Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

While on vacation in southern France me and my brothers watched a few movies to pass the time, movies we hadn't seen but came highly recommended. Among them was the Thin Red Line.

Three hours after hitting 'play' we found ourselves tired, bored, and depressed.

I was so disappointed with the quality of the vaunted, critically praised film that I was compelled to write a long, scathing review about it, something I've never done for any movie. It aroused my passions in a negative way.

Now I'm not about thinking that mine is the only interpretation, obviously most top critics liked or even loved the film, as did many average joe movie goers. With that in mind I'm opening this thread up for discussing a simple question: is the Thin Red Line a moving, intelligent work of anti-war social commentary with realistic characters, deep, insightful writing, and breathtaking cinematography or is it a long banal piece with underdeveloped characters, overly lengthy and insipid monologues, and a trite message that's been said and done a thousand times before and better?

Or perhaps is it something else entirely?

Personally I never liked it. It seemed to try and make every soldier a poet and philosopher and came across as completely pointless.

I never saw it due to how many people I know dislike it.

Originally posted by jaden101
Personally I never liked it. It seemed to try and make every soldier a poet and philosopher and came across as completely pointless.
Pretty much how I saw it.

The only characters I actually liked were Nick Nolte's Colonel character (though his monologues were bullshit) and the Captain Staros guy.

It seemed like three hours of fathead left wing actors like Clooney and Penn giving each other handjobs.

At least the battle scenes were well done. Too bad they only made up 1/4 of the movie.

Very disappointed in the film . . . seems that the best war films are from the European Theater during WWII.