I liked it

TL/DR:  You're right Bro--it totally sucked.


I haven't seen it in a long time, but I recall that there were moments of brilliance.

I'm arrogant enough to presume that I understand what Malick was actually trying to get at with his images (and juxtapositions).  Sorry.  I'm a little insufferable like that.  

There is a scene (told through the eyes of the main character) where they are at the base of the hill--and it is certain that they are going to attack it and that many of them are going to die doing so--but there is no human form to be seen in the frame.  You can't even see the Japanese fighting positions.  What you can see is the grass and the trees swaying in the wind.  He holds the shot for a long time--and (I think) he wanted you to see that there were two things present, two things (realities) at work--the World (and works) of Man, and the World (and works) of Nature--an existential symphony of green, living things, of processes and life forces which have absolutely nothing to do with people, or Human History, and certainly not soldiers or politicians.  Something eternal, as old as sunlight and wind and rain--which had been going on for a billion years without--and often even in spite of--Men.

I can understand that some people--most people on this board in fact--probably wanted to see a different film.  You wanted to see Band of Brothers set on Guadalcanal.  To tell the truth I'd like to watch that movie too--and enjoy it on its own (perhaps intellectually limited) merits.  But that simple violent voyeuristic fantasy isn't what Terrence Malick was interested in bringing to the screen.  He actually wasn't even interested in bringing the James Jones book to the screen--although he used some of the story elements and characters and interpersonal antagonisms from Jones' novel.  He wanted (I'd guess) to make a film about the spiritual/metaphysical energy of war, and about the mystery of WTF exactly was happening there in front of the faces of these young men.

Here is a challenge for anybody who thinks the film sucks.  Ask yourself if you REALLY understood this moment in the film as you were watching it--because if you DIDN'T I'd say you kinda missed the whole point of the film while you were waiting for it to "get good". There was a scene in the film where an aboriginal man is walking along a muddy path--it is the moral center of the film, and I understood it to be so as I watched it happen on the screen--in memory he is actually barefoot, because why would he have shoes?  Do you remember the scene?  As he walks along the path, he passes a platoon of American soldiers in the long green grass, and he just looks at them.  They are moving up to fight the Japanese soldiers, who have built fortifications up on the hillside--a hillside which he has known his whole life, and when he looks at the American soldier leading the column (John C. Reilly) he doesn't say anything, but you get this incredible sense of  his complete detachment from whatever it is these strange foreigners are up to.  Now get this--he lives there.  This is his world.  He was born into it, he made his living in it--he took his very food from the green growing all around him.  When I saw that scene, it clicked in my head, and I GOT it.  What are the Americans doing there, in his world?  And what have they BROUGHT WITH THEM to his world?  When the soldier has gone AWOL and is living among the aborigines, they go swimming--there are many scenes of nature and play, fish and turtles--and then a sleek grey Navy destroyer cruises past, and the American takes cover so he is not spotted.  Same illumination--there is life and nature and joy and peace--but then suddenly the reality of the war comes cruising past.  All throughout the film the Americans (and the Japanese too) are completely involved in this THING--they think it it so important--yet they are surrounded on all sides by this ancient life force of living greenery that cares nothing for them and hardly notices their presence and is a larger reality unto itself.  THAT is what you are supposed to be aware of as the camera lingers on the swaying canopies of the trees, or as you watch the wind swirling through the grass of the hillside they are about to attack.

Now maybe you feel like that isn't something that is particularly novel or interesting or which gets explored too commonly in film.  OK.  I disagree.  I can totally get why somebody might HATE the film because they feel let down in their expectations--but I sort of wonder (doubt?) they ever really got what was happening in front of their face on the screen in the first place.

Plus it was awesome watching them smoking Japs with a shotgun as they took the pillbox.

It really sucked.  Especially the whole Greek dude sub plot....it was padantic.  What you think is some genius Imageries is simply hitting us over the head.  It really sucked....

Not great, but I liked it...  Too many cameos though.

Early in the movie, when the 2 men were AWOL, you see a continuity style error.  When the patrol boat is coming, the camera pans the shoreline looking out towards the sea.  In full view is a fiberglass short surfboard,  something that didn't exist until the 1970s.

Hated it as a 20 year old

Loved it as a 40 year old.

It's no saving private ryan for sure, but a pretty decent flick.

I've always enjoyed it, especially as I got older and understood what the characters' monologues were about. I was 15 when it came out, saw it in theaters, still enjoyed it but couldn't give a fuck what the characters thought at the time.

If you want a great pacific war movie watch letters from Iwo Jima.

TRL was teenage angst navel gazing with machine guns.

It gets a lot of hate here, but GD is dumb as shit and likes Michael Bay so that doesn’t say much. I don’t think the movie was as smart as it thought it was, but it was an enjoyable movie. If you’re looking for a generic war movie made for dumbs, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Absolute garbage. 0/10.

Your loss. Great film.

The character is a scatterbrained daydreamer and is even called out as being such by the other men in his unit. So it's not surprising in the middle of a battle when he's scared shitless, he pulls back to a memory that would comfort him. I don't think it's really hard to understand, or even all that unlikely to have happened to men seeing the shit they saw in the Pacific.

A lot of the monologue is done in the form of written letters and it doesn't imply that in the middle of battle he was talking to himself in his head in paragraph form about his squeeze back home

I made it to about 30 minutes. Once I figured out what was going on (what the filmmakers' were up to), I wasn't going to sit through that shit.

wanted to walk out for a bit.  the camera work is great.      the bunker scene is good.



other than that the rest for me kinda sucked. especially the beginning. Not sure if it was this film that started putting music completely over some battle scenes.   I frigging hate that.

felt like an anti-war film  in the beginning, which seems so common now......

It sucked butt.

It’s been over 20 years since I saw it.  My recollection is choppy, long, boring, unclear, etc.

I had the sense it made a crappy, long movie.

But could have been a trilogy of three brilliant, amazing 90-120 minute movies,
Or a mini series of six to 12 episodes with six to ten hours of film total.

What would Band of Brothers been like as a three hour movie with most of the action and character development cut out?

It is about plants not war.

The movie is a crime.

I really liked it for the cinematics and soundtrack. I thought it was a decent story.

That is exactly how I watched it and it is still the worst thing I ever rented.

Half the movie is about homelife and flashbacks or some haunting memory. They tried to do some intellectual emotional movie set is a war with subpar, predictable Saving Private Ryan type effects

I like the main actor, so I thought it was good.

Not as good as some war movies, but better then stuff like "windtalkers"

I saw it in the theater and haven’t seen it again since then. I thought it sucked balls, just like every other Malick film, and I actually like long, boring movies where not much happens.

I remember the Guadalcanal vets interviewed in “History vs. Hollywood” on the History Channel at the time thought it sucked too. The only one I remember is that a vet said Nick Nolte’s leadership was the most egregious thing. Basically no commander at Guadalcanal would ever demand a frontal assault for no reason in direct contradiction to what a junior officer on the ground was telling him.

It didn’t help the movie any that it came out the same year as Saving Private Ryan, which served as a foil for what a piece of shit this was.

When I watched it when it came out I thought it sucked. To be honest, my mindset was Saving Private Ryan the Pacific.

Watching it years later and much older I found an appreciation for it.  It's not something I'd put on just any day, but I think it gets a bad rap because of the expectations the viewer goes into it with. Namely that it's just an action war film set in the pacific.

I can't stand Sean Penn, so that's definitely a negative for me.

I would say now that it's a decent film.

I liked it. But if you expect a war movie you'll be disappointed.

Ehh, not the best.

It had the huge misfortune of opening around the same time frame that Saving Private Ryan did. So of course with what a huge success SPR was and how many people loved that movie. Going shortly after, to see this other WW2 picture at the time was not good. Or that could have been the plan with the release. They could have figured the movie would not do well, and after SPR and the huge interest in WW2. They would hope to get a bunch of ticket sales early on to compensate.

Terrence Malick is a gifted, brilliant, visionary director... who has NO business ever attempting a war movie. I give The Thin Red Line a 4/10, this coming from someone who considers "The New World" one of my top 10 favorite films of all time.

A more fun Pacific war movie is "Letters From Iwo Jima" which is more enjoyable if you imagine japanese people watching it. I do think it was a bit sappy and sanitized at times. The japanese should be informed that their army committed unspeakable war crimes, frequently and often with delight.

one of Hans Zimmer's darker soundtracks.

It is IMHO one of the best movies ever made. I watch it maybe once a year on BD and would absolutely LOVE to get the 6+ hour directors cut if it ever gets made.

Some people here expect it to be SPR in the Pacific. I'll give you a hint: It isn't. But it still is one of the best movies I know of.

In the age of "I need a battle scene every 30 seconds and an explosion every 5" crowd however, it will be talked down. The haters can watch crap like Windtalkers all day. Now THAT is a sh$t movie.

+1

One of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure to watch.

It's worth a watch just for the combat scene's.

This....

i liked it. not a huge Nolte fan but i thought he was great in this. not the type of movie you would like if your favorite movies are summer blockbuster types.

Both The Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan came out in 1998.

I saw both in theaters.  The Thin Red Line came out later in the year.  I expected a Guadalcanal version of SPR.  I had not read the book so I only had that Normandy beach realism expectation.

Obviously I was disappointed with The TRL.  That said it has its good points and with some time and maturity it isn't a horrible movie but it doesn't have the same feel.  

As others have said it is a different story with a different message relayed in a different way than SPR.

HE ordnance was painted yellow at the time the war began. Around the time of Guadalcanal, the Army realized it was impractical and used OD green with a thin yellow band on the neck.

Unwatchable.

Attached File




Considering the "artistic" nature of the film.  This would have been a better story to tell in a mini-series than the theatre.


Apocalypse Now is about the only "artistic" war film i can appreciate.  It tells a much more concise story that welcomes the viewer in to it's world.  If you have to spend time re-watching or reading about what a director meant when they made a movie, then they did a horrible directing job.

People shouldn't get paid to make such crap. It was so bad I threw the dvd in the trash. The whole premise of a cowardly deserter in 1942 going native then returning be a redeemed hero was way over the top. There was enough real courage displayed on Guadalcanal, Hollywood doesn't have to make it up. Some critics described it as superior to Saving Private Ryan. The bribes must have been enormous.

I think it's a comment about the duality of man, sir.

I tried watching it after saving private Ryan and I fell asleep.

I totally hated it the first time I tried to watch it.  And hated it for years.  

Then at some point, I watched it and didn't hate it.  

Now, I think it is an excellent film.  

You just have to let go of whatever expectations you had for a "war movie."

slow, overly slow.. like start trek I the motion picture but in slow motion.

it was ok, but kinda stupid.

Good review.   I had a similar take-away when I first saw it in the theater but can’t put it into words as you did.

Overall it was still a disappointing film for me and I didn’t recommend it to anyone.    That said I’ll probably watch it again someday with a fresh set of eyes.

Yes, done is a mini series type, or a film trilogy,
With more classic expectations we had, with better character development,
Interspersed with scenes like this ,
Would have been brilliant.

Great book......Really bad movie.

It got such bad press that I never saw it.  

Guess I'm glad I didn't.

Eight-Ring wrote:

"He actually wasn't even interested in bringing the James Jones book to the screen--"

Yes.

Exactly.

Which is why I consider Thin Red Line pretentious garbage.

Malick would do the EXACT same thing with oh, say Weird Al's longform Parody "Drive Thru."

Malick would intersperse long, contemplative scenes of the weeds struggling to grow up thru cracks in the asphalt at the base of the order speakers. Or dead bugs in the sill at the takeout window.

Malick is sooooo enthralled with showing how dreadfully smart he is, he is simply not interested in mundane things like plot.

If only Malick could see above the rim of his own navel.

shit movie.

excellent book.

Wow, you must have gone to college!    That's a darned good ad hoc analysis.

The scenes you describe are critical to one element that I finally came to appreciate about the film.  That is "scale," as in comparative measurements.  The individual soldiers, their fear, their desire to survive, are nothing compared to the timeless scope and power of Nature.  The introduction of Nature as an overarching force of which War itself might even be an attribute (like Weather), makes their efforts, even their existence, seem even more hopeless.  And, thus, they are more vulnerable and you share their fear.  In a way, War and Nature are co-mingled in the film.

Likewise, the aboriginal man introduces the "scale" of time, minimizing the 20 years most of the protaginists had existed.  

So there is a conflict between these huge forces portrayed symbolically in the film and the heroic actions and will to live of the individuals we identify with.

All of this goes to show how insignificant the individual protagonists are in the scope of things causing one to very painfully empathize with their vulnerability.  

While most of us would prefer to empathize with Rambo or John Wick, it doesn't hurt to broaden your intellectual horizons now and then.