|
Showing all 31 reviews...
|
|
 |
I think this may be the only movie I stoped watching while I was with someone else. Sometimes you can stop when you're by yourself cause you won't offend anyone who might be enjoying it. But this movie motivated the two of us to turn off the movie and watch cable.
4/10
5.9.2009 -
turneron14@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
The first time I saw this was recently on tv-- long & long. It was something I was always going to watch -what a let down.
3/10
3.10.2007 -
nursekimca@ - age: 50+
Never saw this film in a theatre. I've read about how "unique" this film was... so I bought the dvd... what a MISTAKE... tried to watch it twice... fell asleep twice. Something is wrong with the audio also... when the characters speak, their voices are so low you'll need to turn up the volume. When the scene changes... the noise/music is so loud... you'll need to turn down the volume.
1/10
21.12.2005 -
pagodedor@ - age: 36-49
I guess this is one where you either loved it or hated it... It was so LONG and so BORING. There is nothing in it to keep your attention... Nothing. I fell asleep then left and have no problem not know what happened at the end. A very bad sign for a movie.
1/10
16.10.2004 -
astinkymagoo@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
Beautiful, haunting, poetic, thought provoking. This movie goes much deeper than the typical war flick, delving into the minds of the soldiers on the frontline; their fears, thoughts and where they draw their inner strength, and the reality and brutality of war. Jim Caviezel's performance as Private Witt is outstanding; his eyes conveying it all without a word! I was thoroughly transfixed throughout the entire length of the movie. If you're only interested in shallow warmonger flicks, this 'ain't for you (although it does have its share of violence) If you're more interested in the human side, the reality of war, this movie will not disappoint.
10/10
1.3.2004 -
web@ - age: 36-49
A masterpiece of pure grace and beauty. Respect to all the crew and cast. The movie must have been God inspired.
10/10
10.9.2003 -
racarouge@ - age: 18-25
An awesom movie.
10/10
25.8.2003 -
toyboytroy59@ - age: 13-17
Good movie, some scenes go under the skin.. I've seen many war- movies before and this keeps up with them easily.
6/10
3.7.2003 -
fidk@ - age: 13-17
Superb stuff - but not for low IQ warmongers!
9/10
30.6.2003 -
martinj@ - age: 26-35
This was the greatest war movie to be made yet. It delves into the mind, whereas most war movies only focus on the superficial side. War does serious damage to a persons mind. This movie does a great job at showing that. Albeit if you are going into this movie looking for tons of action, go see Saving Private Ryan or something of that type, but if you want to see the reality of war Thin Red Line is the way to go. The script was well written and Jim Caviezel did an outstanding job as he has done in all his other films (Frequency and the Count of Monte Christo) , and soon to play the lead in Mel Gibson's movie Jesus of Nazareth. One word... GREAT!
10/10
12.3.2003 -
card_33@
Best war movie ever... if only it was just a war movie, but in reality it is much much more... Instead of wanting to see action, bullets and dead guys, watch the movie on IT'S terms. If you want the other things, look for Arnold, or maybe the classic Longest Day, which (if I may say so) actually is a rather good movie! But this one not only blow your mind, it makes such a deep impact on your soul, that the image will hopefully stay with you for the long run. But that is only, if your open for a movie, that does not move in super highspeed!
10/10
6.10.2002 -
k_abobo@ - age: 26-35
I've read a lot of mixed reviews on this one... but I do admit it has to be one of the better thought out films I've seen in a number of years. Although everyone has likely had it up to the brim with war films... Terrence Mallick focuses on the inner thoughts not just the exterior... I beleive this is what seperates the others from this epic. A lot of patrons won't have the tolerance for the length of the film... but personally I beleive it to be a worthwhile experience all around. Great cinematography coupled with superb acting... you can't ask for more these days.
8/10
5.10.2002 -
robski41@ - age: 36-49
I am truly fascinated by this movie and it has really inspired me... this movie sure is worth the oscar(s)
9/10
1.2.2002 -
yannick_oorts@ - age: 18-25
Worst war movie EVER!!!
2/10
30.1.2002 -
god_smack9@ - age: 13-17
This film's not about shoot'em up thrills. There's no John Wayne or Schwarzenegger or some other ridiculous larger than life guy who is impervious to bullets & knows no fear. The outstanding character portrayals are of young men --courageous, miserable, and so very afraid of killing & being killed. The film's tempo, its images, its dialogue, its duration, & its refreshing subtlety in action, create a tension representative of the overwhelming feeling of terror that builds as soldiers approach a battlefield. The Thin Red Line suburbly conveys the physical & (especially) the psychological cruelties of war. If only it were simply good fiction.
9/10
7.7.2001 -
mcureton@ - age: 36-49
This movie wasn't bad I would watch it again but the start of it was a bit slow.
7/10
18.6.2001 -
sdickieson@ - age: 18-25
If only negative numbers could be used to rate movies... I HATED THIS MOVIE!!! Long and boring.
1/10
3.6.2001 -
daisies63@ - age: 18-25
Booooring! Of course if you like endless shots of grass then you'll like it. I had high expectations because of a really good cast but it still didn't save the movie. Didn't even moved me. Wait till it comes on TV.
5/10
24.3.2000 -
amarowicz@ - age: 18-25
Disappointing, not worth the Oscar "best Movie" noimination - very slow at times!
5/10
28.11.1999 -
m_elmoznino@
I tried REALLY hard to like this movie. The lengthy, dramatic, poetic scenes; the philosophical dialogue....This is war. I love poetry, but I still can't say it was a very good movie.
6/10
11.4.1999 -
thebixman@
| | | | |
If you want slam-bang thrills then you won't find them here. That is not the film's purpose. This film takes you into the hearts of these soldiers and allows you to experience their emotions. The worst thing you can do with this film is watch it, find it boring and then just forget it. You must analyse it. Break it down. True many of the shots are unnecessary. But for each of those there are two so haunting as to be genius. For the price of a few too many of Bell's memories you have the sight of a lone soldier lost in a misty haze as the occasional bullet whizzes past. Or the image of Witt's return to the village to find his Eden corrupted by the cruelties of war. The best sequence is the companies attack on the Japaneses encampent. Whilst only five minutes long it's a frenetic episode as the camera moves in all directions. Inside huts, over corpses, alongside running troops. Its pace means we never actually see anybody killed clearly so there is no sense of loss. Until it stops and the defeated Japanese are paraded in front of us. There is no feeling of victory or pride. Only shame. By Trevor John
7/10
31.3.1999 -
trevororlando@
If you want to see the depressing atrocity and meaninglessness of war, this movie accomplishes this beautifully, almost like a documentary. However, it is missing an essential element that would have elevated it to a masterpiece: emotionally connecting with the audience. This is where Titanic made it - it first hooked us in a love story so that we could then feel the tragedy almost as if we had been there. I was not there while watching the Thin Red Line. I was merely a spectator. Too bad because the acting is very good, albeit the lines lose us somehow.
6/10
28.3.1999 -
marc_eric@
A poetic artistic and uncompromising film. Much better than the over simplistic Saving Private Ryan... but for that very reason it would be less appreciated or undrestood. However, a visual masterpiece that shows the hell that war creates outside and inside the human form and the fact that there is nothing good about war, despite whatver the propoganda machine tells us.
10/10
23.3.1999 -
aarif2000@
Quite simply sensational - a must see!
10/10
1.3.1999 -
cvonma@
I grew up in Germany to the stories of war from my dad and his friends. They had been to France and Russia as 17-year-olds. They told me, the worst thing they ever had experienced as the waiting. The nerve-wrecking wait for days in narrow ditches and the absolute silence of russiann and american tanks slowly approaching in the distance, stopping for hours, then again move forward, then again stopping. People went crazy, others would see mages of mom, girlfriend, family. Certain death was just around the corner, and what a death it was. Unimaginable horror. In extreme situations like these you react. Like the guys in Thin Red Line. War is horror. War is making wrecks out of men. War is surreal, often too ugly even to imagine. I think this is what The Thin Red Line captured brilliantly. Don't mind the socalled lack of action scenes and lack of bloody close-ups, the David-Suzuki-like images. War makes hell out of paradise. ''The Thin Red Line'' - a brilliant film!
9/10
2.2.1999 -
helmhau@
One of the worst movies that I've ever seen!! It's dull, slow, and endlessly long!! We had to leave before it was finished because it kept on dragging on and on for more than 2 hours. The producers tried to attract audience by throwing in names of hot shot actors such as John Travolta and Woody Harleson and others; however, the audience did not know that these actors appeared in the movie for only 2 - 10 min.
1/10
2.2.1999 -
fadi@
| | | | |
How did we lose the good that was given us? Or let it slip away ? '' Maybe all men got one big soul everybody's a partr of '' '' How do we get to those other shores ? To those blue hills? '' Pour tous ceux qui n'ont pas aimé ce film...j'écris cette critique pour vous. Lisez les 3 phrases que j'ai écrites au début et retournez voir ce film !!! Je respecte entièrement les mauvaises critiques, mais je ne peux m'imaginer que quelqu'un en ce monde peut trouver ce film sans aucune valeur. C'est un chef-d'oeuvre pur et simple, sans aucune prétention et qui ne cherche pas à impressionner, mais bien à faire réfléchir sur la vie. J'ai été secoué par ce film, mais seulement la deuxième fois que je l'ai vu. Je n'avais pas compris la puissance de ce film. Ce n'est pas un film de guerre pur et simple, loin de là. ''The thin red line'' n'a aucune ressemblance avec ''Saving private Ryan'' exepté du fait qu'il est présenté durant la même guerre. Ce film est plus proche d'un défit philosophique que d'un amusement. Même ceux qui ont détester ce film ne peuvent pas nier le courage de la vision du producteur Malick. On ne peut nier que ce film est le plus ambitieux à sortir d'un important studio américain depuis des décennies. Ce film doit être vu comme un accomplissement monumental qui ne peut être résumer dans n'importe laquelle critique. '' The thin red line'' must be seen, felt and remembered to be fully appreciated. For those willing to rise to the occasion, the reward is beyong compare.
10/10
31.1.1999 -
anna19@
Way too much talking. Action is good but a very small portion of the movie. The first bullet doesn't get fired for over 1 hour. Most of the big name actors only make cameo appearances. Way too long at 3 hours, and it is really all about soldiers asking questions, right to the bitter end. Photography is excellent though.
2/10
27.1.1999 -
indiewar@
This is art, it is a film not a movie. Whereas Saving Private Ryan was more of a true Hollywood production, Malick's creation is more of a poetic ode to the realities, and unrealities, or war. The scenes become moving paintings of blurred action and words as the overwhelming nature of war, and how it effects the soldiers, is expertly translated into a film which will make even the most fanatical warmonger think again about the supposed glory of war, and perhaps see it for what it is, brutal, unforgiving, and proof of man's inhumanity to man.
10/10
22.1.1999 -
j_wexler@
| | | | |
Please God make this movie end my legs are numb my back is sore and I really have to pee!!! This is what I was chanting to myself throughout the greater part of this ridiculously long film. For about 3 hours director Terrence Malick burdons the audience with emotional and pychlogical gobbly-gook about how terrible war is (as if we didn't know). Most of the film is spent juxtaposing beautiful images of nature with brutal images of war which might have been interesting had Malick not shoved it down our throats. We got it the first time, after we've seen it 30 other times we don't care anymore. In fact there so many pictures of exotic animals that I was half expecting David Suzuki to pop up. Bad dialogue, ridiculos cameos by a slew of stars and tons of annoying flashbacks make this film even worse. But nothing was more frustrating that the absence of a storyline or plot. This movie was literally nothing more than a random series of pictures and 'happenings' put together without rhyme or reason. The only saving grace of this film is the beautiful photography and strong performances of Sean Penn and John Cusack. VIDEOGURU
4/10
21.1.1999 -
aerobiz@
Personally, I enjoyed this film but I dont think all of you will like it. First, it is a 3 hours movie. The first hour is filled with beautiful nature shots, for a minute I tough that I am watching the discovery channel. You only get to see action after 45 minutes into the movie. I must admit that the second hour of the movie is full of intense fighting scenes that will make you hart beat like hell. The last hour of the movie is a bit of a mix of the first and second hours. Some parts are intense and other can make you fall asleep. A few people didnt have the stomach for this type of movie and left in the middle. I believe this movie could be packed into an hour and a half, maybe 2 hours. Overall, it is really well made film but a bit too long and can get a bit boring.
7/10
19.1.1999 -
m_peretz@
| | | | |
| 
