. ...
Rating: 
Summary: Drawn out long movie, but still a decent movie
Review: The movie was good overall and was very real in the sense of capturing what our men went thru in war, but the parts with the soldier who dreams and drifts back to Africa and the clips showing things happening in Africa kind of ruined the flavor of the movie. Without these clips, the movie would be shorter, less drawn out and the action would be more compact. This movie is on the same wave as FULL METAL JACKET but is drawn out a lot longer. It could use a good editing in the studios and rereleased as another version of this movie, a shorter more action packed version.
Rating:
Summary: If I could give it a "zero" I would
Review: This is the only movie I ever walked out of in the middle while attending the viewing in a theater, and I stayed an hour longer than I would have liked just hoping the movie would improve. War is not poetry no matter how beautifully filmed. All I can say is thank God the majority of soldiers do not behave in the manner portrayed in this film, we'd never win a war. I have noticed people usually either love or hate this movie, rarely falling anywhere in the middle. I most obviously fall into the loathe it catagory. I found it to be confusing, slow, and boring. My time would have been better spent cleaning out trash cans and sewing on lost buttons.
|
