Will someone please wake me when it's over.

Rating: 2/10 (20 January 1999)

Ahhh... what a movie. I suppose I did need a good nap, and this movie provided the perfect backdrop. This stunted war flick had the continuity of Jacob's Ladder, the character development of Fun With Dick and Jane (the book, not the movie), and the writing of Blues Brothers 2000.
The Thin Red Line is a movie with no beginning, no end, and about three different middles. The viewer wonders: Is it the story of a dissident soldier, the story of a battle for a hill, a story about hope in the face of adversity, a story about how there is evil inherently present in nature and man? Turns out that it is not much of any of these. None of these story lines was spun thoroughly enough to be worth of my $8. My apologies to Mr. Malick, but you have failed in the extremely difficult task of combining three movies into one.
Some characters are explained all too simply in plain english, such as Nick Nolte's character when he reveals that his career has been retarded by a lack of combat experience, therefore he wants to create as much hell-on-earth as his stunted military acumen needs. But beyond the few obvious roles, the vast majority of characters thoughts and motivations are nebulous, inconsistent, and never explained. Even the narration makes no sense. What the heck was he talking about?!
Although some imagery and themes were evident, I don't think it worthy of a high budget 170 minute film. I could strap my camcorder to my dogs collar, and I'll wager that in 170 minutes of running around the neigborhood hydrants, he captures more brilliant imagery.
The writing of this movie is disjointed, and unlike a great Seinfeld episode, or Pulp Fiction, it is not magically tied together at the end. The writers leave this very difficult step for the viewer. I challenge anyone who claims that they make sense of the film to justify why each scene is relevant. I'd be happy if they could justify half. I can think of a bunch of scenes that were just plain gratuitous, and should have been left on the cutting room floor, for example: the scenes with John Travolta. Were these kept in the film just because they were the only scenes with the red-hot Travolta? I actually don't think so; their presence was consistent with the generous editing of the whole film.
I'd say save your $8 and rent the video, but I think it more important to say save your 170 minutes and skip this film.