Comments about ‘Thin Red Line, The’

good film - but lacks emotion. not the greatest lawyer
movie made.

For once I agree with the DesNews. Yawn.

Once again I must disagree with the hypercritical Jeff
Vice. I fould this film compelling. It is a film about
legal wrangling and the injustice of what our system calls
'justice'. It portrays that very effectively. I thought
the performances were excellent in every case and
especially enjoyed Robert Duvall's near-lunacy. Don't miss
this fine movie because some think they feel qualified to
speak to what 'audiences' reactions might be.

I disareed with Mr vice on this film as well as many others
he has reviewed. Personally I get a little tired of having
this guy send people away from good or even great movies.
I am usually hesitant to join into causes but in this case I
agree with others here who want to change this. Deseret News
please give us someone who is fair and unbiased.

Taking into consideration the true facts of this story, I find your opinon lacking in not only style, but compassion as well.
Mr. Travolta is highly underated by your standards. Who is to judge one's standards at all. After all You nor I are laughing all the way to the bank! Well I know you're not! I suggest you view the film again. Only this time take a parent with you who has indeed lost a child at such a young age. For circumstances beyond their control. Perhaps then you will get a slight insight as to the pain and, suffering that this film truly depicts. Respectfully, Teri Copeland (Mother of 4)

I enjoyed this film. It represents an excellent
true-to-life story and didn't require any false pretensed
Hollywood magic to carry it. However, if you're the kind of
person that goes to a movie expecting that false pretensed
Hollywood magic to justify your spending $6+ for a ticket
than stay home and rent a movie.

This 'based-on-fact' movie is interesting for that reason and that reason only. Travolta was weak. The movie was too long. The f-word was used 3 times and didn't need to be used at all--it added nothing. Wait for it to come to your local dollar theater. dla.

I enjoyed this movie. Of course, I'll watch nearly anything with Robert Duvall. (We even sat through "Deep Impact.") I think John Travolta was miscast in this part, but I'm not sure who should have played it.

i just saw a civil action last night a thought it could have
been better.
john travolta was miscast as a ruthless lawyer.
believe me he was much better in a better movie called primary colors.

as a matter of fact all the actors in this movie are miscast
not one of them are interesting on screen.

a civil action is not one of the year's best or worst films
but with that writting and murky direction it comes close.

poor movie could have been better.

this movie did recieve a supporting actor nominee for
robert duvall well after seeing this film i not so sure
that nomination was deserved.

bad movie but not awful but it comes close.

a time to kill is clearly the best courtroom thriller.

Some of you blame this movie because it wasn't the movie
you
wanted/expected to see. You said it was "dull." But for it
not to have been "dull" would mean it had to have been a
different film. The book on which the film was based (how
many of you even looked at the book?) was a non-fiction,
journalistic reporting of how a very complicated legal case
wound its way through the justice system. It wasn't about
the lives of the people involved; it wasn't courtroom
melodrama; it wasn't an expose of the system. It was just
monotonous, plodding, unemotional, reporting. At the end of
the book the reader didn't know any more about Jan
Schlictmann than he did after the 1st 50 pages. The movie
was entirely faithful to the book in that respect - the
point was about the legal process, not about those who took
part. Criticism of the movie because that was it's focus,
is
invalid. So is the criticism that it "should" have been
more
about the families and not about legal wrangling. But that
also would have made a different story & different movie.
The problem with the movie, like the book, is that by
merely
reporting what happened, none of the people are made to be
engaging, and thus we may say this "report" was interesting
but certainly not compelling. Travolta's performance was
obviously based on the director's wishes, producing a
character who was "enigmatic," and "distant." Agreed. But
again, that's not a fault of the film; that choice was
totally in keeping with the book. The Duvall character was
clearly the most interesting because he had dimension.

The problem was in choosing to translate non-fiction into a
dramatic medium like a commercial movie, while trying to
leave the drama behind. It didn't work. In staying so true
to the book the director forgot what makes for a good
movie.
And at the end, the director (the studio?) abandoned the
path he'd been so faithfully following; we get a phony,
Hollywood ending which tried to make the Travolta character
somehow redeemed. In the book there was no redemption. He
had struck out & was broke. That was that. The End. The
real
end of the movie took place with Travolta standing in the
freezing cold by the polluted river while his 3 partners
waited for him up on the bridge in the warm car. That's the
only ending that made sense. All the rest that was tacked
on, was hokum.
The book was a documentary, and the movie was a docu-drama
that somehow lost its drama between the typewriter and the
movie camera.
My wife said the book provided tension, suspense & real-
life
drama; she liked the movie but thought it was less than the
book. I didn't find any of those qualities in the book and
even less of them in the movie.

By their screen presence alone, Travolta and Duvall carry
this otherwise ordinary film to unexpected heights.
Travolta makes it believable; Duvall makes it interesting.
Worth a look.

A Civil Action touched me. Although the courtroom
grew
a little tedious, I was enthralled by the movie because I
have had a similar experience. My hometown, Alberton,
Montana, experienced the largest chlorine and other
chemical
spill in the U.S. One of our citizens, Lucinda Hodges,
organized us and we interviewed lawyers - finally
settling on a fine Austin, Texas lawyer by the name of
Mark Mueller. He reeked of charisma. But because
there was not enough assurance of a large settlement
without ground-breaking work, he deserted us; leaving
us with a serious and competent local lawyer, Bill
Rossbach. But Bill, although of good intentions and
able, does not have the glamour or brilliance of the
Texas man. We filed one of the first class action ever to
come of this sort of chemical spill.
So I sat through the movie glued to the screen,
identifying with set, setting, and characterization.
I believe there are more and more Americans who view
this movie as I did - a chronicle and legend for the need
for environmental justice.
Not bloody. No car chases. But real.
4 stars.

I would first like to say "It is about time Hollywood make
the general public aware of chemical dumping and the
effects it has on human life." This movie was a great
disapointment. The children and adults who suffered
tremendously due to these companies dumping toxic chemicals
into the land were mearly mentioned. I see Jan as a money
hungry selfless excuse for a human being. Shame on him, I
do
not feel one bit bad for him. All along his intentions were
for the almighty dollar. The laws in the country are too
lenient for those who commit such crimes. If you are going
to dump toxic waste in your community, the law should try
these individuls for murder 1.
Thank You