From what I’v heard of this movie, it seems that most people either love it or don’t get it at all. It certainly looks interesting, but then I hear people whose opinions on movies I value saying it’s a load of self-indulgent horseshit and that the plot was last seen wandering shoeless in Alaska.
So to start, what did you think of this movie? What specifically did you enjoy or dislike about it? Would you reccommend it?
Well, they’re right about the plot. The movie is more concerned with showing the effects of combat on soldiers through a series of loosely-related vignettes then it is about presenting a coherent story. Personally, I found it quite effective, though I can understand why it would put some people off.
I enjoyed the contrasts between the fighting sequences and moments of solitude. It is a very visually appealing film, with lots of small roles acted very well by big names (Nick Nolte, Sean Penn, Woody Harrelson). There are also a number of self-indulgent flash-back scenes which disrupt the movie. For me, it took a second viewing to really appreciate the film on it’s own merits instead of that of a Saving Private Ryan-esque war flick, but all in all I’d say it is still worth the price of admission.
I think a good question is, do you like foreign films? Malick’s approach is very similar to a European sensibility, de-emphasizing battle scenes and linear storytelling and prioritizing the interiority of its characters. It is more meditative, with a lot of nature imagery and even the action sequences having less of the immediacy of SPR and more of a distant, detached feeling. A good parallel would be the films of France’s Robert Bresson or Italy’s Michelangelo Antonioni. It is also definitely not everyone’s cup of tea, though well worth the effort if you abandon more conventional expectations of what a Hollywood movie should be like (a little patience won’t hurt, either). Having seen it in the theater, I imagine some of the film’s strengths will be diluted on video, though.