There are different movies to be seen. This is one of them.

Rating: 9/10 (17 January 1999)

I see plenty of movies. I'm not a film buff. Arty pictures don't enthrall me, or even interest me generally. That said, comments about ponderous, pretentious movies don't really wash when they're made by people with too short an attention span to be able to tell one character from the next. It's like complaining that I, Claudius was a lousy TV show because everyone was dressed in those Roman robes.
The comparisons between The Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan, are, I suppose, inevitable. Here's mine: while both have their strong points and weak points, The Thin Red Line is an infinitely better picture than Saving Private Ryan. In particular, Terence Malick's direction and John Toll's cinematography show a lot more of the turmoil, the guts, and the gruesomeness of what war is all about. In Saving Private Ryan, you know from the moment you buy your popcorn that the good guys are going prevail and that Private Ryan is going to be saved. In The Thin Red Line, you don't know what's going to happen next -- and as many have pointed out, you're often confused from moment to moment as to what's happening. Many of the comments on this film (both in IMDB and elsewhere) see that as a weakness of this picture; I see it as a strength. Life is chaotic and confusing sometimes. I presume that war is even more chaotic and confusing.
Terence Malick's films all use FILM -- not books, not dialogue, and most assuredly not TV -- to tell their stories. He gets great performances out his actors while shooting beautiful pictures of them and the settings through which they move. If that offends or bores or confuses you, or if you're annoyed because John Travolta wasn't onscreen for long enough, please feel free to choose those other media for your entertainment. If instead you want a wonderfully acted, spectacularly shot, and compellingly directed movie, this is as good as you're likely to see in a long while.
---Michael B.