Dimensions

Rating: 10/10 (29 August 2003)

Terrence Malick and Steven Spielberg are as similar in their styles of film as rubies resemble oil. They are entirely different constructs, therefore they make entirely different works. Obvious comparison will result between 1998's two big war films, Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line, but I honestly have to say that Spielberg's work is the lesser of two evils.
Spielberg sees war as something to be glorified according to his "Making Of" documentary for 'Private Ryan. Malick doesn't see war as anything other than an extension of his whole philosophical storyline. To be honest, he doesn't know jack about his topic or setting. I guarantee you that he could've made the same movie set in Harlem and garnered the same results, only better. Thus, neither director is intelligent in his approach. Only Lewis Milestone and Oliver Stone have come close to understand the "real-world" boundaries of conflict.
As such, The Thin Red Line is not a prototypical war film, certainly by comparison to more recent works as Blackhawk Down, Windtalkers, or Enemy at the Gates. The movie is not about pyrotechnics, but philosophy and psychology. I am happy that it abandons the stereotypes of 'Private Ryan, but doesn't achieve the level of feeling in Platoon. While the characters are not likable, they are credible.
The cinematography and editing are two elements here that go into overkill. The nagging flashbacks and continuous nature documentary/art house shots rip the story from the film and the various narrations only cause annoyance. Many of his shots are powerful in their fluidity, but the editing is too rocky for them to be effective. If he is going for spiritual symbolism, he failed. As a whole, the script becomes second to imagery and mood. This is Malick's weakest film. Hans Zimmer's work isn't his usual pompous work (Gladiator, The Lion King, The Rock), but is certainly effective in supplementing Malick's moods, not many composers can do that.
Thin Red Line would certainly have been better if Malick took the time to review what others (Kubrick, Milestone, Coppola, and Stone in particular) had done before attempting this film. Perhaps then he would have avoided many of the cliches and inevitable references that continuously pop up throughout the film.
Overall, you don't need to see this movie because prior films have covered the same territory before. Malick is a visionary, but a visionary without a script. 2 out of 5 stars.