The Thin Red Line

Gerald Barrett25 said:"Thin Red Line"

Weren't you the one who was getting weirdly intense about the plot? 😕
Come on, give me some details—what actually pulled you in about the "story" of this movie? 😉

(Sorry Gerald Barrett25, I'm pulling this out of the "War movies, might be worth a watch..." thread 😉 )

"Provocateur" recap 😉
Could you expand a bit on what actually drew you to the "story" of this film?

So, the story works on two levels here, but it’s not really following a classic dramatic plot structure. It feels more like a meditation. One level is the individual arc—watching how each soldier in the group we're following finds their own way to cope with the stress and the grind of combat (with one guy eventually cracking) and basically discovering who they are when forced into a situation they didn't choose. The second level focuses on human interaction under fire. The film rejects the idea of soldiers being driven by some grand, sweeping cause—which, to the viewer, often feels incomprehensible or even dirty, given things like chasing promotions and all that. Instead, it shows a brotherhood that's almost familial, born out of pure survival. I found the personal stories of Private Witt (James Caviezel) and Private Jack Bella (Ben Chaplin) particularly moving; honestly, you could spin those into two separate movies entirely.
That said, the film is just overflowing with visual and auditory detail. I remember feeling lost for a moment, caught between the harsh reality of war and the comfort of home and family. These sweeping shots of natural beauty feel so jarringly at odds with the people involved—people who have become almost feral, where the only thought is spotting the enemy and staying alive. There's a scene where a local passes right by a column of American soldiers, completely unaware of them, and it serves as a reminder that he's just part of that landscape, while the soldiers are nothing more than temporary intruders.

You’re being way too soft on Gerald Barrett25, but let’s be real: this thing is three straight hours of pretentious boredom. Its only goal is to hammer home some message about how "war is meaningless." Great message, truly—too bad the execution is an absolute train wreck.

"Meditative"... please. If I wanted to spend ninety minutes staring at the flora and fauna of Guadalcanal, I’m pretty sure there’s a decent National Geographic documentary out there for that. You just sit there, zone out, and look at plants and animals. It’s meditation for people with too much time on their hands.
I honestly don't get what all that serves in the movie, other than showing off some pseudo-intellectual visual style. It’s the same deal with how they handle the characters...

Every single character played by some Hollywood star absolutely kills me. Seriously, it's infuriating because there is zero actual drama. They just wander around happily—one guy, then another, then a third, then a fifth, then the tenth... give me a reason to actually care about someone!

What interest?
Look, man, it's war. There aren't supposed to be "characters." Everyone is just more trash, and they throw in some scenery shots so you can see just how much of a mess everything is.
Oh, give me a break... 👎

And then I remember that this guy even signed on for Badlands... 😢

Come on, Carl Bennett78, quit poking the bear and just get out of here 😉

driftingowl27, are you seriously stalking me now?! 🙂 Look, I can see you’re just itching for a fight—honestly, I’d probably join in if I had anyone worth arguing with, but there’s just no reason to here. After that solid comment from Gerald Barrett25, yours honestly feels pretty bottom-tier. I don't get why you singled him out just to drag him down. Are you trying to insult him? Or are you just fishing for people to jump in and back up your obnoxious attitude?

When it comes to movies, I’ll take someone who actually knows how to enjoy a film over someone who just spits on it any day. To truly appreciate cinema, you need a bit of actual insight and a healthy state of mind. Being a hater? That doesn't require anything at all.

Carl Bennett78, you're letting those conspiracies get to you again 🙂 😘
I didn't insult Gerald Barrett25—not even a single word of it. But you? It’s pretty obvious you're just nitpicking every frame of the movie 😉
Paranoia - bad for health.
Look, this isn't about starting a fight. I just want someone (and I'm certain Gerald Barrett25 is up for the task) to actually try and debunk everything I've laid out here.
I honestly don't get how anyone can sit through a film this nauseatingly pretentious.
That's my reasoning right there 😉

P.S. Glad you posted that comment 😉

Sure, if you think the movie is pretentious, you're right. Looking at it as a whole, there’s plenty to complain about—from the messy plot and that "pseudo-intellectual" narration to the entire final third that just drags on forever. Like Mickey said, it gets way too meditative and leans way too hard on pretty scenery to try and force some deep emotion out of the viewer.
But look, I gotta add that the stretch from when they leave the main ship until the end in the village is actually genius in almost every way. Even if none of the characters get much depth, they all feel more human. Honestly, I felt more for them than I did for the guys in Saving Private Ryan. Plus, I personally dug how the battle for the hill plays out; it's not just chaotic shooting for the sake of it. Every bullet and every soldier's move actually makes sense. (Not like Black Hawk Down, ugh.) Visually, the battle is stunningly shot, perfectly framed, etc. (Forget shaky cam, just give me a camera that glides through high grass at helmet level 😁 ). So, what's the verdict? Plot-wise, the movie isn't amazing, but it's alright. It would've been even better if they cut like 20 minutes off that final act, but whatever... it is what it is...

Honestly, what really bugged me was that endless crowd of characters who don't actually serve a purpose in the story or undergo any kind of development. They’re just... there. You know? Like, you could easily cram all that filler into a quick twenty-minute montage and call it a day, instead of absolutely suffocating the audience with them like this.

This is one of those endless, grueling movies that makes me constantly wonder what I should snack on or when I can finally get up to pee, just to escape the agony of watching. It might be decent, but man, it is exhausting.

Look, yeah, there are way too many characters, I'll give you that. But saying they don't have a purpose? I'm gonna have to disagree there. It’s true there aren't really "main" characters—it feels more like these random snapshots of life on the island—but most of the time, it actually works. I didn't feel like I needed to bond with specific people; it was more about getting this raw, general sense of war and killing... which is exactly what Mosaic Fate is all about. I even got the vibe—maybe I misread it—that those scenes with the woman waiting back home weren't just about Ben Chaplin's guy, but represented some universal figure at home that all these soldiers cling to just to survive the war.
(I mean, if you want an example of a movie with a massive crowd where nobody actually matters, look at Black Hawk Down... when a character's peak trait is just being a "coffee nut," you know you aren't watching a masterpiece 😁 )

Look, I’m not knocking a large ensemble cast in general. I mean, look at how perfectly Altman's "Short Cuts" handled that kind of thing. But here’s the catch—if you actually want the audience to connect with these people, if you want them to actually *feel* something, you have to give them something to work with. If a character doesn't undergo any sort of emotional shift while they're on screen, or if their development feels totally forced, then you've just ended up with a whole lot of nothing. And unfortunately, that's exactly what happened with The Thin Red Line.

driftingowl27, I'm with you on everything you said in that last post. (including that bit about Short Cuts being a masterpiece😁). The thing is, a flick like The Thin Red Line isn't really about individual characters. You don't need some big emotional journey, growth, or character arcs. For me, just seeing those 10-15 different people and their various takes on war was enough to hit you with that overall emotional punch. Maybe no single person moves the needle, but looking at them all together... it creates that classic "emotional shift." Add a fuckin' well-directed battle for the hills and you've got a masterpiece. No smiley this time.

Mickey, you're really coming at me for not getting All or Nothing? 😲 😲

The Thin Red Line is honestly one of the most beautiful and greatest films ever made. It actually sucks to me that someone with your level of insight—and I mean that sincerely, not as a joke or to flatter you—can't view this film through a broader lens instead of just looking at it like an "average" viewer who finds it "boring" or "pretentious."

I’m not sure what you're basing this idea on that there are too many characters. Let’s break it down...

Jim Caviezel (private Witt) - essentially the lead
Sean Penn - the second lead - the entire dynamic between him and Witt is brilliantly written and structured; I honestly don't see why anyone would complain about their backstories...

Nick Nolte & Elias Koetas (I might have the spelling wrong, but he plays the character Staros) - their relationship is also masterfully directed and explained (especially that part—which I think is the best part of the movie—where Nolte urges Elias to charge the hill with everything he's got). That arc concludes with Staros resolving his command issues and finally leaving that whole hellscape to go home...

Ben Chaplin - his storyline is my favorite because the guy spends the whole time thinking about his wife and can't wait to get back to her, only for her to leave him for some pilot at the end (I'm not sure what el duderino claims, but my first impression was that she was just written that way)...

And who else is there? Just the people who pop up briefly to deliver a monologue or a sentence or two (even George Clooney only shows up for about three minutes at the end, despite being a major star). That's it. There aren't really that many characters...

Besides, once you read the book, you realize Terrence Malick didn't just "copy" it; he added so much more (he shot nine hours of footage, after all). Based on some things I've read, he likely drew from his own personal experiences...

When you add in the stunning cinematography (I'll never understand why it didn't win an Oscar) and the locations where it was filmed, you have something truly gorgeous—a total feast for the eyes.

Pretentious? I don't know, personally I don't think so, though I get why people attack it for that. Boring? Again, not for me. In fact, after watching it, I was actually mourning the other six and a half hours of footage left on the cutting room floor—while my friend was busy cursing out the movie for having such a "fucking stupid ending."

The Thin Red Line? I’d say it’s pretty unique. Not necessarily because of the war themes—there are plenty of better movies out there dealing with combat—but man, the sheer amount of acting talent packed into this one is just insane. It makes such an impact. And don't even get me started on that score; you can practically feel the music. But hey, that's just my two cents.👍

When it comes to the soundtrack, I kept thinking my CD player had died because I wouldn't hear a thing for minutes at a time😁
It’s such a niche, insular film.
Even though the audience at the local AMC was practically standing up and cheering by the time the credits rolled...

The movie is based on that killer book by James Jones—honestly, if you ask me, Remarko is the absolute best at capturing what war actually feels like. If you haven't read it yet, consider this my warmest recommendation. I think some small-time publisher out of somewhere like Cincinnati or maybe even Chicago put out a translation back in the 70s or 80s. His most famous work is "from now until eternity." My only gripe? The book is massive. They really could've stretched it out into two or three separate movies instead of trying to cram it all in here—it feels a bit rushed and unfinished.

Gregory Harris4 said:The movie is based on a brilliant book by James Jones, who I honestly think is the best war writer out there. If you haven't read him, consider this my highest recommendation—I think some old publisher out of New York put out a translation back in the 70s or 80s. His most famous work is "from now until eternity." Unfortunately, the book is massive; they really could have made two or three movies out of it instead of this rushed version.

Man, those were the days for books! 🙂

To me, The Thin Red Line is a phenomenal piece of cinema, though it definitely isn't for everyone. Visually, the film is just too powerful—and Zimmer's score? Well... it's pure genius. 🙏

I would have actually enjoyed The Thin Red Line if it weren't for that voiceover—it felt like listening to some high schooler reciting an essay about how "war to be bad" and "let the whole world live in peace."
Those essays in the movie really suffocated me. It’s as if you can't grasp the entire point without being spoon-fed that kind of stuff.

nimblemarlin6 said:I'd actually dig The Thin Red Line if it didn't have that voiceover sounding like some high schooler reciting essays on why "war is bad" and why we should "let the whole world live in peace"
Those lectures in the movie were exhausting. Like the point isn't obvious enough without being spelled out.

I actually liked it... felt right with the atmosphere... and the score...

Think The Thin Red Line is one of the better war movies out there..