Anti-Hollywood should have won Best Picture

Rating: 6/10 (3 July 1999)

I always find that the least favorite to win the Best Picture Oscar is my favorite (ex. L.A. Confidential). When I saw Saving Private Ryan, I was blown away by the first 30 minutes, but I found the film following D-Day was just Spielberg succumbing to the typical Hollywood film - find a main character and follow him to the end of the film, with some big climactic battle thrown in at the end. I was so disappointed, but alas, Spielberg is the most commercial director of all, Hollywood's golden boy.
However, seeing The Thin Red Line was incredible. It was very unlike a Hollywood film, with its heavy emphasis on ensemble. Using some stars and some non-stars was great. For example, in Saving Private Ryan, one would not expect Tom Hanks to die in the first five minutes of the film - he's the star. Not so in The Thin Red Line: in this film, everyone has an equal chance to die. I also loved how well directed the film was - The camera really circled the chaotic battle very well. I understand why people did not like this movie, a friend of mine told me (before I had seen it) that the first and last half hour was good but the middle 2 hours sucked. I understand how people feel, but I loved the middle - it really showed how a docudrama is to be directed, very similar to Roberto Rosselini's Rome:Open City and Paisan.
I think that if you like war films, you will probably like this one, but keep in mind that this is a three hour movie. Personally, I can watch any movie, but if you're looking for a thought provoking and visually stunning film, this is a great choice.