MovieChat Forums > The Thin Red Line (1999) Discussion > Can someone help me understand why someo...

Can someone help me understand why someone would hate this movie?

posted 9 years ago by jonruff108
32 replies | jump to latest

This is one of the two films I've ever seen that has stayed with me each day after I saw it the first time. There are normal everyday occurrences in my every day life that constantly remind me of the themes expressed in the Thin Red Line. In my opinion, the movie is absolutely incredible. I just purchased the Criterion Collection bluray of the movie and it. Is. Stunning. There was obviously some sort of joke at the Oscars that year because however the hell it didn't win best cinematography is beyond my intellectual capabilities. The acting was superb as well. The music by Hans Zimmer was gorgeous and VERY underrated. The direction was intricate yet very natural - basically the movie is a masterpiece.

Now, I will admit that the film has a narrative that is hard to follow but if you know anything about Malick it's that you shouldn't be focused on the narrative but rather the images presented and the story being told with them (It's called visual storytelling, if you were wondering. Yes, that's a thing).

If you thought it was boring, then, I don't really know what to say. I respect others opinions but sometimes (more than sometimes) I really feel like this movie gets way too much hate for unknown reasons. Are people still butt-hurt that it wasn't Saving Private Ryan 2? Come on guys....

"As long as you don't choose, everything remains possible" - Mr. Nobody
My ratings include TV shows

[–] murad23 9 years ago

The film is beautiful. It is visual poetry. Some of Malik's dalioge, for example the spoken thoughts as the Japanese emplacement is overrun are among the best dialogue I have heard in a film

But it is highly inaccurate in terms of the facts of Guadalcanal and war fighting in the pacific, or even Jones's already fictionalized novel.

Essentially it fell victim to coming out concurrent with "Saving Private Ryan." Private ryan was extremely accurate in details whereas "Thin Red" was laughably wrong and sloppy in about every detail. Ryan was heroic, practically in 1940's in its idealizations, and thin red was a condemnation of war.

The level of violence the Japanese troops were able to dish out and withstand, which was really first seen on Guadalcanal, was utterly shocking to Americans, and it was a very different war than Europa, epically W. Europe front.

Japanese troops, imbued with Bushido, had to be subjected to 90% causality rates before they would retreat or surrender. This is way more than Germans, British, Americans, or even Soviet solders. Way WAY more.

That Japanese military characteristic made ground warfare in the Pacific so visceral.

Essentially Malik doesn't have time for explaining the Pacific war. By contrast virtually every film on the European front, even anti war films, references Nazi mass brutality, eg the Holocaust. The equally criminal and murderous Japanese actions in China, Korea and many pacific islands is hardly ever touched upon.

Private Ryan has a Jewish squad member who references this. Even Band of Brothers has context while Pacific does not.

So you can't fault Malik for removing context, and also getting the actual military actiosn completely wrong in both small and large aspects. He is doing something else. On the other hand you can't fault many viewers interested in accuracy or context to also be turned off.

[–] jonruff108 9 years ago

Thanks for the reply!

On the other hand you can't fault many viewers interested in accuracy or context to also be turned off.

Well, I guess that's that. Good point. I'm no history buff - I know the basics and that's the extent of that unless it comes to American History so the inaccuracies flew right over my head.

So you can't fault Malick for removing context, and also getting the actual military actions completely wrong in both small and large aspects. He is doing something else.

This. Really the war wasn't the point of the film but rather the effects of war, etc. Personally, I believe TTRL stands as a much greater film than Saving Private Ryan but to each their own.

"As long as you don't choose, everything remains possible" - Mr. Nobody
My ratings include TV shows

[–] gmansi 9 years ago

This. Really the war wasn't the point of the film but rather the effects of war, etc.

Thats the main thing!! Of course is a war movie but the real subject is the humans who fights the war...

Personally, I believe TTRL stands as a much greater film than Saving Private Ryan but to each their own.

Saving Private Ryan is a better action-classic war movie. The Thin Red line is a great film but from another category.

[–] jonruff108 9 years ago

Agreed. If you want action then SPR is the way to go but of you want a deeper philosophical TTRL is what you should watch.

I enjoyed both films.

[–] kunivinbastard 8 years ago

Saying SPR was more realistic?

please provide the context here.

people walking out into open air,taking children with them,blindfolding and letting a german go,sending a unit to save 1 man regardless of the cost. Come on,both films have their faults in realism. But neither 1 is ''More realistic'' than the other

[–] neverstandinalone 7 years ago

johruff108 and murad23, combine accessments of both of yours and it be almost perfect. I love the film knowing it's faults. I see it as is, and rewatch regularly.

[–] kmags84 9 years ago

Its incredibly hard to compare this to Saving Private Ryan. Both are masterpieces in my mind, just on different levels. TTRL is an Art house Film disguised as a War Film. Its more personal, as in how it affected the characters. Its very inaccurate but i dont judge it based off of that, its beauty and tragedy lies elsewhere. SPR is what id expect from Spielberg, its as realistic as possible, it is a large film with a huge budge

[–] kmags84 9 years ago

Sorry, it cut off. Anyways, SPR is what I'd expect from Spielberg and TTRL is what I'd expect from Malick... Both made beautiful films.

[–] ss454327-1 9 years ago

I found this movie hard to watch honestly. It seemed to be trying way too hard to be poignant and a lot of the dialogue was forced and overly dramatic for the situation. All of the scenes with Miranda Otto could have been cut.

[–] jonruff108 9 years ago

The scenes with Miranda Otto were great! When the soldier opens the letter from her it's absolutely devastating only because of the scenes she was in.

[–] Yorick_Brown 9 years ago

It is well-acted, scored, and photographed but poorly edited and the screenplay is just okay.

[–] jonruff108 9 years ago

I thought the editing was unique but I could understand why someone may not have liked it.

[–] ryan-r 9 years ago

It's pretentious garbage with a cast that was seemingly pulled out of a hat.

[–] ccorraliza 9 years ago

I found none of the characters to be worth liking. The film is beautiful and extremely sad and makes one realize how mortal they are.

[–] nnoppinger-2 8 years ago

It is hated, particulalry by soldiers, because it is not baed on any objective reality. Yes,I know I am ignoring the point of Heidegger. I am very familiar with Desain and the concepts of existenialism and phenomenology, and my comment at face value seems like I am missing Malick's philosophy lesson. Yes Saving Private Ryan is jingoish, but the opening sequence and combat scenes are as realistic as you are going to get. The Thin Red Line is not in any way realistic, and it is beyond the average soldiers intellect. I am a retired Army officer and current history and war studies professor along with being a combat veteran.

I am not a fan of Malick, or you typical art house film fan, though I do like Kubrick and Lynch. I can't stand the film because it just does not relate to me and my experiences. If I want Heidegger, I will read Being and Time. I find Malick's films to be formless, and vapid. I found The Thin Red Line to be overacted almost to the point of being comical, and not in a good way.

[–] nnoppinger-2 8 years ago

I wil add that Malick.is great at cinematography. I just think he is poor at storytelling or even making his philosphy lesson interesting. I compare Malick to those poor teachers on subjects that you like, but make the lecture absolutely unbearable. Kubrick gets it Malick does not.

[–] shoobe01-1 8 years ago

I think that's what bugged me, good phrase for this. "not baed on any objective reality"

Instead of SPR I would like to bring up Wings of Honnêamise. A film that is on it's surface about a space launch and war, but not /really/ and instead it's an allegorical tale of life, evolution, redemption, etc. And some odd things about the staging of this film work because It Is In A Fictional Setting.

That's what bugged me about TTRL. It's the Pacific in WW2. Except... it is not. And not in a useful way like it's a dream or recollection of what the war was to someone, or what it was to this group in this point of view (Mr Roberts, Apocalypse Now, hell South Pacific). Instead, it presents the view rather matter of fact, as though it's almost a documentary at some points, neutrally observing the goings on, and it's so demonstrably wrong that it is jarring.

If you say I (or others) are being pedantic, what would you say if the beautiful nature scenes had clearly fake trees, or there were clearly animatronic animals? That's the level of problem some of us have with this.

ETA: Thought of another. Let's take Keith Gordon's [url http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102443/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_23]A Midnight Clear[/url]. It's at times a very surreal story, with all sorts of interesting human emotion brought forward but it works because it's in a realistic context. Not just that you believe the world around them when the higher ups intervene, or the bigger battles overtake them, but because the contrast between the reality and their strange corner of the world for the few days is so extraordinary.

(P.S. Though it's not my favorite film personally, I recognize this example it as being what Gordon wanted to do and well done. I respect that at least. I do not like TTRL at all and think it was a mistake, but maybe some new cut will appear someday and change my mind).

[–] biggiebaby 8 years ago

I dunno, because it's cliche driven melodrama . Typical Malick, it should've been called, "The Jungle of Exestential Meltdowns".

[–] Neuronhead 8 years ago

I liked it was a little bit too close to being a musical.

I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe

[–] kenny-164 8 years ago

Funny how a question poised by the OP making no reference to Saving Private Ryan in terms of wondering why people hate this film would trigger so many responses that concern SPR. That of course provides something of an answer right there, in the sense that some large percentage (but not all) of SPR fans immediately compare The Thin Red Line to it, and not to the benefit of TTRL.

You see a lot of that on IMDb, particularly around Oscar time for those in competition. I never understood the vehemence some bring to such discussions, or why some view it as appropriate to tear down films with the apparent view that doing so somehow elevates the film they prefer.

THen there are some on the attention deficit spectrum who find it boring. People who cannot articulate a criticism beyond saying something is boring should be (and for me are) easily discounted.

Imo The Thin Red Line is a great film. Perhaps the best film of the last 20 years. It's choice of telling its story with an ensemble cast perfectly portrays its thematic focus on our common humanity. How are we similar, and what drives us apart. How Nature in all its glory exists alongside the human endeavor, both there to sustain us while simultaneously indifferent to our paths through life.

And yes it is informed by Martin Heidegger's philosophy, but why some would choose to criticize it for not being as comprehensive as Being and Time is lost on me. It is a cinematic experience that reflects that philosophy, not intended as a primer on it.

A truly great film. It is wonderful that others enjoy it as much as I do. I don't need everyone to love it, though. It is your loss if you do not.

[–] El_Cochran90 8 years ago

Funny how a question poised by the OP making no reference to Saving Private Ryan in terms of wondering why people hate this film would trigger so many responses that concern SPR.

With all due respect, the OP did say: "Are people still butt-hurt that it wasn't Saving Private Ryan 2? Come on guys.... "

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=8636185

[–] armoredtanker 8 years ago

YES
THE JAPANES WERE BARBARIC. THEY DID NOT SURRENDER AT ALL. THE TORTURED AND MUTILATED AMERICANS THAT FELL INTO THEIR HANDS. NO AMERICAN TAKEN PRISON ON GUADALCANAL WAS EVER TAKN BACK TO JAPAN AS A POW! THEY WERE KILLED
THE JAPANESE DID NOT SURRENDER AT ALL. THERE TWISTED CODE OF HONOR WAS TO DIE! THEY BLEW THEMSELVES UP WITH GRENADES OR SHOT THEMSELVES. MY DAD FOUGHT ON OKINAWA IN 45. AND ANOTHER UNCLE AT TARAWA IN 43. A GARRISON OF 4000 ON TARAWA, ONLY 17 POWS!
THE MOST ACCURATE MOVIES, THE PACIFIC SERIES, FLAG OF OUR FATHERS, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA IS HOW THEY WERE ACCURATELY!
READ THE BOOK GUADALCANAL, OR WITH THE OLD BREED.
READ ABOUT NEW GUINEA TOO. THE JAPANESE WOULD EAT THE AUSTRALIANS FOR FOOD!