Movie Watcher's Oasis

Movie Discussion Boards => Pretentious Elitist Snob Discussion => Topic started by: CT_Sexybeast on July 25, 2016, 02:11:16 pm


Title: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on July 25, 2016, 02:11:16 pm
I'd rank them:

Knight of Cups: 9/10
Days of Heaven: 9/10
The Thin Red Line: 9/10
Badlands: 8.5/10
The Tree of Life: 8/10
To the Wonder: 7/10

Can't wait for more people on here to see Knight of Cups. I'm sure it'll be polarizing, but I absolutely loved it.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: John Tyler on July 25, 2016, 02:14:08 pm
Badlands: 10/10
Days of Heaven: 9/10
The Thin Red Line: 10/10
The New World: 8/10
The Tree of Life: 10/10
To the Wonder: 9/10
Knight of Cups: 8/10
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on July 25, 2016, 02:15:52 pm
Badlands is easily my favorite. 10/10 film right there. I plan on seeing Knight of Cups soon, but I don't know where to find it. Days of Heaven is an 8/10 for me and The Thin Red Line is a six. I don't know... Red Line is just very forgettable for me. If you had shown it to me and asked me who I thought directed it, I would never have said Malick. It lacks a certain style that Badlands and Days of Heaven had.

Speaking of which, I was thinking about Days of Heaven's soundtrack just the other day... simply beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5mmmWIqZUQ
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Gold Jeffblum on July 25, 2016, 02:28:22 pm
Badlands 8/10

That's ah actually it for me.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on July 25, 2016, 02:30:37 pm
Badlands 8/10

That's ah actually it for me.

You might like Days of Heaven, 'Blum. It's one of those films that's really grown on me. Though I couldn't say it's better than Badlands...
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on July 25, 2016, 02:33:05 pm
Badlands 8/10

That's ah actually it for me.
I definitely suggest you watch more. I had only seen Tree of Life before this year, and now all I've got left is The New World. He's an easy filmmaker to get immersed in, due to his always fascinating and evolving style of filmmaking.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on July 25, 2016, 02:34:58 pm
Good.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on July 25, 2016, 03:06:54 pm
Good.

Thank you for your candor.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: ItsaRainCoat on July 25, 2016, 04:56:07 pm
Only seen three Malick films, but for me it's  1.Tree of Life 2.Knight of Cups 3. To the Wonder. Have to watch the rest before Weightless releases.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on July 25, 2016, 04:57:41 pm
Only seen three Malick films, but for me it's  1.Tree of Life 2.Knight of Cups 3. To the Wonder. Have to watch the rest before Weightless releases.
Nice! What'd you think of Knight of Cups?
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: J. Kashmir on July 25, 2016, 04:58:44 pm
I still haven't seen any of his movies. I blind bought The Thin Red Line a while back, but I don't know if I should start with that.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on July 25, 2016, 05:09:35 pm
Only seen three Malick films, but for me it's  1.Tree of Life 2.Knight of Cups 3. To the Wonder. Have to watch the rest before Weightless releases.

I recommend Badlands. It's definitely in my top 20 movies of all time.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: ItsaRainCoat on July 25, 2016, 05:39:26 pm
Nice! What'd you think of Knight of Cups?

Had to pause it a couple times when I watched it(gets a bit meandering and emotionally draining), but I think overall I enjoyed it. Definitely don't have any desire to rewatch it soon. I remembered the actors talking about how Malick just pointed the camera at them and let them improvise most of the scenes, really made it more interesting with that in mind.

I recommend Badlands. It's definitely in my top 20 movies of all time.

Ah that Criterion release looks pretty tempting...
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Man With No Name on July 25, 2016, 06:21:20 pm
Saw Tree of Life and didn't like it. But I have been interested in Badlands for quite some time.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on July 25, 2016, 06:24:54 pm
Saw Tree of Life and didn't like it. But I have been interested in Badlands for quite some time.

The dinosaur was the best part.  I've been wondering what it meant for quite a while.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Man With No Name on July 25, 2016, 06:28:33 pm
Saw Tree of Life and didn't like it. But I have been interested in Badlands for quite some time.

The dinosaur was the best part.  I've been wondering what it meant for quite a while.

It's been a long time for that one. Once I get around to watching some Malick movies I'll probably give it a rewatch. But yeah, the dinosaurs I do remember being the best part.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Catbus! on July 25, 2016, 06:57:47 pm
Badlands 8/10

That's ah actually it for me.
I definitely suggest you watch more. I had only seen Tree of Life before this year, and now all I've got left is The New World. He's an easy filmmaker to get immersed in, due to his always fascinating and evolving style of filmmaking.

Nah. You've seen the good one.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 03:21:20 am
After seeing Knight of Cups, I think I'm swearing off Terrence Malick films for the rest of my life.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 04:00:10 am
After seeing Knight of Cups, I think I'm swearing off Terrence Malick films for the rest of my life.
Yeah, understandable. A film like that is impossible to beat, so it'd be depressing to see Malick try desperately  to top it.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 04:13:02 am
After seeing Knight of Cups, I think I'm swearing off Terrence Malick films for the rest of my life.
Yeah, understandable. A film like that is impossible to beat, so it'd be depressing to see Malick try desperately to top it.

I guess Refn and Lars Von Trier were trying so hard to claim the "Most Pretentious Asshole in Hollywood" award for themselves, Malick had to step out of the shadows and show them how it's done. No one does self-indulgence like him. Try as they might, those pretenders could never possibly top the incredible revelation: "Los Angeles is vapid and soulless." Wow. If Malick weren't here to deliver these shocking and groundbreaking truths to us, who would?

Anyway, this movie was a very fascinating trailer for a movie I'll never get to see, so I'll give it that.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 04:20:56 am
After seeing Knight of Cups, I think I'm swearing off Terrence Malick films for the rest of my life.
Yeah, understandable. A film like that is impossible to beat, so it'd be depressing to see Malick try desperately to top it.

I guess Refn and Lars Von Trier were trying so hard to claim the "Most Pretentious Asshole in Hollywood" award for themselves, Malick had to step out of the shadows and show them how it's done. No one does self-indulgence like him. Try as they might, those pretenders could never possibly top the incredible revelation: "Los Angeles is vapid and soulless." Wow. If Malick weren't here to deliver these shocking and groundbreaking truths to us, who would?

Anyway, this movie was a very fascinating trailer for a movie I'll never get to see, so I'll give it that.
It's a beautiful stream of consciousness about a man trying to discover what makes him want to go on. The idea of LA being vapid and soulless is merely a backdrop to his own emotional turmoil.

So I guess non-conventional = pretentious now? Interesting. I guess you're not a huge fan of visual storytelling now that I think about it, so this makes sense.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 04:38:36 am
After seeing Knight of Cups, I think I'm swearing off Terrence Malick films for the rest of my life.
Yeah, understandable. A film like that is impossible to beat, so it'd be depressing to see Malick try desperately to top it.

I guess Refn and Lars Von Trier were trying so hard to claim the "Most Pretentious Asshole in Hollywood" award for themselves, Malick had to step out of the shadows and show them how it's done. No one does self-indulgence like him. Try as they might, those pretenders could never possibly top the incredible revelation: "Los Angeles is vapid and soulless." Wow. If Malick weren't here to deliver these shocking and groundbreaking truths to us, who would?

Anyway, this movie was a very fascinating trailer for a movie I'll never get to see, so I'll give it that.
It's a beautiful stream of consciousness about a man trying to discover what makes him want to go on. The idea of LA being vapid and soulless is merely a backdrop to his own emotional turmoil.

So I guess non-conventional = pretentious now? Interesting. I guess you're not a huge fan of visual storytelling now that I think about it, so this makes sense.

Gertrude Stein wrote in stream-of-consciousness. It was a very unique style for the time. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that she was writing pure, unadulterated gobbledygook. Fuck Gertrude Stein.

The funny thing is, I don't think I would call this movie "non-conventional." In fact, it's exactly what I expected. I wouldn't say I was bored, but there were definitely no surprises to be had here. Malick fellated himself for two hours while using time-lapse photography, repetition, and the actors' improvisation to fuel what he must have thought would resemble an aura of mystery and poetry in the final product. Sadly, he was mistaken.

I'd be happy to address your smarmy "visual storytelling" statement if I thought there was a story being told here. This movie is already fading from my mind even as I sit here writing about it. But for what it's worth, I found the visuals to be bland as hell-- unlike Mad Max: Fury Road, the other movie about which someone made that same "visual storytelling" comment. Funny, I'm noticing a pattern here-- almost as if these movies with shitty characters and unrealistic dialogue are being explained away by their fans due to their use of "visual storytelling." But no, that couldn't possibly be it.

Hell, at this point, you could call BVS visual storytelling. But I guess it wasn't exhausting and disjointed enough for you. No... you had to watch Terrence Malick.

3/10 film.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 05:10:54 am
After seeing Knight of Cups, I think I'm swearing off Terrence Malick films for the rest of my life.
Yeah, understandable. A film like that is impossible to beat, so it'd be depressing to see Malick try desperately to top it.

I guess Refn and Lars Von Trier were trying so hard to claim the "Most Pretentious Asshole in Hollywood" award for themselves, Malick had to step out of the shadows and show them how it's done. No one does self-indulgence like him. Try as they might, those pretenders could never possibly top the incredible revelation: "Los Angeles is vapid and soulless." Wow. If Malick weren't here to deliver these shocking and groundbreaking truths to us, who would?

Anyway, this movie was a very fascinating trailer for a movie I'll never get to see, so I'll give it that.
It's a beautiful stream of consciousness about a man trying to discover what makes him want to go on. The idea of LA being vapid and soulless is merely a backdrop to his own emotional turmoil.

So I guess non-conventional = pretentious now? Interesting. I guess you're not a huge fan of visual storytelling now that I think about it, so this makes sense.

Gertrude Stein wrote in stream-of-consciousness. It was a very unique style for the time. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that she was writing pure, unadulterated gobbledygook. Fuck Gertrude Stein.

The funny thing is, I don't think I would call this movie "non-conventional." In fact, it's exactly what I expected. I wouldn't say I was bored, but there were definitely no surprises to be had here. Malick fellated himself for two hours while using time-lapse photography, repetition, and the actors' improvisation to fuel what he must have thought would resemble an aura of mystery and poetry in the final product. Sadly, he was mistaken.

I'd be happy to address your smarmy "visual storytelling" statement if I thought there was a story being told here. This movie is already fading from my mind even as I sit here writing about it. But for what it's worth, I found the visuals to be bland as hell-- unlike Mad Max: Fury Road, the other movie about which someone made that same "visual storytelling" comment. Funny, I'm noticing a pattern here-- almost as if these movies with shitty characters and unrealistic dialogue are being explained away by their fans due to their use of "visual storytelling." But no, that couldn't possibly be it.

Hell, at this point, you could call BVS visual storytelling. But I guess it wasn't exhausting and disjointed enough for you. No... you had to watch Terrence Malick.

3/10 film.
So you're back to your "bad acting bad dialogue" complaints again? Hmm...speaking of sensing a pattern...

It's fine if you don't enjoy stream on consciousness work. I get it. You like your Aaron Sorkin screenplays and witty lines of dialogue, and I do too. That being said, if a film can remain engaging and tell an interesting story based on visuals and a sense of raw humanity being displayed on screen, then I think that will work too. I think Malick made a bold decision to try and convey humanity through scattered visions of a man's most intimate thoughts. The repetitive nature of the film is the whole point. It's reflective of the cycles of his life, and whether he will choose to learn from them. Whether it worked for you or not, Malick is certainly trying to be innovative here, and for that much I've got to respect him.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 05:37:14 am
So you're back to your "bad acting bad dialogue" complaints again? Hmm...speaking of sensing a pattern...

People have said this to me before. I never know what to respond with. I mean, really? "Oh, look at you Diego! You're back to criticizing acting and dialogue in a movie! You fucking whiner!" What... what exactly am I supposed to do? Not mention them at all? Or go through every scene and tell you why I did not connect with the characters or believe the performances by analyzing facial expressions and line enunciation? I can give you examples, sure. But I didn't feel the need with Knight of Cups, mainly because the people here are competent actors and I don't think it's fair to criticize them for their work in this film. The failings of this movie fall squarely on the shoulders of its director. I don't feel comfortable calling out Christian Bale for this unengaging display any more than I feel comfortable criticizing John Tuturro for his work in the Transformers films.

There's a solid line between movies like Badlands and movies like Knight of Cups. And while a person like Dommy might not make a distinction between the two, I think the line represents that oft-overused word: Pretentiousness. I try not to use this word on many films. Maybe a couple Refn movies. Definitely Antichrist. And the entire filmography of Zack Snyder (although his movies are so clearly garbage, there's no point in adding "pretentious" to the list of adjectives you can use to describe them). These are movies that put on a facade of importance or cultural significance that I, personally, do not believe they genuinely possess. There. Textbook definition of pretentiousness.

The people behind these movies aren't talentless hacks (well, except for Snyder). They just flew a little too close to the sun in these instances. And that's okay every once in a while. But when you make a habit of it, like Malick seems to have done, it gets old really fast. Now, Tatum-- maybe you thought Knight of Cups accomplished everything it set out to do and more. That's fine. But unlike, say, Mad Max: Fury Road, I don't get the feeling that I'm missing something here. In his commentary on the shallowness of our society, Malick has made his shallowest film yet. There are no characters to reach a deep connection with-- you feel sympathy for Bale because of his situation, not because of the person he really is. We never get to know the person he really is, because Malick refuses to allow character development or real emotion to penetrate this elaborate dream sequence he's constructed. I'm someone who wants to be emotionally connected to the things happening on screen, and Malick needs to realize that if he's going to try so hard to stimulate his audience intellectually, he'd better have some real emotional punch behind it, or it'll come off as dry, unfeeling, and bland. And that's exactly what happens with Knight of Cups.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 19, 2016, 05:55:32 am
Only Malick film I saw was Tree of Life, and that was a clear 4/10. The way Diego (and Tatum, really) described it, makes it sound like more of the same, but worse. I'm now actually tempted to see this, though. If the thread so far is any indication, arguing about this movie is going to be really fun. A lot more fun then arguing about Suicide Squad, definitely, or any other film released this and past year.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 12:30:40 pm
Only Malick film I saw was Tree of Life, and that was a clear 4/10. The way Diego (and Tatum, really) described it, makes it sound like more of the same, but worse. I'm now actually tempted to see this, though. If the thread so far is any indication, arguing about this movie is going to be really fun. A lot more fun then arguing about Suicide Squad, definitely, or any other film released this and past year.

If you're curious, by all means check it out. But like I said above, there are no surprises in this movie. It's exactly what you'd expect. Malick's head remains firmly lodged in his own ass.

I would recommend Badlands, though. Great film. And it has the added bonus of actually having a narrative arc, characters, and a story.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 01:23:33 pm
So you're back to your "bad acting bad dialogue" complaints again? Hmm...speaking of sensing a pattern...

People have said this to me before. I never know what to respond with. I mean, really? "Oh, look at you Diego! You're back to criticizing acting and dialogue in a movie! You fucking whiner!" What... what exactly am I supposed to do? Not mention them at all? Or go through every scene and tell you why I did not connect with the characters or believe the performances by analyzing facial expressions and line enunciation? I can give you examples, sure. But I didn't feel the need with Knight of Cups, mainly because the people here are competent actors and I don't think it's fair to criticize them for their work in this film. The failings of this movie fall squarely on the shoulders of its director. I don't feel comfortable calling out Christian Bale for this unengaging display any more than I feel comfortable criticizing John Tuturro for his work in the Transformers films.

There's a solid line between movies like Badlands and movies like Knight of Cups. And while a person like Dommy might not make a distinction between the two, I think the line represents that oft-overused word: Pretentiousness. I try not to use this word on many films. Maybe a couple Refn movies. Definitely Antichrist. And the entire filmography of Zack Snyder (although his movies are so clearly garbage, there's no point in adding "pretentious" to the list of adjectives you can use to describe them). These are movies that put on a facade of importance or cultural significance that I, personally, do not believe they genuinely possess. There. Textbook definition of pretentiousness.

The people behind these movies aren't talentless hacks (well, except for Snyder). They just flew a little too close to the sun in these instances. And that's okay every once in a while. But when you make a habit of it, like Malick seems to have done, it gets old really fast. Now, Tatum-- maybe you thought Knight of Cups accomplished everything it set out to do and more. That's fine. But unlike, say, Mad Max: Fury Road, I don't get the feeling that I'm missing something here. In his commentary on the shallowness of our society, Malick has made his shallowest film yet. There are no characters to reach a deep connection with-- you feel sympathy for Bale because of his situation, not because of the person he really is. We never get to know the person he really is, because Malick refuses to allow character development or real emotion to penetrate this elaborate dream sequence he's constructed. I'm someone who wants to be emotionally connected to the things happening on screen, and Malick needs to realize that if he's going to try so hard to stimulate his audience intellectually, he'd better have some real emotional punch behind it, or it'll come off as dry, unfeeling, and bland. And that's exactly what happens with Knight of Cups.
The main issue with the "bad acting bad dialogue" complaint is that it's so black and white. Are they valid criticisms? Of course. But not all films should be judged equally. Knight of Cups is built around a baseline of visuals to convey themes and attitudes, whereas other films (like Badlands, really) are based on more characters and relationships. I totally understand that this film is not for you, and that's fine. It's a different type of storytelling that probably won't be engaging for most viewers. Personally, I found it fascinating. I just think the black and white judgements are a little unfair, especially seeing as you've compared it to films like BvS and Transformers, which are obviously trying to convey something far different than Knight of Cups. Plus I was being a bit facetious, so there's that haha.

The pretentious argument depends on the eye of the beholder I guess. While I believe Knight of Cups worked as both a cinematic journey through the reflective mind and as commentary on the shallowness of society, you clearly didn't care for its presentation at all, and therefore couldn't connect to it. And like with other polarizing "pretentious" films (aka anything Refn makes), I understand the merits behind what you're saying. I just think you're wrong, though I know nothing I can say will change your thoughts on this film. It just wasn't for you.

And for the record, because Neville brought it up, I truly don't believe anyone on here will like this film. Cutler liked To The Wonder, so he might, but that's about it. I could be wrong, but I doubt anyone here will be able to appreciate what Malick is going for. I could be wrong though. Certainly didn't think I'd like this as much as I did.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 02:10:56 pm
The main issue with the "bad acting bad dialogue" complaint is that it's so black and white. Are they valid criticisms? Of course. But not all films should be judged equally. Knight of Cups is built around a baseline of visuals to convey themes and attitudes, whereas other films (like Badlands, really) are based on more characters and relationships. I totally understand that this film is not for you, and that's fine. It's a different type of storytelling that probably won't be engaging for most viewers. Personally, I found it fascinating. I just think the black and white judgements are a little unfair, especially seeing as you've compared it to films like BvS and Transformers, which are obviously trying to convey something far different than Knight of Cups. Plus I was being a bit facetious, so there's that haha.

The pretentious argument depends on the eye of the beholder I guess. While I believe Knight of Cups worked as both a cinematic journey through the reflective mind and as commentary on the shallowness of society, you clearly didn't care for its presentation at all, and therefore couldn't connect to it. And like with other polarizing "pretentious" films (aka anything Refn makes), I understand the merits behind what you're saying. I just think you're wrong, though I know nothing I can say will change your thoughts on this film. It just wasn't for you.

And for the record, because Neville brought it up, I truly don't believe anyone on here will like this film. Cutler liked To The Wonder, so he might, but that's about it. I could be wrong, but I doubt anyone here will be able to appreciate what Malick is going for. I could be wrong though. Certainly didn't think I'd like this as much as I did.

Sure, maybe the acting/dialogue weren't the focus of this movie. But I've got to call it like I see it. With some movies like this, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt, either because of critical acclaim or because they clearly have an appeal outside of your own. Except I'm still not sure who this movie was trying to appeal to (and it certainly isn't critically acclaimed). Even more so, I'm still confused as to why you liked it at all. And I'm not just saying that because of your overall taste in movies. You seem to be saying that the social commentary and the visuals are what sold you on the film, but I just don't know what it was supposed to be commenting on. Vapidness and decadence? That's hardly original. And if it was supposed to be a deeper journey into the mind of Bale's character, why did the film leave me feeling that we never got inside of his head? If it's a character study, where are the goddamn characters? I can't name one personality trait of the main character in this movie. That's got to be a sign that something is wrong here.

My argument has to come back to dialogue and character development now, unfortunately. If the movie really is attempting to present a journey through Bale's mind, it seems to me that, logically, it should at least try to give him some characterization. And the way to do that would be through dialogue and emotional character moments. But I guess Malick is so devoted to making this dream world of his, he doesn't think that kind of realism belongs in the film. And maybe he's right. It might have clashed tonally with what he was trying to do. But at that point, honestly, he's fucked either way. Either he has to compromise the movie's entire aura in order to take time to establish his lead character, or he simply ignores said character and devotes himself wholeheartedly to crafting weird visuals. Neither method is going to work perfectly.

So yeah, maybe he just did his best with the circumstances. But here's the thing-- they were circumstances he crafted. All the restrictions on telling us about who the characters are as people were placed on the film by Malick and Malick alone. He painted himself into a corner here, and because of that, it's difficult for me to have much sympathy for him.

It so happens that I too found this movie fascinating. It's always interesting to me what new heights of senility Terrence Malick can reach. But like I said, "fascinating" isn't enough when it comes to making a movie. I find a lot of movies interesting for one reason or another, from The Graduate to The Room. That does not make or break the movie.

Pretentiousness certainly is in the eye of the beholder, you got that right. The definition of that word rests solely on whether or not an individual thinks a movie accomplished its goals. In the case of Knight of Cups, those goals were so muddled and messy to begin with, it's difficult to tell if it accomplished what it set out to do. Clearly we're going to disagree on the pretentiousness claim, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up at all. Still... while this is a superficial complaint, I know I found the movie to be unbearably full of itself, and the vast majority of moviegoers will agree. That doesn't make me right. That just means the pretentiousness argument has a little more weight to it with this film than with, say, a movie like Drive, which clearly was able to connect with a lot of people while still maintaining its art-house appeal.

God, I kinda hated this movie.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 02:39:34 pm
The main issue with the "bad acting bad dialogue" complaint is that it's so black and white. Are they valid criticisms? Of course. But not all films should be judged equally. Knight of Cups is built around a baseline of visuals to convey themes and attitudes, whereas other films (like Badlands, really) are based on more characters and relationships. I totally understand that this film is not for you, and that's fine. It's a different type of storytelling that probably won't be engaging for most viewers. Personally, I found it fascinating. I just think the black and white judgements are a little unfair, especially seeing as you've compared it to films like BvS and Transformers, which are obviously trying to convey something far different than Knight of Cups. Plus I was being a bit facetious, so there's that haha.

The pretentious argument depends on the eye of the beholder I guess. While I believe Knight of Cups worked as both a cinematic journey through the reflective mind and as commentary on the shallowness of society, you clearly didn't care for its presentation at all, and therefore couldn't connect to it. And like with other polarizing "pretentious" films (aka anything Refn makes), I understand the merits behind what you're saying. I just think you're wrong, though I know nothing I can say will change your thoughts on this film. It just wasn't for you.

And for the record, because Neville brought it up, I truly don't believe anyone on here will like this film. Cutler liked To The Wonder, so he might, but that's about it. I could be wrong, but I doubt anyone here will be able to appreciate what Malick is going for. I could be wrong though. Certainly didn't think I'd like this as much as I did.

Sure, maybe the acting/dialogue weren't the focus of this movie. But I've got to call it like I see it. With some movies like this, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt, either because of critical acclaim or because they clearly have an appeal outside of your own. Except I'm still not sure who this movie was trying to appeal to (and it certainly isn't critically acclaimed). Even more so, I'm still confused as to why you liked it at all. And I'm not just saying that because of your overall taste in movies. You seem to be saying that the social commentary and the visuals are what sold you on the film, but I just don't know what it was supposed to be commenting on. Vapidness and decadence? That's hardly original. And if it was supposed to be a deeper journey into the mind of Bale's character, why did the film leave me feeling that we never got inside of his head? If it's a character study, where are the goddamn characters? I can't name one personality trait of the main character in this movie. That's got to be a sign that something is wrong here.

My argument has to come back to dialogue and character development now, unfortunately. If the movie really is attempting to present a journey through Bale's mind, it seems to me that, logically, it should at least try to give him some characterization. But I guess Malick is so devoted to making this dream world of his, he doesn't think that kind of realism belongs in the film. And maybe he's right. It might have clashed tonally with what he was trying to do. At that point, honestly, he's fucked either way. On the one hand, he has to compromise the movie's entire aura in order to take time to establish his lead character, or he simply ignores said character and devotes himself wholeheartedly to crafting weird visuals. Neither method is going to work perfectly. So yeah, maybe he just did his best with the circumstances. But they were circumstances he crafted. All the restrictions on telling us about who the characters are as people were placed on the film by Malick and Malick alone. He painted himself into a corner here, and because of that, it's difficult for me to have much sympathy for him.

It so happens that I too found this movie fascinating. It's always interesting to me what new heights of senility Terrence Malick can reach. But like I said, "fascinating" isn't enough when it comes to making a movie. I find a lot of movies interesting for one reason or another, from The Graduate to The Room. That does not make or break the movie.

Pretentiousness certainly is in the eye of the beholder, you got that right. The definition of that word rests solely on whether or not an individual thinks a movie accomplished its goals. In the case of Knight of Cups, those goals were so muddled and messy to begin with, it's difficult to tell if it accomplished what it set out to do. Clearly we're going to disagree on the pretentiousness claim, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up at all. Still... while this is a superficial complaint, I know I found the movie to be unbearably full of itself, and the vast majority of moviegoers will agree. That doesn't make me right. That just means the pretentiousness argument has a little more weight to it with this film than with, say, a movie like Drive, which clearly was able to connect with a lot of people while still maintaining its art-house appeal.

God, I kinda hated this movie.
The movie's main focus is built on Bale's search to find what makes him go on in life, and it's narrative is purely reflective of his own thoughts and how he perceives things. The themes of vapidness and decadence are background to this, and merely work a sort of catalyst to his actions. Are those themes common by themselves? Yes, but they're being presented in a wholly unique way here, one that bring you to the heart of the main character himself. I believe that despite the lack of dialogue and a fully structured plot, Bale's character is developed through his relationships with others. It's certainly not a character-focused story, but one built only on Bale's thoughts and vision of the world. You can call it dull if you want, but I was able to connect to Bale's character based on Malick's deeply human reflective storytelling.

I too wish there were some added details to a few of the supporting characters, as they occasionally felt lost in Malick's dreamlike web of a story, though for the most part they each served the purpose they needed to: to highlight how Bale's relationships with others have changed the way he views the world, how his ideas of love have either juxtaposed or matched those of society around him, and whether he will learn from his past to strive for a better future. We see this journey throught Bale's reflective mind, and while you might not know what Bale's favorite hobbies are or what pokemon go team he's on, we see what I think is necessary for the story. It's about his mental journey, and like it or not, I think Malick succeeded in what he wanted to convey.

At this point, and not sure what you want me to say. Clearly it seems you just didn't care for Malick's presentation of the narrative, and that's understandable. Still, at least he's trying something different and not rebooting some old franchise or anything. Gotta give him credit for that.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Caleb Paasche on August 19, 2016, 02:48:53 pm
I've never seen a Malick film, but now I kinda want to watch Knight of Cups so I can join the debate (and because Christian Bale is awesome).
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 19, 2016, 02:54:43 pm
Still, at least he's trying something different and not rebooting some old franchise or anything. Gotta give him credit for that.

Aaaaaaand this is how low the bar has fallen now. Does anyone now want to argue that the deluge of blockbusters has no effect on small, artistic films?
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 02:54:52 pm
Still, at least he's trying something different and not rebooting some old franchise or anything. Gotta give him credit for that.

Aaaaaaand this is how low the bar has fallen now. Does anyone now want to argue that the deluge of blockbusters has no effect on small, artistic films?

This is the same as the "Well, weed sure is bad, but at least my kid's not out doing crack" argument that I've heard from hippies in my hometown on occasion. Yeah, it amounts to a very, very low bar. Not to mention that, much in the way that it's unlikely for a preppy white kid in the north bay to get addicted to crack, it's unlikely that Malick was ever going to make a reboot or a remake of anything, ever. So this is a non-issue. Besides, I think his narrative structure and character development are a little too organized for DC these days. :D

The movie's main focus is built on Bale's search to find what makes him go on in life, and it's narrative is purely reflective of his own thoughts and how he perceives things. The themes of vapidness and decadence are background to this, and merely work a sort of catalyst to his actions. Are those themes common by themselves? Yes, but they're being presented in a wholly unique way here, one that bring you to the heart of the main character himself. I believe that despite the lack of dialogue and a fully structured plot, Bale's character is developed through his relationships with others. It's certainly not a character-focused story, but one built only on Bale's thoughts and vision of the world. You can call it dull if you want, but I was able to connect to Bale's character based on Malick's deeply human reflective storytelling.

I too wish there were some added details to a few of the supporting characters, as they occasionally felt lost in Malick's dreamlike web of a story, though for the most part they each served the purpose they needed to: to highlight how Bale's relationships with others have changed the way he views the world, how his ideas of love have either juxtaposed or matched those of society around him, and whether he will learn from his past to strive for a better future. We see this journey throught Bale's reflective mind, and while you might not know what Bale's favorite hobbies are or what pokemon go team he's on, we see what I think is necessary for the story. It's about his mental journey, and like it or not, I think Malick succeeded in what he wanted to convey.

At this point, and not sure what you want me to say. Clearly it seems you just didn't care for Malick's presentation of the narrative, and that's understandable. Still, at least he's trying something different and not rebooting some old franchise or anything. Gotta give him credit for that.

Yeah, I'm worn out talking about this movie. Screw it. I'll just leave it at this: I think the very idea behind the movie is flawed. This stream-of-consciousness bullshit might work when trying to depict a fever dream or a person with severe paranoid schizophrenia, but when it comes to anything else, the style Malick has taken on for this film completely suffocates the viewer in a barrage of meaningless claptrap. Calling it original is not a compliment at this point. It is originally bad. It finds new and innovative ways to confuse and alienate audiences. You want to call it experimental? Fine. But there's a reason no one else bothers to experiment with this style. It's fucking unbearable.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 03:04:18 pm
Still, at least he's trying something different and not rebooting some old franchise or anything. Gotta give him credit for that.

Aaaaaaand this is how low the bar has fallen now. Does anyone now want to argue that the deluge of blockbusters has no effect on small, artistic films?
You're completely missing my point. I'm just saying I'm glad Malick is trying to do something new with filmmaking. Seeing how much you complain about bland blockbusters you haven't seen, I'd think you'd agree with me. I'm in no way suggesting a correlation between bad blockbusters and arthouse films.

Yeah, I'm worn out talking about this movie. Screw it. I'll just leave it at this: I think the very idea behind the movie is flawed. This stream-of-consciousness bullshit might work when trying to depict a fever dream or a person with severe paranoid schizophrenia, but when it comes to anything else, the style Malick has taken on for this film completely suffocates the viewer in a barrage of meaningless claptrap. Calling it original is not a compliment at this point. It is originally bad. It finds new and innovative ways to confuse and alienate audiences. You want to call it experimental? Fine. But there's a reason no one else bothers to experiment with this style. It's fucking unbearable.
And at this we're at a point of fundamental disagreement. I think Malick succeeded in his work, and you clearly didn't. Don't think there's anything else to say here.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Gold Jeffblum on August 19, 2016, 03:05:38 pm
I should watch this.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 19, 2016, 03:18:26 pm
Still, at least he's trying something different and not rebooting some old franchise or anything. Gotta give him credit for that.

Aaaaaaand this is how low the bar has fallen now. Does anyone now want to argue that the deluge of blockbusters has no effect on small, artistic films?
You're completely missing my point. I'm just saying I'm glad Malick is trying to do something new with filmmaking. Seeing how much you complain about bland blockbusters you haven't seen, I'd think you'd agree with me. I'm in no way suggesting a correlation between bad blockbusters and arthouse films.

You've missed mine. The thing is that, like Diego said, this was never a useful comparison in the first place. The only reason it feels justifiable to make it now is because the sheer amount of these reboots has changed people's frame of reference. If you were able to argue the merits of Malick against some example of a conventional small film, (hell, even a typical NTS movie, or the recent faith-based ones), it would hold a lot more weight. As it is, one can at best shrug at statements like "Gotta give him some credit for that." 
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 03:23:56 pm
Still, at least he's trying something different and not rebooting some old franchise or anything. Gotta give him credit for that.

Aaaaaaand this is how low the bar has fallen now. Does anyone now want to argue that the deluge of blockbusters has no effect on small, artistic films?
You're completely missing my point. I'm just saying I'm glad Malick is trying to do something new with filmmaking. Seeing how much you complain about bland blockbusters you haven't seen, I'd think you'd agree with me. I'm in no way suggesting a correlation between bad blockbusters and arthouse films.

I think you're actually missing Neville's point here. He's saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Neville) that because big-budget films have become so repetitious, bombastic, and stale, any amount of small originality or innovation is now perceived to be a fantastic attribute to a movie, while in reality that's the bare minimum. Originality means next to nothing when in service of a plotless mass of feces like Knight of Cups.

Edit: Okay, I guess my interpretation was correct, as Neville and I seem to have written the exact same comment. This feels redundant now.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 03:36:22 pm
My apologies, Neville. In that sense I can definitely understand how the blockbuster comparison would seem irrelevant.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 03:39:37 pm
Damn, I'm just impressed we were able to squeeze a page's worth of arguments out of a non-Nolan, non-Snyder film. See, guys? We've still got it.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on August 19, 2016, 03:49:48 pm
This is the reason why we don't have new users.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 03:50:39 pm
Damn, I'm just impressed we were able to squeeze a page's worth of arguments out of a non-Nolan, non-Snyder film. See, guys? We've still got it.
Haha true. Now if only we could get some of those snobs from GD over here. I can't remember who, but I know quite a few of them liked this movie even more than myself. Now that would be a good time.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 03:54:34 pm
Damn, I'm just impressed we were able to squeeze a page's worth of arguments out of a non-Nolan, non-Snyder film. See, guys? We've still got it.
Haha true. Now if only we could get some of those snobs from GD over here. I can't remember who, but I know quite a few of them liked this movie even more than myself. Now that would be a good time.

GD has become notably less snobby recently, from what I can tell. Lots of Suicide Squad supporters over there. Still, I do like that dude Sorcerer Nameless (or whatever he calls himself).
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 04:01:45 pm
Damn, I'm just impressed we were able to squeeze a page's worth of arguments out of a non-Nolan, non-Snyder film. See, guys? We've still got it.
Haha true. Now if only we could get some of those snobs from GD over here. I can't remember who, but I know quite a few of them liked this movie even more than myself. Now that would be a good time.

GD has become notably less snobby recently, from what I can tell. Lots of Suicide Squad supporters over there. Still, I do like that dude Sorcerer Nameless (or whatever he calls himself).
Nameless is a pretty funny guy from what I've seen. He and Death Proof have always been my favorite users on that board.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Caleb Paasche on August 19, 2016, 04:52:01 pm
This passage is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while: Calling it original is not a compliment at this point. It is originally bad. It finds new and innovative ways to confuse and alienate audiences. You want to call it experimental? Fine. But there's a reason no one else bothers to experiment with this style. It's **** unbearable.

I love you Diego.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 05:20:46 pm
This passage is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while: Calling it original is not a compliment at this point. It is originally bad. It finds new and innovative ways to confuse and alienate audiences. You want to call it experimental? Fine. But there's a reason no one else bothers to experiment with this style. It's **** unbearable.

I love you Diego.

You actually read all that? Damn.

I kind of want you to see this movie now. To be up front... you'd probably hate it. But if you enjoyed this argument, it might be worth checking out.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 05:31:02 pm
Honestly, I think Caleb would hate it too. This does NOT seem like his type of film.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 19, 2016, 05:31:56 pm
Can't wait for more people on here to see Knight of Cups. I'm sure it'll be polarizing, but I absolutely loved it.

This comment seems positively quaint now.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 05:34:46 pm
Can't wait for more people on here to see Knight of Cups. I'm sure it'll be polarizing, but I absolutely loved it.

This comment seems positively quaint now.
Yeah, didn't think the backlash would be this strong. I just assumed people would be bored with it. Still, I do encourage others to check it out. That has not changed.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Caleb Paasche on August 19, 2016, 06:16:14 pm
This passage is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while: Calling it original is not a compliment at this point. It is originally bad. It finds new and innovative ways to confuse and alienate audiences. You want to call it experimental? Fine. But there's a reason no one else bothers to experiment with this style. It's **** unbearable.

I love you Diego.

You actually read all that? Damn.

I kind of want you to see this movie now. To be up front... you'd probably hate it. But if you enjoyed this argument, it might be worth checking out.
Yeah, I read the whole argument. What can I say, it was a good read.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Caleb Paasche on August 19, 2016, 06:17:43 pm
Honestly, I think Caleb would hate it too. This does NOT seem like his type of film.
Honestly, from what you guys were saying it didn't really seem like my type of movie but it does seem like something new and I'm always willing to try and expand my taste. I have a bunch of free time tomorrow (finally...fuck orientation) so maybe I'll watch it. I'll have to pirate, unfortunately, but oh well.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 19, 2016, 06:24:08 pm
Honestly, I think Caleb would hate it too. This does NOT seem like his type of film.
Honestly, from what you guys were saying it didn't really seem like my type of movie but it does seem like something new and I'm always willing to try and expand my taste. I have a bunch of free time tomorrow (finally...fuck orientation) so maybe I'll watch it. I'll have to pirate, unfortunately, but oh well.
It's definitely different, that's for sure. Even if you don't like this, I highly suggest you give Badlands, Days of Heaven, and The Thin Red Line a watch. Those are Malick's most accessible films.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 22, 2016, 01:50:39 pm
Well, I'm starting to watch this Knight of Cups now. The synopsis for it, for those who have not yet seen it, is "Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep."

I can already tell this is going to be good.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on August 22, 2016, 02:00:18 pm
Well, I'm starting to watch this Knight of Cups now. The synopsis for it, for those who have not yet seen it, is "Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep."

I can already tell this is going to be good.

i wish you fell into a deep sleep.... forever.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 22, 2016, 02:46:45 pm
Woah, I'm pretty sure that the yellow-orange bus at 23.40 had a TASM 2 ad on its side. The film manages to become strangely relevant to yesterday's events. Or is it the other way around? Anyway, visual storytelling!
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 22, 2016, 02:59:26 pm
Oh, look at that doggie repeatedly trying and failing to grasp at its toys underwater! It's just like our protagonist, who can't get to his pathetic goals in his empty, upside-down life!

Yeah. This has been the most blatant example of "visual storytelling", but so far, I don't think it ever got any deeper then that.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Jim Raynor on August 22, 2016, 03:05:13 pm
Still have yet to see anything from Malick...
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 22, 2016, 03:31:08 pm
That was some nice grey lichen on a tree at about 41.30. At least the air quality over at that place is decent.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 22, 2016, 03:35:48 pm
For those of you who doubt the existence of visual storytelling, just know that it's the basis of the one required class that all members of the film department at Chapman must pass in order to stay in the program.

But it's ok, Neville. I'm sure you'll impress Diego very much by doing this. Gold star!
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on August 22, 2016, 03:37:34 pm
For those of you who doubt the existence of visual storytelling, just know that it's the basis of the one required class that all members of the film department at Chapman must pass in order to stay in the program.

But it's ok, Neville. I'm sure you'll impress Diego very much by doing this. Gold star!

Yeah... his RC reeks of "oh hey, look how obnoxious I am."
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 22, 2016, 03:45:53 pm
For those of you who doubt the existence of visual storytelling, just know that it's the basis of the one required class that all members of the film department at Chapman must pass in order to stay in the program.

But it's ok, Neville. I'm sure you'll impress Diego very much by doing this. Gold star!

Yeah... his RC reeks of "oh hey, look how obnoxious I am."
I just think it's weird how much he tends to piggyback off Diego with these things. First BvS, then Suicide Squad, and now this. Now, I like Neville, but the guy just needs to get his own material.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 22, 2016, 03:47:23 pm
For those of you who doubt the existence of visual storytelling, just know that it's the basis of the one required class that all members of the film department at Chapman must pass in order to stay in the program.

But it's ok, Neville. I'm sure you'll impress Diego very much by doing this. Gold star!

I don't doubt the existence of visual storytelling. The quote marks are there to signify that I don't think Malick is actually good at it beyond throwing money (via expensive cameras/locations/CGI) at the most obvious visual techniques to make them appear more impressive and deep.

And I won't lie, I'm taking the piss with these comments. Both because I found it quite fitting on those occasions, and because the movie so far is just remarkably mediocre. The most notable thing so far is just how insubstantial it is.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 22, 2016, 05:20:33 pm
Finished. Much like Tree of Life, it's also a 4/10 for me, though for somewhat different reasons. That film had first stunned me, and then it progressively pissed me off with just how little it had to say, and how much time it had taken to say that. Here though, there's no longer all that much to be impressed even when it comes to the visuals, and the shallowness of it becomes apparent in the first minutes.

After that, I just went with the flow, kind of like how I assume Goldblum does with a lot of the dumb DTV stuff he reviews on NTS. This might not be "dumb" in the traditional action film sense, but it's so simplistic it actually functions as a moderately relaxing time-waster just as well. If the life of our author insert protagonist and his friends is "like Call of Duty on easy mode", then this whole film is like Proteus,  the pixel-art screensaver sold as a game. The way Malick's direction is so impotent he has to resort to showing us more female eye candy at regular 10-15 minute intervals grows kinda amusing as well. They all follow him, and some say they "fall in love", even though, quite frankly he never once demonstrates why he's worth it, but that's OK, since it's just harmless wish fulfilment for director Malick (and apparently its few fans as well.) Unlike Diego, I simply don't find anything in it worth getting worked up over.

And unlike Diego, I can also say that the core problem of the film - a shallow protagonist who is almost never really examined  critically and doesn't deserve a quarter of the attention or fortune he gets - is also one shared by Limitless and Donnie Darko, and Limitless had actually managed to piss me off with how brazen it was about it. They might not share Malick's style, and Donnie Darko had put its emo style on it, but they carry the same rotten core, just portraying it differently.

I can also link this film to The Counselor. In many respects, the main differences I see between this one and The Counselor is that a) Counselor tried to follow more then one character (and failed badly at it) b) It was also honest enough to show what will happen to people like him once their inheritance runs out. (And of course, The Counselor was also far more "original". As bad as it was, the windshield scene alone had more originality then the entirety of "Knight of Cups")

On the whole, the one film that has the same kind of protagonist, and deals with similar themes, yet is far, far better then everything just mentioned is Cosmopolis.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 22, 2016, 06:19:01 pm
I don't really have much else to add to the discussion, but I will say that the main aspect of the film we seem to wholly disagree on is the shallowness of the plot. The film hit me on a personal level where it clearly didn't reach you, and I can definitely understand the criticisms given from your standpoint. I simply got something different out of the film than most.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 22, 2016, 07:40:27 pm

I don't doubt the existence of visual storytelling. The quote marks are there to signify that I don't think Malick is actually good at it beyond throwing money (via expensive cameras/locations/CGI) at the most obvious visual techniques to make them appear more impressive and deep.

And I won't lie, I'm taking the piss with these comments. Both because I found it quite fitting on those occasions, and because the movie so far is just remarkably mediocre. The most notable thing so far is just how insubstantial it is.

To clarify, I don't deny the existence of visual storytelling either. I just think it's a half-assed way of excusing a movie that's as plotless and aimless as Knight of Cups. Visual storytelling can be useful, but when it's used in a blatantly obvious manner (The Artist) or when there isn't a central plot to anchor it down (Knight of Cups), it's just not as effective.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 23, 2016, 01:19:53 am
I don't really have much else to add to the discussion, but I will say that the main aspect of the film we seem to wholly disagree on is the shallowness of the plot. The film hit me on a personal level where it clearly didn't reach you, and I can definitely understand the criticisms given from your standpoint. I simply got something different out of the film than most.

Yeah... I'll have to say though, that this is the kind of film where if you identify with the main character to that extent, it probably means you're kinda fucked in real life. After seeing it, I still struggle to think of positive ways in which to describe him, since there are few, if any, to be found.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 23, 2016, 01:54:36 am
I just think it's weird how much he tends to piggyback off Diego with these things. First BvS, then Suicide Squad, and now this. Now, I like Neville, but the guy just needs to get his own material.

What? I know I shouldn't put too much stock in RT's scores, but if you just look at the reviews for these three films, you'll see that they fall very short of being "critically acclaimed." It's not too hard to imagine a scenario in which someone dislikes these movies without being influenced by Diego Tutweiller. You didn't even like two of them. Are you a bootlicker too? See, I think this is just a way of subtly painting Neville's argument as less valid than it actually is. And it's going along with the "anyone who agrees with Tut is a brown-noser" mentality. People are allowed to agree with me if they want to. And Neville and I disagree on plenty of films. He's not Costigan.

Yeah... I'll have to say though, that this is the kind of film where if you identify with the main character to that extent, it probably means you're kinda fucked in real life. After seeing it, I still struggle to think of positive ways in which to describe him, since there are few, if any, to be found.

Okay, similarly... what? I hated a lot of things about this movie, found it to be unabashedly self-absorbed, and thought the main character was a total bore... and this is too far even for me. The only movie I would say could "fuck you in real life" if you like it is an Adam Sandler movie or something, because if you mention that you like Jack & Jill at a job interview, you'll likely get thrown to the curb. I'll agree that I didn't identify with the main character in Knight of Cups either, but not because he's some horrible person. I can't think of positive ways in which to describe him, but that's because I can't think of any ways in which to describe him. He's a blank slate. If Tatum for some reason projected his own experiences and outlook onto him... more power to him, I guess? I dunno, at that point the movie is too subjective to even argue about. I'll say it's a shittily made movie, but this comment makes no sense.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 23, 2016, 03:25:00 am
Yeah...if I'm gonna be considered "fucked in real life" for connecting to this film, I think I'm just gonna leave this discussion be....
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 23, 2016, 03:33:22 am
Yeah... I'll have to say though, that this is the kind of film where if you identify with the main character to that extent, it probably means you're kinda fucked in real life. After seeing it, I still struggle to think of positive ways in which to describe him, since there are few, if any, to be found.

Okay, similarly... what? I hated a lot of things about this movie, found it to be unabashedly self-absorbed, and thought the main character was a total bore... and this is too far even for me. The only movie I would say could "fuck you in real life" if you like it is an Adam Sandler movie or something, because if you mention that you like Jack & Jill at a job interview, you'll likely get thrown to the curb. I'll agree that I didn't identify with the main character in Knight of Cups either, but not because he's some horrible person. I can't think of positive ways in which to describe him, but that's because I can't think of any ways in which to describe him. He's a blank slate. If Tatum for some reason projected his own experiences and outlook onto him... more power to him, I guess? I dunno, at that point the movie is too subjective to even argue about. I'll say it's a shittily made movie, but this comment makes no sense.
[/quote]

The point is that the entire movie, and practically everything that goes in protagonist's life, is almost a textbook definition of a First World Problem.  Tatum's praise of this movie (and a lot of it is rather vague praise as well) ignores that completely, which is what makes me concerned.

Yeah...if I'm gonna be considered "fucked in real life" for connecting to this film, I think I'm just gonna leave this discussion be....

OK, that was a poor choice of words. Apologies. Still, I do believe this particular aspect of the story deserves a closer look than it has received in the discussion so far. I was wrong to make it so personal, and I hope what I have to say next won't cause any more offense.


Forgive for not thinking that a guy whose thoughts upon entering a poor area for the first time in the film are "I felt as if the tide was going to engulf this city.", because obviously, it's easier for him to envision the violent erasure of these people's existence then to ask how they can live and laugh without a huge cushion of inherited wealth, and what, gasp, makes them want to go on through life. Ruminations like "This world is a swamp. Fly over it." while on another happy-go-lucky gathering whose very existence actually IS helping to turn much of the world into a swamp in the future, is also not exactly endearing. In general, drawing deep lessons from a story of s guy whose entire LA rich kid lifestyle might well not exist in the next 40 years as global warming starts to bite is not what I would call a good idea.

As a thought experiment, imagine this same film, with just one structural change: the protagonist (still played by Bale) is an LA pool cleaner. Everything else stays structurally the same: he's still trying to discover what makes him want to go on, we still see the cycles in his life, still see his brother and their fraught relationship with the father, we see wealth-adjusted parties (alongside the 8-hour work, of course) we see the general failure to learn until he finally stumbles into responsibility by impregnating a woman. Would that film still elicit the same reaction from Tatum? I wish there was a less personal way to say it, but yeah, forgive me for having doubts.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 23, 2016, 11:32:40 am
OK, that was a poor choice of words. Apologies. Still, I do believe this particular aspect of the story deserves a closer look than it has received in the discussion so far. I was wrong to make it so personal, and I hope what I have to say next won't cause any more offense.

Forgive for not thinking that a guy whose thoughts upon entering a poor area for the first time in the film are "I felt as if the tide was going to engulf this city.", because obviously, it's easier for him to envision the violent erasure of these people's existence then to ask how they can live and laugh without a huge cushion of inherited wealth, and what, gasp, makes them want to go on through life. Ruminations like "This world is a swamp. Fly over it." while on another happy-go-lucky gathering whose very existence actually IS helping to turn much of the world into a swamp in the future, is also not exactly endearing. In general, drawing deep lessons from a story of s guy whose entire LA rich kid lifestyle might well not exist in the next 40 years as global warming starts to bite is not what I would call a good idea.

As a thought experiment, imagine this same film, with just one structural change: the protagonist (still played by Bale) is an LA pool cleaner. Everything else stays structurally the same: he's still trying to discover what makes him want to go on, we still see the cycles in his life, still see his brother and their fraught relationship with the father, we see wealth-adjusted parties (alongside the 8-hour work, of course) we see the general failure to learn until he finally stumbles into responsibility by impregnating a woman. Would that film still elicit the same reaction from Tatum? I wish there was a less personal way to say it, but yeah, forgive me for having doubts.

Okay... while you definitely went too far with the "fucked for life" thing, this is worth thinking about.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on August 23, 2016, 02:37:37 pm
That sounds like a very different, but perhaps even more interesting take on the story. It'll lose the whole theme about shallowness in high society, but I think it could gain quite a bit more. Reminds me a bit of To The Wonder in that sense.

But anyways, if you think I like this film because of my "first world sensibilities", then you're wrong. Sorry man, I know it'd make you feel good to think that I'm some pretentious **** and that's the only reason I connected to the film, but that's just not it at all. I agree Bale's character is an **** (he even seems to acknowledge it himself), and I never said I directly related to him. I just found his reflective journey of discovering the power of human relationships interesting. I understand you disagree, but trying to make this personal and assuming I liked a goddamn Terrence Malick movie because because I'm **** up in the head is just wrong. I'd never do that to anyone here, not even Jed. Respekt mah onion, motherfucker.

Also, global warming....warming....thermal....thermodynamics! The motherland would be proud.

So yeah, I think I'm done with this. You guys can say whatever you want about the film, but after being attacked on a personal for liking it, I think I'm done. Have fun guys.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on August 23, 2016, 03:55:08 pm
Neville and Diego may not share the same opinions on films, but Neville was definitely emulating a classic Diego mannerism with the whole "fucked in life" bit.  Usually resorting to ad hominem attacks is a staple of Diego's (and mine's but more or less for things outside of film discussion).  But did Neville go too far?  Or did he just insult the wrong person?  Would it have been far more acceptable to get on Jed for liking the film? 
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 23, 2016, 06:28:38 pm
Neville and Diego may not share the same opinions on films, but Neville was definitely emulating a classic Diego mannerism with the whole "fucked in life" bit.  Usually resorting to ad hominem attacks is a staple of Diego's (and mine's but more or less for things outside of film discussion).  But did Neville go too far?  Or did he just insult the wrong person?  Would it have been far more acceptable to get on Jed for liking the film?

What the fuck is this supposed to mean, you cock-juggling thundercunt?


Also, it's not that Neville went after the wrong person. It's that he went after the wrong movie. If this argument had been over, say, Grown Ups 2, I think it would have been perfectly reasonable to say that liking such a film could be detrimental to your success in the long run. Not necessarily accurate, but certainly within the realm of possibility. I can definitely imagine one's enjoyment of Adam Sandler or Disaster Movie (or whatever) leading to failings in relationships and personal life, simply because normal people don't want to be around individuals with such horrible taste. And can you really blame them?

When it comes to Knight of Cups though... I don't see this logic at all. Neville seems to be trying to psychoanalyze Tatum here based solely on his upper-middle class status and enjoyment of this particular movie. I mean, clearly I'm gonna disagree with that lol. If I think Danny can be a successful person (which I do) despite his love for The-Film-That-Must-Not-Be-Named, of course I'm not gonna say Tatum's "fucked for life" because he liked this film. It makes zero sense.

If we were talking about Jed and Jack & Jill here, yeah, I might have to think twice. But Jed and Knight of Cups? Forget about it.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: John Tyler on August 23, 2016, 06:33:58 pm
Neville and Diego may not share the same opinions on films, but Neville was definitely emulating a classic Diego mannerism with the whole "fucked in life" bit.  Usually resorting to ad hominem attacks is a staple of Diego's (and mine's but more or less for things outside of film discussion).  But did Neville go too far?  Or did he just insult the wrong person?  Would it have been far more acceptable to get on Jed for liking the film?

What the fuck is this supposed to mean, you cock-juggling thundercunt?
I thought you hated David S. Goyer. Y U quote his dialogue?
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on August 23, 2016, 06:42:41 pm
Neville and Diego may not share the same opinions on films, but Neville was definitely emulating a classic Diego mannerism with the whole "fucked in life" bit.  Usually resorting to ad hominem attacks is a staple of Diego's (and mine's but more or less for things outside of film discussion).  But did Neville go too far?  Or did he just insult the wrong person?  Would it have been far more acceptable to get on Jed for liking the film?

What the fuck is this supposed to mean, you cock-juggling thundercunt?
I thought you hated David S. Goyer. Y U quote his dialogue?

I literally have no idea what film that is from.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: John Tyler on August 23, 2016, 06:43:19 pm
Neville and Diego may not share the same opinions on films, but Neville was definitely emulating a classic Diego mannerism with the whole "fucked in life" bit.  Usually resorting to ad hominem attacks is a staple of Diego's (and mine's but more or less for things outside of film discussion).  But did Neville go too far?  Or did he just insult the wrong person?  Would it have been far more acceptable to get on Jed for liking the film?

What the fuck is this supposed to mean, you cock-juggling thundercunt?
I thought you hated David S. Goyer. Y U quote his dialogue?

I literally have no idea what film that is from.
Blade: Trinity, featuring Ryan Reynolds' most annoying character.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Jim Raynor on August 23, 2016, 06:46:54 pm
Neville and Diego may not share the same opinions on films, but Neville was definitely emulating a classic Diego mannerism with the whole "fucked in life" bit.  Usually resorting to ad hominem attacks is a staple of Diego's (and mine's but more or less for things outside of film discussion).  But did Neville go too far?  Or did he just insult the wrong person?  Would it have been far more acceptable to get on Jed for liking the film?

What the fuck is this supposed to mean, you cock-juggling thundercunt?
I thought you hated David S. Goyer. Y U quote his dialogue?

I literally have no idea what film that is from.
Blade: Trinity, featuring Ryan Reynolds' most annoying character.
I thought this was JohnBot for a sec, I swear.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: JohnBot on August 23, 2016, 06:53:35 pm
I thought this was JohnBot for a sec, I swear.

Fun fact: The system is rigged.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: John Tyler on August 23, 2016, 06:57:57 pm
JohnBot, your new profile pic would imply I've seen Mr. Robot.

I haven't.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on August 23, 2016, 07:01:18 pm
JohnBot, your new profile pic would imply I've seen Mr. Robot.

I haven't.

#JohnBotExposed
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: JohnBot on August 23, 2016, 07:03:30 pm
JohnBot, your new profile pic would imply I've seen Mr. Robot.

I haven't.

Actually, I gave it a 10/10.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Robert Neville on August 23, 2016, 10:20:26 pm
So... the discussion has already kinda moved away from the whole thing, but can I, in the interests of clarity, just note that my original comment has said nothing about liking the movie per se; it was entirely about the degree of identification of character. Since Tatum said he doesn't directly relate to him, there's no problem here. Moreover, I've also never used words "for life" or "in the head" here: that was read into it later.

Also, global warming....warming....thermal....thermodynamics! The motherland would be proud.

This is actually the closest to what I meant. You call say that I have a dark worldview and all, but if you look at the world history carefully, there's always been a major war or similar kind of upheaval by around the middle of the century, for about the past 500 years at least. I don't think the humanity has changed all that much, and so think expecting something like this again is only reasonable. I also don't think it'll be the actual WW3, though, but more of a conflict akin to, say, Thirty Years War and other sectarian bloodlettings of the gunpowder age. The first truly cataclysmic floods/droughts, etc. to do with global warming, which are slated to kick in at about this time, will be the most likely catalyst. In this instance, a person with the characteristics of the film's protagonist will simply not fare well. That is pretty much a fact.

 
But anyways, if you think I like this film because of my "first world sensibilities", then you're wrong. Sorry man, I know it'd make you feel good to think that I'm some pretentious **** and that's the only reason I connected to the film, but that's just not it at all.

Also of note: I never said that either. I said that this is why you might've had overlooked that aspect of the film, and not found it problematic, which is an entirely different proposition, and doesn't preclude you from liking it for different reasons.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Frankie on August 23, 2016, 10:34:24 pm
John is just feeding into the Mr. Robot psyche at this point. Half of himself hasn't seen it, while the other half has.

John is Mr. Robot.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on August 23, 2016, 10:35:59 pm
John is just feeding into the Mr. Robot psyche at this point. Half of himself hasn't seen it, while the other half has.

John is Mr. Robot.

get on skype now.  braden killed himself
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: David Tanny on September 13, 2016, 05:58:24 pm
Never seen a Malick film. Probably never will. They just don't appeal to me.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on September 13, 2016, 07:06:04 pm
Never seen a Malick film. Probably never will. They just don't appeal to me.

Remember that time I told you to drink Dranol?
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: David Tanny on September 13, 2016, 07:07:50 pm
Remember that time I told you to drink Dranol?
Yes.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: James Orenthal Cutler on September 13, 2016, 07:10:35 pm
Remember that time I told you to drink Dranol?
Yes.

I apologize.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on June 17, 2017, 06:16:45 pm
Tatum, did you see Song to Song?
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on June 18, 2017, 02:19:27 am
Tatum, did you see Song to Song?
Not yet, but the John Tyler 10/10 has got me excited.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on June 18, 2017, 02:30:10 am
Tatum, did you see Song to Song?
Not yet, but the John Tyler 10/10 has got me excited.

All right. Tell me when you watch it so I can see it as well. I wanna go in for round two.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: CT_Sexybeast on June 18, 2017, 02:50:07 am
Tatum, did you see Song to Song?
Not yet, but the John Tyler 10/10 has got me excited.

All right. Tell me when you watch it so I can see it as well. I wanna go in for round two.
I feel like when it comes to Malick's style we'd just be repeating ourselves, but if I love this as much as Knight of Cups I might be down.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: John Tyler on June 18, 2017, 07:33:28 am
Tatum, did you see Song to Song?
Not yet, but the John Tyler 10/10 has got me excited.

All right. Tell me when you watch it so I can see it as well. I wanna go in for round two.
I feel like when it comes to Malick's style we'd just be repeating ourselves, but if I love this as much as Knight of Cups I might be down.
The only way to watch the movie currently is by getting a torrent (and downloading the file using uTorrent) from the Pirate Bay. The film's not on any streaming sites yet.

Of course, another option is to wait until July 4th for the Blu-ray release.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Suspect #1 on June 18, 2017, 10:31:15 am
Tatum, did you see Song to Song?
Not yet, but the John Tyler 10/10 has got me excited.

All right. Tell me when you watch it so I can see it as well. I wanna go in for round two.
I feel like when it comes to Malick's style we'd just be repeating ourselves, but if I love this as much as Knight of Cups I might be down.
The only way to watch the movie currently is by getting a torrent (and downloading the file using uTorrent) from the Pirate Bay. The film's not on any streaming sites yet.

Of course, another option is to wait until July 4th for the Blu-ray release.

Please wait until it's on streaming services Tatum.  Don't take the John route.
Title: Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
Post by: Diego Tutweiller on June 19, 2017, 01:29:51 am
Tatum, did you see Song to Song?
Not yet, but the John Tyler 10/10 has got me excited.

All right. Tell me when you watch it so I can see it as well. I wanna go in for round two.
I feel like when it comes to Malick's style we'd just be repeating ourselves, but if I love this as much as Knight of Cups I might be down.
The only way to watch the movie currently is by getting a torrent (and downloading the file using uTorrent) from the Pirate Bay. The film's not on any streaming sites yet.

Of course, another option is to wait until July 4th for the Blu-ray release.

I beg to differ. (https://gomovies.to/film/song-to-song-21074/)