Boooooooooring

Rating: 1/10 (23 January 1999)

I guess it's important to know people in high places, how else could one explain Terrence Malick actually having a "movie" like this as acclaimed as it is? I have quoted the word "movie" because it was a movie only in the sense that it was shot on film and it is seen in a theater. Otherwise it is just a plotless, empty, superficial examination of what Mr. Malick THINKS war would be like.
How can this be considered for an Academy Award? There is NO PLOT; the "movie" continuously seemed as if it were building toward something and then...NOTHING.
"The Thin Red Line" would be better suited for National Geographic or a Discovery channel documentary, with its endless and tiresome shots of wildlife and foliage, and as if those were not bad enough in themselves, they weren't even placed well within the "moment." The only relevant shot of an animal in this "film" came with a bird struggling for its life amidst the battle. The opening scene is of an alligator while the music in the background is escalating and then...NOTHING. Two and a half HOURS later we see the alligator again, WOW! I got chills! What a great technique! Now I understand the meaning of life!
I understood the theme which was explained in the first of what seemed like an infinite amount of narratives, "Nature is endlessly fighting with itself," or some philisophical garbage like that. But this "movie" tries to do too much and left me as well as the rest of the audience, or what was left of it, gawking at the screen in a state of confusion and disbelief when the credits FINALLY rolled.
You can call me crazy, but I think characters are important, and if Mr. Malick hadn't intended to focus on any one character, then why did he add elements to the "film" (such as the cheating wife) that would make it seem as if he were but ran out of time?
At least I wasn't so withdrawn as not to notice George Clooney's perfect hair in the MIDDLE OF THE JUNGLE!