A Distinct Line Between Viewers?

Rating: 9/10 (17 April 1999)

It seems to me that people are very divided on The Thin Red Line. You either love it or you hate it. When I saw it with a group of my friends I was the only one who liked the film. So much in fact that I went and saw it again two weeks later and I liked it even more. A good comparison that people are making to this remarkable film are how it is getting a similar reception that Kubrick's groundbreaking 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyessy received. While I was not around when that film came out, I have seen it many times and I think it's one of Kubrick's best. Apparently at the time many people trashed 2001 much in the same as people are bashing The Thin Red Line. Want to know why? Because both films are radically different from the other pictures being released today. Think about it, most science fiction films were nothing like 2001. And to be quite honest, not many are still on caliber with that great film. It went against all the Hollywood conventions. People found it "boring" that Kubrick would follow a ship slowly through space with classical music playing. I guess most people don't "get it." And now today it is a classic. Although there are still many, many people who say, "I can't stand that movie. It's so long and boring." Sounds very similar to what people are saying about The Thin Red Line I think.
I think that once people begin to peel away the many depths that The Thin Red Line carries with it, they will finally begin to appreciate it. It's definitely one of the best war films made in recent years. Up there with Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, Coppola's Apocalypse Now (my fav war film by the way), and Oliver Stone's Platoon. The Thin Red Line breaks all the conventions of a war film. Most war films (including Saving Private Ryan) use what I call the "melting pot" platoon. This is that each soldier is from a radically different area to show how varying Americans are. There's the Jewish guy, the Brooklyn guy, the shy, cowardly guy, the rough and tough guy, the commanding Sargent, and the saintly Commander of the group. Most WWII films have this typical kind of group ot men. The Thin Red Line is nothing like this. None of the men know each other very well. They don't crack jokes between combat scenes. The heroic commander doesn't give a "riveting" speech as to why the men are here to die. None of that is here. Which actually makes it more realistic than most war films. As for the poetry, director Terrence Malick studied philosophy. So he is obviously very interested in the philosophical aspects of war which I found fascinating. Although I doubt in a combat situation men would recite poetry, it gives the film a feeling of an epic poem like Beowulf. I like to think of the film in those terms. That it is a basically an epic poem with images. That explains why this film does not rely heavily on a complex plot. Or have a clearly defined main character. Malick wants us to get into the minds of many different men put into a horrible situation and how they think and react to it. So I can understand why people dislike this film so greatly. It's really not a film for mainstream America. But to call it the "worst film ever" or "boring" or "it's too long" seems very unsubstantiated. Please, give this film a chance and you will see just how powerful it really is.