a greatly misunderstood film - to be deemed a classic in coming years

Rating: Null/10 (9 April 1999)

Why do people insist on criticising this film on the basis that it had no plot or that there was no central characters, or that the leading actors had bit-parts? I'm sorry, but you have missed the point entirely, and I feel sorry for you in that you could not see the tragic beauty encapsulated within this work. I bet you are the same people that complain that they could not understand 2001.
The Thin Red Line is quite simply a poetic masterpiece. It is the story of many men, and of all of us, as we attempt to confront our mortality, and who and what we are. The Thin Red Line is a Story of War, not a War movie, but more than that, it looks at all of us, ordinary men, each unique in their own way, each struggling to find a sense of place and meaning in this life before the inevitable onset of death, sooner or later (or sooner in war). Men who attempt make sense of their lives, and what men are driven to confront in extreme circumstances.
I cannot being to convey in words the sense of what I felt this film was attempting to say. I'm not talking in a religious sense, the monologues and the camera work seemed to allude to a universal oneness of all things, or a truth in all things, even in war, an impermanency set amidst a tremendous and universal permanency. War almost became an allegory for the flawed, frail and tragic beauty of human life and existence. How do we survive ourselves, how to we reconcile ourselves to ourselves, to each other, and to what it means to be human and to be mortal?
The story was there, but the portrayal of war was probably more realistic than anything ever I have ever yet seen. In war, there were many moments where 'not a lot happened', many moments of stillness and inactivity, and when 'action' came, it wasn't necessarily on the large scale of a full assault with cannons blasting. It was 'matter of fact' as this film portrayed it. The very basic story was the taking of Quadacamal and the ultimate toll that the taking exerted on these men. The actor was Charlie company, and a collection of men who represent us all.
In fact found the cast of leading actors a distraction, and I would have preferred a cast of unknowns. It was inevitable that you would end up saying, oh, there's John Travolta, or there's George Clooney, which on occasions, prevented you from being completely immersed in the film. Sean Penn and Nick Nolte to a lesser degree, I felt was the exceptions to this.
Saving Private Ryan, because I cannot help make the comparison, despite having many moving moments, I found contrived and simplistic by comparison, a pre-digested account of the horror and inanity of war, replete with the standard references and hackneyed plot. A war movie for the Reebok generation. Spielberg could not help but delve into his Peter Pan style story telling. And despite his promise to look at the men of the war (and that war drives men on both sides to do terrible things), he could not help but delve into the standard all 'Germans are really bad and therefore deserved it' mantra. I didn't see that with Malick's portrayal of the Japanese. Sorry Saving Private Ryan was a disappointment, and the Stars and Stripes, replete with the attractive well-rounded blond-haired grand children was sickening to behold.
Thin Red Line is quite simply a masterpiece (shot in North Queensland). Malick has almost created the perfect film...almost. All great artists are misunderstood.