The central drama in this film pits Elias Koteas (Capt. Staros) as the feminine principle, who prefers to play nursemaid to his men rather than lead them, against Nick Nolte (Col. Tall), the stern father figure who will sacrifice a few to save the rest. Fortunately, Nolte takes charge before Koteas can get everyone killed.
Other than that pairing off, there is no drama in this story and no character definition of any depth. Of course no one is interested when faceless fodder goes before the cannon. James Jones gave all his characters monosyllabic names to make them indistinguishable from one another, and they certainly are. The fact that soldiers die amid grass that is an unusually vivid shade of green hardly matters, does it? When you have never even made their acquaintance?
The film is ostensibly about the Battle of Guadalcanal. Viewers will be forgiven if they come away with the notion that the battle consisted of a couple of minor skirmishes totalling about 50 guys. Guadalcanal, the Historical Footnote. Pearl Harbor: The Tiny Puff of Smoke.
History is clearly not Malick's strong suit. Do the Japanese in this film bear *any* resemblance to the Japanese the US actually fought in the South Pacific? The Japanese surrender in droves! And then they're not tied up, or guarded by anyone. The cowed soldier of Imperial Japan, noted for his docility? Or was Guadalcanal secretly occupied by Japanese-American civilians ready for internment? Was that it? Is that An Untold Story of World War II?
I suppose I've seen Terrence Malick's "Days of Heaven" (1978) several times in the past couple of decades. I'm not terribly fond of it; it's long, and slow, and pretty, much like this one. Malick seems to think he's the reincarnation of Aleksandr Dovzhenko, or something.
But "Days of Heaven" did have characterization that was a little fuller, and some social observation as well. On both counts, "The Thin Red Line" falls short. When an artillery round happens to fall short, it tends to land on its own lines. That should be the epitaph for the volunteers who enlisted in Terrence Malick's pet project: "Killed by friendly fire".
Other than that pairing off, there is no drama in this story and no character definition of any depth. Of course no one is interested when faceless fodder goes before the cannon. James Jones gave all his characters monosyllabic names to make them indistinguishable from one another, and they certainly are. The fact that soldiers die amid grass that is an unusually vivid shade of green hardly matters, does it? When you have never even made their acquaintance?
The film is ostensibly about the Battle of Guadalcanal. Viewers will be forgiven if they come away with the notion that the battle consisted of a couple of minor skirmishes totalling about 50 guys. Guadalcanal, the Historical Footnote. Pearl Harbor: The Tiny Puff of Smoke.
History is clearly not Malick's strong suit. Do the Japanese in this film bear *any* resemblance to the Japanese the US actually fought in the South Pacific? The Japanese surrender in droves! And then they're not tied up, or guarded by anyone. The cowed soldier of Imperial Japan, noted for his docility? Or was Guadalcanal secretly occupied by Japanese-American civilians ready for internment? Was that it? Is that An Untold Story of World War II?
I suppose I've seen Terrence Malick's "Days of Heaven" (1978) several times in the past couple of decades. I'm not terribly fond of it; it's long, and slow, and pretty, much like this one. Malick seems to think he's the reincarnation of Aleksandr Dovzhenko, or something.
But "Days of Heaven" did have characterization that was a little fuller, and some social observation as well. On both counts, "The Thin Red Line" falls short. When an artillery round happens to fall short, it tends to land on its own lines. That should be the epitaph for the volunteers who enlisted in Terrence Malick's pet project: "Killed by friendly fire".