Dreadful pretentious tripe, lacking the talent to pull it off

Rating: 3/10 (25 September 2011)

The reason I hate this movie is the same reason I hate Terrence Malick as a director. This movie is slightly better than his truly abysmal Days of Heaven, but only just. He gives us dialog, but it is inconsistent or unintelligible at best. He gives us a plot, but it is weak and disjointed with no continuity. He provides us characters, but never delves into their motivations. He showers us with breathtaking images, but without purpose. My point is this: if you give us these things, flesh them out or don't bother. Just don't do a half-assed job of it!
You see, I understand what Malick is trying to accomplish. I hate miserable Hollywood tripe as much as anyone. He wants to emphasize that he need not conform to Hollywood standards of plot, or characters, or dialog. I wholeheartedly agree with this philosophy. I don't need to be spoon-fed like the typical American viewer with a 8 year old's attention span. There have been great films that lack some of these components. Kurosawa was a master of this. Kiarostami still is. When Malick tries to pull this off, he comes off as a two-bit hack. Compare Ran to The Thin Red Line. If you're going to make an art film, make an art film! The compromise that Malick tries to make in his films is not working.
Is Malick's imagery spectacular. YES! Does it have anything to do with the story at the time? RARELY! Kurosawa could weave an intricate tale with absolutely nothing but imagery. Malick, on the other hand, just randomly inserts disjointed images with no apparent purpose. The fact that you can capture beautiful imagery is rendered moot when you don't know how to weave it into your story. David Lean's skills were also every bit as good as Malick's, but his were used for a purpose.
I don't know why the fans seem so impressed with the "philosophy" of this film. The supposedly profound philosophical narration is straight out of a 9th grade English class (and I don't mean the honors or AP one) with lousy metaphors and childish vocabulary. I also don't understand all the stupid nature metaphors. Nature isn't cruel for the most part. It doesn't have malice. Trying to equate the savagery of human conflict to anything found in nature is idiotic.
For instance: "Love. Where does it come from? Who lit this flame in us? No war can put it out, conquer it. I was a prisoner. You set me free."
WOW! I am overtaken with, um, yeah, this is garbage. Imagine that! Soldiers have sweethearts back home and don't just dream 24/7 about "killing slants." I would expect insight this deep from students struggling through middle school. I'm not kidding here when I say that there is more profound anti-war philosophy uttered by Rambo in First Blood than this so called anti-war masterpiece. If you want to see a good anti-war film, see how masterfully Kubrick helmed Full Metal Jacket. If you want to experience what it's really like to be a soldier in a war zone, I think Black Hawk Down does a better job than this also. Malick comes off as a self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, pretentious two-bit hack when he tries to emulate the true masters of film.
I can sum it up thusly: if you are pretentious enough to think you can pull off a film without adhering to standards of plot, continuity, dialog, and character development then you bloody well had better be a good enough director to pull it off. Bergman, Kiarostami, Kurosawa: they were good enough. Terrence Malick is NOT!