Waiting twenty years, for this?

Rating: Null/10 (5 March 1999)

I must say I had little or no expectation entering the theatre for The Thin Red Line' For my money (and it seems I'm in the minority here) Saving Private Ryan (this year's other entry into the war-time, memory lane, and Oscar scrounging, sweepstakes) was without merit. And in that instance, probably because of Tom Hanks, at least I'd held high expectations.
Anyway, I'd attempted to read one version of Terrence Malick's script sometime last year. To begin with it was 240 pages, with no thread that I could immediately identify, anywhere, to carry me through this volume. Many, many non-descript characters coming, leaving, dying, complaining. I couldn't keep it at all straight, so I put it down. I picked it up, no luck. I put it down. I picked it up. I put it down.
John Sayles wrote a book called Thinking in Pictures'. The primary thrust of the book seemed to identify that a film's role (as different from a book) is to tell the story not merely through the text, the dialogue, but to use the pictures every bit as effectively in conveying the message to the viewer.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere, I'm thinking. Terry Malick is an auteur, I tell myself. He has a vision. It is HIS vision and it is clear to him I say. Forget that what is on these pages is tedious, confusing, without story. He'll tell it with the pictures!
And the pictures in The Thin Red Line are beautiful. When you put John Toll on the case, that's pretty much what you expect, and always what you get. He is a true craftsman.
But there's still no story. And the movie does nothing.
Maybe it's casting voodoo. For all his talent, Sean Penn continues to give more and more forgettable performances. For all his lack of talent, John Cusack is lucky to be able to give any performances at all. All the rest look like a line waiting for a cab outside the Viper Room at closing time: muscular, vacant, tepid.