All vision and no plot makes "Thin" a dull film.

Rating: 5/10 (5 March 1999)

What angers me most about fans of this film is that they claim that people who disliked this movie because of its length (an excruciating 170 minutes!), or the fact that there are virtually no identifiable characters are just half-wits who want to be "spoon-fed" the latest Hollywood special effects blockbuster. Well as a person who does appreciate cinematic quality, I was bored with this film's ten ton ego.
I don't care how powerful a director's vison might be, you can't have a film, especially a three hour one, that doesn't have a storyline. Now I know that film students who have no doubt studied every millisecond of the movie would disagree with that vehemently. I can understand their viewpoint since I WANTED to like this film. On a visual level it certainly has its moments. I could definitely tell the movie was trying to say something. But without solid characters (I'm sorry, but any argument that these characters are anything but half-finished sketches is pure bunk!) the heavy message of the film hits the floor with nothing to hang onto. And no, the constant narrations, which sound at times like passages from a Moody Blues album, didn't help since I didn't believe for a second that anybody in this situation would really have something like that going through their mind.
Still, I didn't hate this movie. I was impressed with its intent. In a way it does make "Saving Private Ryan" seem kind of childish. And that's no easy task. But a little characterization can go a long way.
I don't usually give number ratings, but as an example of how this movie affected me, my rating shows how the impressive visuals and the non-existant characters and plot cancel each other out.
(5 out of 10)