The Thin Red Line - DTS | 
| Director: Terrence Malick
Actors: James Caviezel, Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, Kirk Acevedo, Penelope Allen
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.98
Buy Used: $0.46
You Save: $19.52 (98%)
New (44) Used (109) Collectible (3) from $0.46
Rating:  937 reviews
Sales Rank: 25288
Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dts Surround Sound, Dvd, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Picture Format: Anamorphic Widescreen
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 170 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: D2003001D
UPC: 024543030010
EAN: 0024543010975
ASIN: B00005221N
Theatrical Release Date: January 8, 1999
Release Date: January 23, 2001
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com essential video
One of the cinema's great disappearing acts came to a close with the release of The Thin Red Line in late 1998. Terrence Malick, the cryptic recluse who withdrew from Hollywood visibility after the release of his visually enthralling masterpiece Days of Heaven (1978), returned to the director's chair after a 20-year coffee break. Malick's comeback vehicle is a fascinating choice: a wide-ranging adaptation of a World War II novel (filmed once before, in 1964) by James Jones. The battle for Guadalcanal Island gives Malick an opportunity to explore nothing less than the nature of life, death, God, and courage. Let that be a warning to anyone expecting a conventional war flick; Malick proves himself quite capable of mounting an exciting action sequence, but he's just as likely to meander into pure philosophical noodling--or simply let the camera contemplate the first steps of a newly birthed tropical bird, the sinister skulk of a crocodile. This is not especially an actors' movie--some faces go by so quickly they barely register--but the standouts are bold: Nick Nolte as a career-minded colonel, Elias Koteas as a deeply spiritual captain who tries to protect his men, Ben Chaplin as a G.I. haunted by lyrical memories of his wife. The backbone of the film is the ongoing discussion between a wry sergeant (Sean Penn) and an ethereal, almost holy private (newcomer Jim Caviezel). The picture's sprawl may be a result of Malick's method of "finding" a film during shooting and editing, and in some ways The Thin Red Line seems vaguely, intriguingly incomplete. Yet it casts a spell like almost nothing else of its time, and Malick's visionary images are a challenge and a signpost to the rest of his filmmaking generation. --Robert Horton
Amazon.com
This serious-minded but flawed effort at bringing James Jones's later World War II novel to the screen might have languished in film vaults had reclusive director Terence Malick not resurfaced with a newer version, the likely spur to this video release. This first attempt, lensed in 1964, offers glimpses of what may have attracted Malick to the project. Jones's story focuses on two American soldiers during the Guadalcanal campaign, the newlywed draftee Private Doll (Keir Dullea) and Sergeant Welch (Jack Warden), the hardened veteran. Doll is determined to survive whatever the cost, disobeying orders if it will improve his chances; Welch is dutiful yet calculating, resorting to deliberate acts of madness to toughen up his troops by showing them war's own absurdity by example. The clash between the private and the sergeant thus becomes the core to the film, focusing on the "thin red line" between sanity and insanity and depicting how that line blurs for both protagonists. As directed by veteran Andrew Marton (55 Days in Peking), the film is at its best during sweeping battle sequences capturing the gritty horror of hand-to-hand combat, as the Americans try to take an impregnable wall of caves held by the Japanese enemy. Less successful are portentous scenes and dialogue that underscore this evident parable with a heavy hand; there's a self-conscious art film spin that misfires.The original black-and-white Cinemascope negative shows wear and tear, and early copies betray serious problems in their optical transfers. --Sam Sutherland
Description
A powerful frontline cast - including Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, Woody Harrelson and George Clooney - explodes into action in this hauntingly realistic view of military and moral chaos in the Pacific during World War II.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 932 more reviews...
 my favorite movie June 28, 2009
Computer Man
I've seen about as many movies as an average American and this one has topped my list ever since I saw it in the theater about 10 years ago. I've seen it about four times.
It's a shame that 90 zillion one-star ratings have been entered for this king of movies by what appears to be a single person.
This movie does risk pretention, romanticism, and over-lushness. Obviously, since I think it's the greatest movie ever made, I don't think those things ruined it at all, but perhaps some people might find it "a bit much" for those reasons. Which is fine with me. But it truly is 180 degrees away from some infantile art movie; it's an absolutely stunning work of art. I'm an intellectual type frankly, but I don't consider myself a sucker for every arty piece of schlock that comes down the pipe, nor do I have some idiotic reflex against anything fun or traditional. Several of the widely hailed european "masterpeices" by Goddard, Truffaut, Fellini, Tarkovsky... were either totally mediocre to me, or quite often, really just sucked like hell IMO, and I have often walked out or turned them off after 30 minutes. If you've loved "Pi," early Tarantino, and "Blue Velvet," but hated Aronofsky's later movies, "Kill Bill," and "Mulholland Drive," then my views are probably something like yours.
"This great evil . . . Where does it come from . . . How'd it steal into the world . . ." June 25, 2009
Eric S. Kim (Southern California)
Back in the late 90's, I prefered Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" over Malick's "The Thin Red Line." I think it was mostly because of the action sequences, and the characters (though stereotypical as they were). But now, as I rewatched "The Thin Red Line," I find it even superior to "Saving Private Ryan."
TTRL isn't really a war film. It's actually a philosophical film that uses war as its topic. The American soldiers of WWII have landed on the island of Gauadalcanal, and it is their duty to overtake an airfield. As the men are on the island, they find themselves in the middle of unbelievable chaos. The things that these soldiers go through are things that are discovered in the dark side of human nature. Death, destruction, sacrifice, fear, and the crisis of faith are what these men go through.
Sean Penn and Jim Caviezel were extravagant in this film. Both of their characters have different views of life and death, but both come to fully understand mortality and death (though not how they expected it to be) near the end of the film. The numerous sub-plots may be a quite confusing to some, but I came to fully understand them after repeated viewings. Nick Nolte's story is especially astonishing and heartbreaking, as he (as Lieutenant Colonel Tall) cherishes his decorations and his strive for another promotion more than the men that he commands. Private Bell's (Ben Chaplin) motivation for survival is his memories of his wife back home. That's something almost every married soldier goes through. Captain Staros (Elias Koteas) fears for the lives of his own men, and as he argues with Tall over a flanking move, we see that he can never fully see sacrifice as a way to achieve a goal. These and many other sub-plots don't seem to have a conclusion, but they seem to be open for viewer interpretation.
As I have said before, this isn't really a war film. Sure, there are battle sequences, but that's only part of the point. Terrence Malick makes us think by showing us images of the beauty of nature, and the hellish nightmare that is war. The contrast between Mother Nature and Human Nature is what drives this film, and it's captured rather perfectly. The stunning cinematography by John Toll, the ethereal music score by Hans Zimmer, and the nearly flawless editing by Leslie Jones, Saar Klein, and Billy Weber make this film a definite classic. Too bad that SPR (although another great film) took away some of its box office and oscar potential. If this film was made and released a few years before or after the released of SPR, then TTRL would have been bigger than it is now.
According to The Internet Movie Database, this film was originally six hours long! But Malick cut it down to about two and 3/4 hours. Now I'm hoping to see a brand new DVD edition which features the original six-hour cut. And not only that, but a load of special features (like audio commentaries and behind-the-scene featurettes) as well. We can only hope for now though . . .
Grade: A
 The Ambiguous Review June 12, 2009
Grant Waara (Lusk, Wyoming, United States)
I've read James Jones' source novel, and, being a devout admirer of Mr. Jones' work, I can say that Mr. Malick's version utterly failed in capturing Jones' hardcore realism. James Jones was most certainly NOT zen-like or poetic in his narrative. Make no mistake, "The Thin Red Line" is a love story. It's the love men have for their comrades in arms in the most appalling of circumstances. Readers need to remember that the main character of the novel is "C for Charlie" company.
As for the film, it's amazingly inconsistent. The camera work is terrific. And Malick can handle an action sequence with relative ease. But making Witt a deserter was flat out wrong, I felt. Witt was a reluctant transferee from "C for Charlie" to Cannon Company. Malick's making him a deserter was againt the character's basic ethic. He was a thirty year man and was passionately devoted to his old outfit. Indeed he was so devoted, he deserted his new outfit in order to march with his old buddies.
The performances are good (especially Nick Nolte as the overly ambitious Col. Tall). However, seeing the company land and make their way to the enemy positions simply didn't happen in the book. What Jones did was pass "C for Charlie" up the line like something on a production line before the slaughter.
I certainly can't deny that much went into this production. I just wish the script had reflected more of the source novel. It might be visual poetry, but when someone's trying to kill you in any way possible, zen-like thoughts and ideas of poetry go right out the window.
So in the end, Malick follows Jones' vision closely in some aspects and then goes off into weird tangents in others. I thought "Saving Private Ryan" was superior in terms of focus. "The Thin Red Line," however, is also more unsettling. You left the theater after seeing "Ryan" in tears, feeling somewhat exhausted, but ultimately triumphant. I left the theater after seeing "The Thin Red Line," not sure of just what I saw. It stuck in my craw that way. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps that's what Malick had in mind. Sometimes experiences in war aren't so black and white. High ambiguity over the experience is what he was aiming for; pride in having served with good men, but rage at having seen them sacrifice their lives in what could be observed as folly.
If ambiguity is what Malick was aiming for, then he accomplished his mission.
 easily the worst movie ever May 31, 2009
W. F. Sijtsma
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
I expected a movie along the lines of private ryan but then in the pacific theater. If you expect that don't buy it.
This is easily the worst movie I ever saw. The storyline jumps up and down and it is impossible to capture what he is trying to state. This all is mixed with a lot of mumbo jumbo supposed to be poetry.
There is something good about the movie as well however. Awesome shots of nature and a very clear depiction of what men in combat go trough psychologically. Further there are nice examples of equipment used in WW2 including Japanese stuff.
I guess this is a nice example of taking creativity to far.
If the movie would have been a bit more down to earth it might have been a nice b movie. Now it is nothing.
It Gets Better....Much Better May 29, 2009
Craig Connell (Lockport, NY USA)
This film came out the same year as "Saving Private Ryan" - two blockbuster 3-hour World War II movies - but was nowhere the same success at the box office. Up until lately, I agreed with most other people that Steven Spielberg's film was more more appealing than this Terrence Malick movie....but now I am not so sure. I find both of them fascinating.
It took me a long time to come around to liking this film. Unlike filmmaker Terrence Malick's previous efforts, this film had a character spewing "G-damns" that rattled off like a machine gun. That, and narration that sounded like some stoned-out New Age-guru or some '60s freak, , turned me and millions of other viewers off, most of whom could make no sense of the almost incoherent ramblings.
Well, that narration, as I have since discovered - especially by putting the English subtitles on - is not what I thought and I just hit the "mute" when Nolte starts another of his obscene tirades. Now, the film is what I'd hoped it would be! It only took four viewings for me to fully appreciate it!
The narration, to the best of my assumptions, is simply the anguish several of the soldiers feel as - in the middle of a horrific war - they try to make sense of life, death, suffering, war and spiritual matters in general. They agonize over loneliness of being separated from their wives and family, or they compare two extremes in civilizations as they now exist in one that is far removed in one they came from. Spiritual matters are discussed by Believers and non- believers, optimists and cynics. Seeing the narration on screen in the form of subtitles helped make me appreciate and make sense out of them. It's pretty heady stuff, as it turns out. Some may still think it's pure nonsense, but I'm willing to give Malick the benefit of the doubt.
Meanwhile, the action scenes are excellent. In "Ryan," they centered more in bombed-out cities, but here the fighting takes place in a remote jungle. This really is the story of Guadalcanal. The scenery, much of it filmed in either Australia or the Solomon Islands, is just gorgeous, just the kind Malick loves. A true lover of nature, Malick gives us one spectacular scene after another with all the greens of grasses, tress and leaves you'd ever want to see, complemented by an assortment of exotic birds and reptiles. It's just stunning in parts.
If you can ever call a war movie "arty," this is it, with the great nature shots and reflective narration. They both provide needed relief from the intense action/profanity/suspense which occurs in the middle of the film as the Americans attempt to secure the top of a hill fortified by Japanese troops. The action scenes are realistic, have wonderful sound and well-filmed. The soundtrack also is very nice. This movie just cries out for a beautiful Blu-Ray transfer.
Actor-wise, what's interesting is that a number of these "stars" in here were relative unknowns when this came out in 1998 - men such as Jim Caveziel, Adrien Body, Ben Chaplin and Elias Koteas - and now they are established actors whom most of us are familiar with. Despite the other big names you see advertised here, the stars of this film are Caveziel, Koteas, Nolte and Sean Penn. Many of the "names," such as John Travolta, George Clooney, John Cusack, etc., have only very minor or cameo roles.
Anyway, if this movie turned you off when you first saw it, consider giving it another shot. You might be pleasant surprised. It's better than what first meets the eye!
|
|
|
