User Reviews

Oops, I got this film by accident, I thought it was the 1998 version. After almost taking it back, I decided to watch it and was glad I did. This is really a very good film working on the characters and situations without having to rely on the star appeal or visual effects as modern films. Do yourselves a favour and repeat my mistake.

This version of James Jones' book follows the plot of the novel closely and actually received very high praise from the author himself. Jones wrote a letter to the director saying "Very rarely does an author get to write a letter to a filmmaker to say that he has captured the author's intention to the highest level possible." Jones was very pleased with the outcome of this movie, while the 1998 version heavily strays from his book. For example, Witt and Walsh in the 1998 version both quote a lot from another Jones novel, called "From Here To Eternity", and not from "A Thin Red Line". The main storyline, namely the clash between the Private and his Captain, is almost completely left out of the Malick film. In making the book into a movie, the 1964 film succeeds. Which is not to say Malick didn't create a riveting film in 1998, he just didn't really turn the book into a movie.

A solid effort hampered by the the filmmaking conventions of that time. Some of the acting is amateurish, and the dialogue stilted. But it does confront the serious moral issues of war, unlike most war movies of that era. The theme is essentially the same as the current version -- that is, how does man endure in war? It presents several models for survival. Many of the scenes are exactly the same as in the 1998 version, though it includes others that are not found in Malick. This attempt focuses more on the relationship between Welsh (Jack Warden) and Doll (Keir Dullea). The music is awful, like something out of a cheesy 50s horror flick. Also, it's amazing how much Guadalcanal resembles the high desert of Southern California. But this is well worth a rent if one has the proper expectations...

First adaptation of the James Jones novel about the battle for Guadalcanal on the famous Pacific toll in which a typical crew of Marines fighting the ¨Yellow Menace¨ and it results to be one of the best American films about the Pacific conflict during WWII . Soldier Doll (Keir Dullea)separated from his recent spouse (Yordan) after only few days of marriage, spontaneously decides that he'll no longer obey the orders of his First Sergeant , following his own will instead . What follows are a series of bloody attacks, on the river , lake , mountains in which the rifle company fighting Japanese who hold killers gun-machines . As battle experience hardens soldiers and Colonel (James Philbrook) orders captain Stone (Daley) leading to the taking of the Elephant hill in the battle of Guadalcanal . Sgt. Welsh, (Jack Warden) Doll's superior immediate grows the mutual hatred but at the ending the two contenders change to affinity , and getting reciprocal respect .

Based on James Jones 's first hand account of the notorious battle is well adapted to screen by Bernard Gordon . This dark story produced by prestigious Philip Yordan is immensely exciting , firmly characterized on its two main roles and in places very moving too . Visually stunning and focused on the battle of wits of a Private and a Sergeant and on men's determination to survive his tour of duty . The film brings home the true horror of battle and the meaninglessness of it all and effectively portrays the deshumanizing effects of war . The troublesome relationship between Keir Dullea and Jack Warden makes the biggest impression and delivers the interesting main plot . Combat images are naturally , well filmed and effective , getting spectacular scenes. Atmospheric cinematography in black and white by the Spanish Manuel Berenguer . The motion picture is professionally directed by Andrew Marton.

Another tale based on the 1962 novel by James Jones was directed by Terence Malick with star-laden cast as Jim Cazievel as Private protagonist , Sean Penn as the Sergeant , and many others as George Clooney, Nick Nolte and Woody Harrelson . Furthermore , another important film about Guadalcanal battle turns out to be ¨Guadalcanal diary¨ by Lewis Seiler with Anthony Quinn, Preston Foster, Lloyd Nolan and Richard Conte .

"The Thin Red Line" is a decent war film. My only serious complaint is that I wasn't quite sure what the story was trying to say...if anything.

The story is set during WWII and some marines are aboard a transport ship heading to Guadalcanal, one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the war. The story focuses on Pvt. Doll (Keir Dullea) and his seemingly sadistic Sergeant (Jack Warden). The story is extremely violent for 1964--with many scenes that would be tough on the squeamish.

What I liked about the film was how savage the fighting was. Unlike many more sanitized war pictures, this one really didn't clean it up too much. What I didn't like was the odd message as well as the fact the place looked nothing like the tropical locale it was supposed to be--with dry cliffs and trees you'd find in a much different climate. In addition, Doll's wife looks like a woman of 1964--not 1942. Overall, worth seeing...but odd they didn't take more pains to get some of the details right.

James Jones also wrote "From Here to Eternity", and this novel has been filmed several times, last time in 1998 in colour, but the two versions compliment each other. This one is more stringent and poignant in its psychology and characterizations. Jack Warden and Keir Dullea clash from the beginning, they are both close to the thin red line separating sanity from madness, and they appear as rather half mad both of them, although Keir Dullea seems more liable, as he loses control a number of times. Jack Warden's madness is of a different kind, as he rather drives others mad than goes mad himself, and he is the better soldier of the two.

It's about the critical battler of Guadalcanal, when more men were lost than even the Americans and theír ruthless colonel could afford. Although you don't see much of the Japs, the Americans didn't either, as the Japs were experts on ambushes and targeting Americans unawares, they appear as fearsome soldiers indeed. Many Americans have also testified, that Japanese soldiers were the bravest soldiers of all.

It's a brutal and realistic war account from its worst sides, and if you can stand any amount of war atrocities, this is a film for you. If you can't, you had better stick to something nicer with dames. There are only two dames in this film, one in a short flashback, and the other one isn't even a dame, and her appearance is even shorter.

A battle hardened top kick tries to instill toughness in his men, preparing them for war. His softhearted c.o. tells him to go easier on the troops. Which was right? Had they not been brainwashed into fighting this unnecessary war, neither decision would have had to have been made. This film was a slow starter, but a big bombs and guns finale gave a fine portrayal of war at it's worst.

For those who have read the James Jones novel, you should know that that the production team for this movie paid little heed to the original text. And, that's a shame, because the true horror and insanity of war as described by Jones is missing: instead, what you see is an attempt at a psychological explanation in the guise of one of the characters, Private Doll (Keir Dullea).

Briefly, the story concentrates upon Doll – a somewhat nervous but seemingly normal soldier at first -- showing how he gradually degenerates into a killing machine who not only wants to kill the enemy – in this case, the Japanese garrison at Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands – but eventually the soldiers of his own company as well. War is hell, as we know, but is that a likely result from the stress of battle and a crazy desire to survive at any cost? Apparently so, according to the screenwriter and director.

Inexplicably, top sergeant Welch (Jack Warden), who in the novel really is as crazy as hell, is portrayed instead as a tough – but sincere -- no-nonsense veteran (who's character for the movie is no doubt modeled on Duke Wayne's portrayal of Sergeant Stryker in The Sands of Iwo Jima, [1949]) who pushes Doll to the limits, goading him all the time in order to help make Doll a better soldier and thus survive the war. Does he succeed? You be the judge, should you see the movie.

The other characters of the novel are virtually ignored, except for the tussle between Col. Tall (James Philbrook) and Capt. Stone (Ray Daley) that rams home the point that nice guys always finish last. Like I said, war is hell... And, in a daring departure for the times, the overt homosexuality between Doll and Fife in the novel is actually hinted at, visually and in the dialog, on quiet a few occasions.

I liked the black and white cinematography; it brought back memories of the Iwo Jima classic and Duke Wayne. The overall production, however, lacked the realism of that, and other classics (All Quiet on the Western Front [1930], Paths of Glory [1957], The Rats of Tobruk [1944] and others), the special effects were hardly special, and the overall effect was one of a cheap production done over a few weeks somewhere in southern California (none of the terrain even vaguely resembled a tropical rain forest as exists at Gaudalcanal).

For the times, the production was about equal to any B-movie you'd see at a Saturday afternoon cinema or drive-in, and about as exciting. As a piece of Hollywood production history, it's worth seeing, I guess. For a more serious and far superior production, however, see Terence Malick's presentation of The Thin Red Line from 1998.

I disagree with "Witt 7". From beginning to end, this movie portrays, what it must have been like for green troops on the "canal". for example, green troops doing something stupid. The interplay between the various ranks, I thought was well done. The agony of getting a traumatic wound, and suffering through it; brings up movies prior, and after, this one, continue to flash through my mind. The special effects are good and convincing. I also think that the factor of "random chance", as it relates to life and death that "Witt 7" seems to downplay, is very well done. Plus The acting is very good. Bottom line, if you are into war flicks, and you haven't seen this one. I highly recommend this one !!

Plot: Tough company sergeant Jack Warden and maverick infantryman Keir Dullea battle their way – both with the enemy and each other – across the killing fields of Guadalcanal during World War II.

Review: Not quite the classic I expected. Rather uneven at times, especially during the earlier part of the film with some suspect acting and an awful lot of unnecessary explanation. Thankfully it is held together by the two lead performances – Jack Warden (a Hollywood stalwart) and Keir Dullea (better known as the astronaut Dave Bowman in 2001: A Space Odyssey).

The movie graphically depicts the horror and mercilessness of combat, an experience which gradually sends Dullea round the bend. Warden's character, an unrepentantly hard-nosed company sergeant, never bats an eyelid. The two manage a sort of working relationship as events progress, but Dullea is an incomprehensible dreamer as far as Warden is concerned, while Warden represent everything that is wrong in the world to Dullea.

It was good to see Dullea in action, knowing him only from 2001. He comes across as a sort of mild Clint Eastwood – quietly spoken, thoughtful, singular, and probably with numerous issues going on behind his curious stare. Warden, a good character actor most familiar as one of the jurors in 12 Angry Men, must have drawn a lot on his own experiences as a sergeant in WWII.

I'm not sure what the movie was trying to say, but it definitely cannot be accused of glamorising war. It is the grim tale of men killing, being killed, and being driven to and beyond their limits for hopefully the greater good.

Like some other commenters, I saw the 1998 version before seeing this version. I had expected a somewhat jingoistic war film, but was surprised that this turned out to be superior to the 1998 remake in every way but one. Of course the one aspect that was lesser was the depiction of graphic violence, and that was only due to the changing times and audience, and modern film effects that can show things more realistically in graphic fashion. However, I do not consider this a positive, but only stating that the technical ability to show graphic violence has improved. I would say that the story in this one is more engaging, more concise and without losing the effect of alienation that both try to convey, and in fact that effect is much more visible here in this depiction. I found the acting to be solid and less melodramatic than the 1998 version, and the soldiers actions all ring true to what would have been going on in WW II at Guadacanal, without hystrionics. It's quite interesting that this version, coming right before the Vietnam era would be cynical about war but also considerably mindful of the necessity of the particular war it depicts and of the need for the soldiers to do as they did. Whereas the post-Vietnam 1998 version is also cynical, yet much more so, showing the military as a bumbling bureaucracy of sorts and attempting to depict the battle as pointless, extending that depiction to the war in general, and it actually is an unstated allegory about Vietnam. I would say that the 1998 film boasts a production group fairly unaware of the overall reality of WW II, and still stuck in the miasma of Vietnam.

Set during the Guadalcanal campaign of World War 2, Private Doll is a raw recruit. Recently married, he is determined to survive the fighting ahead. This leads to conflict with his platoon sergeant. The self-preservation instinct doesn't prevent Doll from some heroic actions...

Good, but not great. Certainly not in the same league as Terrence Malick's superb 1998 remake (about the only ever remake that is better than the original). Good, gritty action. Sometimes a bit too gung-ho or unrealistic though. I couldn't imagine a real-life First Sergeant taking all that crap from a private.

Good performance from Jack Warden. Keir Dullea's performance was a bit grating, as was Ray Daley's.

This happens to be one of those cases where the original film is not the superior product. While this version of the film sought to follow the story much closer, it proves to be too short and plot driven. Maybe it was because I watched the 1998 version first, or maybe this was too hastily made in order to provide a visual adaptation of the book (James Jones wrote the book in 1962). While people will always put down the 1998 version, this version isn't a definitive piece of work either. A good story, but so inferior to the 1998 version.

British actor Terence Hardiman, who played an abbot in the excellent series "Cadfael" and a Luftwaffe major in another excellent British TV series "Secret Army" had a tiny bit role in the movie. He appears as a survivor in the aftermath of a vicious firefight with Japanese troops, grouped around the colonel who hastily arrived at the sight to inspect the conditions of his men. I suppose he was just a nobody at that time.

This is a highly recommended black and white film for war movie buffs. Very rarely aired on TV.

Detailing the battle on the South Pacific Island of Guadalcanal in 1943 and the Americans' final success over the Japanese, this is a most poignant and underestimated war film. Seen through the narrator, one of the American soldiers, the film's strength lies in its depiction of the harshness, misery, madness, and yet also the depth of humanity, on both sides. There are no winners here. Superb acting all round from the plethora of well-know actors, this extraordinary film leaves you pondering about life long after the credits have rolled on by.

It reminds me how fortunate I am not to have been forced to be a soldier as I could not do what so many have been, are still in parts of the world, made to do on behalf of their governments, or renegade armies. May we be forgiven for all the suffering humankind has meted out on other fellow human beings.

Titled after what one soldier says about there being only a "thin red line between the sane and mad", this World War II drama focuses on a young soldier who decides to distance himself as much as possible from his platoon's ruthless sergeant - a decision that gradually leads to him becoming a cold-blooded killer. Keir Dullea and Jack Warden are superb as the young upstart and sergeant respectively with an especially memorable final couple of scenes that capture just how unstable Dullea has become. Warden also has a touching bit in which he repeats his motto regarded dead soldiers ("it's only meat") in a new context. With none of the other characters fleshed out in any depth, one's appreciation of the film is likely to rest entirely on how much interest one takes in the dynamics between Warden and Dullea, which admittedly overshadow the historical backdrop and battlefield action. Edited with nightmarish flashback sequences and full of memorable dialogue (Warden warning of the dangers of letting his privates "start thinking" rather just following orders), this was though clearly intended as a less traditional war movie. As far as dialogue-heavy war movies go, 'The Thin Red Line' might have nothing on Samuel Fuller's masterpieces of the prior decade, but it deserves to be mentioned in the same breath at least as a film that taps into the psychology of war.

1964's "The Thin Red Line" was unfairly neglected for too long, US troops fighting the Japanese during WW2, Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands to be specific, just over 2000 miles northeast of Australia (perhaps due to its being released by a small distribution outfit, Allied Artists, rather than one of the major studios). The 1962 novel was the second in a trilogy of war stories authored by James Jones, preceded by "From Here to Eternity," all based on personal experience and the admission that it would be all he had to say on 'the human condition of war' (the arid shooting locations took place in Spain). The all or nothing Colonel (James Philbrook) looks disapprovingly on the Charlie Company Captain (Ray Daley) who questions the odds of battle in a conscious attempt to save lives rather than risk everything no matter the cost. The central focus lies upon raw recruit Private Doll (Keir Dullea), endeavoring to steal an officer's pistol to give himself an edge to survive, against battle tested Sgt. Welsh (Jack Warden), attempting to bully, shame or even lie to toughen his men into a stronger fighting force. Doll's first encounter with a Jap assassin results in his killing the enemy several times over, evidently crossing the 'thin red line' between sanity and madness but indeed giving him greater resolve to accompish his task even when obstinately going head to head against Welsh. Those accustomed to the usual fantasy horror titles so popular on screen may want to turn a blind eye to the real life horror presented so bluntly in this almost forgotten gem, later remade in bloated fashion in 1998, but so far removed from the brutal original that viewers proceed at a discreet distance. The sight of a screaming soldier with his insides blown up is not likely to be forgotten, nor is the compassion shown by Warden's hard nosed sergeant, using three injections of morphine just to keep the dying man quiet (the actor had been an experienced paratrooper during the war). Various booby traps left by the crafty Japanese, in a bejeweled burial plot meant to lure the greedy to their doom, or lying beneath carefully concealed camouflage, one never knows where the enemy may be hiding, nor just how heavy the cost to our incredibly brave troops. Director Andrew Marton was the maestro behind epic battle scenes from 1962's THE LONGEST DAY, and would work again with producer Philip Yordan on Dana Andrews' CRACK IN THE WORLD before switching to television's DAKTARI and COWBOY IN AFRICA. Cleveland-born Keir Dullea went on to earn screen immortality in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey," later sticking to Canadian horror with "Black Christmas," "Welcome to Blood City," or "The Haunting of Julia."

The first interpretation of James Jones' novel is an OK movie. Nothing really stuck with me, though. It condenses about five characters each into the two lead characters in order to make a well rounded film that fairly expresses Jones' ideas on men in war. It is an interesting psychological study on men, not under stress, but facing death, either from a distance, or up close. There are some great moments in this, and the acting is superb. I did think, though, that the sexual feelings of the novel did not translate so well into the early 60's film. The battle are also utterly unconvincing. Death is still portrayed as a somewhat painless event (with the near exception of one great scene), it leans more to the earlier gung ho war movies than, say, Paths of Glory or All Quiet on the Western Front. The battle scenes are ultimately silly and cartoonish. Two men climb a cliff because the valley below is mined. One knocks over a big rock that causes a chain reaction and all the rocks fall into the valley and clear the mine field. This kind scene is not meant to be surreal, so it loses on the realism scale. This is not the way Jones wanted war depicted. The kind of silly inventiveness of the battle scenes does not exist in all out combat. But, I must say, it does succeed in some scenes, and the performances are all great. I must also say that the end is extremely powerful. It made all the cheesey set pieces and battle scenes disappear from my mind. That last shot is the tone of Jones' novels, a tone From Here to Eternity got right all the way through, and Terrence Malick's Thin Red Line also successfully portrayed (But stepped away to alow contemplation, not to experience.) That last scene makes it a good movie, but it couldn've been done better. Actually, it was done better. I still recommend it. It has its ideas in the right place, but its execution is a bit showy and not realistic enough.

Hello,I am first time on this scene.

As a former biograph owner I saw this 2-3 years after the first presentation, and it made me a very deep impression.

I was teenager at that time (I suppose).Anyway must compare to Alfreds films.

Both are born in Europe's and that has something to do.

Sometimes the film takes Your soul, hopefully only for a moment, but You can't forget the Film ever. So it pops up sometimes when you see something concerning the Whigs

that happened in the film.

Greetings Mikko

I will write another comment after seeing the more recent version of this movie, but it seems it will be hard to beat. The film doesn't seem to follow the book all that well, but is an excellent movie. It is well directed, and very well acted, and yes younger people, black and white is a valid medium. I imagine Malick will use lots of special effects, but I'll reserve judgment until I see it.