With Focus, Coulda Been a Masterpiece

Rating: Null/10 (21 March 2004)

With focus, Terence Malick's 1998 "The Thin Red Line" could have been a masterpiece.
Though the film depicts the brutal and desperate American and Japanese battle for Guadalcanal during WW II, it is one of the most beautiful films ever made. There is as much exquisite and detailed nature photography in this film for it to be cut down to a one hour nature documentary. The birds, grasses, water, and aquatic life of the South Pacific are presented in all their vivid lushness.
The film contains some first rate performances. Sean Penn as a cynical, "go along to get along" first sargeant, James Caviezel as a pre-Passion christ-like figure, Nick Nolte as a West Point careerist and jerk in high command, John Travolta as a windbag, Elias Koteas as a flawed but ultimately heroic captain, are all in their best form. Each has a moment, or moments, that are among the best work you will ever see these very fine actors do, and that is saying a lot.
No expense was spared, so you see vintage WW II-era ships plying the South Pacific and what appear to be thousands of men preparing to defeat the enemy, or die.
The problem is that the film lacks focus. If you didn't know anything about Guadalcanal going in, or about WW II, you won't learn anything from this movie, and all the men crawling around in the dirt with guns in their hands will just appear like boys playing pointlessly at war to you. Perhaps Malick intended that, but if that is what he intended, he doesn't do much with that message, either. Nothing is at stake. The Japanese aren't the agressors who committed the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, or violated countless Korean women. They're just skinny guys atop a hill with a machine gun.

The Americans are not average Joes utterly without plans for world domination, who were sent halfway round the world to defeat the Axis Empire.

In short, there is basically no point and no plot to what's onscreen.
Too, the movie suffers greatly from voiceover narration. Outside of Film Noir, you can bet that narration is a sign of a bad movie. In this movie about war, men go on and on dreamily in a faux-noble style, waxing philosophical about love, the afterlife, and purpose.
Oh, come on. Don't soldiers in war ever think mundane thoughts? Like, "Gee, I wish I could have a ham sandwhich right now"?
All these Deep-Thoughts voiceovers make war seem like an inspirational adventure; probably not Malick's goal.
Too, there are too many star cameos. Do we need the face of that one anonymous GI to be Adrien Brody's face? Do we need a new commander who is onscreen for about two minutes to be George Clooney? These cameos of big stars in small roles seem just plain silly.
Finally, one key character, Witt, is just plain hard to believe. He's a conscientious objector, or repeat AWOL-er, or something. He keeps running away. And then, of course, he turns out to be the most noble warrior of all.
Okay, but ... why? Why is the best warrior in the outfit the guy who always runs away? Give us some characterization, some story, some plot, some coherence.
None are to be found in this flawed but beautiful film.