i have to admit that i disliked this film initially .
it certianly isn’t for every taste , and it’s sheer torture to sit through if you’re in a restless mood .
that said , if you are in the right mood , it’s absolutely incredible .
this was my second favorite movie of 1998 , and would have been a shoo-in for first in almost any other year .
perhaps the big turn-off for many was this film’s unconventionality .
i’d be hard-pressed to compare it to any other film that i’ve seen – it is very , very artsy , incredibly slow – and amazingly , it works beautifully .
on my second viewing , i realized that the film follows the three act structure ( i didn’t think it had any sort of structure at all when i first saw it ) .
the first act serves to set up the characters – sort of .
it exists even moreso to set a mood of tension and restlesness , and perhaps even feelings of boredom .
and then it is shattered by the intense violence of the second ( which encompasses most of the movie ) .
the majority of the film is one extended battle scene , intercut with brief flashbacks and voice-overs .
the artsier elements do not detract from the action , but add to it – they succeed in briefly letting the viewer peek into the minds of the soldiers , only to be suddenly yanked back into reality when the battle resumes .
the battle scenes are amazing ( second only to ” saving private ryan ” in my opinion ) .
they’re brutal , horrifying , and at times beautiful due to the amazing cinematography .
the second act is as immersive , brilliant , and haunting as any film that i have ever seen .
the only problems come during the first and third acts .
malick takes a little too long to get the film started .
although the initial scenes – which consist of two soldiers’ experiencing a near-eden-like paradise while going awol , and the preperations for battle – are effective and necessary , hints of pretentiousness sink in .
the film is just a tad too artsy near the beginning , and a lot of people that disliked the movie probably gave up on it because of this .
the final act is effective at winding the film down , but the problems from the first persist – it’s a bit too long , and comes over as pretentious at times .
that said , there are two sequences ( one where a soldier gets a devastating note from his wife , and another where one of the main characters is killed ) that are nothing short of incredible .
the performances are phenominal all around .
the two standouts are nick nolte and newcomer jim caviezel , both of whom should have been nominated for oscars .
nolte is riveting and intense as the colonel in charge of the operation .
his character is hard , mean , and somewhat reckless with the lives of his men , and yet nolte somehow manages to evoke sympathy for him .
caviezel is forever questioning the nature of war , his place in it , and if there’s any deeper meaning to the hell that he’s going through .
he is absolutely perfect – genuine , sympathetic , sincere , and yet strong when he needs to be .
although restricted to a relatively small role , sean penn is also very good as the company’s pessimistic seargent .
as to how it stacks up to ” saving private ryan ” – it was my second favorite movie of 1998 , ” ryan ” was my first .
it’s really hard to compare the two – they are so , so different – so i won’t , beyond saying that spielberg’s film had more of an impact on me .
however , the two are comparable from the standpoint of quality ( i can easily see why someone would ” the thin red line ” above ” ryan ) .
i highly recommend both of them , and consider them to be the two best war movies ever made .
all in all , ” the thin red line ” is filmmaking of an incredibly high order .
it’s slight faults are easily offset by the sheer brilliance of what is done right .
it’s a real shame that it tanked at the box office – films this unconventional , powerful , and thought-provoking don’t come along very often .