takes you to another place

Rating: Null/10 (2 February 2002)

The Thin Red Line is the best war film I have ever seen. But I hate to classify it as that, because if you do and someone reads that it's a war film, they're going to expect Saving Private Ryan. The two were compared when first released because they were released the same year and were both up for Oscars. However, the two are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FILMS WITH DIFFERENT INTENTIONS. So, I won't waste time, energy or space comparing the two.
There is a stellar, all-star cast, but there really is no star. The film has a flexible narrative and the story adapted from James Jones' novel is told from different points of view. This is a problem for today's audiences who are not open minded when watching a film that doesn't play like a standard popcorn flick or T.V. movie. Like Mulholland Drive a viewer can come in the middle of it and not really miss anything as far as not understanding what's happening now. It's like an or circular film that just keeps going - like the war for the soldiers that never seems to end.
This film has been criticized so many times, for so many different reasons. And those who criticize it, also criticize those who like it, saying that they (the people who like it) think that film is philosophical, when really it isn't. Or theat the philosophy is only sophomoric. But the film is about the soldiers and I would doubt that these soldiers were Philosophy majors, so if the philosophy is sophomoric (which I don't feel it is) it's because they are. But I should point out and remind people that Terrence Malick taught Philosophy at MIT, and I would think he has a better comprehension of it that the people who are criticizing his use of it.
I also think that the people who criticize this film are the same hypocrites who hated 2001: A Space Odyssey, until it became a classic, and then started to like it. The Thin Red Line is a film that is ahead of an audience. Like the work of Stanley Kubrick or David Lynch, the film takes more than one viewing to fully understand, which may be impossible. But if you're open minded enough, it is such an enjoyable movie in its grandeur. That is another thing people dislike, its pretensions. But how do they expect Malick to deal with a subject as broad as WAR, and not just a group of soldiers, and avoid the possibility of pretension?
Most war film deal with a select few that we as an audience get to know. We don't here. We only get to glance. And we glance at so many people it's hard to KNOW any of them. I have not fought in war, but I would assume that is what it is like. You'd get to know who you're close to, but the others, you would just see.
I think that this film is more realistic about war than most. We don't just see a constant attack. We see the quieter moments. Not all war is fighting, sometimes the hardest times are when nothing happens in life. People always say to "keep busy". Well what happens if you don't?
We see the women in these soldiers' life (another thing criticized). I don't know about you, but if I was alone in a war, I'd probably be thinking about the good things in life too - which unfortunately may also turn out to be bad.
The acting in the film is superb. Nick Notle, Elias Koteas, Woody Harrelson, Jim Caviezel are all fantastic. The music is awe inspiring. When the main theme hits a certain point, a few minutes in it's breathtaking. The cinematography - the island - is like a character in itself. Man's war is at the same time a war against nature, against our environment. I can't remember any other film that took such an effective turn in using the camera to make the viewer seem like you are in the film.
I can still remember some of the images. They're imprinted like a photograph burned onto paper.
Whether people admit it or not, this film is a masterpiece. It is one of the best films I have ever seen. And I am glad that I had an open enough mind so that I could see that film for what it is - a work of true art.