-- I wanted to see a war movie, I got an artsy-fartsy poetry reading with kick-butt battles. Malick joins Stanley Kubrick and Quentin Tarantino as my most hated directors, a very elite list, indeed.
1998, 2 hrs 50 min., Rated R for realistic war violence and language. Dir: Terrence Malick. Cast: Sean Penn (Sgt. Edward Welsh), Nick Nolte (Col. Tall), John Cusak (John), James Caviezel (Witt), Adrien Brody (Fife), Woody Harrelson, George Clooney, John Travolta.
This review almost hurts to write, as I was really anticipating The Thin Red Line for several months because we don't get to see many new World War II movies anymore, and have had two (the first being Saving Private Ryan) in six months. I went to see the movie with big brother Scott in Nashville, and it'd be an understatement to say that we were equally disappointed, with Scott saying he thought it looked like a college documentary with a big budget.
Do NOT make the mistake of expecting to see a movie remotely like Saving Private Ryan, because it's like comparing green grapes to purple grapes: both about the same war, but a completely different aftertaste.
Maybe I should have seen Terrence Malick's previous two films that were critically acclaimed in the 70s, to prevent some of the disappointment. I wanted a great war movie that explored its characters in-depth, what I got was "Robert Frost Goes to War", not able to sympathize with the soldiers because Malick throws in a dozen main characters and an hours worth of narration that should be in an English text's poetry section instead of passed off as a credible war film. And with all these characters, I knew only two of their names, mainly because Malick spent twice as much time on these anonymous narrations as he did with dialogue.
Cameos by John Travolta and George Clooney are well-done, if not distracting. And John Cusak and Woody Harrelson also did fine jobs in their small roles. Shat little character development we got was average, the best being Private Witt, an AWOL-prone soldier from the south. Sean Penn does a fine job as a Sergeant in charge of "Charlie" Company, and Elias Koteas is okay as reluctant Captain Staros. He eventually is removed from command for his reluctance to send his troops into battle, and I agreed with that decision. Why? Because the Captain was soft, and in war as an officer that is something you have to do, send your "sons" into what seems to be suicidal but is a necessary function to save thousands of others.
The soldiers I want to see a movie revolve around were the ones only in the background of The Thin Red Line, guys having a good time on R&R by playing cards and smoking cigars and drinking; just trying to get by with their friends and brothers in a hellish situation they all loathed. But what Malick focuses on are the crybabies, who if it were about the Vietnam War burned draft cards and became druggies at Woodstock, when it was cool to be a hippie because many believed that the war was unjust. But you couldn't stay home during the second World War becuase it was a popular war for freedom against the Axis powers. So Malick shows us these guys who weren't bad soldiers, they were just not characters I cared about.
The open reminded me a lot of 2001: A Space Odyssey in that it was longer than needed and dull, except that Malick used natives instead of apes. Oh, but these natives are so pure in heart and spirit and this land is perfection except for the evil soldiers. I half-expected to see a native kid throw a bone in the air and have it dissolve into an American naval ship! The one credit that gave The Thin Red Line both stars is that the battle scenes were incredible. I was impressed at the tension and rush of battle shown by Malick and the soldiers. Absolutely terrific. If the movie cut out all narration and included only the characters actually dialogue and the action, then it would be ten times better.
But, as Scott pointed out, the Americans are shown to be the agressors in battle, committing numerous attrocities while the Japanese are helpless to the situation, as if they always lived on the island and were a peaceful group that we happened upon for the slaughter. You'd almost forget who started the war in the Pacific if Malick had his way.
Now I have to trash Malick again. Here's an item me and Scott talked about afterwards: How many soldiers in the heat of battle amidst a hailstorm of bullets and mortar blasts and death:
I know that I was not alone in my feelings of resentment towards this film. Why? Because at the end of Saving Private Ryan the crowd remained in their seats for a few minutes contemplating what they'd seen and taking a deep breath. At the end of The Thin Red Line the hundreds of other moviegoers couldn't wait to get out of that theater. It was almost a mad rush down the aisles and out the door. You feel every minute of this 2 hour, 50 minute epic of poetry. If you think John Milton is the ultimate, then maybe you'll appreciate this film, but otherwise stay far away.
- Notice a single blade of grass withering?
- Think of their honeys in extravagant flashbacks?
- Notice how beautiful the sun shines through a canopy of trees as they take their dying breaths?
The verdict: -- I wanted to see a war movie, I got an artsy-fartsy poetry reading with kick-butt battles. Malick joins Stanley Kubrick and Quentin Tarantino as my most hated directors, a very elite list, indeed.