| 
 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: $2.16
You Save: $12.82 (86%)
New (62) Used (55) Collectible (2) from $2.16
Avg. Customer Rating:  908 reviews
Sales Rank: 11615
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
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: **NO ARTWORK - NEW BLANK CASE** Guaranteed to play. Normal case wear with stickers, very slight scratches. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Combat: up close and personal May 2, 2007
27 out of 34 found this review helpful
I read James Jones' book many years ago, but found it a memorable account of the fighting on Guadalcanal. Director Terrence Malick did a masterful job of capturing Jones' essence in this film. The combat is sudden, brutal, unforgiving. Yet the cinematography is breathtaking. The juxtaposition of beauty and agony is gripping. An all-star cast seems a bit overdone in places, with big-name celebrities making only brief appearances at some rather odd intervals. The philosophical thoughts by some of the characters was an intriguing ingredient, but again, echoed Jones' writing. For war film junkies or WWII buffs, this is a must-see. For those who want their war fix in flag-waving, glorious hero style, this isn't for you.
Moral, spiritual depravity April 4, 2007
9 out of 18 found this review helpful
Perhaps the most poignant aspect of 'The Thin Red Line' is that most of the Human Race -- more specifically, most Americans (I'm American) -- cannot comprehend the significance of this film. It's not that these people are intellectually incapable of understanding the subject matter, either; it's Humanistic and spiritual; the intelligence that most all Human beings possess. Objectivity amongst those (myself included) that posses the capability helps heightening the experience in several ways, but the bottom line is the absurdly important theme of this work of art (this is one film that labeling a "movie" would be demeaning and completely unsatisfactory) -- that theme is one of death. Films like 'Saving Private Ryan' are conducted with blatant conservatism and, truly, pale infinitely in philosophical significance. Not that Spielberg's vision was thoughtless or without merit, but it wasn't progressive in the way that Malick presents his convictions.
How one can see the film as pretentious or self-indulgent is truly beyond me, and I to attain the belief that it is also a matter of elitism, pathological symptoms of an inability to deal with the subject of non-existence. There are wonderfully smart people, too, that dismiss this film, which is why it's truly such a shame; these people have grown so much on an objective level, reaching brilliant levels of luminosity, but the nature of our currently disconnected, post-modern world, with its absolutely aggressive fight with our Human nature, has made us entirely unable to deal with the repercussions of it. Thus, these geniuses which so many of us truly are have been spiritually, subjectively suppressed to the point that that entirely different level of intelligence -- emotional, spiritual -- has been neglected. Now a days, especially, it's almost seen as stupid, which really boils my %#@U*(U%@) blood, because the social, Human consequences of this elitist mentality has served to provide a severe inferiority complex among those that do have spiritual ideals and, in their deepest self, know that they are right. They are dreamers whose dream has crawled desperately into the hole of isolation and despair. What's wonderful about 'The Thin Red Line', though, is that it so movingly brings out this hope within us by emphasizing the utterly horrific -- especially for the heroic, psychologically broken down individuals -- nature of war and suffering. It's the quintessential expression of the dichotomy between hate and love, good and evil, spiritual light and dark. And this is Malick -- truly one of the most important Human beings on the planet -- an Einstein of our day -- so everything is presented in the most realistic, least manipulative way possible -- in a WAY; Hans Zimmer's score parallels these themes and subtext, additionally, and it's one of the most emotionally powerful scores I've ever heard (this is Hans Zimmer, too; never before, nor since, has he dealt or composed a score with such amazing thought and intellect). At any rate, I say "in a way" because the ultimate, redemptive, religious theme of the film is that it is possible to attain levels of consciousness that we so ignore; it IS preachy, but only because Malick's presented philosophy is firmly rooted in an ultimate answer, or at the very minimum, expressing the POSSIBILITY of what we can become through free will and love, hope and faith.
I have no intention of commenting on the value and brilliance of the filmic genius of Malick's creation, suffice to say his conveyance of all of this existential idea is only possible through an utter capability and talent that few have. That's the other thing -- I love directors like Cameron, Spielberg, etc, but they are ultimately so much less reflective and, in the larger scheme of things, important, because they are afraid, or possibly simply unable, to express film in it's highest form -- where narrative ultimately ceases to fall behind thought, philosophy, and truly powerful subtext. They fail to comment, at least in comparison, on the subjective experience of our Human existence; that's what separates Malick from these talented directors (on the other hand, colder, philosophical filmmakers such as Kubrick and Cronenberg and debatably near-equal in brilliance -- which is why I love them so -- but the generally despairing worldview -- at least morally, surely their themes revolve around hugely important Human issues such as individual, sexual evolution, death, mystery, etc, but they are generally far less hopeful in the end (I will state, however, that Cronenberg's 'The Fly' is one film that rivals my intimate connection to 'The Thin Red Line'; in its case, the possibility of such a powerful view of non-existence following death makes 'The Fly' almost more tragic in a way, because it is so utterly discomforting and sad).
I could go on and on, but I think I got across some of my convictions and beliefs, and more than anything -- Love -- towards this film, and I hate to dismiss the beauty of the cinematography and unrivaled acting by these amazing men, but I have limited space, and I get fatigued, too!
I'm not where I want to be in Life, spiritually, but I am growing. I love you all. Why does a part of me feel squeamish saying that? Because to so many of us it comes across as a pathetically gooey, sentimental, truthfully meaningless act. Love IS an act, of true respect and utter compassion, in its higher states, and the fact that we've dismissed that over time is arguably the biggest tragedy of our world. (and even if you stand by the notion that the particular vision and belief is an illusion -- a state never really partook in as a collective species -- you must also confront the fact that you are denying it as an ideal in itself, because it's so very possible you, too, consider that notion of heaven on earth the truest dream of all.
The World as Will and Representation April 3, 2007
12 out of 16 found this review helpful
This is not a "war film" and it is not an "antiwar film." What Malick (a former philosophy student) has done is *use* the setting of modern warfare as a way of communicating the essence of Schopenhauer's metaphysics and ethics. Underneath the surface of the observable, individuated phenomena, the essence of the world is will: a non-individuated, passionate yet pointless destructive striving. The will is embodied in Nick Nolte, who lives to fight and win, while recognizing that his way is the way of "nature." "Look at those vines, Staros, swallowing everything. Nature is cruel." True insight into the nature of the will, however, leads to compassion for the suffering of others, since we are all One behind appearances, and renunciation of desiring (and its inevitable concomitants, conflict and suffering). The denial of the will is represented by Jim Cavaziel. According to Schopenhauer, if one recognizes the futility of willing but cannot achieve this state of complete ascetic denial, the only other alternative is to mitigate one's own suffering by keeping one's expectations as low as possible. This stance is embodied by Sean Penn. From the first, crucial dialogue between Penn and Cavaziel, the agenda of the film is placed before us: given that the world is as it is, should we cling to this world and despair, or should we turn away from it and transcend? As Penn says, "there's no world but this one." Cavaziel replies, "I've seen another world." *That* is what the film is about: a choice between mysticism and nihilism.
The film is not pro-war, because it assumes as Schopenhauer did, that moral justifications of war are always nothing more than rationalizations of a more fundamental need for violence. The film is not anti-war, because unlike all other anti-war films, it does not set up a contrast between a morally praiseworthy form of ordinary life and a morally repugnant form of activity created by and creating war. If war is an expression of the cruelty of nature, or reality itself, moral judgment of it makes no sense---one might as well condemn the jungle for being jungle. This goes some way toward explaining the peculiar detachment the film aspires to and achieves. The catastrophe the characters are caught up in is the world itself, and the film offers no adequate response to it than to serenely transcend it.
 Not History March 24, 2007
5 out of 16 found this review helpful
This movie is not a war movie. It is not remotely related to history either. Guadalcanal was not like this as anyone who knows the people who fought there and the history. Since when did American troops in WW II carry pliers around to extract gold teeth from dying enemy soldiers? This depiction is just simple minded and pure excrement. Enemy soldiers all hugging around and teary eyed over war is hell? Can we spell Bushido? Mallick can't.
Now, if you like touchy, feely, not the real world aesthetique, have at it. The scenery and photography is quite good.
Rent this movie before you buy it. February 24, 2007
7 out of 13 found this review helpful
I know that everyone wants to hear how great a movie is. Well, I can't say The Thin Red Line is a great movie. On a scale of 1-5 I gave it a 2.
Maybe my expectations were too high. After all, I bought this movie after watching Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, and A Bridge Too Far. So, I was expecting The Thin Red Line to be on that level. After all, with 7 Academy Award Nominations including Best Picture, a cast that includes many of the top names in Hollywood, and a huge budget, the bar was set pretty high.
And I guess if you're into artsy, "message" films The Thin Red Line will be what you're looking for. But, if you're looking for a "war" movie you can forget it. Buy When Trumpets Fade or Saving Private Ryan if you're looking for action. Or better yet, splurge for the Band of Brothers set. You'll seldom make such a wise investment if you're really interested in knowing what happened. I'm just not interested in watching a World War 2 movie that appears more interested in all this sort of introspective business. Save that for Dr. Phil.
I've warned you. If you're into history and World War 2 in particular, rent this before you buy it. Seriously.
|
|
|