Watch The Thin Red Line For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Pretty Good

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

British actor Terence Hardiman, who played an abbot in the excellent series "Cadfael" and a Luftwaffe major in another excellent British TV series "Secret Army" had a tiny bit role in the movie. He appears as a survivor in the aftermath of a vicious firefight with Japanese troops, grouped around the colonel who hastily arrived at the sight to inspect the conditions of his men. I suppose he was just a nobody at that time.This is a highly recommended black and white film for war movie buffs. Very rarely aired on TV.

Detailing the battle on the South Pacific Island of Guadalcanal in 1943 and the Americans' final success over the Japanese, this is a most poignant and underestimated war film. Seen through the narrator, one of the American soldiers, the film's strength lies in its depiction of the harshness, misery, madness, and yet also the depth of humanity, on both sides. There are no winners here. Superb acting all round from the plethora of well-know actors, this extraordinary film leaves you pondering about life long after the credits have rolled on by. It reminds me how fortunate I am not to have been forced to be a soldier as I could not do what so many have been, are still in parts of the world, made to do on behalf of their governments, or renegade armies. May we be forgiven for all the suffering humankind has meted out on other fellow human beings.

Like some other commenters, I saw the 1998 version before seeing this version. I had expected a somewhat jingoistic war film, but was surprised that this turned out to be superior to the 1998 remake in every way but one. Of course the one aspect that was lesser was the depiction of graphic violence, and that was only due to the changing times and audience, and modern film effects that can show things more realistically in graphic fashion. However, I do not consider this a positive, but only stating that the technical ability to show graphic violence has improved. I would say that the story in this one is more engaging, more concise and without losing the effect of alienation that both try to convey, and in fact that effect is much more visible here in this depiction. I found the acting to be solid and less melodramatic than the 1998 version, and the soldiers actions all ring true to what would have been going on in WW II at Guadacanal, without hystrionics. It's quite interesting that this version, coming right before the Vietnam era would be cynical about war but also considerably mindful of the necessity of the particular war it depicts and of the need for the soldiers to do as they did. Whereas the post-Vietnam 1998 version is also cynical, yet much more so, showing the military as a bumbling bureaucracy of sorts and attempting to depict the battle as pointless, extending that depiction to the war in general, and it actually is an unstated allegory about Vietnam. I would say that the 1998 film boasts a production group fairly unaware of the overall reality of WW II, and still stuck in the miasma of Vietnam.

I will write another comment after seeing the more recent version of this movie, but it seems it will be hard to beat. The film doesn't seem to follow the book all that well, but is an excellent movie. It is well directed, and very well acted, and yes younger people, black and white is a valid medium. I imagine Malick will use lots of special effects, but I'll reserve judgment until I see it.