Cool News
Review of THE THIN RED LINE -- "Five minutes wouldn't go by without me thinking 'There's something I've never seen before'"
Well gosh, looks like since FOX doesn't want me seeing their film, we'll have to trust strangers. I'm dying to see what Hallenbeck says. Anyway here we go...
Just saw a press screening of the Thin Red Line. Apparently what I saw was
not the final print. A producer of the film was there and explained that
the only real differences would be in the sound levels, though.
First, just let me say that whether it be the Malick-hype, the subject
matter or the Oscar 'race', no reason seems good enough to compare this
film to Saving Private Ryan. I don't say this because I loved Ryan or hated
Ryan but because the two films share so little in common that it seems a
disservice to lump them together.
The Thin Red Line, quite simply, is not interested in telling a
straightforward story. It is much more ambitious than that. Yes, there are
battles and the soldiers have an 'objective' but I would have a hard time
calling this a war film. The World War II depicted here, while shot
graphically and edited suspensefully, is hardly the star of the film or
the target of it's commentary. Rather, I felt like the war was a
by-product, a result of man's uneasy relationship with others and, more
importantly, the world around him.
Okay, I'm through being cerebral, GO SEE THIS FILM. Five minutes wouldn't
go by without me thinking "There's something I've never seen before". This
is truly a film that says what it needs to visually. We are given only
fragments of information regarding the actual military mission. The spare
dialogue is not there for exposition. Even the voice over is
impressionistic, shifting as it does from one charater to the next, never
settling itself in a timeframe or point of view. And it works. It all works.
The only complaint I have is not with the film itself but the unfortunate
and misleading press it has recieved because of all the stars attached to
it. While the performances are outstanding (can anyone else help me defend
Nick Nolte? After this, Afterglow, Mother Night and Affliction, the man
needs an award!) they are not traditional performances. Hell, Adrien Brody,
while perfecting a shell-shocked look, says maybe four or five words in the
entire film. Most of the 'stars' have nothing more than glorified walk-ons.
I wonder then, with all the hype, if people will be too busy waiting for
those walk-ons to actually watch a screen.
I don't want to say too much else.. but here's the skinny. Awards? Sure,
mostly on the visual side would be my guess. Better than Saving Private
Ryan? I dunno, I thought so, but then I'm also getting sick of being told
what to feel by Spielberg. Slower and less graphic than I was expecting.
Also more visually inventive and beautiful than I could have imagined.
Again, go see this film. Not because it's a war film or because of one
actor or another. Terrance Malick deserves all the credit he's gotten. Here
is a film that never once finds itself compromised by some actor's 'oscar
moment', or dumbed-down plot developments or studio required reconciling.
happy viewing,
Imbroglio
-
+ Expand All
-
Interesting. I'll go see it. I heard they tried to get Harrison Ford to be one of the stars in this movie but fail.
-
The man has lost his balls. That doesn't suprise me that turned down a part in this movie. He was too busy making crap like 6 Days/7 Nights and Sabrina. Man, I hope he snaps out of this. -
I'm already worried about what kind of press this movie is going to get -- I saw an article by Janet Maslin of the New York Times which called this the "prettier, more sanitized" of this year's two WWII movies. Apparently, now that SPR has raised the bar, only the most graphic depictions of war violence are good enough to portray the horror of war onscreen. Witness the same bunch of critics tearing into "Life Is Beautiful" for not portraying the atrocities of the concentration camps in gory enough detail! It seems strange to have some of the most respected film critics acting like preteen "Fangoria" readers and clamoring for more blood and guts!
-
I really can't wait to see this film. I am a huge Sean Penn fan for the same reason I'm a Johnny Depp fan. THEY CAN FUCKING ACT!!! They bring something to the characters they play. Think of Tom Hanks trying to play some of the roles that these two have played. YOU CAN'T. Now reverse it. See what I mean.... Tom Hanks just plays Tom Hanks in SPR. I didn't buy him in that role at all. It was so flat that I just couldn't wait for his panty-wasted ass to get machine-gunned. (I wish it had been sooner) The fact that I hear he'll be nominated for this shit role makes me sick. (He better not win) Tom....STOP MAKING MOVIES WHERE YOUR SO SAFE AND GO OUT CHALLENGE YOURSELF AGIAN...
-
From what the review says, it sounds like Malick is up to his old tricks -- very little dialogue, stunning visuals, and allowing an audience to be drawn in more as a participant in the film as a sensory experience, rather than have everything shoved in their face. Cool.
Malick truly stands out as an original with his style and sensibilities in this day and age. I always think that he's kind of like a great silent film director who's be reincarnated and finds himself with all sorts of new technological toys to play with in order to tell a story on largely visual terms. I swear, he uses such small amounts of dialogue (and doesn't need any more than that) that you could almost just insert a flash card showing what was just said. As far as comparisons to Saving Private Ryan go, or how audiences will react to this film with the way it's being marketed, I really doubt that this film will be all that successful. It will probably do okay, but Malick's just too challenging for what audiences want these days, regardless of any star names linked to the film. Film buffs are excited, but the general public has no idea who Malick is, or have even heard of Badlands or Days of Heaven. And while he's getting a lot of press for being "the J.D. Salinger of film", I doubt this will translate to big box-office a la Steven Spielberg. That's too bad; they're both world-class filmmakers. -
Pope Buck 1, you are right about the recent obsessiveness regarding the 'realism' and 'horror' that has become a pre-requisite for war films. In general, I think it's an easy out for filmmakers and the critics to boldly (HA!) say "Every war film is really an anti-war film". Statements such as that are a bit obvious (if it were pro-war, why wouldn't the parties involved sink their millions into a real war... moot point now that we have a new one to watch on tv, just in time for the holidays). Additionally, it's this sort of hankering for the 'realism' of war that has reduced the war film to nothing more than blockbuster-effect-spectacles (but, again, the critics and filmmakers can rest easy knowing that the jingoism is harder to spot when the actors are in period dress rather than killing aliens with a Powerbook). This is precisely why I have problems with Thin Red Line and SPR being lumped together. The reason I'm hesitant to call The Thin Red Line a war film is because it so fluidly transcends what the genre has become and honorably eschews the manipulation people like Spielberg find hard to resist.
-
I have been a huge fan of Malick since Badlands and Days of Heaven, and now the time has come for his encore presentation. He has a vision that most directors pretend to have, and the fact that he can so beautifully put it into his films for others to see is a testament to his ability as an artist and as a director. Dare I say it, with his ambivalence to the limelight, that he reminds me of Kubrick, another legend in film. Well, I just wanted to get that off my chest. Saving Private Ryan was a really good movie, but I think this onel really show me the money.
-
I will happily back you on Nick Nolte! I went through round after round of arguments with my best friends while "Prince of Tides" was still in the works, trying to convince them that Nolte was not "beefcake" and not only would be an excellent Tom Wingo--he'd become Tom Wingo. (It was pretty satisfying to watch them eat their words, once they'd seen the film--which would be a great one, had Barbra Streisand not put herself in FRONT of the camera and used so many pan shots of her legs and finger nails.) Go as far back as "Who'll Stop the Rain". He's wonderful. As for Malick, I find it interesting that there's so much critical hype around a director who has actually done so few films (even Kubrick built up a pretty big body of work before beginning his disappearing act). I'm not being critical, because I'm just as excited, based on my affection for "Days of Heaven" and "Badlands". I just wonder why that is! I'm sure there are plenty of directors who have made one or two good, visually stunning films, who don't get the respect Malick gets. I wish I could put my finger on what gets me excited, what sweeps me up. Maybe it is just that Malick's films don't look or feel like anybody else's. I'm beyond psyched to see "The Thin Red Line".
-
I too saw "The Thin Red Line" and I have to disagree. For me the highlights were the hour and a half or so in the middle of the movie depicting the main battle to take the hill. If it had ended right after that, the film would have been great! But instead it meanders a bit, then has another short war scene and then meanders some more. At the screening I saw, only one person started clapping at the end and then others halfheartedly joined in. If the film had ended earlier, there would have been more enthusiasm. And the producers know they could have a more commercial film, but they're scared to tell Malick the truth and maybe scare him off from making movies for another 20 years. By the way, most of the people I talked to dismissed Nick Nolte's performance as over the top, although I enjoyed it. One problem I did have with the film is that two of the lead characters look so much alike, I never realized they were two different people. My advice: wait for the video so you can fast forward through Malick's nature photography scenes.
-
Having read "The Thin red Line" by James Jones, I thought making it into a movie was an awful idea - the whole point of the book to me was that these men were constantly scared and feeling like cowards while performing heroic feats, often unintentionally. Worse, casting a bunch of pretty boys actors (a la "Memphis Belle", but something Spielberg pointedly avoided doing in "Saving Private Ryan") bought right into the movie-fueled myth that in order to be a good soldier, one must look like a recruiting poster - anyone ever been in the service? Some ugly mothers in uniform, but sometimes they're the best soldiers, and lots of very young-looking guys, too. Too many thirty-somethings playing privates in the movies. I'll see the film, but Malick looks like he's remaking the prototypical war movie. Good thing William Bendix isn't around to play the gruff platoon sergeant, or he'd be in the cast.
-
I'd hold off on claiming Malick casted a "bunch of pretty boys" before actually seeing the film. You may be surprised. From what I understand, the "unknowns" have bigger parts than the stars. And from Malick's two other films, it seems he tends to cast "interesting" looking actors. Sissy Spacek, Sam Shepard, etc. (actors with the initials S.S.!!) I guess (S)teven (S)pielberg applies the same technique.
-
This film should be very thought- provoking, both in the nature of the characters' stories, and the depiction of war on film. I'm so pleased this has arrived the same year Spielberg made his opus. While SPR raised the bar on violent realism, what is actually says about war is another matter. An interesting comment: that critics assume a war-film will be anti-war. Actually, I always assume the opposite. Did anyone ever see "The Stunt Man" where Peter O'Toole plays a somewhat Kubrickesque director making a war-film? O'Toole states that his previous, consciously anti-war film actually caused enlistment to go up. I kind of felt that way about SPR, so steeped in patriotism. And the violence, though horriffic, was pretty entertaining [at least to me, maybe I'm just sick]. Was SPR pro or anti-war, neither or both? I don't know. I do know I left SPR with a helluvalot more repect for those who fought at Normandy. Now, During my college days, I heard some stunning arguments that representations of war in American film, are essential tools of the dominant culture in convincing each successive generation that war is a necessary rite of passage. Like going to hell and back to become a man. Even some of the most virulent anti-war films seem to bear this message. Take for example, Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket," based on Gustav Hasford's "Short Timers" -- a book hell-bent on convincing the reader that no, fighting in a war (at least Vietnam) is of no value whatsoever. When we join the main character, Joker, in chapter two, he's allready killed many people. But then Kubrick missed this point, having the film's climax be where Joker makes his first kill, aka, a rite of passage. I'm quite looking forward to Mallick's vision of war - moreover, seeing his vision in general.
-
I, of course, haven't seen this movie, but looking at the cast, particularly Sean Penn, George Clooney, John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Bill Pullman, Nick Nolte, and John Travolta, you know, these actors are all in their thirties or fourties. For me, that just doesn't seem right. I'm a big fan of the author Kurt Vonnegut (a WWII veteran), and if you've ever read Slaughterhouse-Five, you'll probably know what I'm thinking about. In that book he talks about how war movies always have these big hollywood actors playing heroic soldiers, when in real life, the soldiers that fight in wars are just kids, most in their late teens or early twenties. A lot of them are just barely out high school. I, for example, will be eighteen in a couple months, old enough to go to war, and I'm still excited about having gotten my driver's license.
I would just really like to see a war movie that shows it from that point of view; like how the scared eighteen year old kid would see it. If done right, it could be much more impactful than Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions about this movie, though, since I haven't seen it. Maybe all those cast names I've never heard of are the kids. -
I disagree on your assertion that all American GIs were scared high school kids fighting a war in another place. A large percentage of American GIs and Marines in World War II (from 1939 on up) were mostly in their 20s and 30s who felt obliged to join the fight against the Japaneses and the Germans (after 1941) and not before long kids out of high schools (even dropouts) were joining in throes (drafting). It would take sheer luck, iron will, and a miracle to survive all the battles. There are stories that sometimes in the heat of the battles, some young kids got "aged" pretty fast.
The Thin Red Line should be a movie that tells what war AND its soldiers REALLY mean to us. -
Rob is correct, to quote Paul Hardcastle, "In WWII the average age of a combat soldier was 26, in Vietnam it was 19." But I do agree that a problem with many US war movies is their use of older actors to play the troops. We don't usually get the scared 18yr. old reaction. Even "Born on the 4th of July", Tom Cruise was fresh out of high school, but wasn't shown until his 2nd tour when he was a hardened vet.
I'm hoping for great things from "A Thin Red Line", I'll be there on opening night in Atlanta (Jan15?). But to me, Hollywood has never been able to top one of their earliest efforts, "All Quiet On the Western Front" -
If you're confused by the subject, then here's the explanation. So, okay you had the 80's and a host of Vietnam movies, well actually the 70's if you count Apocalypse Now, and the Deer Hunter, so anyway, Vietnam every year in a film until eventually it just got to be dull, so now Private Ryan and the Thin Red Line come out with news (I've heard) of more WWII movies coming out in the future, so is WWI next? It would be a nice touch to have WWI examined, the only GOOD WWI movie out there came out 68 years ago, a little movie called "ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT" I mean, WWI wasn't exactly Americas war until the last year of it, but still it was gruesome, hideous, bloody and hellish with constant war in the trenches and the no man's land, your life was pretty much f**ked. I hope some great directors and writers are putting their heads together to make such movies that at least grab the realism of the war while getting the emotions out of the soldiers themselves. Looking forward to Red Line, what I consider to be an alternative to Private Ryan, hope it's just as good all around
-
I was seventeen when I enlisted in the Army, and I wasn't any different from the rest of the privates. Through my four years of being in the service, I can count the number of privates who were older than 21 years old on one hand.
For me, one of the most striking aspects of "Saving Private Ryan," even beyond the realism of the violence, was the portrayal of the young soldiers under Hanks' command. They were all kids, and it was easy to imagine these guys going home and hugging their mothers and going back out onto the street with their friends.
And now, we have "The Thin Red Line," which coincidentally, is based on a book that comments more on individuals than the violence of war. Judging from the pre-release material, it appears as if the average age of the actors is 35, even after Nolte is excluded from the group. And, they throw the most liberally-minded member of the Hollywood community into the scheme, by casting Harrelson.
Now, I wonder, can Harrelson portray the absence of ideals that was common throughout the ranks of young men with whom I interacted? If he can, than he must be one hell of an actor.
Either way, I can't wait to see this film, if only for the war. -
What a lot of you that are commenting on the actors being too old or the right age or what not are forgetting that the big names in this(Harrelson,Nolte,Travolta,Cusack)all have failry minor parts(w/maybe the exception of Nolte...i'm not sure...haven't seen the movie)I know Travolta is in the movie just a few minutes and Clooney is in it for less then that. But FOX feels that thy need to use their "big names" to draw in the crowds to see this movie...oh and from what I understand most of these older actors aren't playing privites...they're playing officers or sargents, veterns not freash faced recruits.
-
I don't think we should worry about the age of the actors. I mean do you have a 15 year old playing Joan of Arc? Jeez you have
Clint Eastwood at 67 playing a 45 year old in "The Bridges of Madison County". As in the case of Woody Harrelson being "too liberal" to play a soldier is just stupid. An actor is just an actor.
Hey I'm pretty liberal and I'm a sailor on a trident submarine which may carry nuclear weapons! -
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is a fine film, and one of my favorites of the genre, but there are certainly other fine WWI films. Take, for instance, what I believe to be the greatest war film ever made, PATHS OF GLORY. It's utter perfection, and conveys the "futility of war" aspect better than anything that's come before, or after it. Also, I'd be remiss to not include GALLIPOLI, Peter Weir's heartbreaking classic that features a pre-superstardom Mel Gibson. If you've never seen it, put it high on your must-rent list (and get the newly released Widescreen version.)
-
I agree with that the aforementioned WW1 pictures are excellent but several more films of excellent quality do exist. Has anyone ever seen LAWRENCE OF ARABIA? How about Chaplin's SHOULDER ARMS? If you like GALLIPOLI then by all means rent THE LIGHTHORSEMEN. France's Bertrand Tavernier most recent film is the brillant CAPITAINE CONAN the only WW1 film that deals with the Eastern Front. Also do not miss his earlier LIFE AND NOTHING BUT which deals with the horrible aftermath of the war.
As far as WW2 is concerned I believe everyone should she Paul Verhoeven's masterpiece SOLDIER OF ORANGE starring Rutger Hauer. -
Somebody forgot to mention Legends of the Fall as being a great WWI movie. Even though the actual war sequences are only a part of the film, the events leading up to, and following them are concerned with the effects of war on individuals, and more sadly, a whole family.
-
Ok, there's more WWI movies than just ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. We get the point. And head's up to whoever pointed out LEGENDS OF THE FALL as a great WWI movie, in fact, it's one of my favorites. http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Picture/3059 check out my site!!
-
COMBAT-the motion picture
-
I've heard that the main theme of this movie is supposed to be about seeing beauty in the midst of chaos. It really screws with your head!
-
I agree that ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT and PATHS OF GLORY (a Stanley Kubrick film, by the way) are great movies. ALL QUIET also gets my vote as the ONLY war movie containing NOTHING that would make ANY young man want to enlist.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts