User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 ****.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

This gets a 6/10 from me for the excellent war sequences. Unfortunately, they are very few and far between! I might give it an 8/10 as a nature documentary perhaps...

Honestly, I've seen this film three times now and I still cannot understand the praise it gets. Firstly, its looooong - far too long. I kept thinking "they could have cut all that bit out". Secondly, is it me or does this seem like a (very well shot) nature documentary?! Im not joking...it does seem like Malick had to shoot a war film but thought "I know, Im not really into war and stuff really - Im going to shoot a nature documentary at the same time". Honestly there is far too much arty nature footage in this film - sometimes I forget its a war film or that there is a war actually going on in the film! If I want to watch a nature documentary Ill watch a nature documentary.

Thirdly - and my biggest problem with this film - the romantic sub-plot/flashbacks. My god these bits are dull, useless and completely irrelevant! They were obviously inserted to add more "poetic meaning" etc - they really DO NOT work! I can just imagine even the people who love this film wincing a bit when these bits are on. They also help to destroy any momentum the film has (and its struggling in this department as it is what with the constant filming of swaying grass, monkeys, tribal people etc which of course have nothing to do with the plot - what there is of it). Why the editors of the film couldn't see this is beyond me.

I've no doubt that the recent blu-ray release looks fantastic and perhaps this has influenced people's opinion of the FILM itself (god forbid ;) ). My clock-watching during this film was almost constant.

To sum up - I think Malick wanted to film an arty nature documentary - the cinematography is indeed excellent. But as a war film? Forget it. You could halve the running time of this film fairly easily and it would still seem a bit bloated. Im sure its very poetic and has a lot to say about how man is bad and nature is good etc - zzzzz. Im amazed I stayed awake till the end.

The tagline on this movie, "Every man fights his own war" is disturbingly apt. I say it's apt because we get to see the private war of several of these men. Unlike most movies, which focus on one, maybe two main plots (plot and subplot) this movie gets far too carried away with too many stories. Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, John Travolta, Jim Caviezel, Woody Harrelson, George Clooney and others each played a top-billing kind of role. Each of them had a story that we were supposed to care about. But that's too many stories, and in the end the movie comes across as scattergun and ad hoc. Two stories handled well, and I'd have been happy. But that many? Sorry, it's all a bit much.

Look at Saving Private Ryan. Two main stories - Tom Hanks' character and his journey, and James Ryan. The rest is important, and valuable. The young communications officer, for one. Tom Sizemore's crusty sergeant. But Hanks' Capt Miller was the man with the real journey, and we care about him, which is why we keep watching.

A friend who knows some of the crew from the filming of Thin Red Line (in North Queensland) tells me that much of the cinematography involved wandering through the rainforest filming filler of shrubs and birds and dripping water. And watching the film, I'd believe it. The photography was breathtaking, but in my opinion a movie needs more than pretty pictures to deserve a Best Picture Oscar nomination. A story, for example. A real, human story with characters you care about. I don't think it's too much to ask.

The "Thin Red Line" is not an easy film to understand. It uses one of the most complex narrative structures yet produced by cinema to tell three stories (yes, it DOES have a plot): 1) the one the book wanted to tell (the book's title comes from a 19th century allusion to the British Empire's infantry whose small numbers managed to 'protect' the British ["civilization" from their point of view] from the countless hordes of "savages" which the Empire ruled (this concept is regrettably racist). James Jones used this analogy to tell the story of how young American soldiers with no battlefield experience become bloodied veterans. 2) the fundamental paradox of war: to protect "civilization" (all that we hold dear) we are prepared to send young men to fight in wars. We know that in war they will see and do things that will turn them into the very "savages" that we are trying to prevent from destroying our civilization. If you believe that there are things even worse in the world than war (genocide, rule by the Axis powers) then war is not irrational, but the paradox mentioned above exists. 3) man is not distinct from nature but a part of it. Therefore, nature is both beautiful and cruel. (Like our civilization and war). To tell these stories Terence Malick used symbolic imagery, flashback, voice-overs, passages without dialogue, long close-ups of the actors' faces, changes in tempo and a haunting score. For example, his use of symbolism has been much criticized but everything has a purpose e.g. the crocodile entering the green algae covered water (nature's savagery), the native man who passes the company, after they land on the beach, walking in the opposite direction apparently oblivious of their presence (their shocked and bewildered faces reveal how they are forced to question the relevance of the reasons for which they may shortly die - the defense of civilization), the tree being choked by parasitic vines ('nature is cruel' as Lt. Col. Tall so aptly puts it), the bird being born as a soldier dies (it was not dying as many people thought - "we come from the earth and return to it" as we hear in the voice-overs), dogs eating a human corpse ("dog eat dog" - the soldiers are becoming desensitized to the violence) the same crocodile, now dead, at the end of the film being carried away as a sort of trophy (danger has receded for the moment), the coconut sprouting a palm on the empty beach in the last scene (after death comes birth - the cycle of life). There are, of course, many, many other examples. The use of flashback accompanied by voice-over to convey feelings as opposed to narrate a story must have appeared strange to anyone who never saw Alain Resnais' "Hiroshima Mon Amour". It was used most effectively with Ben Chaplin's character (Pvt. Jack Bell) when he thinks of his wife back home - incidentally he idolizes her in the same way we do our own culture - another metaphor. His disillusionment is profound and shows that what he was prepared to die for was only as pure as any ideal. It is often say that there was no character development. This is also false. For example, in the scene where Sgt. Welsh is speaking to Witt shortly after his arrest for being AWOL , Welsh seems to claim that it is every man for himself when he says that individual sacrifice is worthless, there is no world but this one and that each man must get through the war the best that he can. However, we subsequently see him risking his life to deliver morphine to a MORTALLY wounded man during the frontal assault on the Japanese machine gun nests. Also, Witt can not understand where evil comes from in the midst of the beauty he sees in the Melanesian village, but when he returns there he sees man arguing, enemy skulls, crabs hideously crawling around on an outstretched human hand and a child's back covered with insect bites while those people around it are seemingly uncaring. These images suggest that evil is inherent in man. Malick avoids the usual stereotypes. Although we see heroic acts (such as the taking of the machine gun nests by Capt. John Gaff's [John Cusack] team of volunteers), there are no recognizable heros. It is true that the characters are not sharply defined. When the violence comes it is against all of them i.e. all of US. Are there then any relevant negative criticisms of the movie? I would say that it did not meander as some critics alleged (every scene has a purpose) but it was unnecessarily long. There is a certain irony in this. It is said that Malick edited over 100 hours of material first to 9 hours. Understandably the studio did not accept this. He then reduced it to 6 hours and then to 3. (This helps to explain the lightning appearances by John Travolta and George Clooney, I see no problem, however, with using big name stars in such short roles - Richard Attenborough did it in "A Bridge Too Far"). With so much cherished material available, I suspect that Malick fell into the trap of opting for the maximum length that the studio would allow when more artistically efficient editing would have reduced the film to 2* hours. The balance between the action and meditative passages would have worked better if certain scenes had been cut, such as Witt's passing a wounded soldier on the way back to his company after leaving the Melanesian village the second time and also the conversation that Witt and Welsh have towards the end of the film (Welsh appears a stranger to him, suggesting that he is simply a troublemaker). Even with the exclusion of these scenes Witt would still appear a humanist and Welsh a complex "every man". Most people would agree that the film is visually stunning. As there has been very little even remotely similar in the past, it will be confusing for many people but I am convinced that this will come to be seen as a hugely important work - the most influential of the 1990s.