During the 1970s, Terrence Malick made two highly regarded, exquisitely photographed films. He then went into hiding in Austin, Texas, becoming perhaps the most famed film recluse since Greta Garbo. Twenty years after his masterpiece Days of Heaven, Malick made a comeback. The famous names that are sprinkled throughout the cast are a testament to the respect that Hollywood actors have towards his past work, and still unspent future promise.
The setting is the Guadalcanal, during World War II. American troops, led by garrulous, glory-seeking Colonel Tall (Nick Nolte), attempt to displace the entrenched Japanese, who have built an airstrip on the island as a stepping stone towards taking Australia. The main obstacle is a hillside Japanese machine gun nest, which rains death on the scared, dehydrated young soldiers.
While Tall and Cpt. Bosche (George Clooney) are indifferent to the death and suffering, they are certainly in the minority. Cpt. Staros (Elias Koteas), First Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn), and Sgt. Keck (Woody Harrelson) care about the lives of their men, and not only because they are facing bullets as well.
Welsh has shown his sympathy for the common soldier by not disciplining dreamer Pvt. Witt, who understandable prefers to go AWOL with a peaceful indigenous tribe. Pvt. Jack Bell (Ben Chaplin) also finds a blissful escape from the horrors of war, by dwelling upon his past intimacy with his beautiful, sensual wife (Miranda Otto).
Ironically, it is the hard boiled eggs who prove victorious. At much cost, the hill is taken, and the Japanese are routed. War does not belong to the idealists or the dreamers.
I believe that The Thin Red Line is one of the greatest films ever made. In fact, I have it pegged in third place on my much slaved over all-time list, behind only Red River (1948) and Casablanca (1942).
Casablanca is an easy selection to defend, as its script, cast, and story are unassailable without becoming disingenuous. Red River, however, has some characters and story elements that do not cater to traditional interpretations of gender roles. But while Red River is universally, if sometimes grudgingly, considered to be a great film, the same honor really hasn't been accorded to The Thin Red Line.
In fact, many people despised the film, and couldn't make it through its nearly three hour running time. True, it was nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture. But it didn't win any, not even for its cinematography.
Wading through negative user comments on imdb.com is an exercise in righteous outrage. The typical criticism makes the following points:
* The story is very loose, even jumbled, especially in the film's third hour
* There is an over-reliance on voice-overs
* The cameos of famous stars are not done properly
Let me tackle these points in reverse order, because the more trivial complaints can be dealt with readily.
Films are often thought of as being vehicles for famous stars. Which, in fact, they often are. Broken Arrow (1996) is an action vehicle for John Travolta, and Michael (1996) is a comedy vehicle for John Travolta. However, Pulp Fiction is not a John Travolta vehicle, even though that film did much more for his career than the other two. The difference is that Pulp Fiction is a great film that happens to feature Travolta. It would have been a great film if his character had even been played by Adam Sandler. It is only because of the complete success of Pulp Fiction that the casting of Travolta is seen as essential. It would assuredly not have been so inevitable back in 1993, when Travolta's career then seemed relegated to making inferior remakes of Look Who's Talking.
Generally, the great film makes the star, rather than the star making the film great. Casting is important, even in small roles. But to say that The Thin Red Line is a disappointing film because Travolta or Clooney show up and then promptly disappear without fanfare reveals expectations rather than weaknesses. We've been promised, even teased, by the presence of these outrageously compensated stars. But director Malick has little use for their particular demographics and personalities in the casting of his story, and just shunts them aside. No one would complain if their brief characters were played by lesser knowns. Travolta and Clooney have had their war epics, Broken Arrow and The Three Kings. Let Malick have his turn.
Malick makes frequent use of narration in his films. Badlands (1973) and Days of Heaven (1978) became celebrated films using the same technique. Voice-over by a character is the natural method of expressing his or her thoughts. It is more natural than showing text on the screen, as if it has been placed there by God. It is also more natural than another technique often found in film dialogue, which has one character describing past events at length to another character. (Malick does this as well, in the first conversation between Sgt. Welsh and Pvt. Witt, but the dialogue isn't so obvious as to be unnatural.)
Voice-overs can be justly criticized if their real purpose is stitch together a continuity from mis-directed or mis-edited pieces. But the technique works wonders in the hands of a director as skillful as Malick, who uses cinematography as a 'visual poetry' to elaborate on the same thoughts expressed by the voice-over.
This brings us to the most troublesome complaint of The Thin Red Line. Is the film boring and pretentious, with a poorly constructed story spread thinly over three painful hours? Obviously, that's not my opinion, but the criticism must be addressed.
The expectations of mainstream entertainment are a focused story, some action and/or romance, and a set of distinctive characters. Of course, such a formula can result in great films, such as The Godfather. But just as more than one road leads to Rome, there are many ways to make a great film. A fragmented composite of beautiful images representing thoughts and feelings, mixed together with a compelling storyline, can also be outstanding. As with Stanley Kubrick's 'unfocused' Barry Lyndon (1975), The Thin Red Line fully converts its enormous ambitions, despite its three hour running time, and despite the inevitable backlash from those who want their dish served much as it was the last time around.
The imdb.com user comments also make frequent comparisons with Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line (1964).
The former is Spielberg's much acclaimed entry into re-interpreting World War II battles as tragedy rather than glory. Combining mainstream storytelling with outstanding production values, the film has little to do with The Thin Red Line other than its subject matter and coincidence of same-year release. Saving Private Ryan was at one time considered a lock to win Best Picture, but perhaps The Thin Red Line split enough male votes for the clearly lesser Shakespeare in Love to win.
I have not seen the 1964 version of The Thin Red Line, the first Hollywood production of James Jones' novel. (Jones had also written "From Here to Eternity", which was adapted into one of the most successful of all films set during World War II.) But my understanding is that the two films are vastly different in technique, with the earlier film more conventional and not sharing Malick's devotion to expressing 'visual poetry' through voice-over and cinematography. (99/100)
A powerful all-star cast explodes in this hauntingly realistic view of military and moral chaos in the Pacific during World War II.More at HotMovieSale.com
A powerful frontline cast--including Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, Woody Harrelson and George Clooney--explodes into action in this hauntingly realistic view...More at Buy.com Marketplaces
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.