Great warmovie!

[rlc27]

I liked 'Thin Red Line,' too, though I agree that it significantly altered much of the book. In the movie, Some of the characters went by the same name, others different, and others were composites, and some of the same episodes were repeated, while many important ones were lef out.

But the movie had that whole transcedental/Buddhist theme running through it--manifested mostly in that dreamy dude whose name I can't remember--that I thought gave it greater depth than the book. He was *NOTHING* like the central character in the book, in fact he was just sort of a washout, alpha male pugilistic sort of guy.

My feeling was that the movie wasn't really about war at all--but about human culture and the nature & meaning of life.

The book was good too, though--but to me it seemed like somewhat more standard fare. Lots of battles and tactics, promotions and courage under fire. The author took part in the Guadalcanal actions and based his book on his experiences. In some ways it reminded me more of some of the soldier-written books about the war in Vietnam than a typical WWII book. Some very eccentric and memorable characters--Sean Penn's sergeant didn't do justice to the weirdness of the guy in the book by the same name. And the relationship between (was it Bell?) and his wife was much more complex in the original.

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:
You must have seen a different "Thin Red Line" than me then I guess.

The film sucked. Spotty sporadic and poorly executed. Not up to the calibre of the book by any stretch of the imaginaton.

To call it superior is excessive. It was at best a film you watch at home. Certainly not worthy of theatre expenses.

Almost made me think Vonnegut (spelling approx. he did Slaughter House) was in some way connected. Film wandered and had pointless bursts of battle.

---

Agree. I dozed off several times at the theatre while watching it, and I wasn't even tired. It's got very nice photos, settings and stuff. Otherwise I got lost. Only interesting part was the scaling of that hill with the MG bunker (nice arty, although I've never before seen such a well executed T-O-T. *BAM* <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> )

[asgrrr]

Two movies mentioned here I think sucked, though not terribly hard.
The Thin Red Line was far too corny, those naively introspective chapters totally ruined what could have been a very passable movie.
Stalingrad was not Stalingrad, more like a boy scout camping trip that ran out of hot dogs. Enemy at the gates came closer, though some more proper battle scenes could have been substituted for all that romantic crap.

[Frank W.]

Originally posted by kendokabob:

My feeling was that the movie wasn't really about war at all--but about human culture and the nature & meaning of life.

.

---

you got it.

it´s not a standard war movie (see all the nature scenes,in contrast to the horrible war for e.). i think that´s why some ppl. have probs with that film. i like most of the actors and thier thoughts,too. the german voices were good,too. i noticed, that the german voices are mostly better in much movies as much of the original ones...

i think in case of combat scenes it could improve (as stalingrad or enemy at the gates,too) but as a movie with thoughts behind it, it stands for itself...

[Frank W.]

Originally posted by Penetrator:
though some more proper battle scenes could have been substituted for all that romantic crap.

---

yup.

suxx. but such scenes are cheaper to produce than cool combat scenes...and...the average viewer likes such romantic crap,i think. i don´t.