The Thin Red Line (1998) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,604 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Malick's Heavenly War
pmov4 March 2000
This film is unlikely to be appreciated by audiences reared upon a diet of dumbed-down Hollywood action fare. However, if you're prepared to sit down and watch THE THIN RED LINE with no interruptions and give it the attention it deserves, you'll be rewarded with one of the most intelligent, poetic and stunningly beautiful films you're ever likely to see.

Director Terrence Malick's films are alive with a sense of pure cinema with every frame delivering such detail and richness that you could swear you were there. The only other person capable of bringing such an immediate sense of time and place and sheer nuance of film (although in a completely different way) is David Lean, another major league craftsman.

Here, again, Malick uses his customary voice-over device although this time as a means of vocalising the abstract thoughts of the various soldiers as they struggle to make some sense of the conflict. It's an interesting approach which allows the audience to identify with the characters in a far less superficial way than in, say, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (the film THE THIN RED LINE is most often and most unfairly compared to). Malick is also not afraid to take time to illustrate the continuing natural backdrop to the carnage. Mother Nature almost seems to be occupying a pivotal supporting role as a detached observer on the sidelines, calmly and inscrutably watching the chaos develop.

It's a measure of Malick's complete disinterest with the normal conventions of Hollywood that actors such as Lucas Haas, Vigo Mortensen, Jason Patric, Mickey Rourke, Martin Sheen and Billy Bob Thornton all spent months in Queensland Australia and the Solomon Islands filming roles that ultimately ended up on the cutting room floor. Blink and you'll also miss major marquee players such as John Travolta and George Clooney. The stand-out performances come from Jim Caviezel and, especially, Nick Nolte.

Nolte just seems to be getting better and better as he gets older and his portrayal of tyrant Colonel Tall is something to see. I have never seen anyone express such an impotent sense of rage, anger and fury than Nolte does here. It's a fantastic performance from a real pro and it's a mystery to me why he didn't get an Oscar.

John Toll's pristine cinematography and Hans Zimmer's wonderfully evocative (Oscar-winning) score are other strong elements. The unusual music and visuals contrast so well that Malick sometimes fades out the noise of the shouting, explosions and guns, an effect that only serves to heighten the emotional power of the experience further.

You won't see a more beautiful film about the horrors of war. Movies like this make the task of trawling through the weekly diet of dumb formulaic junk served up by Hollywood almost seem worthwhile.
270 out of 348 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Superb, emotive filmmaking
kevin-19315 December 1999
I'm very sorry I didn't get to see this film in the theatre. It is a beautifully filmed masterpiece with a superb story, excellent acting (esp. Nick Nolte), and a great script. It takes things way deeper than Saving Private Ryan or most other modern war movies dare to go. Very introspective and dreamy at times, with the camera constantly dwelling on faces, animals, and the landscape. Merrick is never in a hurry, and this pace suits the film well.

The Thin Red Line asks a lot of good questions about death, war, and the ultimate meaning of life. Now that I have seen it, I'm very surprised that this film did not win picture of the year. Spielberg's film was a gritty, realistic portrayal of war. But it was also highly commercial and had a very contrived plot. In comparison, this film sort of wanders through itself and in the process helps to put you in the boots of the soldiers it portrays.

My only criticism is perhaps the film was a bit long, but I never noticed that the second time through. I can't praise this film enough. Excellent work.
159 out of 212 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the most beautiful films ever
jkrobs-11 July 2013
What Can I say this film is amazing, it has it all.

Beautiful cinematography, characters, music

Every time I watch this film I get a sense of despair, yet hope..

I do not understand why the score is so low for this film? I mean can someone explain?

I highly recommend this film if you enjoy war, drama...

The music is beautifully composed by Hanz Zimmer,

It fits the mood of the scenes, nature, war, being far from home..

I would recommend buying the Blu ray version as it looks amazing in 1080p and also the sound is incredible.

Give it some time as it's a fairly long film at 2 hours and 50 minutes.., but trust me you will love it
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A diagnosis
gabbagabbahey8 April 2000
The greatest fault of The Thin Red Line was its timing - it was released at around the same time as Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. While most people dismissed The Thin Red Line as the `other' World War II movie of 1998, it's actually a very different kind of film - the film itself is not hurt by similarity to Ryan but was hurt commercially due to the misconception. It's easy to forget that Red was nominated for seven Oscars. This is an extraordinary film that can stand well on its own next to Ryan.

Saving Private Ryan was significant in that it visually depicted war in a realistic, gritty way. The Thin Red Line's focus is more philosophical. It is about the contradiction between the beauty of nature and the destructive nature of men. The movie cuts continuously between the external struggle of American GIs fighting to take a crucial hill from Japanese occupation on Guadalcanal - and more importantly, the internal chaos of war as every man tries to come to his own terms about matters such as morals, death, God, and love.

Unlike in Saving Private Ryan, there is nothing patriotic about this movie. In fact, there probably has never been a more anti-war film. The fighting men here are disillusioned, lost, and frightened. They don't fight for their country or "democracy" - they fight because they have to. The only priorities are survival, and - for the more humane - caring for their comrades. Renowned composer Hans Zimmer - who won an Oscar nomination for his work-captures the grim mood perfectly and allows us to hear the men's thoughts.

The characters are portrayed by a strong ensemble cast. Acting is uniformly excellent, especially Nick Nolte as Colonel Tall, who is the unfeeling commander of the ground offensive on Guadalcanal. Thoroughly unlikable, he is the closest thing to a villain in the movie. After studying war for an untold number of years, Tall sees Guadalcanal as his chance to prove himself and move up in the ranks - the men are only a tool to accomplish this goal and expendable. In one crucial scene, he orders a captain (played by Elias Koteas, in another outstanding role) to lead his men to a frontal assault against a Japanese controlled hill. When the captain suggests a more logical alternative, the colonel screams: "You are not gonna take your men around in the jungle to avoid a goddamn fight!" To this, the captain replies, `I've lived with these men, sir, for two and a half years and I will not order them all to their deaths.' Later, when the hill is taken, he is dismissed of his duties as Tall sees him as a threat to the successful achievement of his goal. Certainly, not every commander must have been that coldhearted and selfish, but surely some were, though not necessarily to that extreme.

While the acting is very good, much of the cast is relatively unknown and it can initially be hard to distinguish the characters from each other as they may appear to be very similar. They are all about the same age, have dirt smeared over their faces, and wear helmets and the same military garb. Also, the stars in this movie have very small roles. George Clooney and John Travolta are credited with starring roles while really little more than extras - clearly for marketing purposes. You will not see more than two minutes of each.

One of the main themes of the movie is the contrast between nature and men's destructiveness in war. The director, Terrence Malick, hired cinematographer John Toll to capture this on camera, and towards achieving that goal they couldn't have been more successful. The almost surreal scenery is nothing short of stunning and has the same visual impact as any special effect. The beauty of nature is always present, even when it is a setting for battle of destruction, and death.

Though the battle scenes fall short of the frightening realism in Saving Private Ryan, they are heads and soldiers above every previous attempt. One truly gets the sense that war is a chaotic, often hopeless environment where it is only a matter of luck whether you survive or get killed.

`How did we lose the good that was given us? Or let it slip away? Scatter it carelessly ... trade it for what has no worth?' The film is filled with such poetic questions as to which there are no real answers. This is definitely not a party movie. There isn't anything uplifting about it - it is downright depressing. Asides from entertainment value, however, this is a film that makes you think.
673 out of 769 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Every movie-goer sees his own film...
Dr. Don-21 May 1999
Warning: Spoilers
Having taken the time to read scores of reviews for TTRL (including IMDb ones here), I'm reminded of the movie subscript for this most controversial film: "Every man fights his own war." What a polarization exists amongst its viewers, and a lot of emotion both ways.

I was stunned, moved, transfixed and totally absorbed by this film, even more so on subsequent viewings. I was one of the considerable number of people who, as the credits appear, sit quietly till one has to leave -- still stuck in the film's experience. I'm not angry at others who merely fell asleep. It's odd how some of the film's harsher critics seem compelled to vent their anger in disparaging comments against those who loved it -- most of those who liked the film were gentler in commenting on its critics.

In contrast to what some have written, "The thin red line" has nothing to do with the British infantry in its imperial past. Jones referred to two related quotes in his excellent book, both having to do with a thin line between sanity and insanity. Whether "justified" or not, necessary or not, there is a lot of insanity in the war experience by anyone's definition of insanity.

War exists and seems to recreate itself -- I never got the idea from Malick's film that he was preaching that we should just stop having wars. On the contrary, he takes war as a given in the human part of nature, and shows how individual human beings variously adapted (or mal-adapted!) in order to be able to keep eating, breathing and, yes, killing. The war experience is not primarily about shooting and blowing things up -- as Jones described from his own experience, it's largely about what happens between skirmishes -- strife and comradeship, fear and bravado, homesickness and freedom from past constraints, and waiting to die or to see a buddy die. People came, died, and were replaced -- much as portrayed by the cameo appearances in the film that confused or upset some viewers. Veterans always talk about how hard it is when you have to rely on your buddies (and feel for them) even though odds are most of them will die.

What is most important to me (and it doesn't have to be for anyone else, I know that) is how the eternal themes of humanity are affected and expressed in such circumstances. All great works of art have something to do with the themes of beauty, pain, triumph, despair, good and evil. There's nothing wrong with entertainment as a diversion (The Matrix was fine fun); there's room both for film for fun and for film as art. Saving Ryan's Privates was mostly good entertainment (although I found it terribly manipulative and jingoistic), while TTRL explores the themes I mentioned above, never with easy answers. If you found the voice-overs heavy-handed, maybe it's because you're used to Hollywood telling us what to think and feel and thought Malick was doing the same. Watch again and see if he's not just giving us access to various individuals' often conflicting perspectives.

As for those who think the film portrays "our soldiers" in a bad light, my family members who fought in WWII described their experiences and their reactions much as those shown in TTRL -- they were ordinary men, decent enough people, not heroes though sometimes unpredictably capable of the heroic, and devastated by their experiences. I'm proud of them for having done all they could to do what they felt was their responsibility, and to keep some humanity intact in spite of the horror. None of them told me they felt "ennobled" by war; they endured it and were badly hurt by it but didn't feel sorry for themselves, either.

In TTRL I got to see this portrayed with such compassion I wept. Even the guy (Dale) who ripped gold teeth out of the mouths of dying Japanese soldiers was no stereotypical villain -- he has his moment of grace as do they all. No one's defenses are portrayed as impregnable, not even Witt's. No stereotype himself, we see him kill over a dozen soldiers in battle, while still trying to see God in the midst of the chaos. And what a powerful scene at his life's end, fulfilling his own striving for self-sacrifice, and recognizing in a moment of epiphany where his own immortality lie. Those who couldn't find a plot line in the film must have missed the first ten minutes...

Maybe it's because of my own experience in life that I respond to this film so strongly. I endured and survived ten years of intense, inescapable unrelenting abuse as a child. I remember even as a small child trying to make sense of it all -- looking for the good, the reasons, God's plan, my purpose. Others who've survived trauma (in the Holocaust camps, on the cancer wards) often describe how such experiences focussed their attention on things that matter, beyond the physical realities they could not control. Ever since my childhood I've moved through life with a second awareness -- that examination and self-examination while "real time" goes on.

That's what Malick portrayed, for me, in this film. Maybe you think that's "sophomoric" or "pretentious". It may not seem so when you're in the midst of a struggle, or on your death bed...

DGH

P. S. I organized a special screening of this film locally for a few friends -- 400 others paid to come, by word of mouth. Over a hundred sat spell-bound as the credits scrolled by -- hushed and not wanting to leave. Fellow wounded souls, some of them, I'll bet.
488 out of 582 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
every man fights his own war...
newonpluto17 May 2000
what many people do not know is that this film, directed by terence malick, is without question the reason that Shakespeare in Love won the best picture oscar over the much favored Saving Private Ryan. why am i saying this? first let's deal with the movie. long? yes. too much? sometimes. but is it good? i can not begin to describe the beauty of this film.

about the oscars, i only watched the film after its surprise nomination for best picture. i had seen the competition already, and it was time to check out the fifth nominee. i went to the theatre myself, and came out three hours later, went home, and i cried. not only because i was disturbed, but i loved every single character in the film. i wanted to be there for them, cry with them, fight their battle. many people who have watched the film have said the same thing to me.

the Thin Red Line is sometimes painful to watch, but only because of its realistic juxtaposition of humanity, philosophy, and the terror of war. the film does not delve into any historical fact about Guadalcanal, except that the battle itself was terrifying (as is any battle). the characters introduce themselves through voice-over narration, which accompanies much of the action. and speaking of action, there is not much in the film. more images. images of war and the lives these soldiers left behind. this was Terence Malick's intent, of course, and many people were insulted and thought it was his own pretentious self getting the best of him. "boy he's a genius.. must he show it??" sometimes it is a little pretentious, but the film would've been "just another WWII film" if it was out of Malick's hands.

i can not understand why Sean Penn is billed as the top actor or the main character of this film. he was there a lot, but the film is carried by Jim Caviezel as the beautiful and ethereal private Witt. words can not describe this performance. with as few lines as he had, Caviezel portrays the symbolic soul of Witt, and by the end of the film he will break your heart. also excellent performances from Nick Nolte and the understated Elias Koteas, who can stretch creepy (Crash) to sympathetic in the blink of an eye.

now.. let's consider hollywood. sure they love Spielberg, and sure Private Ryan was a masterpiece (and it really was), but nobody even expected the Thin Red Line to get seven oscar nods, especially for best picture. but Shakespeare in Love was the crowd pleaser, and the other two were epic war films. most hollywood "artsy" people are anti-war.. kind of like the Thin Red Line. Private Ryan seemed to be MUCH more patriotic "pro-america" than the other. so if we've got anti-war on one side, and patriotism on the other... open and shut. the votes were split between the two, and Shakespeare emerged victorious. too bad.

anyway... the Thin Red Line was definitely better than Shakespeare, and definitely a completely different film from Spielberg's. John Toll's cinematography and Hans Zimmer's score work together to convey the tone of Malick's lyrical and poetic direction, and both should have won oscars. this film is nothing short of breath-taking, though understandably not for the average american moviegoer.
359 out of 449 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Two camps or Where's the Hollywood exec when you need him?
mk-1731 January 1999
Sometimes directors get so great everyone is afraid to edit their "masterpieces".

Reading the other commentators, I see two camps: I didn't get/how could you not get it.

I think I got it. I saw the movie basically as a commentary on the paradox of nature as both beautiful and cruel. Take the Eden-like first scene and the symbolic nature of that one soldier's perfect beautiful "good" wife. Later in the movie, both idealizations of nature turn out to be false. The "good" wife turned bad reminded me of Conrad's one symbolic female character in Heart of Darkness turned on its head.

Basically, nature vs. man is a false dichtomy

Nature as paradise via Theocritus versus nature as wilderness via the Bible, another false dichotomy.

In Hegalian terms, what is the synthesis? What is the true view of nature? Can it be expressed with words, or only imagery and poetry? Sorry for the intellectual allusions, but I think this is where the movie was going.

What is nature and what is man's place in it? Tough questions, Malick has no answers. Unfortunately he spent three hours on it. Meaningless dialogue and pseudo-intellectual babble use up at least an hour of screen as the movie never ends.

Within this quagmire of crap is an astounding battle scene, a brilliant performance by Nick Nolte, amazing cinematography, some half-developed fascinating themes.

Like the last 45 minutes of Apocalapse Now, this movie was too ambitious. If the director would have just saved face, cut the hour of crap, the movie would have been just as profound, more entertaining, just as ambigious in a good way, and well, just plain awesome.

What a waste of potential. There really was a masterpiece hidden in there. To think, the irony is -- if the film had the discipline of commercialism it would have made better art.
52 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A haunting exploration of the meanings of life, death and war through the eyes of a group of disenchanted soldiers
ephor2 November 2001
This is one of the most beautifully crafted and haunting films that I have ever seen. Not only is the amazing ensemble cast give truly beautiful, effective performances, but the direction and cinematography combines to create a magnificent visual and mental feast.

This story about the Guadalcanal campaign during WW2, based on the James Jones novel, weaves the lives of many characters together seemlessly, creating a philosophical/emotional experience of war. It's not just about war. It's about love, faith in yourself and others, friendship, humanity, morality and also works as a startling indictment of man's conflict with nature. The amazing opening sequence, sets up a tranquility as the character Witt, finds peace on a secluded island among the natives, a peace which is shattered by the war.

What follows is not a mindless battle-after-battle onslaught of pyrotechnics, smoke, dust and blood, but a thought-provoking, visually and verbally poetic analysis of war and humanity. In my opinion it is the greatest war film since Apocalypse now, which I believe bears more flaws than this. It's not an Us-and-Them war story about the glory of the USA defeating the evil Japs. It sticks close with the characters, as we hear the thoughts, their hopes, their fears, leading to a moving experience.

This film was released a few months after Saving Private Ryan and unfortunately did not experience the same attention that the latter film did. Ryan was an excellent film, but to offer a comparison, The Thin Red LIne treads where Ryan didn't dare. Ryan sat in the safe territory of Good vs Evil with a bit of Futility of War and a lot of American Patriotism. It seemed to be more about America at some points than about war. The Thin Red Line is about war, the people involved and the destruction it creates for the mind, the soul and for nature. It does not deviate from this to make simple contrasts and offer easy binary oppositions.

In fact, TTRL is not an easy film. Gasp, it even tries to make you think. Though the title is not really explained in the film, I believe it is implied, and could have many meanings - the line between sanity and insanity, morality and immorality, love and hate, companionship and loneliness, nature and man, war and peace. While the characters share their thoughts, deeply poetic as they are, the meaning is not thrown in your face and neither is the answer to the questions raised. In this way it is the most thought-provoking war film I've ever seen and one of the best films of all time in my book. Top ten easily.

Now to my whinge. I think TTRL was shunned unmercifully at the 1999 Oscars. Shakespeare in Love beat two brilliant films - TTRL and Elizabeth - to get that oscar, and don't get me started on Gwyneth's award. This is the best film of 1998/9, in line with Elizabeth. It's unfortunate that the two, thoug h greatly revered, did not achieve the success and attention they deserved.

Don't be afraid by its length, it's a beautiful journey, full of rich colour, sound and the reward is a deeply moving human experience, unlike any other that the past decade has offered.
253 out of 319 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not for me
PenetratorGod7 March 2024
I have mixed feelings about this movie. I've tried to watch it a few times over the years but I remember getting bored and giving up before I even got to the middle of it. Unfortunately, the pace, the script and the length of the movie make it very difficult and it's a great achievement for the viewer not to fall asleep while watching it. I will update the rating if I can finish it in the future, but I don't think I will give it higher than 6 because this is not a war movie that will appeal to me no matter what. It's more of an artistic movie that uses the war setting. Before you spend 3 hours, you should consider this fact about the movie. Because if you continue to watch a movie you don't like from the beginning with false expectations, you will see that nothing gets better and the whole watching process becomes painful. At least I will watch it in my free time just to finish it and I have no other purpose other than that.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A different, enthralling war film.
Warman-230 December 1998
The Thin Red Line has no real hero and no real plot to speak of. Due to its release the same year as Saving Private Ryan it will forever be linked to Spielberg's anti-war opus. Yet, "TRL" deserves to be compared to Stanley Kubrick's 2001 due to it's style and distance from the audience. The film's only character is the Charlie Company and the conflict is between humankind itself. Director Terrance Malik asks profound questions and unlike "Ryan," doesn't expect them to be answered because they simply can't be answered. Like 2001, the viewer is left with more questions than answers at the end of the film and is told in stunning visual fashion. Some critics have pointed out various flaws in the film; however, these traits are what sets TRL apart form it's peers. The stars like John Travolta and George Clooney have little screen time. They are the officers who command attention and are larger than life to the simple GI's who do the real work (and most of the acting in the film.) The characters are mostly unrecognizable and you know little about them save the main characters like Pvt. Bell. But, the faces are meant to be unrecognizable; to paraphrase the film they are simply flesh and meat made from the earth simply to return back to it. Those who criticise the lack of violence in some scenes while labeling the other scenes intense don't realize the intensity the fight scenes generalize are due to the fact that the soldiers don't know when their next battle will be and when their last breath will take place. The main character, Charlie Company, is fighting to stay alive, the only real driving force of the plot. All of the characters have different views of the war, shown through the use of random spoken narrative. There is no easy conclusion to the war and the film starts off where it began, among the animals of the pacific. Life is one huge circle and one could guess the battle for the bunker on top of the hill could be fought again and there is no possible way to stop it, (At least that is what I was able to muster of the film itself.) For myself the most haunting image was the scene when the Americans stare at their Japanese enemy after capturing the hill. Both sides seem to realize that they could be on the other side of the battle and that in war there really is no good vs. bad scenario, just what nation you're from and who you are trying to kill. Yet the question asked is why war occurs and why we must fight each other. On that note, we still have no answers. The acting and sound are superb. The direction, editing, and score are all Oscar caliber. I don't shrink from saying that TRL is the best film of 1998 and one of the greatest war films of all time; (and contrary to what some are trying to say it is a war film, that is at its core.) TRL is the only film to ever make my knees tremble and haunt me days after I saw it. If you see it, I'm sure your opinions will be just as strong as mine.
210 out of 276 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Over rated.
quincepaste7525 February 2021
Others seem to think this movie is controversial. I don't think it is. I think this film desperately wants to be meaningful, but comes off as whiney, trie hard & pretentious, with a good dose of annoyingly grating. Cinematography is excellent. Acting for the most part is excellent.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Beautiful Film
aw41211 January 2000
By far the best film I have ever seen. It baffles me that people could criticize this intricate metaphysical look at war, nature and humanity. The cinematography is so superb that each frame of the film stands on its own. The voice overs offer majestic reflections on the nature of war and humanity. The intensity of this film is unsurpassed.
211 out of 312 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
a critics dream: a boring, pretentious, artful mess of a movie
flicklover8 March 1999
Going in to this movie, I promised myself that I would not compare it to Saving Private Ryan. Ryan is one of the best war movies ever made. But I found myself doing it throughout the whole movie. This movie is so incoherent that I lost interest the last hour. Yes it is well made, and some images are truly memorable but the movie has no focus. It is content in being so "un-hollywood" that it loses the audience completely. I'm sure that Terrence Malick wanted to make a different type of war film, but the movie is too pretentious. the voice overs try to be so deep that they become a distraction. No characters are well drawn, the actors are just scenery really. I believe it was a mistake to have so many cameos by such known actors,they are also a distraction. I know that Private Ryan is more "commercial" but it at least presents a story that involves the viewer. I know that this is the type of movie that critics love,because the public at large doesn't, they back a film because of its "artfulness". I also believe that Oscar voters were completely wrong to nominate this film, The Truman Show was left out, A Simple Plan was ignored, why they would shut these movies out and nominate this piece of pseudo-intellectual garbage is a total injustice!
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Boring mediocre war movie
bogymel16 May 2021
I rewatched this film recently, when it first came out I found it rather boring, but then again I was rather young and dumb and lacked the intellect of properly enjoying it. Fast forward to today, not going to pretend that my intellect is now vastly superior, however, I'm now capable of watching films through a more critical eye, and I still found this movie boring.

Blatant historical inaccuracies aside (no banzai? Come on...) this film misses all targets. It tries to be too many things at once: it tries to be a philosophical introspection on war, it tries to be a camaraderie story, it tries to depict the cruelty of war. It fails at every single one of these things.

The company men seem disconnected from each other, there's no sense of proper bonding between the troops. You don't actually see their struggle, you are only being told that it's there.

The action is not flowing, just some random events thrown in without any context. The philosophical introspection doesn't make any sense and it's sort of disconnected from the action. It seems the characters are reading from a piece of paper, the thoughts are not their own.

The characters are poorly written and you simply can't get attached to any one of them. They are as unidimensional as they can be. They don't transform, they're not a journey. They either die or survive. They just are, they don't become.

The 5 star distribution doesn't really do this film much service. They just threw in all these big names, but their potential is barely used. With maybe one or two exceptions, none of them stand out. With so many stars, none have an actual chance to shine.

There are far superior WW2 movies, or war movies in general, to watch out there. You may give this a miss without regret.
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Visually Stunning And Philosophically Daring
CalRhys18 July 2014
One of the most visually stunning and philosophically daring war films ever made. In 1978, Terrence Malick made the hit classic 'Days of Heaven', for 20 years after its release, Malick didn't create a single film, that was until the release of 1998's World War II epic 'The Thin Red Line; my God was the wait worth it. 'The Thin Red Line' is a complex and moving depiction of war that happens to act as one of the most realistic portrayals of WWII ever displayed, both visually and psychologically. Literally Malick emerged from hiding to create this gem of a classic that portrays the chaos of war. Despite being the same release year as the much more successful 'Saving Private Ryan', Malick's war flick will go down in Hollywood history as a truly special masterpiece.
96 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Theater of Ideology
JFHunt30 June 2006
When I was about 7, I first saw Rocky on TV and I didn't really understand it. It wasn't until I was 18 that I came to the conclusion, that it was the greatest movie ever made. At 22, that all changed when I first saw On The Waterfront. Fully aware now that Brando was a god. The ultimate male. Never not shocking, bruiting desire. At 24 it was a toss up between Eyes Wide Shut and Casablanca. Cruise controls a certain air and Bogart was the coolest guy to ever live. Now I am at the crossroads of life and The Thin Red Line.

This movie just does it for me. The fact that the whole story is told through poetry is quite a unique thing to do. To tell a story through words. And nowadays, by doing so they take a lot of risks. In all fairness this movie sacrifices capturing the general audience, for words that go together so beautifully. I wish more people could understand how great this movie really is and not try to compare it to other classics like Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse Now. It's a different kind of war movie. This one's on humility's side.

Though it took me some time, The Thin Red Line has become my favorite war movie. I've always been a fan of Penn, this movie introduced me to Caviezel. He seems to capture his part with a justful beauty.

It's hard for me to pick a favorite scene. The dialog between Penn and Caviezel is powerful. I have to admit that the conversations between him and Penn made the movie for me. They seem to be trying to out act each other. For example, when Caviezel says that he is twice the man that Penn is in one of the opening scenes. Penn gives him this look. I can only describe as a peaceful calm. One of intelligence that comes with age. Instead of overreacting to the comment, he sits back and understands it. I guess that's more of the writer's doing, but it is a beautiful thing.
112 out of 172 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Only around people
petra_ste9 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It's tempting sometimes for those who write a movie review to treat it as a math test: count the mistakes to see how good it is.

Terrence Malick's sprawling, humanistic The Thin Red Line transcends that. In theory, its flaws are there for all to see. Structurally, it's a mess. It's too long. Pacing in the second half is cumbrous and stammering, the task to squeeze a final cut from all filmed material reportedly herculean. Cameos by celebrities like Clooney or a pencil moustached Travolta in unsubstantial roles are more a jarring distraction than an asset.

And yet... as John Toll's luscious cinematography shows atolls with crystal-clear waters, jungles pierced by sun rays, crocodiles sinking in swamps and snakes slithering on emerald grass, something unique happens. The Thin Red Line goes beyond a war movie about Guadalcanal and becomes richly textured, engrossing epic. Armies clash, and so do different philosophies. Malick plays with time and memory, quotes Proust, Homer and the Gospel, imbues the movie with a mystical quality. The five major players - Caviezel, Koteas, Penn, Chaplin and Nolte - provide deeply felt performances, while Zimmer crafts an haunting score enriched by Melanesian songs of rare beauty.

Malick's best, and on the short list of cinema's greatest movies, The Thin Red Line is a breathing, pulsating thing, incomplete and flawed and awe-inspiring as life itself can be.
34 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
All over the place.
obadasayedeisa12 March 2021
Too many characters, narrators, quotable lines, and just anything else. The film is about war in general, in that sense, it contains many washed out characters that seem just the same, not even one of them is memorable, this was one of the biggest fails of the film, the emotional connections. We don't know where most of the characters came from, what are their goals, why are they here. The narration usually adds to the film, in this case, well, it doesn't. It's filled with "quotable" lines that are just useless, it got boring real quick. The first and third act were intensely boring, second act was a bit good. The movie is totally mediocre, meaning it should have a five star rating, why did I give it six? The cinematography. It was just beautiful and well executed, great production design and colors, great special effects.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Bold, Human War Epic
ayden-walker17 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Thin Red Line, directed by Terrence Malick, is a film that fictionalizes the Battle of Mount Austen: a violent confrontation between American soldiers and the Imperial Japanese, taking place during World War II. The Thin Red Line has an impressive lineup of stars including Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, Elias Koteas, John Cusack, Adrien Brody, John C. Reilly, Woody Harrelson, John Travolta, George Clooney, just to name a few. Although the film doesn't exactly specify who the main protagonist, Jim Caviezel and Sean Penn share the most screen time, and ultimately steal the show.

The one thing that sets The Thin Red Line apart from other contemporary war films is its philosophical viewpoint. All throughout the film there are voice-overs (from Caviezel's and Nick Nolte's characters in particular), that talk about the meaning of life and death, the origin of love, and the capricious violence of nature. These voice-overs soften the blow of the on-screen violence, and accompanied by the gorgeous cinematography of the rainforests of Queensland, Australia, plus Hans Zimmers uniquely beautiful score, the film focuses on the consequences, aftermath and the emotion of the violence we see, rather than the barbarity itself.

Some of the philosophical passages may become tiresome, and at times it seems that they're just trying to confuse you with eloquent language and abstract ideas. This is justified by the strong, authentic performances from its stars (Caviezel in particular), and the engaging dialect between the soldiers. This is a visually stunning, decidedly human epic that stops just before it becomes too much.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
I was very disappointed in this movie after all the hype.
Patton-27 February 1999
I was very disappointed in this movie after all the hype.

I'll start with what I liked - which wasn't much. 1. The Movie is a war movie. Hollywood should make more of them. 2. The Movie is beautifully filmed. 3. Nick Nolte is awesome in this movie. He deserves an Oscar nomination. 4. The battle scenes were great.

What I hated: 1. The length. I was looking at my watch wishing I had chosen to go to Shakespeare in Love which was playing in the same Theater. 2. The Screenplay - there wasn't one 3. The narrative style. The flashbacks made me feel disoriented and lost. I'd be watching the guys on the island and then they would cut to a girl in a swing. I kept thinking ok, where am I now? The flashbacks were totally unnecessary. 4. Besides Nick Nolte the acting in this movie was bad.

Rating: 6
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Terrence Malick's masterpiece
TheLittleSongbird10 July 2011
As I said in my Tree of Life review Terrence Malick's style is one I highly appreciate rather than adore. That doesn't stop me though from liking his films a great deal. The Thin Red Line was my first Malick, and after seeing five of them it is still my favourite.

The pace is meditative, but I had no problem with that. This film wasn't only a war film, it was also a meditation of war, so the pacing was appropriate I feel, not only that I find this meditative pace is a characteristic of Terrence Malick, his films being visually beautiful yet meditative.

As is the case with his work, Malick does do a superb job directing, the visuals are astounding and the music is very haunting as well. The story may seem pretentious, but I was too transfixed and absorbed by what was going on to care, and how it treated war was interesting and different with "Every man fights his own war".

The action is genuinely tense with an atmosphere that is genuinely authentic(for example you can smell the sweat literally), and I also found some scenes quite moving. The dialogue is provokes thought and the characters are often real in a compelling sense. The acting is as good as can be, particularly from Sean Penn and Nick Nolte.

All in all, a fine film and Malick's masterpiece. 10/10 Bethany Cox
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
traits and emotions taken to extremes to make point
beegalindo1 July 2021
Thin Red Line raises tough questions, it could have been really interesting but every one of the characters seemed superficial and most were exceedingly selfish and whiny.

Guadalcanal was an imperative which we were forced to take prior to adequate preparation, without adequate supply lines, and with months before provision of any reinforcements. I don't know about any link between the movie script and the actual event, but I think they should have picked a different theatre (of war, that is😆) and different battle to illustrate these themes. The first troops at Guadalcanal had no choice but to rely on each other for their very survival for over 2 months. Nobody was getting voted off the island b/c there was no way on or off the island.

The Japanese sunk so many u.s. Navy ships in the first month we renamed it Iron Bottom Sound. The Navy pulled their ships out of harm's way before even unloading half of the Marines' supplies. Then for over 2 months Marines had to forage, pillage and plunder until re-supplied. They had to finish building the airstrip the Japanese started so u.s. Planes could fly in supplies and bomb the ships that were shelling them every night to rattle them and deprive them of any sleep. A majority of that first wave of soldiers got Malaria too.

Perhaps I'm missing the themes of the movie by being too literal about the historical battle setting. I have reverence for the Marines who fought on Guadalcanal, so I had an issue with this movie choosing that battle for this drama. The points of officers wasting others lives to try to make up for their own inadequacies or missed glory is a timeless, important theme. There are also interesting themes about tolerance and coexistence and our higher purpose. This film just chose the wrong setting for it and way too much superficial over-acting!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
unique Malick style
SnoopyStyle18 December 2014
It's World War II at the battle of Guadalcanal. Pvt. Witt (Jim Caviezel) is part of the group brought in as relief. 1st Sgt. Edward Welsh (Sean Penn) doesn't want him after he went AWOL and assigns him to be a stretcher bearer. Lt. Col. Gordon Tall (Nick Nolte) is jealous and bitter. He puts on the pressure on Capt. James Staros (Elias Koteas) to capture a particularly tough position.

This is fully a Terrence Malick movie. It is beautifully shot. It is poetry in action. There are great meditations before the fights, during the fights and after the fights. Even the grass is beautiful. Nick Nolte is amazing. He gives an award worthy performance. The action is scary at times and exciting. The scariest is when a snipper kills a man and you can't see where it came from. It is an unique war movie.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Malick fan, but not of this film
carlfab200130 January 2022
I'll keep it short: art should never feel contrived. This film feels contrived throughout. It has great performances, it has stunning action sequences, it has philosophical undertones. But all of it is lost because the viewer remains separated from it, disconnected, removed. Never once did I feel immersed in the atmosphere, the language, or the plot. There is no anchoring point, unless you know of this film's creator (Terrance Malick) and his creative style. Much fuss has been made of his return after twenty years away from film. I know of this artist, I've seen his films, and I admire his work- with the exception being this film. His approach to the topic of war did not resonate with me at all. It felt like I was watching the very definition of pretension, to the point of being uncomfortable. Much of the dialogue does not ring true, doesn't feel real. The reason for 6/10 stars is in support of the performances, which often transcend the awkward script, arhythmic pacing, and schizophrenic directorial choices.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Pretty, but empty and pretentious
Danimal-719 August 1999
THE THIN RED LINE is the story of Company C, a U.S. Army unit during the World War II battle of Guadalcanal. It must attack a hill occupied by Japanese soldiers. You now know the entire plot of THE THIN RED LINE, and yes, it is every bit as boring as it sounds.

THE THIN RED LINE is subject to the same critique as THE PHANTOM MENACE: it's nobody's story. Most of the characters (with two merciful exceptions) are boring and literally interchangeable; more than one reviewer has confused one character with another.

The voice-over narration consists of maundering banalities disguised as philosophy. At one point one of the G.I. narrators (who? who knows or cares?) mumbles, "Who's killing us?" The Japanese soldiers are killing you, of course! And you're killing them! What could be more obvious or banal? Another pompously suggests that all humans are part of one universal soul. Are we seriously to believe that two men such as Col. Tall and Cap. Staros, with such different outlooks on life and diametrically opposite reactions to violence, have the same "soul?"

Oddly for a movie so obsessed with imagery (particularly of the lush jungle), THE THIN RED LINE consistently tells us what is happening to the characters, rather than showing us. Officers beg for water for their men, lest the poor sods pass out, but we never see a soldier pass out or even gulp the last drip from a canteen. Show us, Malick! Show us the crusted salt dried on the baked skin of a man who has no water left in his body for sweat! Show us the field surgeon losing his ability to care what happens to the men, don't just have him tell us about it! Show us Arnold Schwarzenegger getting blown to pieces while Rick Moranis survives, don't give us a line like, "No matter how strong or well trained you are, if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're going to get it." Show us what's happening to the people, not to the !@#$% papaya tree!

The movie is also scandalously inaccurate. Any war veterans in the audience will giggle to see two dozen Japanese voluntarily surrender to Company C alone. In reality, Japanese soldiers were almost never captured alive, and when they were it was usually because they were too badly hurt to resist further. Even worse is the portrayal of the native Solomon Islanders, who are made out as living a serene and peaceful life untouched by the war. In fact, the natives of Guadalcanal were very unhappy about being invaded by the Japanese, and made crucial contributions to the American victory by carrying water, ammunition and other supplies to the troops, rescuing American wounded, and as coastwatchers warning the G.I.'s of attack by air or sea. All of this was at great risk to their lives. The movie's treatment of them as passive flower children is inaccurate, patronizing and downright insulting. Also, the idea of a soldier with multiple AWOL offenses not being court-martialled is absurd. This is World War II, when they shot Private Slovik for desertion.

In all fairness, the cinematography is breathtaking. Also, the acting is uniformly high-quality, with Nick Nolte as Col. Tall and Elias Koteas as Cap. Staros providing very strong performances, especially considering the weakness of the script they had to work with. The battle scenes are kinetic, giving you the feeling you are charging alongside the troops, and they manage to convey some pathos despite the film's refusal to let us connect with the characters. Only these elements save THE THIN RED LINE from being a total loss.

Bloody but detached, contemplative but witless, visually beautiful but emotionally dead, THE THIN RED LINE is not worth renting. Hard-core film buffs might want to watch it on TV for the acting and for John Toll's flawless cinematographic technique.

Rating: ** out of ****.
184 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed