| 
 enlarge | Director: Terrence Malick
Actors: Kirk Acevedo, Penelope Allen, Benjamin Green, Simon Billig, Mark Boone Junior
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy Used: $2.20
You Save: $12.78 (85%)
New (64) Used (54) Collectible (2) from $2.20
Avg. Customer Rating:  907 reviews
Sales Rank: 6550
Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Dts Surround Sound, Dvd-video, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 170
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.1 x 0.6
MPN: D2003000D
UPC: 024543030003
EAN: 0024543030003
ASIN: B00005PJ8T
Theatrical Release Date: January 8, 1999
Release Date: May 21, 2002
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: All of our used items are 100% Guaranteed to play.
|
| Customer Reviews:
| Showing reviews 496-500 of 500 | | « PREV 1 ... | | |
 I'm physically sickened by those who give this one star. January 8, 2000
17 out of 24 found this review helpful
Um, what's wrong with people? Why do you want all movies to be the same? Why can't you see what's different and brilliant about this film? Why is it that you can't deal with anything that isn't traditional narrative, plot elements, climax, resolution? A reviewer below me thought it was "hilarious" that a question like "what is this great evil in the world? where does it come from? who is doing this?" [and no, "my soul hurts" is never uttered once in this film: this person wasn't even paying attention to what was said.] would be asked. I would ask that person "well where is it coming from? why are we killing these people? why is there evil?" Their answer, even if they didn't have one, would be echoed by at least one of the characters in this film. And to say that the images of nature are being shoved down your throat? That's what's bloody there in Guadacanal, that's what these guys were looking at when they were blowing each other to hell. This is a film about the struggle of truth and beauty and love against the nihilistic, empty, self indulgent aspirations of the "leaders of men," of human society. About abandoning beauty; and for what? Evil horror? That's what this film is about; it's not "Das Boot" or "Saving Private Ryan," it's something else entirely. It doesn't have the overwhelming scent of sentimentality of "Saving Private Ryan," [which I also enjoyed.] It's a touch more subtle than that. And it is wonderful and it is powerful and it is important, so long as cares about things such as truth and beauty and love.
 Good movie about soldiers in the Pacific during WW II January 7, 2000
4 out of 6 found this review helpful
Unique film about several US Army soldiers in Guaduacanal during WWII. After the Marines have finished their operation on the island, the story begins with the landing of a US Army force to take over. The film mostly revolves around several select characters, inter-mixed with brief appearances by others. This film is similiar to Malick's previous works, Days of Heaven and Badlands, where there are voice tracks of the character's thoughts as they progress through events. Scenes are also broken up by shots of scenery and nature. The movie spends a lot of time developing several key characters in an infantry company; a young soldier labeled as a non-team player, a battle-wise First Sergeant, the Company Commander who makes a stand against his Battalion Commander during an attack that is causing high losses, and the Battalion Commander whose personal ambitions over-ride his concerns for his soldiers. The film is good, but can be depressing and appear to drag on with the character's thoughts and dreams, but it does approach what life must have been like for the soldiers serving in the Pacific; long periods of bordom and depression, broken up by short bursts of terrifying combat. The film is much different from Saving Private Ryan, but unfortunately receives a lot of critical comparison because it was released shortly afterward. Good film, Nick Nolte was my favorite as the Battalion Commander and John Cusak does a brief appearance in a tense battle to seize a hilltop. Those looking for George Clooney will be disappointed because he only appears for a few minutes near the end of the movie. Somewhat similiar to the earlier movie made in the early 1960's, but the outcome is much different.
good January 7, 2000
5 out of 7 found this review helpful
When THE THIN RED LINE was in the theaters, I read the reviews, and a lot of what I read was, "It's slow. Slooww. Like watching paint dry." So I avoided it like the plague. But I have a friend who is a member of the Academy: as in the Academy Awards. And every year the studios send him free videos of movies, hoping he'll watch them and vote for them come Oscar time. So he loaned me a whole bunch, including A THIN RED LINE. It was free, so I thought, "I'll take a look." I sat down with my remote control ready, because I was prepared to fast forward through a lot of this "slow" movie. Well, now...I didn't fast forward once! I didn't find this to be a slow movie at all. It was original, and moving, and brilliant. I thought the critics who praised it, were basically saying, "It's boring, but it's based on a literary novel, so go see it because it will be good for you." But the critics who said it was a good movie were right. It IS a good movie. I told my Academy member friend to see it, when I returned it to him (since he hadn't seen it yet himself). He saw it and liked it, too. To those who think it's slow: you've gotta stop watching so much MTV, and try to develop what we used to call an attention span.
 Not as good as I expected January 6, 2000
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
I agree with the previous reviewers who wonder why this film is compared with Private Ryan. I understand that both are WWII films, both came out in the same year and both were touted and nominated for multiple academy awards. Beyond this they are entirely different films. Having said this, I disagree with most reviewers who attempt to distance this film from Ryan in the sense that I give a negative review. In "Thin Red Line"'s favor I must say that this is a visually stunning film. So much so that it hardly matters whether it is a war film or not. In this sense I would like to equate it with "Apocalypse Now". Both were obstensibly war films but both were really much more than that, so that, in the final analysis, it didn't matter whether the subject matter was war or not. I must say again, this movie was absolutely a visual masterpiece. BUT, as a study of human nature it was decidedly terrible. Nick Nolte's character was a one-dimensional cutout in a way that no intelligent person would dare depict an army colonel in this day and age. Give us a human being for God's sake. And no other character, including the narrator, was any better. I understand that this film is not the same as the novel, but it seems that Malick attempted to communicate the novel to the movie viewing audience and, in my opinion, failed. How else do you explain his obsession with the extended nature images except as an attempt to convey to a viewing audience Jone's existential message (What does it matter whether I am looking at this tree today if I am dead tomorrow). In this he fails terribly. Also, I reject the verdict of some "artsy" reviewers who want to claim that anyone who doesn't like this movie somehow "doesn't get it". As a previous reviewer states: "This is a very deep poetic movie who only some people can understand truly, and that is not an insult to those who thought this movie was garbage. Terrence Malick is a very spiritual man, and he is on a distant plane separate from most of us, and he shows this best through his work." How condescending to say that only a few can understand this truly. What I think Malick and people like this reviewer fail to grasp is that what they see as a complex, textured interpretation of the world is really a one- dimensional, reductionist view of how things really are. In that sense, even though "Private Ryan" had all the standard categories of people (i.e. the trouble maker, the big, dumb Italian, the Jew, the coward, the war lover, etc.) beyond the character types, the personalities weren't at all predictable; not like the people in "Thin Red Line". Furthermore, as a war film, "Private Ryan" is far and away the better. That movie has the ability to create a physiological reaction in its viewers. The combat scenes in "Thin Red Line" leave one cold. I truly felt nothing watching them; no fear, no excitement, nothing. If you want a good existential examination of warfare read "All quiet on the Western Front". If you want to see a visually stunning film and don't care whether it is an honest appraisal of war or not then I guess this is as good a movie as any. I suppose I am about to do what I warned against in my first sentence, but if you want to see a good war flick, I mean one which really depicts the realities of the experience (not the thoughts-these must be different for everyone) then see "Private Ryan".
 Don't waste your money January 4, 2000
3 out of 11 found this review helpful
Like I said above. Good cast of characters, ashame that the majority of them only appear for a few minutes, through out the whole movie.
|
|
|