PDA

View Full Version : OT: The Thin Red Line



Airmail109
04-03-2007, 05:01 PM
Im going to recomend it. If you havnt heard of it, its a very different war film about Guadacanal. Only about half of its action, instead it focuses on the emotional responses of the soldiers to the war. (However the action sequences are good) It was directed by Terrence Malick, widely thought to be the best directors to have lived. The film is truly beautiful and haunting like to other war film ive seen. If youve ever been in a situation where youve questioned the world we live in youll know what I mean. Its rather complex, so dont be expecting an action film. The camera work is brilliant, it focuses on a lot of odd thigs in nature - sometimes during battle sequences. It manages to convey what depersonalisation can be like during and after a traumatic event. On top of this the soundtrack at the end is a brilliant choice and at such odds with the film, in a sort of surreal way that ties the knot in your stomach that you might feel for a long while after.

PBNA-Boosher
04-03-2007, 05:03 PM
I remember watching this movie and liking it, but I wish they'd have chosen a different title. The Thin Red Line represents something extremely different for me. It has to do with British Highlanders and the Crimean War.

Airmail109
04-03-2007, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
I remember watching this movie and liking it, but I wish they'd have chosen a different title. The Thin Red Line represents something extremely different for me. It has to do with British soldiers, and the Crimean War.

I think it was purposly used as an analogy

(slight spoiler warning)

The "thin red line" being a line of british troops fighting to keep so called 'savages' from destroying the Empire

Conversely American troops being sent out to fight to defend their way of life and civilisation again an enemy or so called savage, and paradoxically finding themselves turning into savages, to the point the old world they knew no longer exists.

Anyway im not going to give away anymore

Kettenhunde
04-03-2007, 05:30 PM
That movie is absolutely the worst war film I have ever seen in my life.

It is a load of Hollywood ****. The 1998 Movie with Sean Pean had very little in common with Jones novel.

It was a bunch of Hollywood ******s heaping what they think discomfort, much less war is like.

The central theme, "War is bad" is clumsily and childishly thrown about in every scene. Does any sane person think war is not horrific and a terrible waste? I think most people realize that there are things in life that are worth defending however.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

All the best,

Crumpp

Airmail109
04-03-2007, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
That movie is absolutely the worst war film I have ever seen in my life.

It is a load of Hollywood ****. The 1998 Movie with Sean Pean had very little in common with Jones novel.

It was a bunch of Hollywood ******s heaping what they think discomfort, much less war is like.

The central theme, "War is bad" is clumsily and childishly thrown about in every scene. Does any sane person think war is not horrific and a terrible waste? I think most people realize that there are things in life that are worth defending however.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

All the best,

Crumpp

LOL your entitled to your own point of view, I go by what I previously said though. War is Bad was not the central theme though, thats your own childish view on what it was about. The most simple view. Yes Malick diverged from the novel a lot, so what. In a good way I think, there was no real reference to indinous people in the book. As i said its about the emotional response of the soldiers and how they change from war, and its a bloody good portrait of how soldiers develop post traumatic stress disorder.

Waldo.Pepper
04-03-2007, 05:40 PM
A great film.

Great cinematography.
Great script.
Great score. (suiting and setting the mood of the film, though not the era.)
Mostly great acting. (Travolta almost always makes me wretch!)
In my opinion those who denigrate the movie were expected a different film. I think they commonly expected a traditional John Wayne slaughter fest with traditional patriotic undertones ... rather than the more complex/nuanced film that it was.

nickdanger3
04-03-2007, 05:40 PM
That's Terrence Mallick for you - people either love him or hate him.

Rotten Tomatoes seems to like it, especially the reviewers who's business it is to review films:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1084146-thin_red_line/

djetz
04-03-2007, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:

The "thin red line" being a line of british troops fighting to keep so called 'savages' from destroying the Empire


Yeah, the Ottoman Empire. Which they were happy enough to attack 60 years later when the Russian Empire was their ally and the Ottomans were their enemies.

History is much more complex and interesting than you make it sound. I'm not sure anyone thought of the Russians as "savages" in the way you imply, either. Are you sure you're not thinking of Rorke's Drift?

Kettenhunde
04-03-2007, 07:41 PM
As i said its about the emotional response of the soldiers

I think it is a bunch of Malarkey. You're entitled to your opinion and I think it is childish drivel too.

I have been an infantry soldier in infantry combat. Shot at folks, been shot at, and seen my friends as well the enemy die. Don't tell me it is about how soldiers feel in combat. Pfffttt!!

It is about what he thinks soldiers feel in combat AND he is full of it.

That jerk in Hollywierd has no clue what soldiers feel in combat. He has a coffeehouse crowd picture of combat and it is obvious to anyone has been there and done that. He did not even have the sense to follow Jones's work! Jones was in combat. This director thinks he can tell it better without any experience at all. Terrence Mallick must have stayed a few nights at a Holiday Inn Express, huh? What soldiers feel in combat is far removed from his world.

None of the Soldiers I ever served in combat with sat around lamenting their fate. Your much too busy living in the present. Nothing else in this world focuses the mind on the present quite like being in combat! Once more we are talking about losing your life. Not some game, no do-overs, or any other BS....Losing your ONE and ONLY life. It could be the most screwed up reason for a war imaginable and soldiers on the battlefield will make it in their minds a worthy cause. It is your reality and nobody wants to die for nothing. The Juxtaposition is that your only in country because of this cause. It is your friends you die for but I don't know of anybody who comes out and says, "I will die for Joe." Joe just gets into trouble and his friends do what they have to do. Hopefully they live.

War is horrible, wasteful, and we will never have peace as long as we are killing each others children. Until both sides acknowledge that we will never have peace.

There are though things in life worth defending.

Experiencing combat makes one appreciate life in ways the protected will never know. If you conducted yourself accordingly then you do not lament having served. You might not like the fact war occurred but you are proud of your service.

"The Thin Red Line" is about the most idiotic war movie ever made.

All the best,

Crumpp

Waldo.Pepper
04-03-2007, 08:47 PM
Kettenhunde
With respect, pray tell what is a good war movie in your opinion? I am sincerely interested in your view.

Kettenhunde
04-03-2007, 09:32 PM
what is a good war movie in your opinion?


IMHO, "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" are the best war films made to date.

I especially like the line Miller gives at the end of Ryan. IMHO "Earn this" sums up what every soldier who dies on the battlefield hopes.

How does one earn that sacrifice? IMHO we earn it by doing the best we can to be decent to one another, help out when we can, and live a good life.

I think it is a British War Memorial that says, "They gave up all of their tommorrows in the hopes yours will be a little better."

All the best,

Crumpp

Cajun76
04-03-2007, 10:43 PM
I didn't read the novel, and I liked the movie for various reasons, I also pretty much agree 100% with Crumpp. Band of Brothers gets my #1 vote.

While I liked TRL, and at the time it had a pretty profound effect on me, as time has gone on I've come to believe that most of the monologue was written by Jack Handey. The more I've seen it 2-3?, the less I've liked it.


I guess the hard thing for a lot of people to accept is why God would allow me to go running through their yards, yelling and spinning around. by Jack Handey

Von_Rat
04-04-2007, 12:04 AM
doesnt the term,,thin red line ,,, go back to the napoleanic wars?

the thin red brit lines would defeat the thick french columns.

tagTaken2
04-04-2007, 12:16 AM
Saving Private Ryan - great visuals, competent acting, rubbish dialogue.

Band of Brothers - see SPR, but without visuals.

Thin Red Line - best US war film I've seen (havent' seen Flags of our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima yet, but intend to)

A film doesn't have to echo your personal experience to be great.

I'd be interested to hear of war movies made outside Hollywood that Kettenhunde may have enjoyed.

Badsight-
04-04-2007, 12:24 AM
TTRL

a load of moralising emo ****

djetz
04-04-2007, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
doesnt the term,,thin red line ,,, go back to the napoleanic wars?

the thin red brit lines would defeat the thick french columns.

From wiki:
"It was The Times correspondent, William H. Russell, who wrote that he could see nothing between the charging Russians and the British base of operations at Balaklava but the "thin red streak tipped with a line of steel" of the 93rd. Popularly condensed into "the thin red line", the phrase became a symbol for British sangfroid in battle."

So the phrase was a misquote of Russell. I'm pretty sure it became famous (or more famous than before) after it was used as the title of an 1881 painting by Robert Gibb.

This one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:93thinl.jpeg

FlixFlix
04-04-2007, 01:25 AM
Anybody knows this movie?

>When trumpets fade< (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0135706/)

IMHO better than all of the above. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

dieg777
04-04-2007, 02:48 AM
the thin red line was a scottish highland regiment defending against the russians in the crimea- the thin was a reference to the scots standing 2 deep instead of the usual 4 deep in line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Red_Line_%281854_battle%29

I have seen the painting refrenced at the Argyll and Sutherland regimental museum - it is huge and impressive.

My father served with the argyll and sutherlands and Stirling castle was their barracks where he did his initial training before transferring to the Gordon highlanders and serving in Malaya

ojcar1971
04-04-2007, 04:58 AM
Technically, a very good film, but booooooring.
A soldier is a soldier. His only thoughs are to survive. He's not Platon, nor Kant or Nietzche.
And what about the "National Geografic" scenes? Very nice, but the film is 1 or 1'5 hours too long.

pacettid
04-04-2007, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As i said its about the emotional response of the soldiers

I think it is a bunch of Malarkey. You're entitled to your opinion and I think it is childish drivel too.

I have been an infantry soldier in infantry combat. Shot at folks, been shot at, and seen my friends as well the enemy die. Don't tell me it is about how soldiers feel in combat. Pfffttt!!

It is about what he thinks soldiers feel in combat AND he is full of it.

That jerk in Hollywierd has no clue what soldiers feel in combat. He has a coffeehouse crowd picture of combat and it is obvious to anyone has been there and done that. He did not even have the sense to follow Jones's work! Jones was in combat. This director thinks he can tell it better without any experience at all. Terrence Mallick must have stayed a few nights at a Holiday Inn Express, huh? What soldiers feel in combat is far removed from his world.

None of the Soldiers I ever served in combat with sat around lamenting their fate. Your much too busy living in the present. Nothing else in this world focuses the mind on the present quite like being in combat! Once more we are talking about losing your life. Not some game, no do-overs, or any other BS....Losing your ONE and ONLY life. It could be the most screwed up reason for a war imaginable and soldiers on the battlefield will make it in their minds a worthy cause. It is your reality and nobody wants to die for nothing. The Juxtaposition is that your only in country because of this cause. It is your friends you die for but I don't know of anybody who comes out and says, "I will die for Joe." Joe just gets into trouble and his friends do what they have to do. Hopefully they live.

War is horrible, wasteful, and we will never have peace as long as we are killing each others children. Until both sides acknowledge that we will never have peace.

There are though things in life worth defending.

Experiencing combat makes one appreciate life in ways the protected will never know. If you conducted yourself accordingly then you do not lament having served. You might not like the fact war occurred but you are proud of your service.

"The Thin Red Line" is about the most idiotic war movie ever made.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif My experience also. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
04-04-2007, 07:33 AM
I thought the film was amazing.

Worth 1000 'Flyboys'.

The underlying theme is not 'War is bad' it is 'Nature is cruel', but it has hundreds of other messages depending on who you are. If you dont like looking inside yourself, then I guess you will hate it.

Anyone who liked it should check out 'The New World' with Colin Firth, another film by the same director. Even more 'deep', so dont see it if you didnt like TTRL.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402399/

Breeze147
04-04-2007, 07:52 AM
Why do all movie threads on this forum eventually break down into bashings of Saving Private Ryan?

Kettenhunde
04-04-2007, 08:30 AM
If you dont like looking inside yourself,


You hit the nail on the head with this comment.

That is exactly why the film is childish and why Hollywierd has such a hard time making a decent war movie.

It is all about responsibility. You see children are internally focused. That is why when they get sick, their world breaks down. Adults must take care of them.

An Adult is responsibility focused. This means external focus and prioritization of responsibilities.

In a Democracy, soldiers are public servants just as police, fire department, and EMT services. One can make all the excuses in the world but the facts are you wear the uniform because of your choice, even when the draft was around. People wear the uniform because they recognize it is their individual and personal responsibility to serve at the request of an elected Government. It is a citizen's responsibility.

Hollywood and the "it is not my fault as all points of view are valid" crowd will never understand that. Fundamentally they have a hard time with the concept of personal responsibility.

For the United States in WWII the issue of whether or not to go to war was made mute after December 7th. Remaining at peace was simply not an option on the table.

I like SPR and BB not for the films themselves but rather the central message that we as individuals are responsible in both war and peace.

The films celebrate the men who are the real heroes, those who gave all their tommorrows. The films focus on the millions who have served honorably and returned to live good lives. Normal men in abnormal circumstances who understand responsibility.

All the best,

Crumpp

Longpo
04-04-2007, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Why do all movie threads on this forum eventually break down into bashings of Saving Private Ryan?

Usually something to-do with Americans, flag waving and some other nonsense.

Shame really, SPR is a great film.

I enjoyed "The Thin Red Line" myself but it definitely is a marmite film from what I have seen here and on other forums.

Need to read the book on which it is based and see the 1964 version of the film which is apparently superior to the 1998 one.

Xiolablu3
04-04-2007, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You see children are internally focused.

I totally disagree with this statement.

I would say that children are far more externally orientated than adults. They react to their surroundings far more without thinking about hte consequences.

For example it is very common find children pulling wings off flies, shooting cats with air rifles, totrturing animals, being cruel to other children, laughing at disabled people,being racist,sexist etc, but you much less see adults doing the same things as they have learned compassion for other creatures over time.

Looking inside yourself is usually a good thing because it teaches people compassion and allows you to see things from the others point of view rather than 'me me me' all the time.

IMO it is something that is learned as you grow older, or go through very bad things as a child which force you to learn it early, which is why I disagree with what you said.

FOr the Military this is a bad thiing, because they want their soldiers as highly trained killing machines, not to hesitate because they 'feel' for the other guy. This is why soldiers are drilled and drilled and taught not to 'think'. A thinking soldier is often a bad soldier, you want him to follow orders blindly. You want to keep their 'primal' instincts. Train, train, drill, train, drill, keep them busy at all times.

'Those who do not learn their history are condemned to repeat it'


I really like SPR,The Blue Max,Aces High and Band Of Brothers too, but I think TTRL is also a very good film.

The films I dont like are the ones where you can guess the terrible storyline at the beginning. I thought 'Flyboys' was one of these terrible films. I had read the storyline hundreds of times over in kids wartime comics. (Man joins air force, Isnt accepted by peers, 'bad german' kills friend, Man finally gets accepted by peers by saving one of them, saves woman and falls in love, finally gets revenge on 'bad German')

BTW I saw 'Blood Diamond' the other day, enjoyed it very much. Dicaprio truly is a great actor, totally believable as a South African Diamond Hunter..

amilaninia
04-04-2007, 09:23 AM
"There's only a thin red line between the sane and the mad."
"A realistic view of military and moral chaos in the Pacific during World War II." quote from the movie's dvd cover.

"War,no matter how it may be glorified,is unspeakably horrible in every form."
U.S.Army Air Force General Henry H."Hap" Arnold http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kettenhunde
04-04-2007, 09:34 AM
A thinking soldier is often a bad soldier, you want him to follow orders blindly.

Baloney.

The "mindless killing machine" and "too stupid to do anything else" is a convenient label to heap upon the soldier. It makes the internalized self image of those who push it easier to live with.

The truth is a good soldier is a thinking soldier. He follows orders because he recognizes the importance of the task ahead as well as his responsibility within it.

http://www.hqda.army.mil/ari/pdf/ARI_NewsLetter_Vol%2014_1_FINAL(10-18-04).pdf


All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-04-2007, 09:46 AM
So if the 'thinking' soldier should disagree with his orders, he should disobey and do his own thing??


WHat a great army that would make http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Noone said anyhting about 'stupid', but you need your soldiers to follow orders blindly for a good functioning army. You cannot have them deciding for themselves when under orders.

p-11.cAce
04-04-2007, 10:00 AM
BEST MOVIE EVER http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Every time it comes up here it ends up a bloody mess - lets just admit that we all are different and that for a particular type of person TTRL is great, for another SPR is great, and for everyone Pear Harbor zucks!

Kettenhunde
04-04-2007, 10:02 AM
So if the 'thinking' soldier should disagree with his orders, he should disobey and do his own thing??


You do not know the difference between a Lawful Order and a criminal act. A soldier, a thinking soldier certainly does.

What you don't understand is that a soldier has an individual responsibility to disobey an unlawful order and bring its issuer to justice.

All the best,

Crumpp

amilaninia
04-04-2007, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
BEST MOVIE EVER http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Every time it comes up here it ends up a bloody mess - lets just admit that we all are different and that for a particular type of person TTRL is great, for another SPR is great, and for everyone Pear Harbor zucks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Blutarski2004
04-04-2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if the 'thinking' soldier should disagree with his orders, he should disobey and do his own thing??


You do not know the difference between a Lawful Order and a criminal act. A soldier, a thinking soldier certainly does.

What you don't understand is that a soldier has an individual responsibility to disobey an unlawful order and bring its issuer to justice.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Not to mention the issue of the subordinate on the spot having the wits to disregard an order based upon out-dated intelligence or faulty understanding.

Such behavior was expected and promoted by the German army of WW2.

"Any fool can obey orders" George S Patton and Sir John "Jackie" Fisher.

leitmotiv
04-04-2007, 10:28 AM
I admire Malik's DAYS OF HEAVEN as one of the best American films, but RED LINE is a woolly travesty of the superb Jones novel, and as silly a bit of film making as ever done. New Age gets transferred to art film with catastrophic results to all but New Age types. It was an embarrassment to his friends. As for the egregious Spielberg's RYAN---yeccchhhhhhh---vapid and pretentious like everything he has done from SCHINDLER onwards.

GIAP.Shura
04-04-2007, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
BEST MOVIE EVER http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Every time it comes up here it ends up a bloody mess - lets just admit that we all are different and that for a particular type of person TTRL is great, for another SPR is great, and for everyone Pear Harbor zucks!

Yep but Das Boot knocks all of them into a cocked hat.

Huxley_S
04-04-2007, 10:36 AM
Best war film for me without doubt... Zulu.

Either that or Carry On Up The Khyber.

Time for a spot of tiffin I think.

Xiolablu3
04-04-2007, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if the 'thinking' soldier should disagree with his orders, he should disobey and do his own thing??


You do not know the difference between a Lawful Order and a criminal act. A soldier, a thinking soldier certainly does.

What you don't understand is that a soldier has an individual responsibility to disobey an unlawful order and bring its issuer to justice.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am not talking about an unlawful order, maybe its a lawful order that he does not agree with?

If a guy at the nuke button is given the order to destroy a city with a nuke and decides he cannot do it because of the great loss of life, for instance..

He has saved thousands of lives, but he has just disobeyed an 'order'.

This soldier would be no use at all in that position. He must forget his feelings and press the button regardless.

Not sure how we reached this argument anyway, we are way off topic. I like TTRL, you dont, lets agree to disagree.

Xiolablu3
04-04-2007, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if the 'thinking' soldier should disagree with his orders, he should disobey and do his own thing??


You do not know the difference between a Lawful Order and a criminal act. A soldier, a thinking soldier certainly does.

What you don't understand is that a soldier has an individual responsibility to disobey an unlawful order and bring its issuer to justice.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Not to mention the issue of the subordinate on the spot having the wits to disregard an order based upon out-dated intelligence or faulty understanding.

Such behavior was expected and promoted by the German army of WW2.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That same Army was training its soldiers to murder Russian civilians and burn their homes. ALso to murder millions of people in camps.

Pity these guys didnt think for themselves a bit more and disobey orders, eh?

Blutarski2004
04-04-2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Not to mention the issue of the subordinate on the spot having the wits to disregard an order based upon out-dated intelligence or faulty understanding.

Such behavior was expected and promoted by the German army of WW2.



That same Army was training its soldiers to murder Russian civilians and burn their homes. ALso to murder millions of people in camps.

Pity these guys didnt think for themselves a bit more and disobey orders, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Not what I was driving at, but fair comment.

Waldo.Pepper
04-04-2007, 12:27 PM
I am not talking about an unlawful order, maybe its a lawful order that he does not agree with?

If a guy at the nuke button is given the order to destroy a city with a nuke and decides he cannot do it because of the great loss of life, for instance..

I think you guys are missing a great opportunity to talk about The Thin Red Line in this context.

If you all remember, this is rather central to the movie where the Meloni character defies the Nolte character.

Thin Red Line is great due, in part, to its complexity and subtlety. There is lots of meat on the bone to chew on, unlike say Pearl Harbour, or U-571, or Windtalkers or Saving Private Ryan. All four of those movies are very safe and traditional. None of them can ever be accused of making any viewer really think about the issues raised by them.

Bo_Nidle
04-04-2007, 12:54 PM
The only reason "The Thin Red Line" got the attention it did was because it was directed by Terence Malick. Anyone else would have had their film slammed and rightly so. I wanted to like this film but found it overblown,dull, and full of pointless shots of pretty sunlight through leaves.

It gave none of the feeling of dread and terror in combat shown in "Band of brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan". It roamed aimlessly around until it eventually just seemed to stagger to a halt....and not a moment too soon.

The characters were instantly forgettable. (George Clooneys much ballyhooed appearance lasted for about 10 seconds, obviously the only reason he was in it was because it was a Malick film). Harrelsons death was stupid with the grenade remaining on his belt after he had pulled the pin even though it was held on there by its "spoon" instead of falling to the ground.

But above all it was DULL. I kept expecting to see the cast of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" appear on the horizon and shout "GET ON WITH IT!!"

Kettenhunde
04-04-2007, 01:20 PM
maybe its a lawful order that he does not agree with?

Not the subject of this thread. However as a soldier you do not have a choice if the order is lawful. Combat is not a place for debate.

You knew that when you took upon yourself to shoulder the individual responsibility by putting on the uniform and taking the oath.

Frankly your splitting of hairs is rather pointless IMHO. I think you are making a ham-fisted attempt to show that life can be ambiguous. Certainly it can. That is when we make the best decision we can, using the facts we know at the time, and our morality as a sounding board.

Afterwards we take responsibility for that decision and the outcome. Nobody ever said life was fair or neatly packaged. The difference is in the viewpoint of who is responsible. Do you blame others or do you stand up and shoulder individual responsibility.

All the best,

Crumpp

Lberaldo
04-04-2007, 01:31 PM
A wonderful movie, made outside the Hollywood circuit (actually it was made in Germany), is "DAS BOOT" (The boat). For me, it´s the best war movie ever made!

PS: I also like BOB and SPR http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
PS3: I will have one... One day! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

p-11.cAce
04-04-2007, 01:50 PM
It gave none of the feeling of dread and terror in combat shown in "Band of brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan".
Are you kidding? When the first platoon is working up the final slope of hill 210 and the snipers drop 2 guys..and then that incredible Zimmer score begins to rise with "Journey to the Line" and you are brought forward into the attack via immersed cameramen...oh yeah no dread or terror there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


It roamed aimlessly around until it eventually just seemed to stagger to a halt
OMG - Witt had made the final sacrifice, leading the Japanese away from his surrounded and outnumbered unit so that they could escape. How else could this story have ended? We follow Witt from his initial entry into the battle at Guadalcanal until his death.

Harrelsons death was stupid with the grenade remaining on his belt after he had pulled the pin even though it was held on there by its "spoon" instead of falling to the ground.
I always thought he stuffed it in a pouch with his knife after he finished de-crimping the pin in the previous scene. His death is an important one as it is a precursor to Witt's own death, and illustrates that these men will sacrifice themselves to protect their fellow soldiers. How the grenade exploded is not important, the fact that in that instant Harrelson threw himself against the embankment is. When Witt is holding Harrelsons head and telling him "its ok, you did'nt let your brothers down" he is reinforcing the ideal that will lead to his own death.

George Clooneys much ballyhooed appearance lasted for about 10 seconds, obviously the only reason he was in it was because it was a Malick film
True - and FOX stipulated his appearance in the film.

But above all it was DULL.
War, believe it or not, truly is hours and hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.

The full uncut 5+ hour of Das Boot is the only one worth watching...in German of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Amazing movie!

BfHeFwMe
04-04-2007, 09:25 PM
The 164th Infantry was unique in many ways for an American unit. I saw its story completely botched. Basically nothing worth taking away or commenting about it. Pure fantasy, not a very good story line either as a fictional work. It simply doesn't capture the spirit of Guadalcanal, period.

Bo_Nidle
04-05-2007, 02:25 AM
Sorry P.11.cAce I stand by my assessment of the dull combat scenes.

The Omaha beach sequence of SPR was absolutely jaw-dropping in its intensity when first seen at the cinema. The feeling of dread as the enemy tanks rumble towards the troops at the bridge at the end was stunningly done.

The assault on the guns in Brecourt manor in BoB gave a real sense of speed, terror and raw aggression. The D-Day drop made you thank god you didn't have to go through that.

There are moments in those scenes which made me wince.

TTRL left me totally cold. I felt absolutely no affinity with any of the characters and as a consequence did not feel involved at all. I felt no more moved than if I was watching a John Wayne film.

As for war being dull? The whole point of a film is to be dramatic. If there's no drama what's the point?

The only reason it was swooned over by the critics was that it was Malicks first film since "Days of Heaven" in 1978.

"The New World" was his last film which sank without trace.

However I do like "Badlands" but that was a long time ago.

MrMojok
04-05-2007, 02:34 AM
Malick is one of those directors that have a great eye, like Kubrick.

I am not defending the film as a war picture, BUT.. as I have gotten older I tend to really appreciate the way a director frames his shots and the camera angles, etc, much more than I used to.

Some of the angles and colors and contrasts, in the shots of trees, wildlife, etc. that people have commented on in this thread... I thought were great. To me, if they fit in to the narrative at all, they simply point out how unaware, or more likely, how uncaring nature is about the armies of homo sapiens wreaking havoc everywhere.

I realize this has little to do with what most of you are talking about, in the thread.

ojcar1971
04-05-2007, 07:38 AM
I think Malick is simply masturbatory. Too much technical photography and too much cheap philosophy. One ot the characters is a deserter and hates the war and at the end, he dies like a hero. Pretty inconsistent.