i'm more than happy to take this to higher and higher levels of debate. i just whipped this up, its not my best retort but until i get the chance to watch the film yet another time (for specifics), i'll just give you this:
first off, you need to learn how to build a strong argument. you’ve made some very surface level criticisms of the movie and you haven’t provided any (legitimate) support to these criticisms. if you see the script as overplayed and over dramatic you need to provide examples, because frankly I need to know what you’re referring to exactly. the narrative comes across as detached and somewhat ethereal, but in war these are the thoughts of the men fighting. it works very well to question not just war, but what exactly mankind is doing with itself, what exactly it says about manking when it goes to war. "this great evil? where's it come from? how'd it steal into the world? what seed, what root did it come from? who's doin this? Who's killin us? robbing us of life and light. mocking us with the sight of what we might have known." it’s a commentary that brings a mental solidarity to the psychological mess that is presented in the film.
as for the battle sequences, the battle to take the hill is one of the best I’ve ever seen. its very simple, however, the fact that the viewer can’t see any signs of the Japanese stronghold for much of that scene works very effectively in building anxiety and suspense. congruent as usual the camera work used for this sequence (following the men through the tall grass), is extremely well done.
as for not having anything that you can rewind and watch in slow motion? it has some of the most beautiful cinematography ever produced! terrence malicks films are known for their visual beauty and dynamic profundity. the cinematography again reflects the concept of man vs. man in nature. shots of the indigenous people, the plants, the physical features of the land and the animals are all used to convey the idea that all these things are in observation of the self destruction and pointlessness of war. however at the same time, the aspects of nature aren’t entirely in contrast. these aspects reflect the fact that war is natural, and while malick has openly produced an anti war film, he never suggests that human beings are above the outcome of war – because with characters like nick nolte, he surely shows that some of mankind is predisposed.
I think the problem is that you haven’t begun to realize many of the aspects of the film that make it great. from what you’ve said, I can’t help but assume that you haven’t taken the time or the effort to consider its aspects and truly analyze it. this so called “ho ho ha� whatever music that you condemn, I think you’ve missed the fact that its relevant because of terrence malicks reoccurring interests (in all of his films) in placing man vs. man conflict/struggle in nature. the cultural songs of that island culture work very well to contrast with descending grasp of war.
furthermore I think it makes sense to assume that you’re looking for images of bravado and valor, heroic defeats of non allied forces. this movie builds well on the aspect of fear and the unhappiness of the soldiers, while other war films produce images of ridiculously “conditioned� and “fearless� soldiers. war is a horrible and absolutely terrifying thing to be involved in. the thin red line exposes the insanity of war. war is a gauntlet that wreaks havoc on the mental stability of a soldier, personally, I see it as very irresponsible of other films to ignore and disregard this aspect. war is more than jingoistic wrath, you cannot ignore the individual experience. you’re looking for battles and skirmishes, things blowing up and people dying. and when you think about it, war isn’t only about that, in the book that the movie is based off of, the author focuses a lot of the experiences on the things that occur between battles – the life and experiences of the soldiers. malick has a tendency (as more good filmmakers should do), to build an atmosphere/environement by showing a lot of images of things that might not immediately and outwardly appear to be conduscive towards plot development. A lot of people when watching a film tend to ignore atmosphere, malick shows you what its like to be in the movie, living with the people, doing the things that they do – and this is constant in all of his movies. at the same time, this should make you realize that war isn’t only about combat, where many crappy war movies focus on the battles and ignore the aspects of real life of soldiers and specifically their emotions and thoughts that occur as a result. the thin red line makes the audience realize that the life of a soldier is more than firing guns and blowing things up. he displays the things that consume the soldiers, apathy, terror, machismo, ambivalence, guilty, homesickness, etc.
malicks films are strongly praised for many reasons. I suggest that you learn something about filmmaking before you so quickly condemn such a mindblowingly incredible piece of art/commentary/history/experience/poetry/narration.
jackson sucks. tell your friends.
15 years old... you cant even take the girl anywhere... you have to get laid in the back of your... bicycle? or bring your parents along... or get a ride... hey mommy, i need a ride over to my bitch's house so
