| 
 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: $2.00
You Save: $12.98 (87%)
New (65) Used (48) Collectible (2) from $2.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  929 reviews
Sales Rank: 5501
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
|
| Customer Reviews:
 WAR AND POETRY February 18, 2000
3 out of 6 found this review helpful
An all star cast and a great novel make "The Thin Red Line" the unique film it is. People have been comparing "Saving Private Ryan" to this film. WHY? Each film had it's own agenda! Ryan true was probably more realistic. While this film wanted to make a poetic statement.Everyone is saying the film wasn't REAL enough! ARE YOU BLIND! Can't you see that's not what they wanted to do with this film. There is a bad point though....the time element.I've noticed a lot of film are overdone! Maybe they feel if they make the movie long they have a epic masterpiece on their hands.What they don't realize is all they have IS A LONG MOVIE! And in many cases a BORING one! Around the two hour mark I was waiting for the film to end. I just couldn't take it anymore! I saw that Malick was getting over indulgent.The film was taking on more then it could handle. But still a film people should see.
 Beautiful, Evocative, and Cinematic Poetry February 18, 2000
16 out of 21 found this review helpful
Say what you will, but Terence Malick's gorgeous opus was 1998's most stunning oscar contender. Although I enjoyed "Saving Private Ryan," and found "Shakespeare in Love" to be absolutely wonderful, neither film could match the profundity, depth, and utter beauty of "The Thin Red Line." In truth, "Saving Private Ryan," and "The Thin Red Line" should never be compared because their tones are so strikingly different. Yet Malick's representation of WWII is far more realistic, and less jingoistic than Spielberg's. Whereas Spielberg treats war as a necessary evil in "Saving Private Ryan" and looks at each one of his characters as a hero, Malick questions why people fight in the face of Eden and reveals his characters as flawed. There is no dramatic salute scene or shot of a waving American flag in "The Thin Red Line," for Malick's aim is far deeper than that of Spielberg's. Not only are the films performances well executed, and its themes amazingly explored, but "The Thin Red Line" is one of the most visually beautiful films created in recent history. The shots of waving grass exhibit the extreme beauty of Guadanacanal, and serve as the perfect contrast to the horrors of war the picture presents. "The Thin Red Line" is true cinematic poetry, and is destined to go down in history as one of the greatest anti-war films of all time.
 Ambivalence. Not from Hollywood. . . February 17, 2000
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
As any film, the Thin Red Line is vulnerable to and deserving of legitimate criticism. But its perceived infidelities to the war movie genre are undeserved and misdirected. Ambivalence is not something traditionally well recieved by the American cinema, and it is largely from this trend that this film has had some difficultly finding an American audience. If you can manage some degree of thematic complexity and are at least somewhat aware that conflict breeds suffering for all parties involved, you may find some value in this version of the novel. While not perfect, The Thin Red Line is about as good as Hollywood gets. (If you insist on the war genre rubric, just compare final scenes of Saving Private Ryan to The Thin Red Line, and it is hard to knock Malick too much). Try watching it alone.
 WASTE OF TIME February 15, 2000
6 out of 18 found this review helpful
JK REED IS DEFINITELY WRONG ON THIS ONE. THIS MOVIE IS A WASTE OF TIME, AS WELL AS A WASTE OF TALENT. MOST OF THE PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO WHO'VE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED WAR TELL ME THAT THIS MOVIE DOES NOT DO IT JUSTICE. CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THIS MOVIE HAS NO ARTISTIC MERIT WHATSOEVER.
Waste of time February 14, 2000
6 out of 17 found this review helpful
Without a doubt one of the worst "things" I have ever been witness to. I only regret that you can't give negative numbers (you can't even give 0), or just out and out cuss the movie. If your idea of a good time is spending 3 hours fighting off sleep while suffering through a boring, pretentious, meandering piece of so called art then by all means, go right ahead. Just consider yourself warned. The only reason this garnered such critical acclaim is because it was such a calculatedly "important" film that no critic could resist a chance to exhibit just how deep they really are. Too bad no one goes to the movies to be merely entertained anymore. If you really want to watch a war movie commenting on the human condition, give Apocalypse Now another go round. That was a movie that succeded on more the dual levels of text and subtext like this movie tries (and fails) so hard to do. All in all it is hard to be impressed by a movie that tries so hard to be so important. In the end it makes all involved just look bad.
|
|
|