The Thin Red Line (1998) First Time Watching! Movie Reaction! 

It goes beyond the medium of film into the transcendent.

poetry.

Agreed. To use a word from an other post, this is a journey into transcendence. Another kind of film and art experience altogether that looks for -- and finds -- humanity in even our worst natures. It's so unfortunate that Saving Private Ryan overshadowed it. The two films are just different animals and cannot and should not be compared. In many ways, The Thin Red Line ennobles the human experience in ways that Saving Private Ryan does not. In truth, The Thin Red Line makes Saving Private Ryan look philosophically small -- and I love Saving Private Ryan! But The Thin Red Line is simply an extraordinary experience.

Why is it significant ?

You said it best there sir

@@lexkanyima2195 just watch the movie, it speaks for its self

So many people deleted from the final cut, or excised before filming even began, it's unbelievable. And Brody's role was cut to almost nothing.

Hilarious.

@@Geoglyph89 why?

Brody found out he wasn't the star of the movie any more during a press junket when he was asked "who do you play?" He thought he was the leading man.

1998 was an incredibly strong year for supporting male performances.

It's based on the Guadalcanal battle but a totally fictional account.

@@65cj55 It actually takes pieces of a number of historical battles, like the initial landing on the island beach with no opposition is straight from the battle of Okinawa. In terms of the actual human condition parts of the film, and portraying how people act/feel during such atrocities, it is ridiculously accurate.

@@VodkaphileTTG Maybe, but the story is fictional.

@65cj55 I mean yes, it's a movie remake of a movie that was adapted from a book. Who cares?

@@65cj55 My father was there and on the front lines, were you?? I doubt it. He saw fellow soldiers, who he had been talking to a few minutes before, get blown up right before his eyes, and many other horrible things that happened in the movie. Like many other WWII veterans he rarely discussed the war. On this rare occasion, my father was commenting on how the film captured the overall battle environment and chaos of the war in the Pacific, not a historical recounting of a particular battle.

the most underrated (anti)war movie ever.

I love Malick. Tree of Life is one of my favorite movies of all time. Badlands, Days of Heaven & The New World are all incredible films.

Yes. Malick's style is extremely unique, and the cinematography is amazing. The Thin Red Line has the best cinematography in the war genre. Another aspect of his movies is that you better be on your game mentally. You better not have a headache, feel tired, or be sick. I made the mistake of watching "The New World" for the first time when I went home from work ill one day from some form of headache or migraine. It was making me feel worse, having to THINK! lol. I love his movies. All of them.

Tripping me out What year is this movie?

@@tiananesbitt7156 1998. It was Terrence Malick's first film since "Days of Heaven" (1978). He was so respected after just two films that EVERY working actor at the time wanted in, even for the smallest role. Hence the amazing cast.

He makes movies for himself. Many people don't like his movies.

WOW! Thank you SO MUCH for that historical clarification! I would Love to pick your brains about WW II history 😲

Technically there were still marines on the island but from the 2nd Marines. The army likely relieved those from the 1st.

Basically, these were the guys the Marines stole the peaches and cigars from in the Pacific.

Good synopsis. Midway and Guadalcanal finished the Japanese. Guadalcanal became a sinkhole for the best Japanese resources...their best Infantry, their best air, and their best navy. The japanese never recuperated after Midway and Guadalcanal.

@@thomasbrown9402 No. They were the 164th Infantry Regiment. Part of the AmeriCal Division. These Soldiers are 25th Infantry Division, Hawaii. They arrived after the 164th...

Your comments are spot-on. As time passes, I believe TRL is catching up with SPR in general public appreciation. In 1998 I greatly preferred SPR over this, but now I see the former as too cliched (excluding the Omaha Beach scene of course) and the latter as raw and timeless. Then there's Zimmer's soundtrack. I've been listening to that for about 20 years and I never get tired of it. "Light" is my favorite.

Kurt Acevito

John Savage character wasn’t an officer. He was Sgt. McCron.

In this particular case it's more than just pressure from his superiors that was driving Nick Nolte's character. A good commander wouldn't be as short-sighted as he was; it's in everyone's interest to minimise casualties, from a purely practical perspective the fewer men lost in this one manoeuvre would mean more troops available for the next assault. So if there was an alternate strategy available other than a costly frontal assault, then he should have considered it. We know from his inner monologue when he was introduced that his judgement was likely clouded by ego and resentment.

@@richieclean The problem is that if Nolte is not motivated by personal ambition and ego he would not order men to their death, even if it was necessary to win the war. Staros is 'normal', he doesn't want to be there, he doesn't want his men to die, he doesn't like war, so he will always second guess a decision that causes casualties among his men, whereas Tall (the character played by Nolte) gets results because he only cares about his career. In the end Staros is happy to leave, whereas Tall is happy to stay because war is a chance for him to get promoted to general. As awful and absurd as it is, bad leaders like Tall win wars.

@@quintoblanco8746 they might win battles, but they don't necessarily win wars. This is my point; even if one only considers their infantry to be a resource, it's still in one's best interests to adopt a strategy that minimises casualties, so that you retain more of that resource for future engagements. It's a very short-sighted approach to warfare, but a relatively understandable one if that particular resource is both abundant, and expendable. That's before even considering the human element; that you are sending people to their deaths. My late grandfather was a British WW2 veteran, and he didn't have a particularly high opinion of US military strategy. As he put it, the British, French and other Allies would devise strategies that minimised own-side casualties, whereas American strategy favoured overwhelming the enemy with sheer numbers of troops, getting the job done but at a higher cost. I recall him saying that, of the US soldiers he encountered, he had the most respect for the African Americans, who were almost exclusively infantry and therefore always the first to be sent into the "meat grinder" (big surprise there). He hated most American films set in WW2 because they tended to be self-aggrandizing and never reflected the reality that a huge proportion of the US frontline forces were, in fact, Black. This strategy is, however, quite eloquently summed up in "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" with its "Operation: Get Behind the Darkies".

@@richieclean The US did win the war... And not because their military commanders were thoughtful and considerate people. I was in the army, my grandfather was a professional soldier during WWII. The sort of leader that you want is an ideal, not a realistic option, normal people do not want to lead men into battle (or order them into battle from behind a desk).

@@quintoblanco8746 The Allies won the war, which included the US, but it wasn't exclusively their contribution that was pivotal. If Hitler hadn't been so fixated on taking Stalingrad, and if Soviet resistance hadn't been so fierce, he wouldn't have pulled so much of his resource from other areas in order to secure it, enabling the Allies on the Western front to advance further than they otherwise would have done. Hitler was willing to sacrifice 800,000 Axis troops at Stalingrad, and they still lost both that battle, and the war; such tactics don't guarantee victory when the enemy is better prepared and more familiar with the terrain. The US suffered particularly heavy losses on Omaha beach, but not because the Axis resistance was particularly fierce compared to the other major landing sites (the defending troops were mainly Czech conscripts, who the German High Command considered more expendable) but because the infantry didn't have the Armoured support they were supposed to; the US command, in a panic, gave the order to deploy their armoured divisions before they had reached shallow enough water and most of it floundered in the English Channel. (My Grandad was a Tank Driver and took part in the amphibious assault on Sword Beach. He was happy enough to take his grandsons to the pool and watch us swim, but he never, ever set foot in the water himself because of his experience on D-Day) The US lost almost 10,000 troops taking Peleliu, because they vastly underestimated the size of the Japanese forces on the island, but it was ultimately deemed of no strategic importance. So there's just a few examples of decisions that cost an unnecessary amount of lives, yet they either did not achieve victory, or they ultimately had no bearing on the outcome of the overall campaign. All as a result of poor strategy, poor execution or of simply being over-zealous.

@@deluxereissueYeah, up to (and including) Tree of Life, everything he made was superb. I still enjoy his work, but it definitely is more up & down.

@@deluxereissue I agree. That's why I mentioned he got even more slow and abstract over the years. He kind of went up his own butt. But, peak Malick is truly some great and inspired filmmaking. And, to me, there have been more modern directors who have utilized some of his methods to good effect (not that Malick was the first for this style of filmmaking but he did make it his own). Upstream Colour and Clara come to mind as somewhat examples.

@@deluxereissue I love Primer. Upstream Colour is way more abstract but also has weird sci-fi(-ish) elements. I'm pretty sure if you like Malick you'll at least appreciate Upstream Colour. They're not that similar but kind of...?

@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 A Hidden Life is one of his best films IMO

A Harvey Weinstein production.

So.....when it's "Saving Private Ryan", people complain about it losing to Shakespeare In Love. Now it's The Thin Red Line, and again: "it lost to Shakespeare In Love"! The TRUTH is that both war movies cancelled each other out. Back in '97, everyone was divided: are you a Saving Private Ryan person? Or a Thin Red Line person? Thin Red Line was the "cool" one to like because it was the enigmatic (and brilliant) Terence Malick. So when you get some of the Academy voting for "Private Ryan" and some voting for "Thin Red Line", then the vote gets split and "Shakespeare In Love" wins. That's happened many-a-year. (And campaigning for Oscars goes back to the great Mary Pickford who won the second Best Actress award based on her pioneering history in the movie business and her campaigning for the win as much as it was for her performance).

There was also a bias against Spielberg films

"Time" from the movie Inception and "Journey to the Line"

@goldleader6074 time is the same song just slightly tweaked.

Definitely better than SPR.

I don't think you can really compare. Very different movies.

Yes--there is an audience for reactions to challenging films! Plus, there's an audience for your reactions, so you can lead people to challenging films.

maybe its symbolisms about how no matter who you are in the civilian world, in the battlefield you're just some guy with a gun between thousands of other guys with a gun.

He's put out some real garbage, too.

​@@trhansen3244how ?

@@trhansen3244 He has the guts to experiment like no other filmmaker out there, He creates real art.

@@sansebastiansj Which is fine. But he has put out some really bad films. Some of the worst I have ever seen.

Seriously. So happy to see them react to it.

I'll second the recommendation of THE NEW WORLD. An incredible film.

That's one of my favorite movies, "The New World".

Gorge Clooney "Brody found out during a press junket in the run up to release when he was asked "who do you play"....he thought he was the lead"

I'll third The New World. One of most powerful final ten minutes or so in movie history. An all-around great experience. But no need to watch the long director's cut. Theatrical is the sweet spot.

$1 ?

jim carrey

Johnny Depp, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Tommy Lee Jones, and Harrison Ford 😂😂😂

Your Mom

More like who is in this movie for more than one scene ?

Missing from the final cut were actors such as Mickey Rourke, Martin Sheen, Lukas Haas, Jason Patric, Bill Pullman, Gary Oldman, Viggo Mortensen and Billy Bob Thornton's voice-over narrator.

Both of those movies are fantastic and, along with The New World, are my fave Malicks.

Days of Heaven changed the lives of a lot of filmmakers. It created a mood, an almost new cinematic language that so many are still trying to speak. Days of Heaven is just beyond words. So happy to see the love for it. (Not that it's not already much loved!)

@@markdodson6453 Well said. Completely agree.

I saw Tree of Life when I was a relatively new parent. It destroyed me. It’s a poem in light.

Then why he was not mention more ?

@@lexkanyima2195 because all his scene were cut