Reviews (799)

A motion picture of unparalleled quality.
Terence Malick's 'Thin Red Line' is quite possibly the finest work of cinematic art that has ever graced our screens. Indeed, it casts quite a shadow over other war movie classics like Apocalypse Now- leaving it in it's wake. And as for 'Saving Private Ryan'...well it doesn't come close to 'TTRL'.

Malick's direction is simply genius; utilising the tranquil scenery to great effect whilst, at the same time, creating some of the most breathtaking action-sequences to be put on 35mm. Editing is top-notch- bearing in mind that Malick apparently filmed around 1,000,000 feet of footage! And, indeed, the acting itself is remarkable. Nolte, Penn and Chaplin are pure class as is Elias Koteas but Jim Caviezel steals the show with his perception of the spiritual Private Witt; someone who we feel 'at one' with throughout the film.

The use of multi voice-overs from numerous characters awards the picture with a great sense of dimension that crosses the proverbial board of mixed emotions. In doing so, it also goes against the notion of the classic Hollywood narrative; forming it's own unique structure that one has never before witnessed on screen.

The 170 minutes quite literally fly by. Certainly, one would be hard-pressed to come across a finer motion picture of the 90's and, one feels, the history of cinema.

This epic masterpiece deserves to be placed on a par with 'Citizen Kane' and 'The Third Man' and the very least you could do is to invest in your very own copy and behold in the pure splendour that is 'The Thin Red Line'. It's a difficult task describing such a film; it really does have to be seen to be believed...very few words would do it justice.

The thin red line
Boasting an ensemble cast including veteran Nick Nolte, Sean Penn and John Travolta (in a minor role) to name a few, The thin red line endeavours to portray yet another rendition of the gritty reality of war.

Set in the second world war it deals with a group of American soldiers whose mission it is to win a sub-war in the South Pacific, their first front being the jungles of Malaysia where they must be prepared for the distress of futile human sacrifice - in so doing they must also be prepared for the imminence of their own death or maiming.

Sean Penn plays his usual cockiness well; however his role doesn't ever allow him to display the criminal roguishness at which he truly excels, for example the character Meserve portrayed in the Vietnam flick Casualties of War. Incidentally two other thin red line cast members also appeared in the above film (John C. Reilly and Don Harvey).

Nick Nolte's gravelly voice gives credibility to his authoritarian role - Furthermore the portrayal of his disaffected, uncompromising Lt. Col. Tall are well realised.

Adrien Brody adds a touch of peacefulness and melancholy as Corporal Fife.

Overall this is a well balanced cast whose solid teamwork effectively conveys the mood of the collective war experience. Nevertheless, familiarity of plot and setting and the string of well known faces numb the intended impact of the film to drive home the violence of war that was so well done in Saving Private Ryan.

A profound spiritual experience like few films of the '90's
A lot of people were surprised when Line racked up seven Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture, the year that Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan raked in the bucks and the critical acclaim. Watching Terence Malick's long-awaited followup to Days of Heaven yesterday, I thought a lot about how boldly contemplative, achingly beautiful, and curiously flawed it was and came to a realization: I'd watch this one again before I did Ryan. In an age where modern films have the license to be as complex or manipulative as they want, here comes Terence Malick ready to make a 'war' movie: except, this one carries little logistics, plot, or superficial character development. What Line has in spades, though, is the ability to create a beating heart and soul for those young, scared men who braved the deadly shores of Guadalcanal. There is little dialogue, big-name stars have less, and the movie has the same gorgeous fascination with the natural world as Heaven.

What makes Line an arguably more fascinating journey than its same-year WWII flick is that dive deep into the soul that it attempts, and usually succeeds, to make; for proof, look into Jim Caviezel's eyes at any time during the movie. Yes, being a movie that reaches high for metaphors and philosophical musings, it does veer dangerously close to pretention (the voice-overs being the shakiest issue). Not to mention that the movie is three hours long and many characters never advance beyond a faintly recognizable face. I view pretention, though, as a flashy device used to disguise emptiness...and there isn't really any empty moment in the film. The Thin Red Line is far from perfect, but it's as close to capturing the spiritual and philosophical side of war than any movie I've seen. GRADE: A-

Wildly uneven
1998 was certainly a stand-out year for war films. With Steven Spielberg's phenomenal "Saving Private Ryan" being robbed of a Best Picture Oscar, most people forget that "The Thin Red Line" was also nominated.
Directed by Terrence Malick, whose recluseness is so extreme that his last movie ("Days of Heaven") was released in 1978, "The Thin Red Line" is a unique and sometimes fascinating war epic. With a story revolving around a company of soldiers attempting to take a Japanese stronghold in World War II, this is just Malick's excuse for jaw-dropping cinematography, courtesy of John Toll. If nothing else, this movie should be seen for its cinematography. Every shot was perfect. It was that good. The movie's unforgettable imagery had an astounding impact on me. And the battle scenes were excellent, powered by a gorgeous--yet subtle--score by Hans Zimmer.
Even so, the movie is nearly three hours in length, and quite boring in some parts. There were so many actors in so many roles that no one stood out, no matter how realistic the acting was. I suppose Sean Penn and Jim Cavieziel were the most notable. I also noticed that George Clooney and John Travolta got high billings, even if they only had cameos.
The film's biggest flaw is that I honestly had no idea what was going on. There was no plot to speak of. I got a feeling that Malick filmed a bunch of acotrs speaking, nature shots, and battles, and simply mashed them all together to make a movie.
Which ever way you look at it, "The Thin Red Line" is a movie worth seeing. I was amazed by the war scenes and the photography, but bored by everything else. This is the kind of film that makes me question its Best Picture nomination. I don't really know what to think about it, other than it partially fascinated me. I guess that's a good thing

The masterpiece of Terence Malik
This movie is great. The depicted character of the human being , his inner thoughts, his fears in the battlefield , the sense of no sense proportions of the general inmediatly reminds us to Paths of Glory , where the order to advance is just a suicide as wisely the captain answers by radio.
The Guadalcanal is now part of the story ; but Malick made much more than a war film . The camera shows you the different characters and points of view without tearful manipulation as Platoon , for instance.
Who's the good guy and who's the bad?
Nolte and Penn are magnificent in their respective roles and Harrelson played a very believable role.
Superb photograph and dazzling direction!
A real winner film! ... Read more

Reviews (20)

ATTENTION: this film was great!
First off, this is NOT, let me write it again, NOT like Saving Private Ryan. The biggest injustice for this movie was that some knuckleheads had the audacity to compare it to Saving Private Ryan. While Ryan focuses on the honor and sacrifice of the average soldier in WW2, Red Line does just the opposite, choosing more to focus on the bitterness and pure lack of emotions that many soldiers faced.

In this film, we are introduced to a group of men who are as diverse and differing as one could dream up. There is a dreamer(play by Jim Caviezel) who chooses to see the good in all, a over-ambitious major(Nick Nolte), a compassionate captain(Elias Koteas), and many others who embody fear, reluctance, cowardess, love, isolation, synicism, and total lack of hope, among other things.

Many have said that the film is not a true portrayal of war, focusing mainly on Caviezel's character and using his dream-like attributes as ammo for their ridicule of the film. Let me say this: HE IS THE ONLY CHARACTER LIKE THAT!! All the others are just as normal as you and I and who's to say that people like Witt do not exist, even in times of war. To me, he embodies a Christ-like figure who even put's himself in the shoes of one of the dead Japanese soldiers at one point. When people blast this film, I immediately know they are skeptics who are probably negative and who harshly judge the world they live in. Maybe that's the point of the film too: that this world has beauty but man, left to himself, will eventually destroy it all, even turn on each other. If you have never watched this film, please don't compare it to other war films. This movie will not make you cry; it will, however, make you think if you allow it to.

On a parting note, I am fascinated by a scene where a young boy dies in the arms of his commanding officer. I never cried in the scene, and maybe that's what Malick(the director) wanted. To not cry is to feel like many soldiers did in the past few wars. Most of them lost the ability to feel and to cry during the war. This movie is a great film but will never get the praise it deserves because of people who compare it to Saving Private Ryan. If you have an open mind and don't have to have everything explained to when you watch a film, this might be for you. If you get your kicks from films that force you to cry, try Saving Private Ryan.

Visit the Pacific in the 40's
To compare this movie to Saving Private Ryan, or When Trumpets Fade, Both Good action Movies, is extremely unfair. Another thing that was unfair is when it was when they were hyping this movie they kept trying to make it out to be as action oriented. If you cut the half hour or so of action in this three hour plus "WAR" movie it would be considered a great tourist guide for the south Pacific, you could go as far as to say that with those 30-40 minutes gone that there might not even have been a war going on in the south Pacific during the 40's. The BRIEF action shots seemed to be in there to kill off the guest stars who might as well have stayed home. The main character is longwinded and too deep for film. It would have probably stayed better off as text in a book where such thing are expected. On the whole I admit that I'm no critic. I often enjoy offbeat films and deep dramas. But this movie took my expectations too far to left field. As to the best way I can sum up my experience with "The Thin Red Line".... That Is three hours of my life, that I will never, ever, get back.....

Indie approach to WW2 combat
The last five years have seen a lot of different approaches to World War 2 - hyper-realism (Private Ryan), sha-zam but empty special effects (Pearl Harbor), and other fronts (Enemy At The Gates). With "Thin Red Line", we get an artier version which views war as controlled anarchy-tragedy-bathos. The main characters in the movie seem to have bubbles over their heads, so we know their thoughts as they move through a depersonal and violent environment. The main character, played by Jim "Jesus" Caviezel is a dreamer who drifts through the carnage, which does bear similarity to "Ryan". Are we supposed to like this character? Relate to him? Or is he really the blank slate he pretends to be?

It is truly unfair to compare this to "Private Ryan", which depicted triumph of the man in fulfiling a hopeless mission. "Thin Red Line" is a tragedy, the mission (Guadalcanal) is incoherent, interspersed with a hideously insane frontal attack on a fortified Japanese position, and then a rout of the enemy. My guess is the real campaign was somewhere in between, neither heroic nor completely random. This is certainly no "Guadalcanal Diary" but probably a stand-in for modern combat anywhere.

So maybe I'm a simple grognard. I have no doubt early WW-2 combat in the Pacific and North Africa was mixed up and FUBAR, but geeze, if the whole crew was like this we'd still be at it. Is it an anti-war film? Probably, and so much for the good. But it can't be real. At least "Apocalypse Now" did not pretend to be.

My constructive suggestion for those attracted to the use of dreamy breakaways and the focus on the personal would be to try out an interesting Israeli film, "Kippur", which is set during the 1973 war and, in my opinion, does a better job of character development (chosing only two to focus on) than "Red Line."

A very powerful film
I first saw this film when I was 15. I was just beginning to get into war films. I liked this movie back then, but now that I purchased the DVD and viewed it once more, I fell in love.

The Thin Red Line follows a company of men through the battle for Guadalcanal in the Pacific theatre of WWII. While these men are not part of the first wave of the invasion, they still encounter a considerable force of Japanese infantry within the island. There are far less battle scenes than Saving Private Ryan - which was released at nearly the same time as TRL - and the battle scenes that do take place in this movie are on a far smaller scale.

However, action is not at as important in this movie. The Thin Red Line chooses to focus less on the battle between armies, and instead on the battle that each soldier faces within himself during their experience. The narration - although a bit too poetic at times - does an excellent job of bringing the viewer into the mind of each major character in the movie. Character development is not deep, but is largely unnecessary. You get a good feel for each soldier's personality through his thoughts, and his actions. There is not a single bad actor in TRL.

Like I said, poetry is very heavy in this movie. At times it didn't seem to make any sense to me, but I constantly found myself pondering what was said, and finding ways to apply it to what was going on in the movie. I soon realized that never once during the movie did I stop thinking about what each soldier was going through in his own personal hell. After all, the Pacific theatre was where the American military saw some of its highest casualty rates in the war. The soldiers' fear was very well portrayed in TRL.

The camerawork is also excellent. It's very gritty when it needs to be, especially during battle scenes. There are also loads of still shots of wildlife, the land, and its natives. I found that it created a sense of life for the environment in which the soldiers were fighting. Even as men were dying in this place, nature continued on as if nothing were even happening.

If you are dissuaded from seeing the TRL because of some viewer's descriptions of it as an "anti-war" film, don't be. I never once felt that this film set out to demonize the war effort against Japan. However, TRL does show quite a bit of suffering on the part of both armies. That's the way it really was. Americans were not the only ones who suffered terribly in the great war.

I really would like to write more about this movie. There are so many good things that I could say about it, and almost nothing bad. Just rent it. Watch this movie with the intent of examining every scene, and listening to every word that is said. I guarantee you will be thinking about this film for days on end.

NOT an action/war movie.
Fans of action war movies like 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Band of Brothers' will probably find this movie a big disappointment, as will fans of 'feel good' movies. This movie is more like Werner Herzog's 'Aguirre, The Wrath of God' than 'Band of Brothers.' There are very few battle scenes, and those that there are are overshadowed by haunting, surreal music and prose. It is one of those movies that you don't like at first, because it leaves you with a very haunting, unsettled feeling. But once you've seen it, you have the urge to see it again.

This will most likely go down in the history of film as a cult classic, and will be shown in re-run for years to come, but it is not a typical action war movie. It is very surrealistic in the way it is put together, and it cuts across many of the standard genre boundaries. It seems to come from nowhere, creates a very intense and harrowing atmosphere for three hours, and then seemingly disappears over the horizon at the end, apparently going nowhere, just as it began. I found it very disturbing to watch, but a very intense experience nevertheless. ... Read more

Reviews (48)

As Silent films where.
Elegant, and exuberant images, combine with the right music produces the real cinematograhic result, which is what this film is about. Nestor Almendros does (as always), a lightnig that is both exquisit and smooth,he won the Academi Award for this picture. Terrence Malick directs this piece with a tremendous undertandig of that very simple but very beautiful story (1978 winner Cannes Film festival, best director).
Days of Heaven has the tradition of the very first silent pictures, the music carries the emotional line of the story, with images so beautiful and dream like, that resembles every ones ideal first kiss. This DVD edition captures the beauty of the film with it's fine transfer, but, nevertheless, the studios have the capasity to make better works in transfering such presious materials. Details and sound in this case demands a much profund atention, so they can deliver versions worth of the quality of this kind of pictures, and Days of Heaven is a little jewel that deserves the real treatment.

GREATEST AMERICAN FLICK?
I first caught "Days of Heaven" on a lousy VHS tape which was basically inaudible and muddy. And yet it had the power to resonate in my mind weeks and months later. Well, what a gorgeous transfer it's received on DVD -- stunning, in fact! The colors are vivid, the picture razor sharp, and the soundtrack lush. "Days of Heaven" is not a silent film, although it could be. Instead what we have here is a director so comfortable with his material, so sure about his intentions, that he allows the story to unfold almost effortlessly before our eyes. You may never care much for editing and pacing, but after seeing "Days of Heaven" you will. Scenes last mere seconds, yet tell us everything. Building layer upon layer. Is it some form of poetry? Or magical level of artistry? It's both. And the acting is a dream. Superb, understated performances. A film to be watched over and over. Look for the fire and water symbolism, especially. Then look deeper.

Heartbreaking - the most beautifully shot film of all time
How fitting it is that the best movie Richard Gere has ever done, and will ever do, is the one where he probably talks the least. Of course, dialogue isn't what's so breathtakingly beautiful about Days of Heaven, one of the forgotten greats of all time. It's the cinematography (maybe the best of all time, sorry I left this off my list, folks), the sad story that runs through the film, and the overwhelmingly aching tone that just resonates from every frame. Days of Heaven is a quiet, meditative film that flies under the radar in emotion and volume for most of the time. The film roams over the open fields of its locale, half-listening to conversations (even important ones) as maybe the watchful eye of God. I saw this movie once before and bought it on a whim, and am convinced more than ever that most great movies don't reveal themselves totally on the first, or even second time. On viewing #2, I can't get Days of Heaven out of my mind. It's a beautiful, sad little tone poem that resonates more than most explosive, violent movies of the '70's. You're missing out if this one isn't on your shelf. GRADE: A+

A masterpiece of cinematography conveying emotion.
I'm sure many of you have seen 'Road to Perdition.' And I'm sure many of you can conclude that the visuals are important to the film because of a lacking in obvious emotional strength. This led to the film's first weakness in that it relied too heavily on the distractingly brilliant cinematography to make up for the uninteresting, often cliched father-son story director Sam Mendes chose to focus on rather than the more interesting and original version of the father-son tale (between Tom Hanks, Paul Newman and Daniel Craig). But in 'Days of Heaven', the muted emotions are toned down for a reason.

The film surrounds a love triangle between a little girl's brother (Richard Gere), his lover (Brooke Adams) and her terminally ill farmer husband (played by Sam Shepard, who she married for the purpose of inheriting his money after his inevitable death). But this story isn't being told from the perspective of those three adults, but from the perspective of that little girl (played by Linda Manz, who hauntingly provides a voice-over of stunning power) who is, at the time, naive and unaware of the deeper regions of each adult's psyche. She is retelling a part of her life and coming to terms with it.

Many of the emotions and strong story points of the love triangle are, with dialogue, rather succinct. But what expresses the emotion is not their speech, but the landscape and nature itself. For instance, there is an intense moment of furious anger, and the oncoming danger is represented by a swarm of disgusting locusts, while the anger is presented as a thriving, uncontrollable power by an equally uncontained fire sprawling across the Texan prairie. Terrence Malick did a masterful job in realizing the power of telling the story from the little girl's perspective, taking advantage of a great cinematographer and a great landscape.

I recommend this film to painters, fans of romance, fans of generally wonderful cinema and to fans of brilliant cinematography. It may seem overlong to some depending on how you like the mood and emotions of a film to be expressed. But nevertheless, it's one of the greater movies I've seen in a while; not one to be missed.

A Great Film (RE: the DVD transfer only)
This film should really be given the attention it deserves but it appears that this copy is the best we'll get for some time to come. I'm not going to review the film as others have already done this.

I'm only commenting on the transfer - on my DVD player (Pioneer DV-434) at approximately 7:31 there is a digital-glitch that freezes the frame for a split second (the player does NOT go into SEARCH but continues counting properly thus, I place the blame on a poorly encoded transfer - where was their Quality Control?) then, the sound drops out for approximately 2-3 seconds (and the DOLBY DIGITAL indicator on the DVD player also goes out). I notice digital-compression NOISE on the audio track during ALL narration and on nearly ALL audio dialog UNLESS the music or sound-effects mask the noise. You expect this on VHS but on DVD?

I WOULD NOT HESITATE TO PURCHASE THIS FILM, regardless... it IS, as many others have stated, a masterpiece...

As with the films of Godard, Kurosawa, Buñuel etc., you must give yourself over to the directors' vision as auteur. Trust, and you'll be rewarded. If you enjoy films such as: "Last Year At Marienbad", "Vagabond", "Contempt", "Belle De Jour", "The Hired Hand" you will, most likely, enjoy this one.

p.s. Just to be sure it was NOT my DVD player, I sent my first DVD back to Amazon.com and they sent another copy - it performed exactly the same.

You may find it interesting to look up "Days Of Heaven" at imdb.com and click on DVD DETAILS for a more technical analysis. ... Read more

Reviews (799)

A motion picture of unparalleled quality.
Terence Malick's 'Thin Red Line' is quite possibly the finest work of cinematic art that has ever graced our screens. Indeed, it casts quite a shadow over other war movie classics like Apocalypse Now- leaving it in it's wake. And as for 'Saving Private Ryan'...well it doesn't come close to 'TTRL'.

Malick's direction is simply genius; utilising the tranquil scenery to great effect whilst, at the same time, creating some of the most breathtaking action-sequences to be put on 35mm. Editing is top-notch- bearing in mind that Malick apparently filmed around 1,000,000 feet of footage! And, indeed, the acting itself is remarkable. Nolte, Penn and Chaplin are pure class as is Elias Koteas but Jim Caviezel steals the show with his perception of the spiritual Private Witt; someone who we feel 'at one' with throughout the film.

The use of multi voice-overs from numerous characters awards the picture with a great sense of dimension that crosses the proverbial board of mixed emotions. In doing so, it also goes against the notion of the classic Hollywood narrative; forming it's own unique structure that one has never before witnessed on screen.

The 170 minutes quite literally fly by. Certainly, one would be hard-pressed to come across a finer motion picture of the 90's and, one feels, the history of cinema.

This epic masterpiece deserves to be placed on a par with 'Citizen Kane' and 'The Third Man' and the very least you could do is to invest in your very own copy and behold in the pure splendour that is 'The Thin Red Line'. It's a difficult task describing such a film; it really does have to be seen to be believed...very few words would do it justice.

The thin red line
Boasting an ensemble cast including veteran Nick Nolte, Sean Penn and John Travolta (in a minor role) to name a few, The thin red line endeavours to portray yet another rendition of the gritty reality of war.

Set in the second world war it deals with a group of American soldiers whose mission it is to win a sub-war in the South Pacific, their first front being the jungles of Malaysia where they must be prepared for the distress of futile human sacrifice - in so doing they must also be prepared for the imminence of their own death or maiming.

Sean Penn plays his usual cockiness well; however his role doesn't ever allow him to display the criminal roguishness at which he truly excels, for example the character Meserve portrayed in the Vietnam flick Casualties of War. Incidentally two other thin red line cast members also appeared in the above film (John C. Reilly and Don Harvey).

Nick Nolte's gravelly voice gives credibility to his authoritarian role - Furthermore the portrayal of his disaffected, uncompromising Lt. Col. Tall are well realised.

Adrien Brody adds a touch of peacefulness and melancholy as Corporal Fife.

Overall this is a well balanced cast whose solid teamwork effectively conveys the mood of the collective war experience. Nevertheless, familiarity of plot and setting and the string of well known faces numb the intended impact of the film to drive home the violence of war that was so well done in Saving Private Ryan.

A profound spiritual experience like few films of the '90's
A lot of people were surprised when Line racked up seven Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture, the year that Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan raked in the bucks and the critical acclaim. Watching Terence Malick's long-awaited followup to Days of Heaven yesterday, I thought a lot about how boldly contemplative, achingly beautiful, and curiously flawed it was and came to a realization: I'd watch this one again before I did Ryan. In an age where modern films have the license to be as complex or manipulative as they want, here comes Terence Malick ready to make a 'war' movie: except, this one carries little logistics, plot, or superficial character development. What Line has in spades, though, is the ability to create a beating heart and soul for those young, scared men who braved the deadly shores of Guadalcanal. There is little dialogue, big-name stars have less, and the movie has the same gorgeous fascination with the natural world as Heaven.

What makes Line an arguably more fascinating journey than its same-year WWII flick is that dive deep into the soul that it attempts, and usually succeeds, to make; for proof, look into Jim Caviezel's eyes at any time during the movie. Yes, being a movie that reaches high for metaphors and philosophical musings, it does veer dangerously close to pretention (the voice-overs being the shakiest issue). Not to mention that the movie is three hours long and many characters never advance beyond a faintly recognizable face. I view pretention, though, as a flashy device used to disguise emptiness...and there isn't really any empty moment in the film. The Thin Red Line is far from perfect, but it's as close to capturing the spiritual and philosophical side of war than any movie I've seen. GRADE: A-

Wildly uneven
1998 was certainly a stand-out year for war films. With Steven Spielberg's phenomenal "Saving Private Ryan" being robbed of a Best Picture Oscar, most people forget that "The Thin Red Line" was also nominated.
Directed by Terrence Malick, whose recluseness is so extreme that his last movie ("Days of Heaven") was released in 1978, "The Thin Red Line" is a unique and sometimes fascinating war epic. With a story revolving around a company of soldiers attempting to take a Japanese stronghold in World War II, this is just Malick's excuse for jaw-dropping cinematography, courtesy of John Toll. If nothing else, this movie should be seen for its cinematography. Every shot was perfect. It was that good. The movie's unforgettable imagery had an astounding impact on me. And the battle scenes were excellent, powered by a gorgeous--yet subtle--score by Hans Zimmer.
Even so, the movie is nearly three hours in length, and quite boring in some parts. There were so many actors in so many roles that no one stood out, no matter how realistic the acting was. I suppose Sean Penn and Jim Cavieziel were the most notable. I also noticed that George Clooney and John Travolta got high billings, even if they only had cameos.
The film's biggest flaw is that I honestly had no idea what was going on. There was no plot to speak of. I got a feeling that Malick filmed a bunch of acotrs speaking, nature shots, and battles, and simply mashed them all together to make a movie.
Which ever way you look at it, "The Thin Red Line" is a movie worth seeing. I was amazed by the war scenes and the photography, but bored by everything else. This is the kind of film that makes me question its Best Picture nomination. I don't really know what to think about it, other than it partially fascinated me. I guess that's a good thing

The masterpiece of Terence Malik
This movie is great. The depicted character of the human being , his inner thoughts, his fears in the battlefield , the sense of no sense proportions of the general inmediatly reminds us to Paths of Glory , where the order to advance is just a suicide as wisely the captain answers by radio.
The Guadalcanal is now part of the story ; but Malick made much more than a war film . The camera shows you the different characters and points of view without tearful manipulation as Platoon , for instance.
Who's the good guy and who's the bad?
Nolte and Penn are magnificent in their respective roles and Harrelson played a very believable role.
Superb photograph and dazzling direction!
A real winner film! ... Read more

Reviews (48)

As Silent films where.
Elegant, and exuberant images, combine with the right music produces the real cinematograhic result, which is what this film is about. Nestor Almendros does (as always), a lightnig that is both exquisit and smooth,he won the Academi Award for this picture. Terrence Malick directs this piece with a tremendous undertandig of that very simple but very beautiful story (1978 winner Cannes Film festival, best director).
Days of Heaven has the tradition of the very first silent pictures, the music carries the emotional line of the story, with images so beautiful and dream like, that resembles every ones ideal first kiss. This DVD edition captures the beauty of the film with it's fine transfer, but, nevertheless, the studios have the capasity to make better works in transfering such presious materials. Details and sound in this case demands a much profund atention, so they can deliver versions worth of the quality of this kind of pictures, and Days of Heaven is a little jewel that deserves the real treatment.

GREATEST AMERICAN FLICK?
I first caught "Days of Heaven" on a lousy VHS tape which was basically inaudible and muddy. And yet it had the power to resonate in my mind weeks and months later. Well, what a gorgeous transfer it's received on DVD -- stunning, in fact! The colors are vivid, the picture razor sharp, and the soundtrack lush. "Days of Heaven" is not a silent film, although it could be. Instead what we have here is a director so comfortable with his material, so sure about his intentions, that he allows the story to unfold almost effortlessly before our eyes. You may never care much for editing and pacing, but after seeing "Days of Heaven" you will. Scenes last mere seconds, yet tell us everything. Building layer upon layer. Is it some form of poetry? Or magical level of artistry? It's both. And the acting is a dream. Superb, understated performances. A film to be watched over and over. Look for the fire and water symbolism, especially. Then look deeper.

Heartbreaking - the most beautifully shot film of all time
How fitting it is that the best movie Richard Gere has ever done, and will ever do, is the one where he probably talks the least. Of course, dialogue isn't what's so breathtakingly beautiful about Days of Heaven, one of the forgotten greats of all time. It's the cinematography (maybe the best of all time, sorry I left this off my list, folks), the sad story that runs through the film, and the overwhelmingly aching tone that just resonates from every frame. Days of Heaven is a quiet, meditative film that flies under the radar in emotion and volume for most of the time. The film roams over the open fields of its locale, half-listening to conversations (even important ones) as maybe the watchful eye of God. I saw this movie once before and bought it on a whim, and am convinced more than ever that most great movies don't reveal themselves totally on the first, or even second time. On viewing #2, I can't get Days of Heaven out of my mind. It's a beautiful, sad little tone poem that resonates more than most explosive, violent movies of the '70's. You're missing out if this one isn't on your shelf. GRADE: A+

A masterpiece of cinematography conveying emotion.
I'm sure many of you have seen 'Road to Perdition.' And I'm sure many of you can conclude that the visuals are important to the film because of a lacking in obvious emotional strength. This led to the film's first weakness in that it relied too heavily on the distractingly brilliant cinematography to make up for the uninteresting, often cliched father-son story director Sam Mendes chose to focus on rather than the more interesting and original version of the father-son tale (between Tom Hanks, Paul Newman and Daniel Craig). But in 'Days of Heaven', the muted emotions are toned down for a reason.

The film surrounds a love triangle between a little girl's brother (Richard Gere), his lover (Brooke Adams) and her terminally ill farmer husband (played by Sam Shepard, who she married for the purpose of inheriting his money after his inevitable death). But this story isn't being told from the perspective of those three adults, but from the perspective of that little girl (played by Linda Manz, who hauntingly provides a voice-over of stunning power) who is, at the time, naive and unaware of the deeper regions of each adult's psyche. She is retelling a part of her life and coming to terms with it.

Many of the emotions and strong story points of the love triangle are, with dialogue, rather succinct. But what expresses the emotion is not their speech, but the landscape and nature itself. For instance, there is an intense moment of furious anger, and the oncoming danger is represented by a swarm of disgusting locusts, while the anger is presented as a thriving, uncontrollable power by an equally uncontained fire sprawling across the Texan prairie. Terrence Malick did a masterful job in realizing the power of telling the story from the little girl's perspective, taking advantage of a great cinematographer and a great landscape.

I recommend this film to painters, fans of romance, fans of generally wonderful cinema and to fans of brilliant cinematography. It may seem overlong to some depending on how you like the mood and emotions of a film to be expressed. But nevertheless, it's one of the greater movies I've seen in a while; not one to be missed.

A Great Film (RE: the DVD transfer only)
This film should really be given the attention it deserves but it appears that this copy is the best we'll get for some time to come. I'm not going to review the film as others have already done this.

I'm only commenting on the transfer - on my DVD player (Pioneer DV-434) at approximately 7:31 there is a digital-glitch that freezes the frame for a split second (the player does NOT go into SEARCH but continues counting properly thus, I place the blame on a poorly encoded transfer - where was their Quality Control?) then, the sound drops out for approximately 2-3 seconds (and the DOLBY DIGITAL indicator on the DVD player also goes out). I notice digital-compression NOISE on the audio track during ALL narration and on nearly ALL audio dialog UNLESS the music or sound-effects mask the noise. You expect this on VHS but on DVD?

I WOULD NOT HESITATE TO PURCHASE THIS FILM, regardless... it IS, as many others have stated, a masterpiece...

As with the films of Godard, Kurosawa, Buñuel etc., you must give yourself over to the directors' vision as auteur. Trust, and you'll be rewarded. If you enjoy films such as: "Last Year At Marienbad", "Vagabond", "Contempt", "Belle De Jour", "The Hired Hand" you will, most likely, enjoy this one.

p.s. Just to be sure it was NOT my DVD player, I sent my first DVD back to Amazon.com and they sent another copy - it performed exactly the same.

You may find it interesting to look up "Days Of Heaven" at imdb.com and click on DVD DETAILS for a more technical analysis. ... Read more

Reviews (52)

SENSELESS MURDER
Both Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek are absolutely terrific in this story which is loosely based on the notorious Starkweather murders in 1950's Nebraska. Amazingly realistic in its 1950's ambience, there is very careful detail via references to topical music, television, films and magazines of the period. As Kit, Sheen is astonishingly convincing and his resemblence to James Dean is striking; he gives a powerfully poignant performance. Spacek's Holly is his match and in her performance, she conveys an impressive acting ability as she is subtle and strangely moving. Really a cult-status film which deserves all the kudos given it, BADLANDS is a unique venture into the minds of two desperately lonely youths looking for sensationalism in all the wrong places. Morbidly fascinating.

A Chilling Debut!
The mysterious Terrence Malick couldn't of had a better directing debut. This film is starkly photographed and great attention to detail really show. But the characters, dialogue, pace and violence are so poetic it can send chills up your spine. Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen are terrific as the not-to-bright murderers who start a cross-country killing spree without any real reason or cause, just to think that these characters actually existed makes me wonder about America's youth. It is based on the actual 1958 murder spree of Charles Starkweather and Caril Fugate. But the film is fascinating and expertly crafted by a quiet genious; Terrance Malick, who should keep on making films. Beautiful vast Western landscapes, great cinematography and a disturbing score add to the tension. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film an 8!

Cold, stark portrayal of young killers
Holly (Sissy Spacek), a 15-year-old girl living in a North Dakota town, falls under the influence of twentysomething social misfit Kit (Martin Sheen). When her father (Warren Oates) stands in their way, Kit kills him and hits the road with Holly, who thinks she is in love with him. They hide out in the wilderness for awhile, and then go on the run, killing several people along the way.

Director/screenwriter Terence Malick has given us characters that are emotionally barren, as reflected by the barren landscapes of North Dakota. They occasionally seem happy together, but most of the time they seem emotionally flat and detached from their own feelings; Holly seems as if she is in a constant state of shock. Malick's style is almost like that of a documentary, presenting the events and trusting us to draw our own conclusions. Sheen and Spacek, both at the beginnings of their careers, show a great deal of talent.

Ambitious Start to an Unfulfilled Career
Stark, realistic portrayal of more or less real life events. Terence Malick established a style he hasn't broken away from since. The beautiful open scenery, the emotionless performances, the detached narration and the blunt, almost cruel, violence. Very picturesque and artsy for a first movie. Easy to get the sense that he could have done much more and the characters' detachment leaves the viewer feeling adrift.

Within a Tradition of Terror
Brilliantly directed by Terrence Malik who also wrote the screenplay, this film examines the tragic partnership of Charles Starkweather and Caril Fugate. Their counterparts are Kit (Sheen) and Holly (Spacek) whom Malik neither idealizes nor condemns. Rather, using many of the devices of a documentary, he invites us to accompany Kit and Holly as they meet, team up, and then travel along a blood-soaked journey to what seems to be an inevitable and appropriate fate. Of special interest to me is their response to celebrity status as highly publicized killers. Neither seems to understand, at least fully, the attention they attract nor the implications of their behavior but both seem energized by the "excitement" they generate.

The acting throughout the film is outstanding as is the cinematography which juxtaposes the violence with the banality of the two fugitives' lifestyle. (Several scenes remind me of Travis Bickel in Taxi Driver who also seems almost totally out of touch with the reality of his circumstances.) The highly impressionable as well as delusional Holly, an insecure teenager vulnerable to co-dependency, is the more sympathetic of the two. As indicated earlier, Malik is non-judgmental as he examines the two "star cross'd lovers." When seeing this film again recently, I was again struck by the fact that seemingly ordinary people can become so dangerous, sometimes for reasons which neither they nor we can explain. How many Kits and Hollys are out there today, together or alone, resembling time bombs which could detonate at any time, anywhere? For me, that is the most chilling implication of this unique film.

I thoroughly enjoy discussing with other film buffs certain similarities and differences between and among a group of films, especially when several decades separate one from others, thus suggesting it may have been influenced one or more of them. (It is probably impossible to calculate the number of films influenced by Citizen Kane.) Badlands (1973) is a case in point, inviting comparisons with predecessors such as High Sierra (1941), They Live by Night (1949), and Bonnie and Clyde (1967) as well as with subsequent films such as The Sugarland Express and Thieves Like Us (1974), Kalifornia (1993), Natural Born Killers (1994), and A Boy Called Hate (1995). ... Read more

Reviews (799)

A motion picture of unparalleled quality.
Terence Malick's 'Thin Red Line' is quite possibly the finest work of cinematic art that has ever graced our screens. Indeed, it casts quite a shadow over other war movie classics like Apocalypse Now- leaving it in it's wake. And as for 'Saving Private Ryan'...well it doesn't come close to 'TTRL'.

Malick's direction is simply genius; utilising the tranquil scenery to great effect whilst, at the same time, creating some of the most breathtaking action-sequences to be put on 35mm. Editing is top-notch- bearing in mind that Malick apparently filmed around 1,000,000 feet of footage! And, indeed, the acting itself is remarkable. Nolte, Penn and Chaplin are pure class as is Elias Koteas but Jim Caviezel steals the show with his perception of the spiritual Private Witt; someone who we feel 'at one' with throughout the film.

The use of multi voice-overs from numerous characters awards the picture with a great sense of dimension that crosses the proverbial board of mixed emotions. In doing so, it also goes against the notion of the classic Hollywood narrative; forming it's own unique structure that one has never before witnessed on screen.

The 170 minutes quite literally fly by. Certainly, one would be hard-pressed to come across a finer motion picture of the 90's and, one feels, the history of cinema.

This epic masterpiece deserves to be placed on a par with 'Citizen Kane' and 'The Third Man' and the very least you could do is to invest in your very own copy and behold in the pure splendour that is 'The Thin Red Line'. It's a difficult task describing such a film; it really does have to be seen to be believed...very few words would do it justice.

The thin red line
Boasting an ensemble cast including veteran Nick Nolte, Sean Penn and John Travolta (in a minor role) to name a few, The thin red line endeavours to portray yet another rendition of the gritty reality of war.

Set in the second world war it deals with a group of American soldiers whose mission it is to win a sub-war in the South Pacific, their first front being the jungles of Malaysia where they must be prepared for the distress of futile human sacrifice - in so doing they must also be prepared for the imminence of their own death or maiming.

Sean Penn plays his usual cockiness well; however his role doesn't ever allow him to display the criminal roguishness at which he truly excels, for example the character Meserve portrayed in the Vietnam flick Casualties of War. Incidentally two other thin red line cast members also appeared in the above film (John C. Reilly and Don Harvey).

Nick Nolte's gravelly voice gives credibility to his authoritarian role - Furthermore the portrayal of his disaffected, uncompromising Lt. Col. Tall are well realised.

Adrien Brody adds a touch of peacefulness and melancholy as Corporal Fife.

Overall this is a well balanced cast whose solid teamwork effectively conveys the mood of the collective war experience. Nevertheless, familiarity of plot and setting and the string of well known faces numb the intended impact of the film to drive home the violence of war that was so well done in Saving Private Ryan.

A profound spiritual experience like few films of the '90's
A lot of people were surprised when Line racked up seven Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture, the year that Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan raked in the bucks and the critical acclaim. Watching Terence Malick's long-awaited followup to Days of Heaven yesterday, I thought a lot about how boldly contemplative, achingly beautiful, and curiously flawed it was and came to a realization: I'd watch this one again before I did Ryan. In an age where modern films have the license to be as complex or manipulative as they want, here comes Terence Malick ready to make a 'war' movie: except, this one carries little logistics, plot, or superficial character development. What Line has in spades, though, is the ability to create a beating heart and soul for those young, scared men who braved the deadly shores of Guadalcanal. There is little dialogue, big-name stars have less, and the movie has the same gorgeous fascination with the natural world as Heaven.

What makes Line an arguably more fascinating journey than its same-year WWII flick is that dive deep into the soul that it attempts, and usually succeeds, to make; for proof, look into Jim Caviezel's eyes at any time during the movie. Yes, being a movie that reaches high for metaphors and philosophical musings, it does veer dangerously close to pretention (the voice-overs being the shakiest issue). Not to mention that the movie is three hours long and many characters never advance beyond a faintly recognizable face. I view pretention, though, as a flashy device used to disguise emptiness...and there isn't really any empty moment in the film. The Thin Red Line is far from perfect, but it's as close to capturing the spiritual and philosophical side of war than any movie I've seen. GRADE: A-

Wildly uneven
1998 was certainly a stand-out year for war films. With Steven Spielberg's phenomenal "Saving Private Ryan" being robbed of a Best Picture Oscar, most people forget that "The Thin Red Line" was also nominated.
Directed by Terrence Malick, whose recluseness is so extreme that his last movie ("Days of Heaven") was released in 1978, "The Thin Red Line" is a unique and sometimes fascinating war epic. With a story revolving around a company of soldiers attempting to take a Japanese stronghold in World War II, this is just Malick's excuse for jaw-dropping cinematography, courtesy of John Toll. If nothing else, this movie should be seen for its cinematography. Every shot was perfect. It was that good. The movie's unforgettable imagery had an astounding impact on me. And the battle scenes were excellent, powered by a gorgeous--yet subtle--score by Hans Zimmer.
Even so, the movie is nearly three hours in length, and quite boring in some parts. There were so many actors in so many roles that no one stood out, no matter how realistic the acting was. I suppose Sean Penn and Jim Cavieziel were the most notable. I also noticed that George Clooney and John Travolta got high billings, even if they only had cameos.
The film's biggest flaw is that I honestly had no idea what was going on. There was no plot to speak of. I got a feeling that Malick filmed a bunch of acotrs speaking, nature shots, and battles, and simply mashed them all together to make a movie.
Which ever way you look at it, "The Thin Red Line" is a movie worth seeing. I was amazed by the war scenes and the photography, but bored by everything else. This is the kind of film that makes me question its Best Picture nomination. I don't really know what to think about it, other than it partially fascinated me. I guess that's a good thing

The masterpiece of Terence Malik
This movie is great. The depicted character of the human being , his inner thoughts, his fears in the battlefield , the sense of no sense proportions of the general inmediatly reminds us to Paths of Glory , where the order to advance is just a suicide as wisely the captain answers by radio.
The Guadalcanal is now part of the story ; but Malick made much more than a war film . The camera shows you the different characters and points of view without tearful manipulation as Platoon , for instance.
Who's the good guy and who's the bad?
Nolte and Penn are magnificent in their respective roles and Harrelson played a very believable role.
Superb photograph and dazzling direction!
A real winner film! ... Read more

Reviews (52)

SENSELESS MURDER
Both Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek are absolutely terrific in this story which is loosely based on the notorious Starkweather murders in 1950's Nebraska. Amazingly realistic in its 1950's ambience, there is very careful detail via references to topical music, television, films and magazines of the period. As Kit, Sheen is astonishingly convincing and his resemblence to James Dean is striking; he gives a powerfully poignant performance. Spacek's Holly is his match and in her performance, she conveys an impressive acting ability as she is subtle and strangely moving. Really a cult-status film which deserves all the kudos given it, BADLANDS is a unique venture into the minds of two desperately lonely youths looking for sensationalism in all the wrong places. Morbidly fascinating.

A Chilling Debut!
The mysterious Terrence Malick couldn't of had a better directing debut. This film is starkly photographed and great attention to detail really show. But the characters, dialogue, pace and violence are so poetic it can send chills up your spine. Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen are terrific as the not-to-bright murderers who start a cross-country killing spree without any real reason or cause, just to think that these characters actually existed makes me wonder about America's youth. It is based on the actual 1958 murder spree of Charles Starkweather and Caril Fugate. But the film is fascinating and expertly crafted by a quiet genious; Terrance Malick, who should keep on making films. Beautiful vast Western landscapes, great cinematography and a disturbing score add to the tension. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film an 8!

Cold, stark portrayal of young killers
Holly (Sissy Spacek), a 15-year-old girl living in a North Dakota town, falls under the influence of twentysomething social misfit Kit (Martin Sheen). When her father (Warren Oates) stands in their way, Kit kills him and hits the road with Holly, who thinks she is in love with him. They hide out in the wilderness for awhile, and then go on the run, killing several people along the way.

Director/screenwriter Terence Malick has given us characters that are emotionally barren, as reflected by the barren landscapes of North Dakota. They occasionally seem happy together, but most of the time they seem emotionally flat and detached from their own feelings; Holly seems as if she is in a constant state of shock. Malick's style is almost like that of a documentary, presenting the events and trusting us to draw our own conclusions. Sheen and Spacek, both at the beginnings of their careers, show a great deal of talent.

Ambitious Start to an Unfulfilled Career
Stark, realistic portrayal of more or less real life events. Terence Malick established a style he hasn't broken away from since. The beautiful open scenery, the emotionless performances, the detached narration and the blunt, almost cruel, violence. Very picturesque and artsy for a first movie. Easy to get the sense that he could have done much more and the characters' detachment leaves the viewer feeling adrift.

Within a Tradition of Terror
Brilliantly directed by Terrence Malik who also wrote the screenplay, this film examines the tragic partnership of Charles Starkweather and Caril Fugate. Their counterparts are Kit (Sheen) and Holly (Spacek) whom Malik neither idealizes nor condemns. Rather, using many of the devices of a documentary, he invites us to accompany Kit and Holly as they meet, team up, and then travel along a blood-soaked journey to what seems to be an inevitable and appropriate fate. Of special interest to me is their response to celebrity status as highly publicized killers. Neither seems to understand, at least fully, the attention they attract nor the implications of their behavior but both seem energized by the "excitement" they generate.

The acting throughout the film is outstanding as is the cinematography which juxtaposes the violence with the banality of the two fugitives' lifestyle. (Several scenes remind me of Travis Bickel in Taxi Driver who also seems almost totally out of touch with the reality of his circumstances.) The highly impressionable as well as delusional Holly, an insecure teenager vulnerable to co-dependency, is the more sympathetic of the two. As indicated earlier, Malik is non-judgmental as he examines the two "star cross'd lovers." When seeing this film again recently, I was again struck by the fact that seemingly ordinary people can become so dangerous, sometimes for reasons which neither they nor we can explain. How many Kits and Hollys are out there today, together or alone, resembling time bombs which could detonate at any time, anywhere? For me, that is the most chilling implication of this unique film.

I thoroughly enjoy discussing with other film buffs certain similarities and differences between and among a group of films, especially when several decades separate one from others, thus suggesting it may have been influenced one or more of them. (It is probably impossible to calculate the number of films influenced by Citizen Kane.) Badlands (1973) is a case in point, inviting comparisons with predecessors such as High Sierra (1941), They Live by Night (1949), and Bonnie and Clyde (1967) as well as with subsequent films such as The Sugarland Express and Thieves Like Us (1974), Kalifornia (1993), Natural Born Killers (1994), and A Boy Called Hate (1995). ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Still one of American cinema's most powerful, daring filmmaking debuts, Terrence Malick's Badlands is a quirky, visionary psychological and social enigma masquerading as a simple lovers-on-the-lam flick. Inspired by the 1958 murders in the cold, stark badlands of South Dakota by Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate, the film's plot, on the surface, is similar to that of other killing-couple films, likeBonnie and Clyde and Gun Crazy. Martin Sheen, in an understated, sophisticated performance, plays the strange James Dean-like social outcast who falls in love with the naïve Sissy Spacek--and then kills her father when he comes between them. The two flee like animals to the wilderness, until the police arrive and the killing spree begins.

What sets the film apart from others of its genre is Malick's complicated approach. Gorgeous, impenetrable images contrast sharply with Spacek's nostalgically artless narration, serving as ironic counterpoints, blurring concrete meaning, and stressing that nothing this horrific is simple. Malick observes, rather than analyzes, the couple in a manner as detached and apathetic as the couple's shocking actions. No judgment or definitive motivations are offered, though Malick's empathy often leans toward his senseless protagonists, rather than the star-struck society that makes killers famous. Compared with the interchangeable uniform cops who hunt them and the film's other nameless characters stuck in suburban banality, the couple are presented like tarnished, warped and frustrated results of squelched individuality.

Badlands, on one level, views America's suffocating homogeneity and, conversely, its continued obsession with celebrities (individuals considered different but adored) as hypocritical. Ambiguous and bold, the movie hints that society may be as guilty as the killers. --Dave McCoy ... Read more

Reviews (52)

SENSELESS MURDER
Both Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek are absolutely terrific in this story which is loosely based on the notorious Starkweather murders in 1950's Nebraska. Amazingly realistic in its 1950's ambience, there is very careful detail via references to topical music, television, films and magazines of the period. As Kit, Sheen is astonishingly convincing and his resemblence to James Dean is striking; he gives a powerfully poignant performance. Spacek's Holly is his match and in her performance, she conveys an impressive acting ability as she is subtle and strangely moving. Really a cult-status film which deserves all the kudos given it, BADLANDS is a unique venture into the minds of two desperately lonely youths looking for sensationalism in all the wrong places. Morbidly fascinating.

A Chilling Debut!
The mysterious Terrence Malick couldn't of had a better directing debut. This film is starkly photographed and great attention to detail really show. But the characters, dialogue, pace and violence are so poetic it can send chills up your spine. Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen are terrific as the not-to-bright murderers who start a cross-country killing spree without any real reason or cause, just to think that these characters actually existed makes me wonder about America's youth. It is based on the actual 1958 murder spree of Charles Starkweather and Caril Fugate. But the film is fascinating and expertly crafted by a quiet genious; Terrance Malick, who should keep on making films. Beautiful vast Western landscapes, great cinematography and a disturbing score add to the tension. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film an 8!

Cold, stark portrayal of young killers
Holly (Sissy Spacek), a 15-year-old girl living in a North Dakota town, falls under the influence of twentysomething social misfit Kit (Martin Sheen). When her father (Warren Oates) stands in their way, Kit kills him and hits the road with Holly, who thinks she is in love with him. They hide out in the wilderness for awhile, and then go on the run, killing several people along the way.

Director/screenwriter Terence Malick has given us characters that are emotionally barren, as reflected by the barren landscapes of North Dakota. They occasionally seem happy together, but most of the time they seem emotionally flat and detached from their own feelings; Holly seems as if she is in a constant state of shock. Malick's style is almost like that of a documentary, presenting the events and trusting us to draw our own conclusions. Sheen and Spacek, both at the beginnings of their careers, show a great deal of talent.

Ambitious Start to an Unfulfilled Career
Stark, realistic portrayal of more or less real life events. Terence Malick established a style he hasn't broken away from since. The beautiful open scenery, the emotionless performances, the detached narration and the blunt, almost cruel, violence. Very picturesque and artsy for a first movie. Easy to get the sense that he could have done much more and the characters' detachment leaves the viewer feeling adrift.

Within a Tradition of Terror
Brilliantly directed by Terrence Malik who also wrote the screenplay, this film examines the tragic partnership of Charles Starkweather and Caril Fugate. Their counterparts are Kit (Sheen) and Holly (Spacek) whom Malik neither idealizes nor condemns. Rather, using many of the devices of a documentary, he invites us to accompany Kit and Holly as they meet, team up, and then travel along a blood-soaked journey to what seems to be an inevitable and appropriate fate. Of special interest to me is their response to celebrity status as highly publicized killers. Neither seems to understand, at least fully, the attention they attract nor the implications of their behavior but both seem energized by the "excitement" they generate.

The acting throughout the film is outstanding as is the cinematography which juxtaposes the violence with the banality of the two fugitives' lifestyle. (Several scenes remind me of Travis Bickel in Taxi Driver who also seems almost totally out of touch with the reality of his circumstances.) The highly impressionable as well as delusional Holly, an insecure teenager vulnerable to co-dependency, is the more sympathetic of the two. As indicated earlier, Malik is non-judgmental as he examines the two "star cross'd lovers." When seeing this film again recently, I was again struck by the fact that seemingly ordinary people can become so dangerous, sometimes for reasons which neither they nor we can explain. How many Kits and Hollys are out there today, together or alone, resembling time bombs which could detonate at any time, anywhere? For me, that is the most chilling implication of this unique film.

I thoroughly enjoy discussing with other film buffs certain similarities and differences between and among a group of films, especially when several decades separate one from others, thus suggesting it may have been influenced one or more of them. (It is probably impossible to calculate the number of films influenced by Citizen Kane.) Badlands (1973) is a case in point, inviting comparisons with predecessors such as High Sierra (1941), They Live by Night (1949), and Bonnie and Clyde (1967) as well as with subsequent films such as The Sugarland Express and Thieves Like Us (1974), Kalifornia (1993), Natural Born Killers (1994), and A Boy Called Hate (1995). ... Read more