Terribly Flawed Movie
Added 9/24/2009
I can overlook the filmmaker's desire to make an antiwar movie and incorporate some vague Eastern, Buddhist message of nonviolence, but I cannot allow, without censure, the failure to provide proper historical context, the absence of which serves to demean and disparage American soldiers fighting under immense pressure and unbearable conditions against an implacable, cruel, and barbaric Japanese enemy. This film depicts American soldiers bayonetting Japanese soldiers who had surrendered and callously killing Japanese soldiers who posed no threat to them. Although there were certainly instances of this conduct, where is the proper context and history to explain WHY American soldiers reacted to this enemy in this manner?
On Guadalcanal, Marines were killed and mutilated by the enemy--ears cut off, genitals cut off, etc. When corpsmen attempted to help wounded Japanese on the battlefield in the 1942, other nearby wounded Japanese soldiers, pretending to to be dead, shot these Americans trying to save the lives of their own fellow Japanese soldiers. The Japanese launched human wave banzai attacks, willing to sacrifice hundreds of their own men to kill but a few Americans. Review the Battle of the Tenaru for examples of Japanese fanaticism on Guadalcanal (about 800 dead Japanese to kill less than 40 dead Marines). The Japanese almost always refused to surrender, and employed ruses to make Americans believe they were surrendering, only to then ambush them when the American soldiers' guard was down. They granted absolutely no quarter to Americans captured--they killed all prisoners on Guadalcanal, usually in an horrific manner employing inhumane torture. Why should Americans have fought any differently than they way they did in response? And since over 90% of the Japanese never surrendered and fought to the death, how would you have reacted to this enemy?
I invite the reader to examine Winston Groom's "1942" and Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking" to understand the unparalleled brutal, bestial, and absolute evil military culture practiced by the Japanese during WWII. Captured American soldiers on the Bataan Death March, who suffered from dysentery, were given a choice if they stopped to relieve themselves: eat their own feces or be bayonetted or shot. More than a few complied and ate their feces, only to be shot anyway. Japanese soldiers practiced cannibalism on American prisoners, cutting them open while alive and removing their liver to be eaten with sake. They routinely beheaded POWs with their swords and routinely bayonetted soldiers in hospitals recovering from wounds and illness. If you can bear it, read about Japanese atrocities in Nanking, Singapore and Manila (contests to see who could cut off the most heads, gouging of infants' eyeballs, burying people alive, burning people alive, and torture beyond anything depicted in Dante's Inferno). And all I have related herein is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
So if a filmmaker wishes to depict American war crimes, first provide the context for those crimes and explain why American soldiers were at risk accepting the surrender of any Japanese soldier, few though they were. This film fails miserably in providing that context and for that reason alone is severely flawed.
4 out of 5 people found this helpful.
|
A Disappointment Despite the Hype
Added 9/15/2009
To be charitable, this is a mixed bag. Boasting some nice cinematography and fine acting, there was no reason this couldn't have been a better movie than it was.
Think about it. Early in the movie we are treated to multiple characters, Army officers and soldiers mulling over their imminent landing on the crucible of Guadalcanal. We become aware that combat is intense. And we learn that the Marines have already secured the beaches and are *advancing.* This is a remarkable and heartening change after the devastating blows of Pearl Harbor, the fall of the Philippines, Guam and Wake Islands and a number of very costly sea battles. The tide is beginning to turn! Yet as we are introduced to senior officers, we learn that the first clear indication of a major character's motivation less than 12 months after seeing the US Fleet on the bottom of Pearl Harbor is not what you might expect. It is not protecting our country. It is not doing his duty. It is not even vengeance against those who are rampaging across China, Indochina and the Philippines and the Western Pacific. It's professional advancement.
Men awaiting an uncontested landing from their Liberty Ship agonize over their fears -- and little else. I believe if our troops in the REAL war had thought like these characters prior to battle, the War would have ended far differently. But it didn't, did it?
Even the Japanese enemy is portrayed in ways that are clearly at variance with history. There are two kinds of Japanese in this movie. The first is a close relative to the Predator. Invisible. All-seeing. Remorseless. Omnipotent. And yet, when the tide of the battle in the jungle suddenly turns for reasons unknown and US troops suddenly advance into an enemy camp (just trotting in) their erstwhile enemies are caught undressed and utterly unprepared, without an ounce of fight in them. They seem absolutely eager to surrender. In the World War II that my father fought in, Japanese soldiers were quite capable and very brave, often to the point of fanaticism. Few were captured, many were killed because to surrender was a sign of dishonor. Who but modern Hollywood would embark on an "epic" (not MY word) look at WWII in the South Pacific with an obvious (and willful?) lack of understanding of the code of Bushido?
One modestly realistic and compelling theme is the conflict a junior officer experiences in attempting to reconcile his desire to protect his men from useless sacrifice and his imperative to follow orders. It is handled well.
Half a century later it's not out of line to revisit WWII with less of the patriotic fervor that often infused the movies of that era. But when the New Left climbs into the Director's Chair, hang onto your hats. You'll get a process that can drain even "the Good War" of meaning, of virtue and of historical accuracy. Two stars -- at best.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A very moving film
Added 8/24/2009
I definitely liked this movie a lot, probably more so than Saving Private Ryan. Both films depict the horrors of war, and although SPR is infinitely more graphical about it, I felt that somehow The Thin Red Line drove the point home better than than SPR. The movie is not perfect ... at some points I wished it had been a bit less poignant ... I really thought that sometimes it just tried a bit too hard.
Also, the few battle scenes that are in the film are not very realistic, I think. But don't that let that put you off an otherwise excellent movie with many beautiful pictures, flawless acting and not least a superb soundtrack. When you've sat through the whole movie and see the credits roll, you will KNOW that your time was not wasted.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Revisionist At Its Weakest
Added 7/12/2009
I had an art teacher once who taught a revealing parable about art specifically, and life in general. It goes like this:
When explaining the crimson stroke of an accepted genius - he described the angst, the anger, the pain of the artist; the revel that's born of a brilliant spite. When a member of the audience asked how he knew all this - the teacher explained that a lifetime of study and understanding art gave him the ability truly see the work for what it was.
The person laughed and stood up. It was the artist. Before walking out he said he liked the color red.
This film is the product of a lifetime of 'study & understanding' by the sideliners/observers with a heavy dose of anti-American guilt. While the quality of the filmmaking is extraordinarily high, the storytelling is laughable. More a product of pacifist revision rather than a story of the men who fought that horrific battle of 1942-43.
Another example of a comic book, aka 'graphic novel', gone awry in the real world.
That the cast is made up of a Hollywood Who's Who among anti-war activists should've been my warning of what was to come. I'm genuinely surprised that Tim Robbins wasn't in the production.
Not to fault the left. A good anti-war film can be done and done extremely well. Even received by the right. Kirk Douglas/Stanley Kubrick's brilliant film 'Paths Of Glory' is a prime example of the insanity of combat. Respected by all as a testament to taking every approach and trying every avenue before committing the lives of the valiant to suffering and even death.
I wish Director Malick had taken the Apocalypse Now approach and given us a focus - one character whom we, the audience, could view the lens of doubt and failing faith. This film fails on its own merits and its sincere, but ridiculously holier-than-thou sermon.
3 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
my favorite movie
Added 6/28/2009
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.
1 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
Terribly Flawed Movie
Added 9/24/2009
I can overlook the filmmaker's desire to make an antiwar movie and incorporate some vague Eastern, Buddhist message of nonviolence, but I cannot allow, without censure, the failure to provide proper historical context, the absence of which serves to demean and disparage American soldiers fighting under immense pressure and unbearable conditions against an implacable, cruel, and barbaric Japanese enemy. This film depicts American soldiers bayonetting Japanese soldiers who had surrendered and callously killing Japanese soldiers who posed no threat to them. Although there were certainly instances of this conduct, where is the proper context and history to explain WHY American soldiers reacted to this enemy in this manner?
On Guadalcanal, Marines were killed and mutilated by the enemy--ears cut off, genitals cut off, etc. When corpsmen attempted to help wounded Japanese on the battlefield in the 1942, other nearby wounded Japanese soldiers, pretending to to be dead, shot these Americans trying to save the lives of their own fellow Japanese soldiers. The Japanese launched human wave banzai attacks, willing to sacrifice hundreds of their own men to kill but a few Americans. Review the Battle of the Tenaru for examples of Japanese fanaticism on Guadalcanal (about 800 dead Japanese to kill less than 40 dead Marines). The Japanese almost always refused to surrender, and employed ruses to make Americans believe they were surrendering, only to then ambush them when the American soldiers' guard was down. They granted absolutely no quarter to Americans captured--they killed all prisoners on Guadalcanal, usually in an horrific manner employing inhumane torture. Why should Americans have fought any differently than they way they did in response? And since over 90% of the Japanese never surrendered and fought to the death, how would you have reacted to this enemy?
I invite the reader to examine Winston Groom's "1942" and Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking" to understand the unparalleled brutal, bestial, and absolute evil military culture practiced by the Japanese during WWII. Captured American soldiers on the Bataan Death March, who suffered from dysentery, were given a choice if they stopped to relieve themselves: eat their own feces or be bayonetted or shot. More than a few complied and ate their feces, only to be shot anyway. Japanese soldiers practiced cannibalism on American prisoners, cutting them open while alive and removing their liver to be eaten with sake. They routinely beheaded POWs with their swords and routinely bayonetted soldiers in hospitals recovering from wounds and illness. If you can bear it, read about Japanese atrocities in Nanking, Singapore and Manila (contests to see who could cut off the most heads, gouging of infants' eyeballs, burying people alive, burning people alive, and torture beyond anything depicted in Dante's Inferno). And all I have related herein is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
So if a filmmaker wishes to depict American war crimes, first provide the context for those crimes and explain why American soldiers were at risk accepting the surrender of any Japanese soldier, few though they were. This film fails miserably in providing that context and for that reason alone is severely flawed.
4 out of 5 people found this helpful.
|
A Disappointment Despite the Hype
Added 9/15/2009
To be charitable, this is a mixed bag. Boasting some nice cinematography and fine acting, there was no reason this couldn't have been a better movie than it was.
Think about it. Early in the movie we are treated to multiple characters, Army officers and soldiers mulling over their imminent landing on the crucible of Guadalcanal. We become aware that combat is intense. And we learn that the Marines have already secured the beaches and are *advancing.* This is a remarkable and heartening change after the devastating blows of Pearl Harbor, the fall of the Philippines, Guam and Wake Islands and a number of very costly sea battles. The tide is beginning to turn! Yet as we are introduced to senior officers, we learn that the first clear indication of a major character's motivation less than 12 months after seeing the US Fleet on the bottom of Pearl Harbor is not what you might expect. It is not protecting our country. It is not doing his duty. It is not even vengeance against those who are rampaging across China, Indochina and the Philippines and the Western Pacific. It's professional advancement.
Men awaiting an uncontested landing from their Liberty Ship agonize over their fears -- and little else. I believe if our troops in the REAL war had thought like these characters prior to battle, the War would have ended far differently. But it didn't, did it?
Even the Japanese enemy is portrayed in ways that are clearly at variance with history. There are two kinds of Japanese in this movie. The first is a close relative to the Predator. Invisible. All-seeing. Remorseless. Omnipotent. And yet, when the tide of the battle in the jungle suddenly turns for reasons unknown and US troops suddenly advance into an enemy camp (just trotting in) their erstwhile enemies are caught undressed and utterly unprepared, without an ounce of fight in them. They seem absolutely eager to surrender. In the World War II that my father fought in, Japanese soldiers were quite capable and very brave, often to the point of fanaticism. Few were captured, many were killed because to surrender was a sign of dishonor. Who but modern Hollywood would embark on an "epic" (not MY word) look at WWII in the South Pacific with an obvious (and willful?) lack of understanding of the code of Bushido?
One modestly realistic and compelling theme is the conflict a junior officer experiences in attempting to reconcile his desire to protect his men from useless sacrifice and his imperative to follow orders. It is handled well.
Half a century later it's not out of line to revisit WWII with less of the patriotic fervor that often infused the movies of that era. But when the New Left climbs into the Director's Chair, hang onto your hats. You'll get a process that can drain even "the Good War" of meaning, of virtue and of historical accuracy. Two stars -- at best.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A very moving film
Added 8/24/2009
I definitely liked this movie a lot, probably more so than Saving Private Ryan. Both films depict the horrors of war, and although SPR is infinitely more graphical about it, I felt that somehow The Thin Red Line drove the point home better than than SPR. The movie is not perfect ... at some points I wished it had been a bit less poignant ... I really thought that sometimes it just tried a bit too hard.
Also, the few battle scenes that are in the film are not very realistic, I think. But don't that let that put you off an otherwise excellent movie with many beautiful pictures, flawless acting and not least a superb soundtrack. When you've sat through the whole movie and see the credits roll, you will KNOW that your time was not wasted.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
