The Thin Red Line Review
By Joe Lozito
Malick tows the "Line"
"The Thin Red Line", Terrence Malick's brooding, over-long return to filmmaking after a nearly twenty-year hiatus, can be summed up with three truisms to which the film vehemently adheres for its almost three-hour running time: Every soldier is a poet, every scene is a metaphor, every animal is a symbol.
From its opening image of an alligator sinisterly submerging itself beneath a grimy swamp, it is clear that this film has got something to say. In fact, the film has too much to say - and it says it with an absurd abundance of voice-overs. So many, in fact, that it becomes difficult to determine which of the film's many characters is speaking.
The voice-overs are not the only character confusion in the film. In the roles of two soldiers in Charlie Rifle Company, Mr. Malick has made the unfortunate choice of casting two actors who look so similar (particularly with helmets on) that for a time they seemed to be the same man.
It is unclear why Mr. Malick would have needed to cast these doppelgangers since he obviously had his pick of top name talent for the film. With a fervor usually reserved for Woody Allen films, actors such as John Travolta, George Clooney, John Cusack and Woody Harrelson flocked to put in a few days (and in some cases, a few minutes) work with Mr. Malick.
So full of characters is this film that it would take a 20-part PBS mini-series to develop them all. Sean Penn, as a cold, seen-it-all soldier, and Nick Nolte, as a gung-ho general, stand out of the pack largely because they are given the most to do, but also because both actors seldom deliver performances that are less than eye-catching.
The most interesting and well-developed character to watch is the Captain, played with a perfect degree of vulnerability by Ben Chaplin. The film's most intense sustained action scene, the taking of a hill on Guadalcanal, also contains its most intense personal conflict between Mr. Nolte's general and Mr. Chaplin's captain.
A film about the taking of Guadalcanal, considered to be one of the turning points of the war, should surely have given Mr. Malick enough material for a fine film. In fact, he does make an interesting point about the similarities between the war the humans are fighting and the constant battle that exists in nature. But he makes this point again and again, long after several different scenes have illustrated it.
While the film covers very little new ground in a figurative sense, Mr. Malick does quite literally display lush, beautiful landscapes unlike any in pervious war films. In fact, perhaps the only unexpected realization to be gained from Mr. Malick's film is that those soldiers saw some amazing wildlife during the war.
"The Thin Red Line" and "Saving Private Ryan" would invite comparison even if they were not released in such unfortunate proximity to one another. It has become clear that there are two types of modern war movies: the gritty ultra-realistic ("Private Ryan" just reset the bar on this type) and the pondering soul-searchers. "Thin Red Line" is in good company in the latter category in which "Apocalypse Now" still reigns supreme. It would seem that the battle for "greatest war movie of all time" has become worthy of a war movie all its own.
