L B
I just watched the movie for the second time (first was many years ago), and came to see the comments...It seems there are mostly 2 sides: one that got deeply moved and thought-provoked by it, and others who watched it only to see what the hype is about and find flaws...For me, this is one of the movies that influences your perspective on live and through which you uncover another small bit of realization about the human nature...If you're looking for an action, war movie, you won't find it here - it will be too long and too philosophical. If you're looking for something "deep" but which will be fully defined, chewed up and served to you, you'll probably find it "pretentious and egoistical" like some of the comments here.But if you let yourself into it without pre-set expectations and opinion, take in all that is going on and let your thoughts dig a bit into some of the directions, you'll find a masterfully created art that takes a period of time and a location and just shows it to you, along with people in it, from multiple angles, not telling you what to think. Then you are, at the same time, exposed to the beauty and duality of nature (tranquility and violence), men which are a part of it, that are conflicted by that same duality, to their (most often) disconnected thoughts while they are trying to make sense of things that are happening and the essence of it ("What is killing us?", "What's keepin' us from reaching out, touching the glory?")...There are no good guys or bad guys, no heros nor villains, no conclusions or answers, no story (in traditional sense) - and it's still one of the most effective, daring and influential anti-war movies ever...If you want to, you will find plenty of topics in the movie (nature, temporality and relative insignificance of man and his conflict's and goals, free will, love, morality, idealism, death, God, goodness, survival...) and lots of symbolism, but never forced upon you...If you want to see a movie primarily as form of entertainment, this is probably not a best choice. But if you want to be exposed to art, as in - a creation that will provoke heavier emotions, change your mood, make you think your own thoughts and keep you "submerged" in it for a bit longer - this is one of those that truly belongs in that category.
DonAlberto
Some American soldiers walking, crawling through the grass somewhere in the Pacific, in World Ward II. Te steady camera stays low so you can reach out your hand to touch the soldiers. The wind sweeps through or blows in from the sea as if it was aware of what's at stake. All in these fighting scenes seems perfectly organized and undoubtedly suits Terrence Malik's purpose with this film: a deep and stark reflection on the human condition in the context of a ruthless war.Unlki so many other war films, The Thin Red Line allows the narrative to take over. Blood, cruelty and fate are still there as they are a part of any war, but this films takes it all onto a different path to approach the unavoidable question: What's left of a human being if you take away what gives life sense? And the response, as tough as it is, is simple: nothing . This is very well conveyed by showing us characters who have to put up with the "dehumanazation machine" that war is and do so by contracting themselves, by betraying or even denying the inner desires and convictions. Is redemption possible for them? Another tool Malicks uses wisely is language. Along with soldiers'slang, there are some poetic lines here and there that make up the thoughts the soldiers'thoughts, which we get to hear. The actors do a pretty good job depicting human beings on the brink of collapse, facing the mos challenging moment in their lives. Yet the experience of killing another human being is a life-changing experience for everybody, I never had the feeling that the film was made to let this or that character outshine the rest and drive the plot forward single handedly. On the contrary, what's great is the sense of wonder, of watching a film that has to be understood as a whole. Aney attempt of breaking it down into smaller pieces, would be nothing but a waste of time. Wouldn't it be better if we'd just go along with what we are offer? Thus, perhaps, we could ask ourselves some questions.
sol-
Decidedly different to the 1964 movie, this Terrence Malick version broadens the scope in the original film, giving equal focus to several World War II soldiers of the same platoon as opposed to just Pvt. Doll and Sgt. Welsh. This allows Malick to explore the war from varying perspectives, with multiple narrators and multiple flashbacks; as the film's tagline goes, we really see how "every man fights his own war". The film is accompanied by atmospheric music from Hans Zimmer, eerily sharp sounds and tracking shots that effectively crawl along with the soldiers (as if the camera is a soldier). The dreaminess of the flashbacks works well too. Admirable as Malick's approach is, it is nevertheless hard not to yearn for the intensity of the 1964 version, which - by focusing on just one private and one sergeant - acutely captured the ability of war to truly transform a human being. The titular line between madness and sanity also comes out more prominently in the earlier version. There are additionally so many protagonists in the 1998 film that one seldom gets to know them as individuals. The film's sprawling nature is quite true to the madness and mayhem of war though, and the dialogue is as poetic and haunting as ever. It may be unclear whether Malick's version of the tale makes for a more powerful war movie, but it is certainly daringly different and memorable in its own way.
