how did this get an Oscar nomination?

Rating: 1/10 (24 February 1999)

I intended to see a world war II film, a film that was dubbed unique and packed with star power. What I saw was a National Geographic nature special with cameo appearances of known actors giving mediocre performances, save Nick Nolte. When comparing this "film" to this year's other WWII epic, Saving Private Ryan, I find it hard to identify any positive features of The Thin Red Line. In fact this movie is no "film" at all. It is simply the result of an uncontrolled director let loose. The movie's most laughable characteristic is the inclusion of George Clooney in one of the top credit spots. (he has, no joke, 25 seconds of screen time. This was an obvious low blow to the film's "artistic" nature in that Clooney's only purpose is to draw a female audience and therefore boost ticket sales, a truly "unartistic" endeavor. And who cares if Terrence Malick hasn't made a film in god knows how long? He should have stayed retired if he was waiting an eternity for something like this mess to come along. Where is the unity? Where is the theme? Does it deal with the disruption of nature as caused by war? Or is it just a really bad art "film"? Whatever the case, this movie is garbage, completely undeserving of an Oscar nomination. Fox must be having quality control problems or they simply were in need of something comparable to Saving Private Ryan. Nowhere close.