A Beautiful Though Incoherent Film

Rating: 8/10 (19 January 1999)

There are few times that I have seen a film as packed with visual splendors as Terence Malick's "The Thin Red Line". The beauty of the cinematography is unmatched by any other film this year as far as this reviewer is concerned. At the same time I must admit that this must have also been the hardest film to follow all year. Some praise this, most especially the current film enthusiasts of the day. Personally I have to be able to at least semi-understand about at least 50 percent of the movie the first time I see it, or much of the power that could have been is lost.
I have not read the novel upon which this film was based, though I assume that Malick was floored by certain ideas in the book and when it came to the making of the drama it became a whole new emotional odyssey for the director. It shows in the film. One of the worst flaws in the film is Malick's ill decision to showcase so many superstar actors in such small parts. If they played larger and more important roles they may have made an impact on me, but as it is they are just plain distracting. In order for films such as this you almost have to make up a cast of unknowns in order for their characters to have any lasting effect on you. If you don't do that, you find yourself always recalling that was just Woody Harrelson dying, not his character. It is OK to have maybe one or two prominent stars in the film, but to basically send a casting call that says "Attention, all superstar actors, play a minor role along with five or six others in a WW II film", well, it really can hurt the film.
Just look at the performance Jim Caviezel put in as the soldier whom the story focuses most on. As of now he is still the only character I can even remember caring about. And along with Nick Nolte, the only major star in a truly exceptional role, he gave the only performance that really registered with me. And nobody knows this guy!! Sean Penn was good too, though I wished they could have put a little more development into his character.
I think the main flaw of the film, aside from the odd (!) editing style as employed by Malick, is the fact that this movie could really have been about any other war and you would not have known it. True, a war film should be able to represent more than the just the war it is about with it's message, but in "The Thin Red Line" there is not much of anything as far as historical value is concerned. I watched this with a close friend who also happens to be a Vietnam War veteran, and he complained of the same thing. Where did this take place again? Oh yeah, Guadalcanal... What importance did that have?
We do see a few impressive battle scenes, and this is partly where Malick's editing becomes a bit too noticeable. While watching a film, you should not be thinking about the editing. Some of this did work, don't get me wrong: I came out knowing that one of the statements in the film was most certainly that war affects all creatures, no matter how small. A particularly effective scene occurred where a poor bird was bleeding to death and was struggling to regain its footing. The problem is, that is all I can remember from that scene. I remember there being machine gun fire, explosions, people dying (though on few occasions were deaths graphic).
Is this about the sacrifice made by soldiers in the war, as in "Saving Private Ryan" (a very different and more conventional WW II film- which is thankfully also a lot more coherent)? Or is this about stray bullets hitting birds in the sky? (I know it is all meant to symbolize a whole lot more than what I just said.)
So perhaps the biggest problem with the film is that it was just too ambitious.
I do recommend "The Thin Red Line" to win an Oscar for best cinematography, and perhaps even a screenplay Oscar to Mr. Malick simply for coming out of retirement from movies after 20 years to make something that undoubtedly took so much heart and energy to create. I just wish I could understand what the heck it was all about.