A (mostly) beautifully shot film with uneven acting and terrible editing, plenty of boredom

Rating: 2/10 (13 February 1999)

I find it disturbing that so many people are comparing this film favorably to such masterpieces as 2001 and Apocalypse Now. While some of the images and concepts of TTRL are as beautiful and mesmerizing, it is horribly ruined by extremely bad editing and extreme pretentiousness. In 2001 and Apocalypse Now the scenes had rhythm and timing- images and thought flow like waves on a beach. The Thin Red Line has none of this- scene cuts are poorly timed in a way that ruined the movie for me. It's too bad- this could have been an excellent film. I expect this is one of the reasons why so many people find the film so tedious and boring. Furthermore, the acting was very uneven. Nolte was ok at times, downright dopey at others. Cusack seemed to be the only one who gave an even performance that fit the story. Some of the scenes managed to somehow work despite the poor film craft- the final taking of the bunker and the river patrol come to mind. Too often poor scene planning/composition got in the way. The whole attack on the lower part of the hill seemed incredibly botched to me. None of the shots of the various squad locations, command center, enemy bunkers, and the mission objective seemed to match each other and made no sense in direction or distance. The final assault along the ridge could have been halfway around the world for all the film showed. I don't understand how there are so many people who gush over this movie. All of the wonderful cinematography and symbolic imagery in the world can't save a movie that is so poorly constructed that it detracts from the film's message. In my opinion, Malick ruined a great opportunity.