Rating: 
Summary: Great movie, mediocre DVD
Review: I personally think The Thin Red Line is a terrific film, even though it lacks a coherent plot. There's something consistently sublime about it's dialogue and cinematography that I appreciate more with each viewing. But I can only give a partial recommendation to those seeking to buy the DVD. A film like The Thin Red Line demands a lot more in DVD form than the current editions offer. There are several equally underproduced DVDs on the market, the most extensive of which only offers a Melanesian songs special feature. The Thin Red Line was apparently around 4 hours in length before being extensively edited to its current 3 hour length. A deleted scenes feature would be fascinating to see in a future edition. Also, for that matter, this is a movie that cries out for a director's commentary feature. Again, this was not done, nor was the standard documentary including interviews with the actors. In short this was a terribly underdone DVD. The film itself looks terrific, but this was a missed opportunity to shed more light on the mystery and magic of The Thin Red Line
Rating:
Summary: Potential masterpeice. Needs editing.
Review: This film had great potential. The storyline and commentary on war was unique, deep, troubling, and strangly inspirational. Excellent cinematography as well. Unfortunatly it has about 3 or 4 too many endings. For the last half hour I wanted the movie to end. There needed to be some more tough editing decisions. My opinion is that it shouldn't have gone farther than when he was killed. Alot of the movie's power and potential are lost in the succesion of overbearing narration (including G. Cloonys speach) that makes up the last 15-30 minutes. COULD have been a masterpeice. But blew it. Still worth watching twice.
Rating: 
Summary: War is hell....Did you know that?
Review: I was so prepared to love this movie that I bought the DVD sight unseen, something I rarely do. The film is ostensibly about WWII, but by the way it's shot, costumed and written, we're meant to think of Viet Nam. The soldiers don't look and act "forties." There are anachronisims and turns of phrases that would never have been in the Pacific Theater in the early 40s. And there are no fewer than *eight* voice-over narrations. It's hard to keep the characters straight when we don't even see them, and when we do see them on screen they're all wearing identical helmets and uniforms. They come and go in the film, without introduction and without us knowing anything about them. (Thus I honestly can't feel anything when some of them are shot and killed.) They're all an amorphous point of view, and I can't help but think that view is that of Terrence Malick. He tells us--very slowly and repeatedly--that war is insane and futile, that it's maddening the same forces of nature capable of such beauty are also capable of insane destruction. And from this we are hearing that this is such a "deep" and "profound" films, that Malick has gotten a lock on Truth and Beauty with this picture. (I heard much the same with another film from that year, American Beauty, and had much the same reaction--empty calories). I seriously doubt that any of the young reviewers who are calling this film "deep" have ever dipped into their high school reading list and checked out All Quiet on the Western Front or Heart of Darkness or The Red Badge of Courage, or many other novels that say largely the same things Mr. Malick tells us here with great self-importance. There isn't an original thought in this film. There *is* a lot of pretention, though. The arty camera angles (the woman upside-down on the swing in slow motion...I guess that was supposed to be "haunting"), the echoey sound effects, the ethnic singing that was supposed to give the film an exotic feel, the avoidance of all things American and of the time and place of the actual events--his story is too big and important for that! The Andrew Sisters would be kitschy, but little brown kids singing Melanesian songs, that makes the film feel Important. The images and sounds may be artsy, but curiously, the dialogue is pedestrian. Much of it is just guys shouting each other's names (or shouting other things that are unintelligible in the noise of battle) and in the few scenes that are quiet the characters sputter cliches--jaded her Sean Penn telling a busted Ben Chaplin he may be the best friend he's got in this man's army; jaded Sean Penn telling Koteas "What difference can one man make in all this madness?"; egotistical bigshot Nick Nolte giving speeches that make George Patton sound like Gandhi. Even the somewhat interesting challenge of authority in the scene between Elias Koteas and Nick Nolte was done better and more surrealistically and "insanely" by Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. ("If I tell you you're gonna surf, you're gonna surf, dammit!") Duvall's character had more nuance in ten minutes than Nolte's had in three hours. Malick tells us what we already know: War is hell. War is insane. Men who otherwise might be friends are on a battlefield trying to kill each other for no real reason. How do we justify war, ever? But if we went to high school and junior college, and we read our Crane, Melville, Conrad, and Remarque, we already know all of this. Heck, if we've seen the slew of Viet Nam movies of the last 25 years, we know it. Only, I suspect, since Viet Nam has now been done to death, Malick decided to take his protest to World War II, an area neglected by modern anti-war filmmakers. But this is really just another Viet Nam protest movie, done 20 years too late. Despite being *beautifully* shot (the two stars are for the look and texture of the film) and admirably ambitious, the result is--I hate to use the cliche but it's true--the Emperor's New Clothes. (By the way, this DVD actually came with a small card enclosed that reads: "If listening on a standard TV, this movie is best represented if played louder than normal." No, it's not.)
Rating: 
Summary: Worst Waste of Money Ever!
Review: I highly anticipated the release of this movie. I went expecting a different approach from Saving Private Ryan. I should preface this with a reader's knowledge that I love independent films, art films, and film noir. I feel that the movie overindulges in voiceovers and insults the viewer's intelligence by not allowing us to draw our own conclusions. The cinematography is excellent but wasted by the constant drone of narration. I understand the multiple images of man's invasion not only of a Japanese island, but also of nature itself - I did not need it rammed down my throat. I, and many audience members, applauded when the guy's wife left him. It is incomplete, and probably intentional. I understand that the movie is supposed to be loose, and stream of conscious (as the book) - however this movie never found a pulse or a semblence of life to me. I hope Malick remains in seclusion this time.
Rating:
Summary: ITS NOVEL MESSAGE: WAR IS HELL
Review: In this turkey, the wives at home are always beautiful and never fat and pimply.
The soldiers are so morose that it's surprising that the Guadalcanal campaign was won.
There is a droning over voice telling us how terrible things are.
Give me break.
The battles sequences, however, are well done.
Rating:
Summary: Finally, the cure for insomnia!
Review: This is one of the most b-o-r-i-n-g films I've ever watched. I had to force myself to stay awake. It consists mostly of one person's account of a war, with many flashbacks that ultimately turn out to be a meaningless movie. Don't be fooled by the Academy Award nominations, or other rave reviews: It just shows how out of touch many Hollywood insiders are with the viewing public.
Rating: 
Summary: brilliant
Review: This movie was pure excellence in all respects. Not to sound elitist, but those who don't like it probablyl don't understand the messages that director Malick is attempting to convey. In my review I just wanted to point out a major theme that I found in the movie - individualism vs. brotherhood/collectivity. This theme is clearly represented by a central character Private Witt (Jim Caviezel) who characterizes the need for brotherhood. Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn) symbolizes the need for individualism. The Thin Red Line is in essence the delicate balance between these polar concepts. It is the line which one must walk during times of struggle, conflict, and strife. There are alot of existentialist ideas in the film. Malick does a good job weaving beautiful almost artistic scenery with profound music and philosophical ponderings, while at the same time sharply contrasting with scenes of violence, horror, and dread. Highly recommended, but don't go in expecting to see a superficial, commercial film like Saving Pvt. Ryan - you'll be bitterly disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Worst... Movie... Ever.
Review: How I sat through this excuse for a film, I don't know. I've never seen such a slow, plodding, aimless, pretentious piece of garbage. This is one of those movies that claims to be artistic when it's really just a rambling of philosophical ideals and poetry. Why did people love this? Why did this win all sorts of awards? The casting was awful, the action scenes were awful, the film didn't seem genuine or accurate at all. It just jumped from scene to scene, with little or no transitions, and everything was thrown at you. Once again, Sean Penn's weak acting bores us all, and we all wonder collectively what Madonna saw that we didn't. Saving Private Ryan, Enemy at the Gates, and even 1941 is infinitely better. However, if you did like this - you'll enjoy a similar droning, boring movie - Tigerland.
Rating:
Summary: Extraordinary and powerful WWII movie
Review: Because it opened five months after Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line was doomed to be compared to it. Because it is genuinely reflective and soul searching, it seemed a letdown to most audiences. It was a boxoffice flop. It admittedly does not have the gloss or the formula plot of Saving Private Ryan, a movie I admired greatly. None of this, however, negates the fact that this is one of the greatest films about war ever made. In a few years, when the two picture's opening so close together is not a factor, I think it may find its audience...The Thin Red Line's tone is so different from Saving Private Ryan's. In Europe, we were comfortable [I don't know another way to put it], since that is where most of us traced our ancestors. The Orient was a place we were familiar with, but which was still exotic and misunderstood. Some critics have accused director Terrence Malick of expressing post-Vietnam views in this movie. I don't think he has. I think that the Pacific theater was especially surreal for American soldiers. It was one thing to battle to retake a city like Paris, France or to save one like London, England. It was quite another to retake a small tropical island, with it population of peaceful, barely dressed native, in the middle of the world's largest ocean. So, to expect to see a retelling of Saving Private Ryan is a mistake. The battle scenes are equally brilliant, though more stylistic. The soldiers are the same all-American types, mostly from rural areas. These boys, though, express themselves more through body language and inner thoughts than through talking. They are not draftees, but enlisted men who were together for over two years before the war broke out. They have become a family, and as such, they are generally very protective of each other. Their bravery and patriotism is never questioned, but when Lt. Col. Tall [Nick Nolte], a man interested only in his career, gives them insane and life threatening orders, their hesitation is obvious. It is a group response, not an individual one. It is 1942, and their mission is to rid one of the Solomon Islands of Japanese forces, so that an air base can be built. This is all difficult and brutal business. It is here that some of the audience gets confused. [Don't worry, some critics did, too!] Malick's intentions are to show that mankind cannot separate itself form the rest of nature and to make us see that even the most uneducated among us can see that war is ultimately evil, no matter the goodness of the cause. Much of the time you hear the characters thoughts... The questions the soldiers ask themselves are deep and disturbing, but are not obscure ones. You do not have to have a degree from Harvard to ask yourself what seed or root the blackness called war came from. Despite the subject matter, this is one of the most visually beautiful American movies in years. In one scene, as our troops crawl through tall grass towards the enemy bunker, the wind blows and a cloud, passing under the sun, causes a dazzling display of light and shadow. The wonder of this against what the troops are doing is powerful. The film is filled with such images...
Rating:
Summary: Ponderous and pointless
Review: It's a step up from pap like Saving Private Ryan, but that's pretty faint praise. The characters are cardboard archetypes of the sparest detail. The lengthy dialogues and monologues about life and war have a painfully awkward Holden Caulfield air about them, banalities dressed up in pretentious agonizing. If you enjoy this movie and are above the age of 15 then you have serious problems.
| 
