The Thin Red Line (1964) or The Thin Red Line (1998)?
I prefer Terence Malick's 1998 version of The Thin Red Line; It was like poetry in motion, baby.
shareMalick's version was poetic, majestic and just plain amazing. I first saw it on broadcast TV and even the ad breaks couldn't destroy my rapture as I watched it.
It was a perfect synthesis of superb performances, inspired directing and sublime soundtrack (the Arvo Part pieces especially) and perfect proof that you don't need gratuitous and explicit violence, a la Private Ryan, to make a film about the horrors of war.
One of the few novel adaptations that is equal to, or maybe even surpasses, the book.
As to this 1964 version, the message boards here have pretty much convinced me not to bother...
I didn't think Mallick's version was all that. I don't think it's bad, I just didn't like it. General problems with it I felt were:
1. It had basically too many characters. (I usually like lots of characters but it didn't work for me here.)
2. Caviziel (or whatever)'s motives weren't communicated very well - jungle shots does not intone pacifism (which people tell me his motivation was).
3. I wasn't convinced by the portrayal of the Japanese. They seemed to die easy to me. For that matter the Americans were all wrong too - too '90s (should be more '40s).
(4. I was slightly offended by a story about Americans being called "the thin red line" - bastardise your own heritage.)
NB. Re. "the message boards here have pretty much convinced me not to bother..."
Posters are meant to share their opinions, not impose one on you. Watch it and make up your own mind. If you like one you must like the other - it's the same film. (I haven't seen '64 but I really want to.)
If yer up to yer nose in sheeit, keep yer mouth shut!
This post surprised at how stupid it was. "If you like one you must like the other - it's the same film" Whhaaattt? It's based off the same book, but they are two completely different movies. For number 4, you really have a problem with it being called the thin red line? really? Yeah me too, how can they- oh wait... that's what the book is called.... Even if it wasn't based off a book, if the title fits the film than it's a good title. God damn the people on these boards are some times ridiculous.
shareAlthough the name of the book, "The Thin Red Line" doesn't really fit or apply to the battle, or the movies. It was a pretty weak "bite" on British military history/heritage. It's actually ironic when you think of it in the grand scheme.
"Inside the dusters there were 3 men"..."So?"....."Inside the men there were 3 bullets" - d{^_^}b
Did you guys not understand the film at all? Did you read the book? The name comes from a quote that's on the first page of the novel: "There's only a thin red line between the sane and the mad". I think it's the perfect title for the film.
share