The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There are two reason I've opened this thread, one because I can't post the review as it gets deleted 5 minutes later and 2 as I want to see your opinions.
So here is my long and extended arguement about the topic, enjoy
Celebrated filmmaker Terrence Malick returns to filmmaking with this visually, emotionally and poetically outstanding film about the Guadalcanal conflict of World War 2.
It's with ill thought that I feel The Thin Red Line will likely be instantly stood up against Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, when, in fact, the two films, in my humble opinion, couldn't be farther apart. Where Saving Private Ryan was built for impact, it sometimes felt, with the exception of its opening sequence, a little bit Hollywood; although, of course, at such a young age, I can hardly claim to have an idea of the horror that war holds. A better way to compare the two films is the act of painting.
Where I called the overall feel of Saving Private Ryan a painting of blood, terror and horror, Malick's Line is the act of painting itself. The film is a work of art that soars above the medium of film to a level that has really never been seen in film. Where Saving Private Ryan cantered on making the characters be at the forefront of the work, The Thin Red Line takes the characters and almost paints the reality around them, brushstroke by brushstroke. Mood and environment and feeling is painted in with a careful, masterful touch.
The film centres on a company of soldiers fighting for survival in the Guadalcanal battle of World War II. The film itself attains an incredible, almost continual feel of doom; there is a terrifying feeling when the camera is in the grass, or moving through smoke, that, in essence, as a soldier says in the film, that there is no safe place. You have to keep moving because there is no place to hide. And more often than not, the enemy is just on the other side of the smoke.
I absolutely loved the visuals, the voiceovers, the nature in a Thin Red Line, because, overall, it's grandly abstract, grandly experimental, and not all the answers are laid out for the viewer.
The film itself is something that washes over you. The terrifying battle scenes are interrupted in a moment of silent thought by many of the characters; an almost trance-like stream of thought that, for one short moment, lifts them out of something that is unthinkable. There are many thoughts, words, and lines from this film that stick with the viewer. It may not be the specific characters from this film that stay with you, but there is moments, pictures, thoughts, that will leave a strong impression on any viewer. The film's mood alone is far different from Saving Private Ryan; far more somber and far more complex in emotion. What is quite responsible for this level of complexity and emotion is director Malick's screenplay, based on James Jones's novel. It may not create memorable characters like Ryan, but the fact that the film never focuses it's viewpoint on one specific character (like Saving Private Ryan which is Hanks) makes it feel all the more real.
Of course, though, there are excellent performances here. Sean Penn plays Sgt. Welsh, a cynical, numb man who prefers to look at the truth of his surroundings rather than to try and lift his spirit with the hope that Pvt. Witt tries to find in the simple, natural life of a small village, before he's whisked from that life into battle. In an Oscar-worthy supporting performance, Ben Chaplin plays Pvt. Bell, a man who keeps hope alive in the memories of the time he has spent with his wife, and the thought that he will see her again, no matter how the war ends for him. Also quite excellent is Elias Koteas, who plays a Captain who can't bear to see the men of his group, who have become surrogate family, marched into what will be a certain suicide mission.
John Toll's cinematography is also deserving of award and recognition, capturing the beauty and the terror of the battle. There are moments that attain an almost surreal level of terror viewing it in the way that there literally seems to be no safe place; there is also a lack of point-of-view in some of the battle scenes that is effective in the way that we are not tied to a character, but feel that the camera, or our point of view, is almost a character in itself. There is also some excellent use of handheld camera.
There are two battles going on and they are both looked at with a bold, striking vision. What is so amazing about the film is how it's able to structure such a deep, emotional battle inside the men and their toxic mix of fear, emotion and sadness; Malick expertly and seamlessly builds the internal conflicts into the battles themselves. Overall, though, The Thin Red Line is more of a work of art like a painting than a film; the fact that it works such a compelling story into this painting makes it all the more incredible.
I'm uneasy about the reaction that mainstream audiences will have with this picture; I think that it's a more complex, more meditative look at War than Spielberg's Ryan was, and to be honest, I simply liked this film more. Saving Private Ryan is an outstanding film on it's own, but it just doesn't have the depth and complexity that I think Malick has achieved with this film. Although The Thin Red Line doesn't have the kind of scene that Saving Private Ryan had with its incredible opening, it sustains impact with consistent and powerful scenes of battle. I hope that audiences find this film when it goes into exclusive engagements, then a wider release. I hope that audiences can be patient with this film, because, it needs patience, understanding, and I hope that they take the time to see the emotional and complex feelings that lie underneath the film's exterior.
It's a film of the very highest quality and I hope that others can find it as thought provoking and enjoyable as I did.
Thanks for reading
The Dogfather, soon to be a regular
So here is my long and extended arguement about the topic, enjoy
Celebrated filmmaker Terrence Malick returns to filmmaking with this visually, emotionally and poetically outstanding film about the Guadalcanal conflict of World War 2.
It's with ill thought that I feel The Thin Red Line will likely be instantly stood up against Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, when, in fact, the two films, in my humble opinion, couldn't be farther apart. Where Saving Private Ryan was built for impact, it sometimes felt, with the exception of its opening sequence, a little bit Hollywood; although, of course, at such a young age, I can hardly claim to have an idea of the horror that war holds. A better way to compare the two films is the act of painting.
Where I called the overall feel of Saving Private Ryan a painting of blood, terror and horror, Malick's Line is the act of painting itself. The film is a work of art that soars above the medium of film to a level that has really never been seen in film. Where Saving Private Ryan cantered on making the characters be at the forefront of the work, The Thin Red Line takes the characters and almost paints the reality around them, brushstroke by brushstroke. Mood and environment and feeling is painted in with a careful, masterful touch.
The film centres on a company of soldiers fighting for survival in the Guadalcanal battle of World War II. The film itself attains an incredible, almost continual feel of doom; there is a terrifying feeling when the camera is in the grass, or moving through smoke, that, in essence, as a soldier says in the film, that there is no safe place. You have to keep moving because there is no place to hide. And more often than not, the enemy is just on the other side of the smoke.
I absolutely loved the visuals, the voiceovers, the nature in a Thin Red Line, because, overall, it's grandly abstract, grandly experimental, and not all the answers are laid out for the viewer.
The film itself is something that washes over you. The terrifying battle scenes are interrupted in a moment of silent thought by many of the characters; an almost trance-like stream of thought that, for one short moment, lifts them out of something that is unthinkable. There are many thoughts, words, and lines from this film that stick with the viewer. It may not be the specific characters from this film that stay with you, but there is moments, pictures, thoughts, that will leave a strong impression on any viewer. The film's mood alone is far different from Saving Private Ryan; far more somber and far more complex in emotion. What is quite responsible for this level of complexity and emotion is director Malick's screenplay, based on James Jones's novel. It may not create memorable characters like Ryan, but the fact that the film never focuses it's viewpoint on one specific character (like Saving Private Ryan which is Hanks) makes it feel all the more real.
Of course, though, there are excellent performances here. Sean Penn plays Sgt. Welsh, a cynical, numb man who prefers to look at the truth of his surroundings rather than to try and lift his spirit with the hope that Pvt. Witt tries to find in the simple, natural life of a small village, before he's whisked from that life into battle. In an Oscar-worthy supporting performance, Ben Chaplin plays Pvt. Bell, a man who keeps hope alive in the memories of the time he has spent with his wife, and the thought that he will see her again, no matter how the war ends for him. Also quite excellent is Elias Koteas, who plays a Captain who can't bear to see the men of his group, who have become surrogate family, marched into what will be a certain suicide mission.
John Toll's cinematography is also deserving of award and recognition, capturing the beauty and the terror of the battle. There are moments that attain an almost surreal level of terror viewing it in the way that there literally seems to be no safe place; there is also a lack of point-of-view in some of the battle scenes that is effective in the way that we are not tied to a character, but feel that the camera, or our point of view, is almost a character in itself. There is also some excellent use of handheld camera.
There are two battles going on and they are both looked at with a bold, striking vision. What is so amazing about the film is how it's able to structure such a deep, emotional battle inside the men and their toxic mix of fear, emotion and sadness; Malick expertly and seamlessly builds the internal conflicts into the battles themselves. Overall, though, The Thin Red Line is more of a work of art like a painting than a film; the fact that it works such a compelling story into this painting makes it all the more incredible.
I'm uneasy about the reaction that mainstream audiences will have with this picture; I think that it's a more complex, more meditative look at War than Spielberg's Ryan was, and to be honest, I simply liked this film more. Saving Private Ryan is an outstanding film on it's own, but it just doesn't have the depth and complexity that I think Malick has achieved with this film. Although The Thin Red Line doesn't have the kind of scene that Saving Private Ryan had with its incredible opening, it sustains impact with consistent and powerful scenes of battle. I hope that audiences find this film when it goes into exclusive engagements, then a wider release. I hope that audiences can be patient with this film, because, it needs patience, understanding, and I hope that they take the time to see the emotional and complex feelings that lie underneath the film's exterior.
It's a film of the very highest quality and I hope that others can find it as thought provoking and enjoyable as I did.
Thanks for reading
The Dogfather, soon to be a regular
Page:
heh, I wasn't here for 14 of my days. I don't really have the time to post that much, but I am proud of my FAD's :)
Stryke wrote:
> Congratulations on becoming a regular Dogfather. I'll get there one
> day...
Don't worry about it really mate, it ain't the best thing on earth, although I do feel that people don't talk to you like sheer scum anymore. Just do me a favour to realise how I became a regular. Click on User Stats then look at all those posts ect. now look at the days and take away 5 of them as I wasn't here for 5 days. Now that is a lot of posting and took a lot of time.
> Congratulations on becoming a regular Dogfather. I'll get there one
> day...
Don't worry about it really mate, it ain't the best thing on earth, although I do feel that people don't talk to you like sheer scum anymore. Just do me a favour to realise how I became a regular. Click on User Stats then look at all those posts ect. now look at the days and take away 5 of them as I wasn't here for 5 days. Now that is a lot of posting and took a lot of time.
Congratulations on becoming a regular Dogfather. I'll get there one day...
Corleone Part 2 wrote:
and as for the boatboy,
> may i ask why you wish to take every argument on issues completely
> unrelated to a matter of physical violence?
Just issues that you raise.
I have rarely come across someone as arrogant, and plainly misinformed about subjects than you.
I do not tolerate loud-mouth children that don't have the balls to say a word in the world, yet mouth off in forums.
You got banned last time Corleone for being a total ignoramus.
I am through debating with you, moron child.
I will say one thing and one thing only to you Corleone.
Learn your lesson, stop with this hostile nonsense before someone takes you down.
You're a gobby little child that displays an astonishing lack of intelligence.
Go back and read your last attempts before you got banned, child.
I was replying to Dogfather's review of Malick with a personal statement on Malick's abilities as a director.
You reply with insults and weak attacks.
If the best you can do is feeble puns on a name, then you've already lost.
Show some respect, you ignorant little boy and go read up on life before you start spouting your filth.
ONLY POST HERE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME,
> IF NOT I'LL MAKE A POINT FOR YOU TO BE BANNED.
'(.)'
Try it.
See how far you get kid.
Go on, do your best.
Your finished with me, I won't waste any further words or thought on you.
and as for the boatboy,
> may i ask why you wish to take every argument on issues completely
> unrelated to a matter of physical violence?
Just issues that you raise.
I have rarely come across someone as arrogant, and plainly misinformed about subjects than you.
I do not tolerate loud-mouth children that don't have the balls to say a word in the world, yet mouth off in forums.
You got banned last time Corleone for being a total ignoramus.
I am through debating with you, moron child.
I will say one thing and one thing only to you Corleone.
Learn your lesson, stop with this hostile nonsense before someone takes you down.
You're a gobby little child that displays an astonishing lack of intelligence.
Go back and read your last attempts before you got banned, child.
I was replying to Dogfather's review of Malick with a personal statement on Malick's abilities as a director.
You reply with insults and weak attacks.
If the best you can do is feeble puns on a name, then you've already lost.
Show some respect, you ignorant little boy and go read up on life before you start spouting your filth.
ONLY POST HERE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME,
> IF NOT I'LL MAKE A POINT FOR YOU TO BE BANNED.
'(.)'
Try it.
See how far you get kid.
Go on, do your best.
Your finished with me, I won't waste any further words or thought on you.
Corleone Part 2 wrote:
> oh my, i must apologise for my evil opinions on both topics, i will
> be sure to censor my opinions in future. i still cannot understand
> how you sheep- soory,i mean people, can all unanimously ingorne
> enthic cleansing in the and only react to what the daily mirror has
> on its front page.
I guess you are just ignorant.
There aren't many here that would have ignored the attrocities in Europe, and they have been the subject of discussion in the past.
So, Corleone, rather than just criticising others for caring I'd like to know, what is your opinion on the terrorist attacks on the USA?
Go on, write something about it without simply criticising some one elses post.
> oh my, i must apologise for my evil opinions on both topics, i will
> be sure to censor my opinions in future. i still cannot understand
> how you sheep- soory,i mean people, can all unanimously ingorne
> enthic cleansing in the and only react to what the daily mirror has
> on its front page.
I guess you are just ignorant.
There aren't many here that would have ignored the attrocities in Europe, and they have been the subject of discussion in the past.
So, Corleone, rather than just criticising others for caring I'd like to know, what is your opinion on the terrorist attacks on the USA?
Go on, write something about it without simply criticising some one elses post.
Corleone Part 2 wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
War is Hell.
Go make something of your own and stop
> criticising other peoples work, you bitter hack.
Peh.
How little you know, you pathetic scum.
> Goatboy wrote:
War is Hell.
Go make something of your own and stop
> criticising other peoples work, you bitter hack.
Peh.
How little you know, you pathetic scum.
oh my, i must apologise for my evil opinions on both topics, i will be sure to censor my opinions in future. i still cannot understand how you sheep- soory,i mean people, can all unanimously ingorne enthic cleansing in the and only react to what the daily mirror has on its front page. take a look at yourselfs, yes this was bad, but can you shee- i mean people no see the manipulative propoganda you are gobbling up like headless chickens? well i will say no more on these subjects and continue posting on 'WHOS THE BEST BAND EVER!!' or 'WHATS BETTER; RED OR YELLOW?'
provoking a reaction is obviously not approved of on this DISCUSSION forum?
and as for the boatboy, may i ask why you wish to take every argument on issues completely unrelated to a matter of physical violence? This is why things like these attacks happens, male testosterone territorial and dominatorial neandertol attitudes to conflicting interests?
SO! back to the usual, i'll start; ONLY POST HERE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME, IF NOT I'LL MAKE A POINT FOR YOU TO BE BANNED.
'(.)'
provoking a reaction is obviously not approved of on this DISCUSSION forum?
and as for the boatboy, may i ask why you wish to take every argument on issues completely unrelated to a matter of physical violence? This is why things like these attacks happens, male testosterone territorial and dominatorial neandertol attitudes to conflicting interests?
SO! back to the usual, i'll start; ONLY POST HERE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME, IF NOT I'LL MAKE A POINT FOR YOU TO BE BANNED.
'(.)'
Corleone Part 2 wrote:
...
Damn you Corleone.
I will not indulge in name-calling and stoop to your level, but you got banned last time for acting like this.
This is neither the time nor place to start with me, trust me I have zero tolerance for your noise right now.
Usually I'd just chuckle and come back with a witty retort, but this moment, these past few days, I despise you and pray that karma come around and payback means you get yours, you vile, despicable insect.
Email me with your details you goddamn coward and let me take out all my anger and frustration on you.
You have no idea where my head is at right now punk, and god help you if I ever, ever find out who you are.
Damn you to hell.
...
Damn you Corleone.
I will not indulge in name-calling and stoop to your level, but you got banned last time for acting like this.
This is neither the time nor place to start with me, trust me I have zero tolerance for your noise right now.
Usually I'd just chuckle and come back with a witty retort, but this moment, these past few days, I despise you and pray that karma come around and payback means you get yours, you vile, despicable insect.
Email me with your details you goddamn coward and let me take out all my anger and frustration on you.
You have no idea where my head is at right now punk, and god help you if I ever, ever find out who you are.
Damn you to hell.
Someone had to say it thanks really appreciated, it shows a great sign of your maturity and also shows that within the next 3 days your bound to get banned from the forums. God Bless.
Also regarding this topic, I want people to know this was printed before the tradegy of yesterdays events. I would not have printed if otherwise. Please take no offense.
The Dogfather
Also regarding this topic, I want people to know this was printed before the tradegy of yesterdays events. I would not have printed if otherwise. Please take no offense.
The Dogfather
CJ007 wrote:
> I have got to say the greatest film is Saving Ryan's
> privates from my tongue!!
Ummmmmm if you say so
:)
> I have got to say the greatest film is Saving Ryan's
> privates from my tongue!!
Ummmmmm if you say so
:)
Page: