Jump to content

Movie: THE THIN RED LINE


Duffy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Very bad movie, technically accurate field gear and equipment. I remember when they were making the movie they contacted the Quartermaster Museum for WWII specifications on tents and other items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt Barickman

I think that it had some good and bad aspects. I thought some of the characters were too stereotypical but I liked seeing something about the Army in the Pacific. The art film aspect did put many people off by it because they were expecting a typical war movie which it was not.

 

Kurt Barickman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we should be happy that it was an art film that didn't do justice to the classic WWII novel by James Jones. If it were of the same quality as Saving Private Ryan, which was released the same year, we would all be complaining about the absurd price of Pacific Theater stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HolyHappiness

It was a bad "Movie", meaning the final product. The elements, however, were terrific! The accuracy with uniforms and combat was astounding as well as the attention to detail. Acting was top notch. I only wish those elements could have been applied to a better story and less politically driven direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dogfacedsoldier

Hello,

 

I liked the movie at first, but not as well as I do now. Of course I have seen it about 10-15 times. Some of it is straight from the novel. I was a newspaper reporter in an area where Jones lived before and after the war. The scene with Harrelson is straight from the book. In the book he said it was a stupid recruit thing to do. I liked full color over washed out color. I've seen a lot of blood gushing out, and dried up and other body parts and things of a similar nature. It's hard to mistake the color or the smell. My paper believed car wrecks and other accidents, deaths and murders were front page news. I like SPR, but the story isn't too deep, nor makes a lot of sense. I would be willing to bet very few rangers were transferred from Italy to England for the invasion. Not to say it never happened, but I was always bothered by that and after Omaha it was just a standard war film with better directing and acting. Not necessisarily better written. TRL I really enjoyed, and it is rumored to exist in a 4 or 6 hour version, which I've heard is very good. Gettysburg is also a film which can be found in Mexico in a longer version and of course the 6 hour version of Gods and Generals. To say TRL is one of worst war films ever ignores the fact that many war films a really bad. If one wants to see a really bad war film go find a copy of the original Thin Red Line. It makes no sense what so ever, as does the Naked and the Dead. I forgot to add that great scene of G.I.'s using MP-40's to repulse the Japanese attack.

 

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only seen it once :thumbdown: In the theater when it first came out. I remember it was a very hot afternoon and I think they had the A/C turned off. It was hot and humid in there, a new " Feel what it's like to be there effect " ???

I knew pretty early on that it was going to be a different kind of war movie and I tried to get into it, but no go. Remember looking at the big clock on the wall and saw that there was still an hour to go and I was not sure I could make to the end.

Some good scenes, acting, and cinematograghy could not hold this long ( WAY TO LONG ) and boring movie together. M.H.O.

I might give it another chance some day after reading some of these posts though.

As far as tech. goes, did anyone catch the bayonet lug on the carbine in one of the early scenes ? Just being picky. Everything else looked good if I remember right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
439th Signal Battalion

Despite the various and questionable views of lizards, native children playing with crabs, clapping hands, women on swings, wind chimes, and empty bird cages, the last five minutes struck an emotional nerve with me.

 

When the company/battalion is leaving the island and all are reflecting on what just happened to them over the last several weeks, it's the look, mood, and music that reminds me of that hard to explain emotion(s) about surviving a deployment. Perhaps it's survivors guilt.

 

When I was there, I wished that I were here, when I am here, I wish that I were there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brother and I went to see the original back in the 60s and

this new one was nothing like that one. No "Dancing Elephant"

mountain range assault,no scene of the guy screaming with

his stomach blown open. Heavy stuff with 60s censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I feel that the movie TRL was good and bad with some ugly. The movie did drag in parts and I still can't buy John Travolta in that character. It's a good thing that DVD's have scene selection. Bypass all the crap and just watch the good scenes. The one scene that comes to mind is when the Sailor or Marine falls overboard and the convoy just keeps going. I never thought of this. That kinda sucked for him. It's like here's your life ring and good luck. :crying:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ItemCo16527

I first saw TRL when it came out in theaters in '99. I came out of it not really understanding it, and remember remarking that with all the shots of wildlife, I was surprised David Attenborough didn't pop up at some point. However, the performances by the cast made it incredibly memorable. I decided to give it another chance when it came out on video. I liked it a little more, so I figured I should read the book. Sure, it's very different from the book, but after reading it, I understood who was who and a lot of the situations portrayed in the film a lot better. After I finished the book, I gave it yet another viewing and I absolutely loved it.

 

I think the major problem that many people have with the film is that they went into it expecting a war film - lots of explosions and guns, and very little in the way of good dialogue or things that make you really think. However, what I liked about Malick's take on The Thin Red Line is that it really goes into examining conflict itself: man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. himself. Every seen with Sean Penn and Jim Caviezel is absolutely brilliant. The best scene, though, is the one where Nick Nolte is ordering Elias Koteas to take the hill and Koteas refuses. Nolte is yelling and screaming at Koteas, and when he refuses to launch the attack, the look on Nolte's face is priceless. He looks like someone just shot his dog right in front of him. That scene was so realistic, that I couldn't believe it was just acting.

 

This reminds me, I need to sit down and watch it again one of these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's the same reason i think alot of people dismiss it as a good movie. They are expecting a movie, but it's a real 'film', in the true artistic sense of the word

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried the best I could to get into the movie, but after an hour or so I gave up on it. It looks great, but was sooooooooo boring. :mellow:

I haertily agree. This was a horrible movie. There was about 2 minutes of reality surrounded by 120 minutes of art!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Thin Red Line = A putrid turd :thumbdown: .

I forced my way through it one time and I will never do that again. Much potential wasted IMO.

best wishes,

jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snake36bravo
I think that it had some good and bad aspects. I thought some of the characters were too stereotypical but I liked seeing something about the Army in the Pacific. The art film aspect did put many people off by it because they were expecting a typical war movie which it was not.

 

Kurt Barickman

 

Should be noted that a lot of character development for this film was left on the cutting room floor. The original film was over 7 hours long. Adrian Brody's character had a great deal of development for example and in the end I believe he gets two or three words in. He was literally cut out of the film.

 

The first time I saw this film I thought it was really artsy. I passed on cinematography school for the Army but loved the visuals in it. Other than that I found the pace way too slow. I liked the film the second time around mostly again for it's visuals and getting the technical elements right but the story suffered from the post editing process.

 

Nature itself is an element of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sgt_Rock_EasyCo

I disliked it in many ways.

 

The Japanese were portrayed as quiety, professional, organized, calm and somehow moral.

 

The Americans were protrayed as loud, unprofessional, screaming, disorganized immoral characters.

 

I'm a bit tired of American apologizing by denegration.

 

While it's true that some of our green troops had issues in combat, they learned quickly and were no less professional than any Army in the world at the time. The part that really made me burn was portraying the Americans as immoral while the Japanese were not. I understand the Bushido code thing but my Dad and his Family lived through the Japanese occupation and some of the children were killed before the Allies arrived- just for the fun of it. This was more prevalent than a moral Japanese Soldier of WWII so I get my panties in a wad over this movie.

 

I've been around Marines and Soldiers in combat situations and they are professional, even when grieving. The screaming, yelling, bumbling fools portrayed in the movie were civilians actors trying to act like.......whatever.

 

 

What was the other movie? Full Metal Jacket! The first part with Ermie as the DI was very realistic. The second part with the long haired civilian actors doing a bad job of trying to look like Marines was another instance that I cite. I've seen a million pictures of Marines in Vietnam and almost every picture and movie I've seen, even in Hue City, shows short haired, professional warriors. Scared, wounded and grieving, but professional.

 

Hollywood's attempt to generally redefine the American Warrior as a bumbling immoral fool is incorrect. My #1 pet peeve.

 

Rock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Ken_Carroll

Didn't like it, but then, whenever I see Sean Penn just breathing I nearly throw up. I find it amazing that a man that stupid can actually read enough of a script to perform on film, but then again, who knows how many takes it took to finish his scenes. Could it be that the syphilis he might have caught from Madonna is affecting his brain? You can likely tell from my post that I really don't care for the man. :thumbdown: Have I ever told you how little I like George Clooney? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the oddest thing to me about the movie, i must add. So many (in my opinion) shallow celebrity roles, and only, barely just cameos. Like George Clooney with 15 seconds of lines and John Travolta with barely 2 minutes of screen time. As well as the few you mention, and i totally agree with by the way. Really strange stuff. I wonder if it was to try and grab the attention of many a watcher, that arent keen on the WWII scene. And it wasn't just a handeful either, they just kept on coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
giconceptsjw

I didn’t care for TRL either. I saw it at the premier in LA and was so uncomfortable with what I saw I was actually squirming in my seat. I’ve tried to give it a second & third chance but just can’t do it. I do agree that the locations, cinematography and the art aspect of it were great. However, I don’t want to watch a 3 hour Calvin Klein commercial.

 

I too get very tired of having my nose rubbed in the whole “ugly American” routine. Whether it’s the American West, WWII or Vietnam, American soldiers are too often portrayed as murders, rapists, cowards, thieves, deserters or just psychotic. It’s an old spin and it’s been done to death since the 60’s. The American’s overtaking the Japanese camp while the Japanese soldiers sit like Buddha and prey was simply a re-shoot of the 7th Cavalry burning the peaceful Apache tee-pee village. Please, haven’t we had enough America bashing over the past 40 years? Nick Nolte as the “insane American officer” has been done, re-done and re-done again and it’s just lame. John Travolta as the General has to be one of the most miscast roles of all time. Pee Wee Herman would have been more convincing. Visually & cinematically, great & a few good action scenes but I can’t get past the bad acting, miscasting and anti-US, hate America political undertone. In my opinion, the film fed it’s audience garbage propaganda in a very pretty package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate, now you know how us limeys feel every time some Hollywood blockbuster comes out with the inevitable slimey, arrogant and down right evil British bloke as the uber-nasty villain or helpless, pompous, buck-toothed, jelly-spined English guy just waiting for the hero to come and save him :lol: Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I don't get the degree of anti-American feeling from this film that others do. Certainly it's anti-war but I see the diversity of characters portrayed more as a statement about the strengths and frailties of humans rather than Americans per-say. To me the main charcters could have been from any nation, fighting any other nation, in the particular set of circumstances. It seems to me that you get good and bad in every nation and their Armed Forces, more-so when you have large constript Armies and not smaller, professional volunteer forces who by definition usually want to be where they are doing what they have been sent to do. I'm sure I don't need to say that taking most of the major nations overall you did get a percentage of cowards, murderers, rapists and deserters amongst the huge numbers of people from all walks of life conscripted, the historical records are there to see. You did get people who had no desire to be soldiers, no interest in fighting and no willingness to suffer and sacrifice what so many other men did. That's not wishing to make excuses for them, just to mention that it has to be accepted that no one nation can claim to have been wholey good just as no one nation can reasonably to called completely bad. Compare it to S.P.R. for example when all Germans are shown as bloodthirsty murderers or back-stabbing traitors, that is if they warrant more attention than the faceless, grey-clad running targets they are in most scenes. Is it fair to continue to old western stereotype that all Japanese soldiers were simply brain-washed, evil, heartless, robot like monkey-men just lining up to slaughter and die for the Emporer? Again that's not to excuse the unspeakable thing's that some, dare I say, many Japanese soldiers did but I can appreciate that their culture at that time was very different from ours and people are often a product of their culture, good or bad.

 

As I say, perhaps I'm just noticing the anti-Americanism because I'm not American but taking Nick Nolte's performance as an example, though he seems to be as mad asa box of frogs in real life anyway. To me the story was of the long-time career Officer who's never had 'his' war to proove his metal as a fighting man and leader so feels the guilt and pressure, the glass ceiling dividing those that have and those that haven't. He's the hard-working peacetime soldier trying to climb his way up the ladder but without the cache of active overseas service and combat to grease the wheels of promotion. It is a mind-set that certainly seems to have existed during the early part of Americas involvement in W.W.2, just as it did here in Britain when peace-time units suddenly found themselves mobilised and sent overseas to fight an enemy that had been ramping up for war a lot longer. There were Officers who had done umpteen courses and excercises over long peace-time careers, knew the theory and what the book said off by heart, knew how to behave in the Mess and which way the port went around the table but just couldn't handle the complexity and stress of commanding men in combat. The fact that the person was from one nation or another didn't seem as relevant to me as the individuals personality that the actor or director was trying to convey.

 

I know jack all about film making but I suppose there are limitations as to how a film maker can establish and develop multiple characters in a comparatively short time. Either the character must remain fairly superficial or certain aspects need to be overstated or exagerated to give the average viewer an insight into that character. I don't think I've ever met a complete stranger and over the space of 2 hours of normal conversation been able to get any real understanding of them as a person, so if I was trying to do that with a number of people all at the same time then I think I'd have even less chance. To me any failing of 'The Thin Red Line' comes from trying to do too much in comparatively too short a time (not that it felt like it after my arse had gone to sleep) and in too great a depth. Perhaps if it had been a T.V. series then it would have been better received, perhaps if the director had tried to concentrate more on certain points like the human experience of war or mans interaction with nature rather than trying cram it all in one film it could have had an hour shaved off it, people wouldn't have been so bored and it would have been seen as a better film. I suppose you can't blame the bloke for trying though. I'm really enjoying this discussion though, I think if nothing else then as a film it get's people talking. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...