• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

zeke said:
Thin Red Line is pretty great. It's clearly trying to be more surreal than real like Saving Private Ryan, but even then its war scenes are pretty great and real anyways. As for what soldiers are like i'm sure there were plenty of philosophical soldiers, especially in the wars that kids were drafted into...not that it matters, as the philosophical issues at play were very real regardless of whether soldiers would actually talk about them.

Much much better than Days of Heaven, though Days is also gorgeous to look at.

And no offense Jacko but you've overreacted to your experiences with film school dorks and really embraced some pretty schlocky stuff just for the sake of not liking any hint of non-narrative structure.
Click to expand...
In The Thin Red Line, Malick achieved the near-impossible: he made a movie about one of the bloodiest battles of World War II boring. That's hard to do, even by accident. I cannot recall a war movie I ever went to a cinema to watch where I had to fight the urge to nod off. What a steaming pile of self-indulgent shit that film is. All these pointless A list cameos just so people would look and say "Hey! That's George Clooney!"

And Clooney's cameo is a perfect example of Malick taking the piss. What was the purpose of Clooney's character? None. He plays a platoon leader who addresses a group of soldiers prior to their deployment in the field. The stuff he says does nothing to advance the plot, it's simple, generic war movie boilerplate dialogue that could have been delivered by anyone. In fact, the whole scene could have been cut from the film and it wouldn't have mattered one iota. And the ultimate sign of its uselessness is the fact that for the entire time that Clooney is speaking, he is muted so that we can hear yet another nonsensical existential musing from the Jim Caviezel character.

At the end of that film I not only felt like taking a nap I felt offended as a viewer and paying customer by the director. What a self-important little shit he is. Fuck Terrence Malick. His films are deliberately tedious.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
In The Thin Red Line, Malick achieved the near-impossible: he made a movie about one of the bloodiest battles of World War II boring. That's hard to do, even by accident. I cannot recall a war movie I ever went to a cinema to watch where I had to fight the urge to nod off. What a steaming pile of self-indulgent shit that film is. All these pointless A list cameos just so people would look and say "Hey! That's George Clooney!"

And Clooney's cameo is a perfect example of Malick taking the piss. What was the purpose of Clooney's character? None. He plays a platoon leader who addresses a group of soldiers prior to their deployment in the field. The stuff he says does nothing to advance the plot, it's simple, generic war movie boilerplate dialogue that could have been delivered by anyone. In fact, the whole scene could have been cut from the film and it wouldn't have mattered one iota. And the ultimate sign of its uselessness is the fact that for the entire time that Clooney is speaking, he is muted so that we can hear yet another nonsensical existential musing from the Jim Caviezel character.

At the end of that film I not only felt like taking a nap I felt offended as a viewer and paying customer by the director. What a self-important little shit he is. Fuck Terrence Malick. His films are deliberately tedious.
Click to expand...

Most war movies are epically boring thanks to them just re-hashing battle scenes.

sure, superfluous Cameos can be distracting. Then again, the acting in the movie is pretty terrific, especially by Penn, Harrelson, Nolte, and Koteas. Unfortunately the weakest link acting wise was the lead Cavaziel, and that really hurt the movie's ability to stay centered.

The battle scenes were fantastic, and of course the cinematography and music were elite.

The Thin Red Line is based on a novel written by an actual soldier which was every bit as philosophical as the movie:

""When compared to the fact that he might very well be dead by this time tomorrow, whether he was courageous or not today was pointless, empty. When compared to the fact that he might be dead tomorrow, everything was pointless. Life was pointless. Whether he looked at a tree or not was pointless. It just didn't make any difference. It was pointless to the tree, it was pointless to every man in his outfit, pointless to everybody in the whole world. Who cared? It was not pointless only to him; and when he was dead, when he ceased to exist, it would be pointless to him too. More important: Not only would it be pointless, it would have been pointless, all along."

so you can take up his personal experience of war and what were the important things to discuss about it with him.

Of course you play a character on here, so i'll just assume you actually claiming to believe that war movies should be nothing more than battle re-enactments is a bit. Just like you not understanding that Clooney being talked over is symbolizing the meaningless of what he's saying must also be a bit.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
In The Thin Red Line, Malick achieved the near-impossible: he made a movie about one of the bloodiest battles of World War II boring. That's hard to do, even by accident. I cannot recall a war movie I ever went to a cinema to watch where I had to fight the urge to nod off. What a steaming pile of self-indulgent shit that film is. All these pointless A list cameos just so people would look and say "Hey! That's George Clooney!"

And Clooney's cameo is a perfect example of Malick taking the piss. What was the purpose of Clooney's character? None. He plays a platoon leader who addresses a group of soldiers prior to their deployment in the field. The stuff he says does nothing to advance the plot, it's simple, generic war movie boilerplate dialogue that could have been delivered by anyone. In fact, the whole scene could have been cut from the film and it wouldn't have mattered one iota. And the ultimate sign of its uselessness is the fact that for the entire time that Clooney is speaking, he is muted so that we can hear yet another nonsensical existential musing from the Jim Caviezel character.

At the end of that film I not only felt like taking a nap I felt offended as a viewer and paying customer by the director. What a self-important little shit he is. Fuck Terrence Malick. His films are deliberately tedious.
Click to expand...
I had a similar complaint about all the cameos in Oppenheimer. it just leads to distraction. TTRL had that going for it as well.
 
I mean it's right in the title: "The Thin Red Line'. What do you think that Line is between, and how do you demonstrate that Line in film?
 
That soldier’s VO in TRL was cringe to the verge of parody

Film would have truly been great if it was a produced a few years after the book was published and hundreds of other movies exploring the brutality/senselessness of war hadn’t been made during the interim.

Historical dramas don’t exist in a vacuum and it was ridiculous for Malik to assume most of us had never seen a war film before he decided to tackle the subject
 
CH1 said:
That soldier’s VO in TRL was cringe to the verge of parody
Click to expand...

Billy Bob Thornton recorded over three hours of voice over for it, none of which was used....Adrian Brody thought he was the protagonist of the film only to discover his part had been cut down to 5 minutes, when he arrived at the premier. Micky Rourke, Bill Pullman and Lucas Haas all filmed significant roles, but were cut out entirely. Clooney and Travolta also filmed significant amounts, but were cut down to the aforementioned cameo's.
 
Personally I think the voiceover was great as far as voiceovers go. And I'm not sure any war movie has done as good a job dwarfing the meaningless of war in the natural world around it.

not to mention that given that it was filmed just after the US had decided to get back into the foreign war business for real, the timeliness seems appropriate.
 
Now Platoon, there's a war movie that doesn't hold up. Even though i like Stone quite a bit, for similar reasons as i like Malick. Stone wasn't Stone enough with Platoon i think.
 
and let's be honest about Saving Private Ryan - a truly epically amazing first half hour introduction, followed by an only decent by the numbers war movie.
 
zeke said:
Tbh i couldnt even come up with a best picture list from last year. Not sure there was even one truly excellent movie. Probably should have been a year to nominate more obscure ones that i havent seen - there had to be some good ones somewhwre.
Click to expand...
Lots of posts I need to reply to, but quick one for now. I don’t understand how The Son didn’t rack up a stack of awards. Super simple, straightforward story, but superbly acted and written and hit every right note. Made like five cents at the box office and won nothing.

Hugh Jackman has been in some of my all time favorites. The Prestige, Prisoners, The Son, and I’m forgetting one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top