Whew! I thought I was gonna be the only one that DIDN'T think this was a masterpiece!

Rating: 7/10 (17 February 1999)

Thanks to imdb for restoring my sanity. "The Thin Red Line" drew raves from critics and garnered 7 Oscar nominations, including the much coveted Best Picture nod. I gave it a "7", but even my vote was probably an exaggeration. I didn't really like this movie! I thought I was in a bad mood (which I was), that I was tired (which I was), or that I just "didn't get it" (which I didn't). But it wasn't me after all-- it was the movie.
I will compliment the cinematography and the basic story line. I appreciate the film's message that "nature is cruel" (to sum it up in 3 words). The most annoying thing for me, however, was the over-use of the voiceover. I don't usually mind voice-overs, but this was ridiculous. By the end of the film, every time the voice-over came on, I wanted to shout, "Oh, shut up! Already!" Most of the voice-overs were unintelligible (poor sound, I guess). The ones for which I COULD understand the words were unintelligible to my brain because they seemed like some kind of psychobabble. My guess is that these voice-overs came directly from the book. If not, there is no reason whatsoever for them.
Unfortunately even the message and execution of the film seemed a little dated and a little derivative. What's in this movie that we haven't already seen in "Platoon" and in "Apocalypse Now"? Not much. It certainly wasn't original like "Saving Private Ryan".
The performances were fairly solid, with the exception of two "cameo" mistakes in casting-- John Travolta (who I absolutely LOVED in "Primary Colors" and damn he didn't get nominated for it) was not believable as someone from the 1940s, and George Clooney, who, by the time he came on the screen, I was ready to accept anyone.