A beautiful, well acted but ultimately pretentious film.

Rating: Null/10 (29 November 1999)

Believe me, I have been threatened with death for completely "missing" the point of this film. It is absolutely one of the most breathtakingly beautiful films in terms of photography, editing and marriage to music. Technically speaking, it is certainly worthy of the tremendous praise heaped upon it. However it is one of the most pretentiously dull films I have ever seen. I find this film neither profound or original and if Terrance Malick wishes to make "art" as he obviously does, he must either say something that has never been said before or he needs to say something old in a way that hasn't been approached yet. I'll give him credit, he did achieve that with his earlier films. The concept that war is a meaningless waste, dehumanizing and evil in its destruction of the natural world is something every human being should already know. If Malick's objective is to teach those souls who are not aware of that reality, then he needs to make a vehicle that is more accessible to the masses. If no one understands your point, then why make something. This film is about alienating the audience, and call me old fashioned, but film and theatre are about forming a sembiotic bond. Every symbol in this film distanced me and allowed me to care very little about the outcome of the narrative. And I must admit, feeling distant about the scared young men on both sides who had a job to do in that war is a dangerous thing. Malick's script is not original in any way, in fact it is frequently nothing more than watered down Steinbeck. Buddhist tome poems make for great poetry, they don't automatically make great films. If Malick desired to make a statement, I recommend he spend much more time with Kurosawa that master of philosopher, artist and entertainer. Should the film be watched? Most certainly but since art is ultimately a personal reaction, this is mine.