Really felt like war.

Pretty slow for a war movie but I liked it

Pure perfection. But what else can you expect from Malick? Another example of the late 90's american cinema.

Very graphically done, a REAL war movie.

A perfect movie about war (but not the perfect war movie.)

The movie perfectly captures how war psychologically affects the soldiers during combat. Unfortunately this equates to chaos, and the movie is chaotic due to this, following no real story an... (read more) A perfect movie about war (but not the perfect war movie.)

The movie perfectly captures how war psychologically affects the soldiers during combat. Unfortunately this equates to chaos, and the movie is chaotic due to this, following no real story and instead just allowing us to move between the soldiers, hearing their thoughts and seeing how the all react to the same situations.

The cinematography is amazing as well always moving slowly and lingering, allowing the viewer to just take it all in.

At 2h45m there's far too much lingering though...

Terrence Malick's masterpiece. One of, if not the most beautiful films you will ever see. It's pure poetry with a camera. Very close to being perfect, and the type of film that could easily end up near the top of my list some day.

During the time that we know as World War ll, on the islands of Guadalcanal, there existed a great number of men, lost in the world around them. They were soldiers; that was their title, anyway, the job they volunteered to complete, leaving their hom... (read more) During the time that we know as World War ll, on the islands of Guadalcanal, there existed a great number of men, lost in the world around them. They were soldiers; that was their title, anyway, the job they volunteered to complete, leaving their homes and their families behind.

The story told here is, by definition, a "war film"; it takes place during a time of history, battles unfold, and men are sent off to combat each other in a chaotic setting. However, this is the first movie about war, that I've viewed, which has focused less on the tactics of war, and more on the spirit of the Earth that feels penetrated by it.

Our director,

Terrence Malick ... is simply awe-inpiring.

I can't remember a movie that has been so dedicated to the landscape of its location. Shot after shot, the film delves into the beauty found in the world around us, and how war tests a man's soul and worms its way into our thoughts. The gaze of the trees and the dirt is splendid and exhuberant, while the sight of soldiers taking the biting bullet is, for the most part, kept from our sight, in order to keep away the corruption from the audience. Death occurs, yes, but blood is unwelcome.

There is a texture, here. It's smooth as silk, and its sound is as penetrating as an drum tapped in rapid-fire movement.

This is jam-packed with an all-star cast, but hardly any are treated as lead actors or characters. Despite this, I feel the need to explain my love of this acting, although doing so may betray the point of the film, as it does not find them to be at greater importance than the life and time unfolding.

There are three actors that come close to importance: Jim Caviezel, Ben Chaplin, and one other. The rest of this marvelous cast are treated as coincidences that managed to whirlwind into this
"peace vs. war" examination.

Caviezel is Private Witt, a recently AWOL soldier (having spent his time living with a tribe of natives on the islands), who has been recaptured and returned to his battalion. He believes in his heart that the world they fight in is not the only world on this planet; there exists another one of peaceful tranquility. It is his heart that we connect the most with in this extended journey.

Chaplin has the role of a dutiful soldier, Private Bell: eager to return to the states, where his wife (filled with repressed spirit and suffering loneliness) holds down the home. They communicate via their letter, where the soldier's passion may not be enough to keep the wife at ease.

As much as I've delved into these two roles, the rest of the cast is equally fresh to watch.

Sean Penn (deep, husky voice radiating with leadership), Elias Koteas ( loyal to his troops through and through), and John Cusack (screen prescence exhilerating, even with so few lines in the stream of battle) offer powerful support, in the forms of wisdom, weariness, and determination, respectively.

John Travolta and George Clooney each have one scene in this rather lengthy war experience, but they each are able to project well. Travolta, in particular, dominates his scene, offering a certain force that feels very welcome during the story's silenced narrative that zooms from one viewpoint to another.

Adrien Brody (a silent, cautious observer), John C. Reilley (yes, from Step Brothers and Talledega Nights), and Jared Leto (a man who's going to be in huge amounts of pain) are among the rest of the platoon who live in the grass and await orders, taking note of their superiors and their chances of survival.

But, even after I've examined and expanded my interest of each little performance, served up in the background of this movie's sweeping gaze, their is one part, one person who I have neglected to mention until now. He stands up, tall, as the grand achievement of this feature.

Nick Nolte.

I'm still becoming introduced to the man as an actor. I've seen him in only a small number of films. I've found him great in them all (extroadinary in "Affliction"), but, in this, he went beyond great, he simply blew my mind away.

Nolte gets about the same amount of dedication as Caviezel and Chaplin, but he truly pushes his (wonderful) material as far as it can reach, and the result is a breathtaking turn that I wish I was competent enough to describe. The desperation he feels at being passed over for promotion drives this man to do everything in his power to take the enemy head-on. Nolte succeeds in quietly sending away each scene with his full intensity; it is his understated focus that supplies not only the greatest performance in the film, but one of the most satisfying supporting roles of the 1990's.

There is little doubt in my mind that there are people who won't find this to be an entertaing film to view. It does go on quite a while (a little less than 2 and 1/2 hours), and the narrative focus can be confusing, as we don't actually get the COMPLETE view into what the characters are thinking (I'll admit it, for the first two hours of the movie, I couldn't tell the difference between Chaplin's and Caviezel's characters; I thought they were the same person until Bell recieves his final letter). So, pacing may polarize.

Still, the movie is just too huge an opportunity to pass, and it has aroused my curiosity of Malick's other films, past and upcoming, that may also dedicate their time to that "gorgeous feel" and "smooth texture" that I discovered here. I hope to see it again in the future. (I'm actually hoping, for the first time, that a Director's Cut of this is released; So much footage was left on the cutting room floor before release, and to see Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Sheen, Gary Oldman, Bill Pullman, Lukas Haas, Viggo Mortensen, and Mickey Rourke have their roles reinserted, along with the fleshing out of our diminished main cast, is worth even four hours of airing; a true epic if there was one.)

While "The Thin Red Line" does not go for the entertainment field in the way that "Saving Private Ryan" (which it is most likely compared to) succeeds, it manages to pull off a serenity that few films (war movies, films in general, and even parts of our world) are able to even dare attempt.

This movie is its own life.
This movie is art, in its purest form.
This is "The Thin Red Line".