The film originally opened with Sam Fuller's The Naked Kiss, and thinking of those film son a double bill, both mixing sex with violence, makes one miss the era when two films could be seen for a single ticket. In fact, while Malick's film never explicitly reveals what the film's title means, Marton's film wastes little time in explaining, via Captain Stone, that the phrase is from an old Midwest saying, 'There's only a thin red line between sanity and madness.' The DVD, by Simitar Entertainment, has some interesting extras, such as bios on Dullea and Warden, but also six clips from genuine World War Two documentaries- the most interesting being a clip on the rescue of an American who evaded capture for 31 months, after the Japanese originally invaded Guam. That soldier, named George Tweed, had his tale told in a 1962 film, starring Jeffrey Hunter, called No Man Is An Island. There is also the original theatrical trailer, and a series of clickable features that has important historical facts about the Battle of Guadalcanal. There is no audio commentary track.Overall, the DVD package is a solid one, but the film is merely mediocre, albeit with some good moments. It is best watched as a curio piece (especially for fans of Dullea's career), and a companion to the infinitely superior Terrence Malick film of 1998. That film is one of the more sublime expressions of cinema in American history. This film is a 'flick.' But flicks have their place, and this one's will be next to its cousin. Insert any 'strange bedfellows' comment at your leisure.

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.

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.

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.