+- +-

+- User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Stats

Members
Total Members: 140
Latest: Alex Jones
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 105154
Total Topics: 4196
Most Online Today: 7
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 3
Total: 4

Author Topic: Favorite Terrence Malick films?  (Read 1273 times)

CT_Sexybeast

  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5674
  • Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?
  • Location: NW
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #20 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.

Diego Tutweiller

  • God-King
  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5274
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #21 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.
Like Like x 1 View List

CT_Sexybeast

  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5674
  • Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?
  • Location: NW
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #22 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.

Diego Tutweiller

  • God-King
  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5274
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #23 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.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Ed Norton
  • ******
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #24 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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Diego Tutweiller

  • God-King
  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5274
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #25 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.

CT_Sexybeast

  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5674
  • Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?
  • Location: NW
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #26 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.

Diego Tutweiller

  • God-King
  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5274
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #27 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.

CT_Sexybeast

  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5674
  • Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?
  • Location: NW
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #28 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.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 4375
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #29 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).

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Ed Norton
  • ******
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #30 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?

Diego Tutweiller

  • God-King
  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5274
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #31 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.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

CT_Sexybeast

  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5674
  • Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?
  • Location: NW
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #32 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.

Gold Jeffblum

  • Nicolas Cage
  • ******
  • Posts: 3785
  • ...checkmate.
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #33 on: August 19, 2016, 03:05:38 pm »
I should watch this.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Ed Norton
  • ******
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #34 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." 

Diego Tutweiller

  • God-King
  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5274
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #35 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.
Like Like x 1 View List

CT_Sexybeast

  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5674
  • Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?
  • Location: NW
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #36 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.

Diego Tutweiller

  • God-King
  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5274
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #37 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.

Plague Cutler

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 8477
  • Head of Music News Operations at John Tyler News
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #38 on: August 19, 2016, 03:49:48 pm »
This is the reason why we don't have new users.

CT_Sexybeast

  • Jeff Goldblum
  • ******
  • Posts: 5674
  • Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?
  • Location: NW
Re: Favorite Terrence Malick films?
« Reply #39 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.

 

+- Hot Topics

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by J. Kashmir
Today at 07:13:38 pm

The Review Artist by Diego Tutweiller
Today at 06:20:49 pm

Star Wars VIII: The Last Jed by John Tyler
Today at 04:40:43 pm

Diego's Winter Watchlist by Diego Tutweiller
Today at 12:47:53 pm

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by John Tyler
December 15, 2017, 04:21:37 pm

Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller by Diego Tutweiller
December 14, 2017, 10:16:38 pm

Bestiality by J. Kashmir
December 14, 2017, 09:11:11 pm

Awards Season by J. Kashmir
December 14, 2017, 09:09:28 pm

The Movie/TV Facts Thread by John Tyler
December 13, 2017, 09:14:42 am

Justis Leeg by John Tyler
December 13, 2017, 08:47:59 am

2017 Standings by ChillinDylan Godsend
December 11, 2017, 12:17:24 pm

The Disaster Artist by Diego Tutweiller
December 11, 2017, 10:10:16 am

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle by John Tyler
December 10, 2017, 06:38:31 pm

Game of Thrones by Jeffblum
December 09, 2017, 08:32:19 am

The Official "Going to see..." Movie Thread by J. Kashmir
December 08, 2017, 07:08:44 pm