The Thin Red Line Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x544 | 8103.72 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x304 | 1917.48 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x248 | 912.01 MiB | divx | |
|
320x136 | 378.88 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Every man fights his own war.
In World War II, the outcome of the battle of Guadalcanal will strongly influence the Japanese's advance into the pacific. A group of young soldiers is brought in as a relief for the battle-weary Marine units. The exhausting fight for a key-positioned airfield that allows control over a 1000-mile radius puts the men of the Army Rifle company C-for-Charlie through hell. The horrors of war forms the soldiers into a tight-knit group, their emotions develop into bonds of love and even family. The reasons for this war get further away as the world for the men gets smaller and smaller until their fighting is for mere survival and the life of the other men with them.
| George Clooney | Captain Charles Bosche |
| Sean Penn | First Sergeant Edward Welsh |
| Nick Nolte | Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Tall |
| John Travolta | Brigadier General Quintard |
| Ben Chaplin | Private Jack Bell |
| John Cusack | Captain John Gaff |
| Woody Harrelson | Sergeant Keck |
| Adrien Brody | Corporal Fife |
| James Caviezel | Private Witt |
| John C. Reilly | Sergeant Storm |
| Elias Koteas | Captain James 'Bugger' Staros |
| Jared Leto | Second Lieutenant Whyte |
| Dash Mihok | Private First Class Doll |
| Tim Blake Nelson | Private Tills |
| Larry Romano | Private Mazzi |
| John Savage | Sergeant McCron |
| Terrence Malick |
7.20 out of 10 (29413 votes)
Visitor Reviews
This or That
posted on 31 Aug 2009Well, I saw Saving Private Ryan first. I was so sure that I wouldn't like this movie and that Saving Private Ryan would have a lot more going for it.I was wrong. While Ryan offered more war action, the Thin Red Line offers more internal insight. I was immersed in the minds and thoughts of the soldiers, in addition to, and not opposed to their surroundings.Aside from the fighting, this movie didn't make Guadalcanal look as bad as 've read that it was.
the better "saving private ryan"
posted on 28 Aug 2009i don´t know what people see in "saving private ryan". For me it is a bloodthirsty hollywood-typical movie that tries to show what war is like.But "the thin red line" does this much better. The thoughts and feelings of the few men the movie concentrates on, are much more interesting than the gory beginning of "saving private ryan".You should watch this movie, and you´ll understand what I mean
Wow! Or; See the film for yourself.
posted on 25 Aug 2009I'm amazed by how many users have written a review to this film.I think it's a great film. it might take you more than one viewing to come to the same conclusion. It did for me. I went to see it first in the theatre, and was perhaps all keyed-up after seeing Saving Private Ryan. As a result, for some reason, I felt a bit disappointed. I even disliked the film. When it went to cable on a regular-basis for a while, I saw it again and couldn't remember why I disliked it the first time. With time, I saw it a couple more times and realized how good the film really was. On the otherhand, my personality, experiences and interests no doubt effect my opinion, just like anyone else's. Or for that matter, your's. Who you are will have the greatest bearing on the quality of this film, or on any other film made.It's a great film if you give it a chance, and if it still doesn't work for you, then nothing I or anyone else who enjoyed this film will make a change. Those who didn't like the film, they have a right to their opinion. But you might want to give this film the benefit of the doubt. You might be disappointed, or you might be surprised. It's up to you, not to us.Bottom-line: Watch it. Even if you think it sucks, at least you found out for yourself.
a good film,but nothing for poeple who prefer simple entertainment.
posted on 19 Aug 2009first of all...it´s frightening, how intolerant some users here are... and now to this movie. who ever says it is boring, hummm.. either he did not understand the difference between usual spielberg-blockbuster-low-level-pathetic-action-films or he ( or she ) got used to these nerve-killing catastrophies ( without noticing it ) that are boring us to death every summer, or christmas, anyway...this one is really a good one, one to recommend to other movie-fans...what I surely wouldn´t do with SPR.... and it can´t be compared to other war-movies, especially of the recent time. enjoy, the beautiful calm mood and the overwhelming pictures of the surrounding nature, the different types of characters and their remembrances of peace and love in their "ugly" reality, the impressive acting of caviezel, cusack, penn and others, the really fitting soundtrack, once again good work of mr.zimmer, ... and then decide for yourselves, but please don´t take those negative comments too serious, those who give advices who should or should not comment in a certain way... to cut it short: a good film,but nothing for poeple who prefer simple entertainment.
3 hours too long!
posted on 16 Aug 2009This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Too many characters and not enough time to care who they are. Too many voice-over narratives (I never knew who was talking). No story structure... no beginning, no middle, no end. Every time I waited for the film's end credits to roll, a new scene would pop up.This movie sucked!
The comments of a movie-freak with good taste.
posted on 16 Aug 2009The Thin Red Line is an excellent movie with fantastic musics, composed by THE Hans Zimmer (The Rock, Crimson Tide). It´s a long movie but the length only makes the movie better. I´ve seen this movie twice in the theaters and I personally recommend it to anyone that hasn´t seen it!
war is hell, but poetry is heller
posted on 16 Aug 2009An interesting film, but it's based on a rhetorical trick. War is such a hellish experience that the only thing that can make it bearable is the comradry of soldiers, the sense that their platoon, company, unit, is acting as a group, that they are looking out for one another. Of course, this is to some extent an illusion, but it makes the experience bearable. What Malick does is strip away any sense of being part of a group. The poetry, and the rendering of the inner experience – and most often doubt; Malick never allows his soldiers to feel they are doing the right thing or to allay those doubts – acts very quickly to reduce the soldiers to collections of isolated individuals. Naturally, under such conditions, the experience of war completely overwhelms them, thus making those doubts seem more valid, or rather, disallowing the possibility of any other way of looking at things. So, yeah, it's a good film, but it's by no means a great one. And once you realize that the poeticization is not only a bit of a rhetorical cheat, but also loaded against anything other than one way of viewing the experience, then the whole thing reduces to a propaganda exercise. The clearest indication that this is the case is in the fake utopia of the native people, everybody being nice and organic and environmentally conscious, which is, at best, a naive view. Prehistoric humans had wars just as we do, they simply lacked the destructive means with which technology endows us. The way Malick sets it up, however, he tries to make it seem as if war is the property of civilization, rather than something inherent in human life per se. Again, it's a rhetorical cheat, and a cheap one too.
This is the kind of movie that Hollywood loves because they think it's DEEP.
posted on 13 Aug 2009This movie was b-a-d. I can see why the movie industry liked this movie -- it was full of symbolism which makes them feel smart and sophisticated if they "get it." But showing a worm eaten leaf as someone dies from a gun shot wound is not deep, it's out of place. If they were going to show it the camera should have panned or zoomed in on it, not cut to it and back.Then there was the fact that you could hear the soldiers' thoughts which were all flowery drivel. I know no men who think in flowery prose. If one character thought that way they might have pulled it off but not all of them. Give me a break. Oh this movie was deep all right--give me a shovel.Now lets get to the story line---whoops there wasn't one. So much for that.There was also anachronisms such as WWII soldiers wearing Viet Nam era jungle boots and use of WWI era .303 Enfield Rifles and one soldier was using a M1 carbine which was only used in training issued to paratroopers. Let's get it right folks. DUH! And why would they bury someone in the field? If they were able to send someone to a field hospital they obviously were not so cut off that they could not retrieve the body and send it home.
3 hours I could have spent sleeping
posted on 13 Aug 2009It's not often that both myself and my girlfriend agree on how good or bad a movie is, but in the case of the Thin Red Line we both drew the same conclusion - Never Again!If you were hoping for a Pacific version of Saving Private Ryan, don't go along to this as you will be disappointed. Somehow this movie even manages to to make a joke out of the time honored tradition of cameos as well....many big name characters join the movie and leave again without really having left an impression. Meanwhile the dirty business is left to a small group of lesser known (but certainly not lesser talented actors).All in all, it's a war movie that focuses on internal conflicts instead of the business at hand.
Beats Saving Private Ryan
posted on 13 Aug 2009Beautifully directed, with superb acting and music, this war film takes on a journey psychological journey through the violence of war but instead of being politically correct like Saving Private Ryan, it shows how men really feel in that situation. I felt very emotional at the the end of the film and what can I simply say about this film besides it's "The Best War Film Ever Made". It should have won the Academy Awards Spielberg & Co. won.
Incredible
posted on 07 Aug 2009Simply incredible. This is, by far, the best war movie ever made. No story, no heroes, no nothing. Just war. War inside people, war with nature, war against ourselves. I probably haven't blinked in all 3 hours of the movie. Visually stunning, atmospherically perfect, this movie is a masterpiece for the ages to come.
Beautiful
posted on 07 Aug 2009It is hard to comprehend how a film showing the horrors of war, could be so beautiful and poetic. it pays great respect to both sides in the struggle for Guadalcanal. we don't see the Japanese right until the Americans are upon them. at first we image them as a thing of hate, but when we see how they react to their situation, we realise that they are no different from the GI's. It was so beautifully crafted, acted and filmed, with a stunning soundtrack (The Melanesian music was superb,and the musical highlight was Faure's Requiem-in Paradisium,during the opening sequence)and although i like SPR, this made me really realise the horrors of war even more,as we delved into the main characters, and there were many of them. A must see, 10/10
A movie that grows on you
posted on 04 Aug 2009I've read the fair share of comments on here, always happy to see those people who like it, quite confused at the people who seem to miss the point. I come from the angle of haven't seen any of Malick's work, but this movie was hugely powerful in a very unHollywoodian manner. I read much about this movie before I saw it, so some of the best parts were spoiled (against my will), but still didn't fail to move me.Since Saving Private Ryan and this movie have been compared so often, I will say that when I first saw Saving Private Ryan I thought it was quite good. Now its message has been blown to bits: it seems that the message of that movie, very conventional, was completely hollow compared to Thin Red Line. Thin Red Line's point is not to blow things up or make the viewer cry, though both happened to me. I believe it is to show the very nature of man in times of extreme distress, and how some regress, some are transfigured, and some remain unchanged (or try to remain unchanged). There were also elements of mother earth versus man's futility/cruelty, but I think that was to underpin the character of the man.Many movies try to reveal the nature of the man, but most rely on that linear Hollywoodian sentimentality (try "Patch Adams," which appears to have a higher rating than this movie), which uses conventions that are bound to detract or in my case, disgust. Malick here combines snatches of personal drama with that great psychological profundity portrayed with that universally praised cinematography, but also the monologues, which showed every man, perhaps even just the surface, but every man nonetheless.About the "lack of plot" - the plot can be contained in the characters in their environment, not the characters themselves but the combined result of their personalities. But each man still remains an unmistakable individual - much like the war they were fighting.This movie is purely abstract. It made me think about many things, and great emotions came from that. It's a movie that takes effort to understand, but is well worth it. It's a movie that will grow on an individual.My vote for best movie of the year.(e-mail: havergal@yahoo.com)
My comments about this film are not fair enough.
posted on 29 Jul 2009Poetic!This word is the best one to describe this marvelous story. The first thing we notice when we watch is the meaning of the title. As far as I am concerned, two things can be said about it: in a formal way, a red line is a war front, where enemies combat (and that's the subject of the film); the other one, much more subtle, is that the thin red line is the border between the fight for convictions, nation and ideals and the fight, the cruel fight for surviving, such a thin line that sometimes we don't know when we cross it. That's what the film attacks: the man don't have to face this conflict, war is stupid, and we never know why we are in it. The soundtrack is perfect, as well as direction and photography. Terrence Malick proved to be an amazing director. I think it's not necessary to say that what happened during the last Academy Awards was completely unfair. Instead of winning not one, The Thin Red Line should have won all the statuettes to which it was indicated.
What a slap in the face...
posted on 26 Jul 2009Why must filmmakers of the last twenty-five years paint the fighting soldier, particularly the American fighting soldier, using a angst-filled, vile, butchering brush? Did the home front experience of the Vietnam War so scar these men that now make movies about those who actually went over there and did the fighting? The argument as to whether the Vietnam War was a just war is for another time and place, but in attempting to broaden that argument to cover all war in general, director Terence Malick has committed something akin to blasphemy in The Thin Red Line. By choosing to move such metaphysical musings to the heads of the soldiers fighting the World War II battle for Guadalcanal in the Pacific, he has distorted history, insulted veterans and completely misrepresented the values and beliefs of the American GI's who fought that crucial battle. Malick doesn't deserve all the blame, I suppose, as this film is based on James Jones' somewhat autobiographical novel from the early 1960s, a time when all of the free-love, no-man-is-right-over-another philosophy was beginning to gel amongst the intelligentsia of the world's youth. The book may be fantastic, but I can't say as I haven't had the pleasure of reading it. Whatever the quality of the source material, however, Malick has taken it and made a complete and utter mess of it. Sure, this film was his celebrated return to filmmaking after a twenty-year absence, and it received a Best Picture Oscar nomination, most likely just due to the awe in which Academy voters hold Malick. But this wasn't worth the wait.The plot (such as it is) follows four men, I think, as they struggle with finding meaning in the carnage of the Pacific War against the Japanese. I say that I think it was four men because two of them, played by Jim Caviezel and Ben Chaplin, look so remarkably alike that at times I couldn't tell them apart. One (Caviezel) plays the part of the Conscientious Objector, a chronic deserter who, after being picked up by the Army while living amongst island natives, is assigned to stretcher-bearer duty at the film's outset.
By the end of the film, Malick shows the character's selfishness to be misplaced, but for certainly less-than-patriotic reasons. Another (Chaplin) is the one who was taken away from his young bride, and lives only to return to her. Again, Malick shows us the foolishness of such devotion by the film's end. The other two are thankfully a bit more discernible from one another. Sean Penn is a company sergeant who makes it his mission to show Caviezel's character the error of his ways, but by film's end, he finds more sympathy with the deserter than he would've imagined possible. Lastly is the battalion colonel (Nick Nolte), who drives his men relentlessly to take a well-defended Japanese position, one that his underlings believe impossible to take. While Malick shows the Colonel to be right, we're to understand that it is more for the colonel's fear of missing out on his share of military glory than for the higher cause of victory, because he flat-out tells his subordinates so! How ridiculous a notion. Other characters drift in and out of our vision, played by A-list stars like Woody Harrelson and John Travolta and John Savage, mumbling about vines consuming trees and soldiers being like children to their Captain-fathers, none of whom ever make any mark with us save as examples of the Hell of War.
Their voice-overs almost overlap, allowing us to eavesdrop on their confusion, their fear and their cowardice. The imagery of this movie is breathtaking. Don't let it be said that I didn't acknowledge that. Malick has not lost his visual touch during his extended vacation, but he has obviously not advanced beyond his mid-70s thinking. Whatever things the Vietnam War may have been, World War II was almost none of them. That war was a just war, and the soldiers fighting it knew it. American men were lining up in droves to volunteer to go and crush an evil power that had attacked us and swore to destroy us, and only a microscopic few had any problems with self-doubt or introspection about `why nature must contend with itself' or finding the `evil inherent in all men' that the wretched souls in this film have. I shudder to think of what my veteran grandfather, God rest his soul, would've said about these pansies.The film is so without a logical structure that I suppose it's possible Malick himself didn't know exactly what he wanted to say. He worked on this material so long that he might have simply drifted away from the novel's original intent. I doubt this, though. Say what you want about the politics of filmmakers, their skill is rarely debatable, and filmmakers of Malick's caliber put on the screen exactly what they intend. It's just so puzzling and disappointing that what he intended here was such a slap in the face to so noble a struggle.
Beautiful scenery but it puts you to sleep.
posted on 23 Jul 2009The good: This movie is worth seeing for two hours. The scenery of the island is wonderful and other directors should take a lesson from this movie: films can have more impact by using the visual medium they have at their disposal.The bad: Character development is poor, the story is incoherent, and it is WAY TOO LONG! It should have ended after the main battle scene was over. When it went on and on and on it lost all hope of communicating with the viewer.The Ugly: People were laughing at this movie because of its flaws. It got to the point where they were talking out loud about how it just wouldn't end.
Good but not quite great
posted on 23 Jul 2009I was just a little disappointed with this film. I suppose the usual media hyped high expectations were at work, but aside from that I have to say that a few things troubled me.I could attempt to critique the film with the usual attention to artistic merits that everyone else has already done a fine job of, and I could do the inevitable comparisons to Saving Private Ryan, using a point by point comparison.What I'll do instead is resort to a much more visceral approach and simply point out that at the end of this movie I found that I was glad to have seen it but would not care to go to either the trouble or the expense to see it again on the big screen. I can try to disect a film 'till I'm blue in the face, but I've found that my final indication of any films worth to me is my desire to revisit it. I would run out to see Citizen Kane again in a second if it were re-released, I went to the theatre to see the re-release of The Wizard of Oz and I would like the opportunity to see Saving Private Ryan again on the big screen.I will probably see this film again at some point in the future on video, but I can wait a long, long time. Enough said.
A circumlocution that makes me wonder....
posted on 23 Jul 2009Sometimes I believe in solipsism. You have to at least consider it after viewing a show such as this. I don't mean solipsism as defined as total self-absorption, I'm referring to the somewhat uncomfortable feeling that one exists alone and the rest of world only lives in the mind. And in a paranoid turn I may consider the fact that I am a sort of guinea pig being manipulated by some force majeure, a la `The Truman Show'. How else can you explain such soi-disant `art' films, such as this and `Blue Velvet'? It can only be some omnipotent being whose maniacal experiment is to test the reaction of a human who witnesses a film that is uncommonly bad, only to see it incongruously praised by strategically-placed chimeras (that would be the majority of the posters here).
The `reality' of the matter is that the `Thin Red Line' is bad beyond the pale. It is a discursive mess wrapped snuggly in sweeping camera work. It is overwrought and ponderous. Its attempt to achieve surrealism is forced and achromic. And if I may be so priggish I should point out that the filmmakers fail to observe a simple rule in moviemaking by making the characters indistinguishable. Here the dramatis personae look so much alike, and are so inconspicuous we are left with a turbid jumble.
The éclat camera shots make this an ostensible `masterpiece', but the other aspects of the film reveal a convoluted, insipid work. At least that's one person's (if I really exist) view.
Drink lots of caffeine
posted on 17 Jul 2009This just was released too close to "Saving Private Ryan", and too many people believed (I for one of many) that it was a similar "plot". They were absolutely nothing alike and not even comparable. Four of us went together and wow do I wish I had my $31 for tickets (and $22 and the counter) back. I really wanted to walk out during the first 20 minutes, but my hubby assumed it would get better. It was somewhat "difficult" to follow (again, tho, I was expecting "one" story-line, more similar to SPR, while this one had so many going at one time)-- and there were so very many disappointed movie-goers in the theater with us, between their taunting at the screen and "booing" (there were cheers when it was over tho'), it made it more difficult. I must admit (it was a 8:30pm showing) to dozing off at least three times; but briefly. Sorry...
The most extraordinary film I have ever seen
posted on 31 Aug 2009The greatest masterpiece in the movie history. It's not a simple film, it's the most sublime fusion of literature, music and figurative art. It's like a greek tragedy of the 20th century, Malick like a modern Sophocles. It's not a film on war, it's a film on the man's existence, his deepest emotions, his fears, his passions, his moral, ethical and theological questions. In short I never was so touched and impressed, not even reading Shakespeare's poems, or listening to Mozart's symphonies, or admiring Venice at night.