•
Rating:
Talking about a Terrence Malick film is like discussing something abstract and totally subjective. There is no film by this director that hasn't divided critics. Malick, a Philosophy professor, makes a film once in a blue moon, but when he does, damn, it means he really has something to say. And you can see that he puts his soul into it. Nothing is left to chance, moving from the use of silent panoramas to claustrophobic steadycam shots, naturally without smudges.
"The Thin Red Line", released back in 1998, is a slow, very slow film, difficult to understand, but splendid. One shouldn't even remotely think of comparing "The Thin Red Line" to Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan", as they are two completely different ways of making cinema. While Spielberg is obsessed with realism and the stark brutality of confrontation, Malick reminds us how soldiers are not merely unknowns fighting on the front line, but are people with emotions and personal memories. Fears, anguish, and challenges.
The story is simple, a platoon of soldiers, led by Sergeant Nick Nolte, will try to take control of a hill, in the battle of Guadalcanal in the Pacific. Everything is told in minute detail, slowly, alternating between furious battles and beautiful sequences that emphasize the silent beauty of the landscape. Every frame, every shot, could be framed and hung on a wall like a poster.
This is Malick, for better or worse, who creates one of the best war films ever made, unjustly underrated, and in my opinion, slightly better than "Apocalypse Now".
Light-years away from the glossy, splendidly packaged but lacking in bite, "The New World", this "The Thin Red Line", should be watched with a keen and vigilant eye, preferably relaxed. Adding substance to the film is an excellent performance by a stellar cast (Sean Penn, the aforementioned Nick Nolte, Jim Caviziel, John Cusack, and cameos by John Travolta and George Clooney).
7 Oscar nominations and not even a statue. A pity.
Loading comments slowly
