No, I don't get it--maybe because it's not there.

Rating: Null/10 (23 February 1999)

Or maybe it's because I haven't read the book (or any of them in the trilogy, for that matter). But either way, I don't get it.
Is that a problem with me, or the movie? I choose the latter. Technically, the film is brilliant. Action scenes truly involve the viewer in the battles. The cinematography involves us in the location of Guadal Canal. I now feel as though I've been there, and understand something of the damage done to this peaceful-but-strategically-located island.
The problem is that the film isn't about war; it's apparently about human nature. Fine; all films should deal with that on some level. Unfortunately for us, though, this film--be it the director, script or actor--tends to reach beyond its grasp. Poetic lines (vs. genuine poetry) are interwoven not at pointed intervals, but instead as pointless interruptions. And what seems to desire to pass for wisdom is shallow and droll.
Nolte, Penn and the rest turn in honorable performances, given what they had in the way of script and direction. Indeed, at points the cast rises above the shallow circumstances in which they find themselves. They certainly cannot be held responsible for the film's final appearance, or its lack of impact (let alone import).
It's the images so haphazardly interjected into the film that break it apart, no matter how well the cast worked. The crocodile, the bird--well, there's a difference between "too deep for most people" and too weak to make a point. Where the imagery of "Apocalypse Now" added to the story and its effect, the comparatively lame attempts in this version of "The Thin Red Line" provide only a thin veneer, where real depth was needed.
Color me disappointed.