In this era of political correctness, it has become exceedingly difficult to find movie plots or villains that don't offend someone or some specific group of people. Having run the course with deranged, middle-aged white men as the "bad guys" and with audiences long having since grown tired of Vietnam era stories, Hollywood has reached into its past to dredge up the old cinematic favorite -- WWII.
Featuring a time of heroes and heroism and clearly defined villains (who are now, for the most part, conveniently gone), the genre was seriously reinvigorated by the commercial and artistic success of "Saving Private Ryan." As such, there's little doubt that the film will inevitably pave the way for a succession of similar pictures, and it's obvious that moviegoers will see this release as the first of many more to come.
That said, those looking for the old clear-cut heroes and villains from WWII may be disappointed in the release of "The Thin Red Line." Based on the 60's era novel by James Jones, the film decidedly doesn't fall into the "rah-rah" cheerleader ranks of American war efforts. About as blatantly antiwar as they come, this film has much more in common with the disillusionment-filled "Platoon" (Oliver Stone) and "Apocalypse Now" (Francis Ford Coppola) than Steven Spielberg's equally disturbing, but strongly patriotic "Saving Private Ryan."
Beyond the inevitable comparisons to Spielberg's film, this picture will also be highly scrutinized over the return of director Terrence Malick. Resurfacing after a self-imposed, two decade long exile from filmmaking, Malick, who helmed the critically lauded but little seen films "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven" during the 70's, barely seems to have missed a beat during the intervening years.
Based on the historical account of the bloody skirmish in Guadalcanal during the early 1940's, the film includes some incredibly taut and suspenseful battle scenes. Much like "Ryan," the film features stunning visuals and camera work (courtesy of cinematographer John Toll) and focuses on assaulting and overtaking an enemy stronghold. While such sequences last much longer in this film, they're often staged and executed in such a brilliant way that they're simultaneously nerve- wracking and exhilarating.
Unfortunately, they only account for about half of this nearly three-hour long film. For the rest of that time, Malick relentlessly uses the sledgehammer approach in proving the point that war is hell, utter madness, and genuinely idiotic. While few will argue those points, it's too bad that Malick, who also adapted the screenplay from Jones' novel, seems to think he's the first to point out such matters.
As such, he fills the picture with stereotypically angry, confused and frightened young men who react to the horrors of what they're experiencing, while also overusing multiple voice-overs to drive home his philosophical and symbolic points.
While Spielberg more effectively and efficiently managed to do the same in "Ryan" without "preaching to the choir" -- he accomplished it through sheer visceral impact (along with overall brilliant filmmaking and sympathetic characters) -- and other films such as "Apocalypse Now" clearly show the horrific effects of war, the attempt here is much too obvious and inevitably hurts the film.
After hammering home that symbolism and other bits about nature being both beautiful and ruthless in its own way and right, Malick pushes such matters too far when he finally shows a helpless chick flailing about on the ground. Beyond wanting to scream "Enough already!" at that moment, I kept waiting for the careless military boot to unknowingly stomp down on the little birdy to further emphasize his point.
At least Malick shows that much restraint, but after too many scenes of American and Japanese soldiers crying and otherwise adversely reacting to the atrocities surrounding them we simply become numb to the overall effect.
To make matters worse, the film's at least an hour too long -- during which its momentum and story structure all but dry up as the picture meanders toward its anti-climatic conclusion -- and the characters -- who repeatedly appear and then disappear without much explanation -- aren't much more than "nature's pawns" for Malick to manipulate around his symbolic war chessboard.
That's not to say that the performances are weak. On the contrary, they're quite uniformly strong. It's just that the characters appear to be nothing more than advanced elements of nature to Malick. Just as the bats, a twice-seen crocodile and the other critters that seem to watch the horrors in befuddled fascination (or complete disinterest -- it's hard to tell), the human characters are present simply to do the same.
As such, Malick prevents us from ever identifying with any of them or truly feeling the deep sympathy for them that we should (as occurs with Tom Hanks in "Saving Private Ryan" and Charlie Sheen in "Platoon"). Whether that's the director's intended goal or not is unclear, but it certainly keeps the audience emotionally detached from the characters -- a big "no-no" for a picture like this. Although you'll probably remember the intense battle scenes, most of the characters -- save a few -- will probably be a blur once you leave the theater.
That said, the clear standout is Nick Nolte ("U Turn") as the gruff colonel who doesn't want anyone to ruin his lifelong dream of war glory. Although much of his dimensionality is supplied through his character's voice-over narration (which does nothing but remind one of Martin Sheen's in "Apocalypse Now"), Nolte does a fine and believable job in the role. Equally as good is Elias Koteas ("Fallen") as his subordinate who refuses to follow his commander's suicidal orders. The film's closest effort to matching the brilliant performance that Tom Hanks delivered in "Ryan" (as the decent man caught up in indecent circumstances), Koteas delivers a fine performance.
The rest of the performances are fine -- especially John Cusack ("Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil"), Sean Penn ("Hurlyburly") and Woody Harrelson ("The Hi-Lo Country") as soldiers with distinctive battle philosophies -- but others suffer from inadequately developed characters. Brief cameos by the likes of George Clooney ("The Peacemaker") and John Travolta ("A Civil Action") do nothing for the film except derail its momentum as it -- and the audience -- pause to wonder why Malick cast them in such small roles, presumably aware of their distraction factor.
Of course many ordinary moviegoers -- not the lofty film critics -- will leave the film with many such questions. Among them is why isn't there more historical or tactical information about the actual battle of Guadalcanal? Why isn't the rest of the movie -- especially the goofy new age and philosophical jabbering -- as good as the brilliantly staged battle scenes? And finally, didn't Malick watch any of the previously mentioned war movies or TV shows (especially "M*A*S*H*") during his career hiatus that would have prevented him from overusing the now tired "war is hell on everybody and everything" motif?
Although half the film is terrifically engrossing and presents wonderful visuals throughout, the story completely falls apart whenever the hilltop bunker siege isn't featured, and the often shallowly developed, one-note characters never fully allow the audience to connect with them.
While the film will undoubtedly please Malick's followers, it could have been much shorter, more engaging, and definitely much better. Nowhere near as brilliant or disturbing as Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" -- despite the overly obvious philosophical and symbolic efforts, and mainly due to its own storytelling deficiencies -- "The Thin Red Line" still manages to receive a decent rating --despite being wildly uneven, overly preachy and too ostentatiously highbrow for its own good -- simply due to its moments of greatness.
As far as the disc itself, the audio is outstanding, while the video, for the most part, is good, although at times it doesn’t look as good as it probably should. Meanwhile the supplemental materials consist solely of 11 Melanesian songs, an interesting addition, but certainly not enough for a film that earned many Oscar nominations.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
