Sometimes, "K.I.S.S" Is The Best Method

Rating: 2/10 (2 March 2017)

When trying to complete any task, the "K.I.S.S." method (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is often the most productive. Instead of over-complicating things, the simplest approach is usually the best. In the case of "The Thin Red Line", however, the film-making is so complicated that it erodes the simpleness of what the motion pictures are trying to convey.
For a basic plot summary, this movie centers on the WWII Battle of Guadalcanal. It is basically the story of a bunch of soldiers all over the ranks, from the time they leave the island to the time they leave.
This is one of the most complicated films ever made. I wish I could say that makes it good, but it only serves to make it nearly three hours of long stares and boredom. After perusing some Amazon reviews, it is interesting to note the difference between this film and "Saving Private Ryan", also released in 1998. The supporters of "Red Line" despise the simpleness of "Ryan", while those in favor of Spielberg's film lambast Terrance Malick for overblown filmmaking. Here is what I consider to be the difference:
"Saving Private Ryan" brought war movies back to the forefront of American filmmaking by connecting late-90s audiences with their "Greatest Generation" parents or grandparents. Yet, what director Spielberg realized (as he usually does) is that the simplistic approach is the best. He focuses on the travails of just a few characters, doesn't preach or pander, and still manages to create THE film by which all future war epics are judged.
"Thin Red Line" tries a completely different approach. It also tries to tell a simple story (Guadalcanal battles), but imbues it with so much philosophic babble and characters that "say" instead of "do", that by the end the viewer is so turned around that they won't know what to think. The whole "horrors of war" theme that Malick leans on so heavily should not need to be explicitly laid out. Trying too long to wrap one's brain around it only serves to make what could have been an interesting picture a drawn-out piece with only spots of decent material.
It was not my point to turn this review into a treatise on "why I like Saving Private Ryan better", but that is the easiest way I could show what I feel to be the major differences between the two. There are a few good parts in "Thin Red Line" (like the anticipation of the initial attack) and a few interesting characters (especially those played by Jim Caviezel & Nick Nolte). Thus the two stars instead of one.
Overall, though, I completely see why "Thin Red Line" completely fell off the map (except in more "arthouse" conversations) while "Saving Private Ryan" went on to immortality. Why make a movie so frustratingly complex why the same emotions can be conveyed in a much simpler fashion?