|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Jun 27, 2017 17:23:02 GMT
Well I am getting tired of this Malick gimmick. I mean it literally is him and best pal Emanuel Lubezki as well as a couple of pretty people taking a cam and making beautiful shots. Putting them together and trying to make sense out of it. Well yes, that worked with The Tree of Life but only because that flick really did make sense and had something to say.
This one was a missed opportunity. They could have made so much more out of the material of shots of the Austin music festival but instead he chose to tell exactly the same "story" like with his previous two films.
Why I still give the film a rather "high" rating is that I cannot doubt the beautifulness of it. The way it is shot is once again tremendous thanks to Lubezki. The choice of music perfect to create the right mood and atmosphere. The acting was solid enough. While Michael Fassbender was channeling Christian Bale in "Knight of Cups" I really liked Ryan Golsing and especially Rooney Mara who could tell so much without any words. Nice short appearances by Cate Blanchett who I don't remember having any dialogue (what a waste) but also made the performance through her expressions. Strong moments by Holly Hunter as well and a fun cameo by Val Kilmer. Still , I am glad that Malick will be back with a more narrative film with his next feature. 5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 27, 2017 17:31:19 GMT
No way anyone can convince me this is much different than any of the recent stuff he's been doing. Like... how, seriously? Come on now, there's bias and then there's just stupidly hanging on to anything Malick.
That being said, this is still not my least favorite Malick because I find it superficially pleasing (moreso than Knight of Cups with its tiring debauchery implication) and Rooney Mara looked one of her prettiest. Though her hair in Ghost Story is so feminine and pretty, so she's really looking good in the year 2017.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Jun 27, 2017 17:42:59 GMT
No way anyone can convince me this is much different than any of the recent stuff he's been doing. Like... how, seriously? Come on now, there's bias and there's just stupidly hanging on to anything Malick. That being said, this is still not my least favorite Malick because I find it superficially pleasing (moreso than Knight of Cups with its tiring debauchery implication) and Rooney Mara looked one of her prettiest. (Ghost Story trailer is her at her most pretty though) Your second point is spot on |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 27, 2017 17:46:26 GMT
No way anyone can convince me this is much different than any of the recent stuff he's been doing. Like... how, seriously? Come on now, there's bias and there's just stupidly hanging on to anything Malick. That being said, this is still not my least favorite Malick because I find it superficially pleasing (moreso than Knight of Cups with its tiring debauchery implication) and Rooney Mara looked one of her prettiest. (Ghost Story trailer is her at her most pretty though) Your second point is spot on That's saying my first isn't. You one of those "I'm so smart, people are idiots for saying that his last 3 movies are similar" Malickheads? You wanna enlighten me? Because I know you're not catrician. |
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566 
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Jun 27, 2017 17:46:30 GMT
Best movie of the year so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Jun 27, 2017 17:52:00 GMT
Your second point is spot on That's saying my first isn't. You one of those "I'm so smart, people are idiots for saying that his last 3 movies are similar" Malickheads? You wanna enlighten me? Because I know you're not catrician. R-E-L-A-X. I just absolutely agreed with your second point, can't comment on the first |
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Jun 27, 2017 17:58:50 GMT
R-E-L-A-X. I just absolutely agreed with your second point, can't comment on the first OK! That did sound cranky. Which part? The Rooney in Ghost Story trailer bit? I thought she looked great in Side Effects too, but her hair in Ghost Story is so feminine and pretty. Haha. All of it, the fact it's not your least favorite Malick and Rooney looking drop-dead in A Ghost Story |
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Jun 27, 2017 18:54:12 GMT
Couldn't agree more. Although I gave it a 6 coz i'm a sucker for Malick trademark things but now i'm feeling tiresome of him and his style.
I'm happy that Radegund will be more narrative driven.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Jun 27, 2017 18:56:47 GMT
No way anyone can convince me this is much different than any of the recent stuff he's been doing. Like... how, seriously? Come on now, there's bias and there's just stupidly hanging on to anything Malick. That being said, this is still not my least favorite Malick because I find it superficially pleasing (moreso than Knight of Cups with its tiring debauchery implication) and Rooney Mara looked one of her prettiest. (Ghost Story trailer is her at her most pretty though) I agree with both of that :-) |
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Jun 27, 2017 18:57:42 GMT
Best movie of the year so far. Really? Well to each their own I guess. What is the rest of your Top 5 this year and what would be your flop 5? |
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Jun 27, 2017 18:59:24 GMT
I thought it was pretty good. I wasn't all that big on Knight of Cups so I was rather surprised that I liked this one. It's noticeably different from Knight of Cups in that there is actually more of a narrative focus and Rooney Mara is given a legitimate chance to craft a true performance. There are plenty of scenes that give her the opportunity to have the camera rest on her and actually create a rather moving depiction of someone wrangling with life's drift.
Not incredible for me but definitely good.
I also think people who expect Malick is going to make a much more conventional, narrative film with his next outing are going to be disappointed. His career has been slowly pushing in this direction for decades, I have no expectation that he's somehow going to retreat now.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 27, 2017 19:11:05 GMT
It's noticeably different from Knight of Cups in that there is actually more of a narrative focus Eh... I think it just had a slow progression of relationships, and it had as much narrative as Knight of Cups, which certainly kinda did what STS did too, just show Bale (or Fassbender) socializing with different females through different points of time. I agree it's better than Knight of Cups, but then I think Knight of Cups is just a completely poor movie, and any attempt to resurrect it as meaningful by a small group of people.... JUST HELL NO. Not this time. 90% of the other times I can see an argument, but absolutely none with this. |
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Jun 27, 2017 19:22:18 GMT
It's noticeably different from Knight of Cups in that there is actually more of a narrative focus Eh... I think it just had a slow progression of relationships, and it had as much narrative as Knight of Cups, which certainly kinda did what STS did too, just show Bale (or Fassbender) socializing with different females through different points of time. I agree it's better than Knight of Cups, but then I think Knight of Cups is just a completely poor movie, and any attempt to resurrect it as meaningful by a small group of people.... JUST HELL NO. Not this time. 90% of the other times I can see an argument, but absolutely none with this. I agree with you on Knight of Cups. It's very odd to me that there seems to be a growing contingent of people who actually view it as his best film. I think it's the only Malick I don't like. After enjoying Song to Song I have been considering giving it another shot though... |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 27, 2017 19:36:23 GMT
Eh... I think it just had a slow progression of relationships, and it had as much narrative as Knight of Cups, which certainly kinda did what STS did too, just show Bale (or Fassbender) socializing with different females through different points of time. I agree it's better than Knight of Cups, but then I think Knight of Cups is just a completely poor movie, and any attempt to resurrect it as meaningful by a small group of people.... JUST HELL NO. Not this time. 90% of the other times I can see an argument, but absolutely none with this. I agree with you on Knight of Cups. It's very odd to me that there seems to be a growing contingent of people who actually view it as his best film. I think it's the only Malick I don't like. After enjoying Song to Song I have been considering giving it another shot though... I feel kind of the same with Song to Song. After I finished it, I instantly wondered when I was gonna watch it again. I watched Knight of Cups twice though, and nothing changed. I think one noticeable difference between the two is that Song to Song appeared a bit more naturalistic and some of the stuff you can buy as actual human interactions, so it appears a bit more genuine. Where Knight of Cups just seems to tie together some superficial idea of L.A. + debauchery, and those scenes of the L.A. hotspots (I've even been to some) isn't shot with any originality (compared to how Collateral transformed that type of world to something really cinematic) - the movie just feels like a damn parody. Also, some of the quotes and voiceover lines in KOC just had me saying: "I'm gonna meme the hell out of this sh-t, because this is fucking hilarious teenage scribblings in a diary." |
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Jun 27, 2017 19:44:30 GMT
I agree with you on Knight of Cups. It's very odd to me that there seems to be a growing contingent of people who actually view it as his best film. I think it's the only Malick I don't like. After enjoying Song to Song I have been considering giving it another shot though... I feel kind of the same with Song to Song. After I finished it, I instantly wondered when I was gonna watch it again. One reason is because I find it more enjoyable, KOC was pretty boring to me. I think one noticeable difference between the two is that Song to Song appeared a bit more naturalistic and some of the stuff you can buy as actual human interactions, so it appears a bit more genuine. Where Knight of Cups just seems to tie together some superficial idea of L.A. + debauchery, and those scenes of the L.A. hotspots (I've even been to some) isn't shot with any originality (compared to how Collateral transformed that type of world to something really cinematic) - the movie just feels like a damn parody. Also, some of the quotes and voiceover lines in KOC just had me saying: "I'm gonna meme the hell out of this sh-t, because this is fucking hilarious teenage scribblings in a diary." Yeah you've just perfectly captured exactly how I felt about KOC even right down to me choking back some laughter over some of the juvenile musings. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Jun 27, 2017 21:58:55 GMT
I'm happy that Radegund will be more narrative driven.  Narrative only makes films worse. |
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jun 27, 2017 22:25:27 GMT
the best film of the year, maybe second or something but it's very close. i absolutely cannot get behind people saying this film is at all similar to Knight of Cups or To the Wonder when their only superficial similarities are the fragmented narratives in all of them. the tones, goals, themes, pacing, etc. is entirely different and i'll defend any one of those.
that said, i think this is my favorite of his last three films; he's only gone uphill since To the Wonder. there are so many scenes in this film that are, at once, unpredictable, spontaneous, touching, aggressive, and of course gorgeous. it is not a film with a million things happening, the whole thing is really quite a simple love story that's been shattered enough to leave only fragments, some of them essential, others inconsequential. i have no idea why there is so much bias thesedays against his more experimental phase he's in now, it's not like malick was free from writing 14 year old intellectual dialogue in his earlier days, and i think his films are as beautiful as ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 27, 2017 22:47:18 GMT
i absolutely cannot get behind people saying this film is at all similar to Knight of Cups or To the Wonder when their only superficial similarities are the fragmented narratives in all of them. the tones, goals, themes, pacing, etc. is entirely different and i'll defend any one of those. the whole thing is really quite a simple love story that's been shattered enough to leave only fragments, some of them essential, others inconsequential. i have no idea why there is so much bias thesedays against his more experimental phase he's in now, it's not like malick was free from writing 14 year old intellectual dialogue in his earlier days, and i think his films are as beautiful as ever. I think it goes beyond superficial similarities at this point. When the characters all go through similar life cycles, it's hard to claim superficial similarities/this appears that way/look harder. Having to say: "Oh that. Again," a few dozen times, it's clear I see through what he's doing. You make an excellent point about the fragmentation in Malick's work. I think in that aspect, he's the clear master of that style - even over Brakhage and Mekas. I wouldn't say bias coming from me personally, it's not this phase of his I criticize - it's certain things from Knight of Cups and Song to Song - the latter of which is a better film than Days of Heaven, just to show I don't automatically pick an older movie of his over a newer one. Of course he wasn't free from 14 year old dialogue before, but I think those other films were defined by other aspects, but in Knight of Cups - it's glaringly transparent entry-level meme-poetry dialogue to the max. That's the way I see it anyways. Obviously I'm just discussing his work. |
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jun 27, 2017 22:51:55 GMT
i absolutely cannot get behind people saying this film is at all similar to Knight of Cups or To the Wonder when their only superficial similarities are the fragmented narratives in all of them. the tones, goals, themes, pacing, etc. is entirely different and i'll defend any one of those. the whole thing is really quite a simple love story that's been shattered enough to leave only fragments, some of them essential, others inconsequential. i have no idea why there is so much bias thesedays against his more experimental phase he's in now, it's not like malick was free from writing 14 year old intellectual dialogue in his earlier days, and i think his films are as beautiful as ever. I think it goes beyond superficial similarities at this point. When the characters all go through similar life cycles, it's hard to say claim superficial similarities/this appears that way/look harder. Having to say: "Oh that. Again," a few dozen times, it's clear I see through what he's doing. You make an excellent point about the fragmentation in Malick's work. I think in that aspect, he's the clear master of that style - even over Brakhage and Mekas. I wouldn't say bias coming from me personally, it's not this phase of his I criticize - it's certain things from Knight of Cups and Song to Song - the latter of which is a better film than Days of Heaven, just to show I don't automatically pick an older movie of his over a newer one. Of course he wasn't free from 14 year old dialogue before, but I think those other films were defined by other aspects, but in Knight of Cups - it's glaringly transparent meme dialogue to the max. That's the way I see it anyways. Obviously I'm just discussing his work. yeah i mean his dialogue does have its ups and downs of course, but this polar reading of only his new stuff being singled out for it does always perplex me. i mean when was the last time you heard someone praise his newer work after not being a fan of his older stuff? i mean i guess there is romance in all three films and all films dealing with that subject are going to be kind of similar, but otherwise i don't see much overlap. the feelings these films emit is completely different for me, at the least. |
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Jun 27, 2017 23:03:46 GMT
Best movie of the year so far. Really? Well to each their own I guess. What is the rest of your Top 5 this year and what would be your flop 5? I've seen like 5 movies released this year, so don't take that too seriously. I highly doubt there's anything that can surpass StS as my favorite though, and it seems like the kind of film that will only improve on further viewings. It's kind of unfortunate that people get so fixated on (lack of) story and structure while missing out on some of the most intimate and passionate work made by a director at the height of his powers. |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 27, 2017 23:07:48 GMT
I think it goes beyond superficial similarities at this point. When the characters all go through similar life cycles, it's hard to say claim superficial similarities/this appears that way/look harder. Having to say: "Oh that. Again," a few dozen times, it's clear I see through what he's doing. You make an excellent point about the fragmentation in Malick's work. I think in that aspect, he's the clear master of that style - even over Brakhage and Mekas. I wouldn't say bias coming from me personally, it's not this phase of his I criticize - it's certain things from Knight of Cups and Song to Song - the latter of which is a better film than Days of Heaven, just to show I don't automatically pick an older movie of his over a newer one. Of course he wasn't free from 14 year old dialogue before, but I think those other films were defined by other aspects, but in Knight of Cups - it's glaringly transparent meme dialogue to the max. That's the way I see it anyways. Obviously I'm just discussing his work. yeah i mean his dialogue does have its ups and downs of course, but this polar reading of only his new stuff being singled out for it does always perplex me. i mean when was the last time you heard someone praise his newer work after not being a fan of his older stuff? i mean i guess there is romance in all three films and all films dealing with that subject are going to be kind of similar, but otherwise i don't see much overlap. the feelings these films emit is completely different for me, at the least. Well, I obviously separate me from general film buffs, the latter of which are more privy to hang on to the word of critics as their first line of thought. This one instance, I agree mostly with the consensus, but I think Song to Song is better than Days of Heaven and DOH is not too far off from KOC. And I think The Thin Red Line is at best....only a little bit better than all those. I mostly just see his ideas of characters thinning out more and more with every movie he does. They kind of emit similar feelings to me, but obviously we have different reactions, but I just think it's quite reasonable to find KOC and STS very similar, and it's beyond superficial similarities for me. I think The Thin Red Line is liked largely for the war element. Days of Heaven for the southern story, and Badlands is.... obviously not the type to be hated on. The absence of those aspects could explain the hate for his post-tree of life movies. When those things are not present, people start to see.... Malick and his Malick-ness, is the best way to put it. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 27, 2017 23:10:32 GMT
Sounds like I'd probably like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Jun 27, 2017 23:16:23 GMT
I think my main issue with something like Knight of Cups is that it basically didn't make me feel anything at all. It's so fragmented, the editing at times seeming arbitrary or intellectually vacant, that it inspired absolutely no feeling in me other than boredom. The New World and Tree of Life are my faves of his and they both offer such gigantic, moving experiences that approach the spiritual. Knight of Cups just left me feeling like I couldn't wait to get out of the theater.
I would agree to a degree with the comments about dialog though. Malick's scripts have always contained some clunkers. I think some of my issues with the new films, especially Knight of Cups and Song to Song, the latter of which I liked, is that they just feel so small and inconsequential compared to his best stuff. I guess some people are perceiving this as some kind of an autobiographical trilogy, or at least in parts, but I find myself wondering why, if there's any truth to that notion, do these movies feel so navel gazing and small in scope. The use of Lubezki's huge frames, pregnant with meaning and significance, when applied to something as mundane as Bale wandering around talking about pussy, just feels silly and pretentious to me.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Jun 27, 2017 23:51:40 GMT
I think my main issue with something like Knight of Cups is that it basically didn't make me feel anything at all. It's so fragmented, the editing at times seeming arbitrary or intellectually vacant, that it inspired absolutely no feeling in me other than boredom. The New World and Tree of Life are my faves of his and they both offer such gigantic, moving experiences that approach the spiritual. Knight of Cups just left me feeling like I couldn't wait to get out of the theater. I would agree to a degree with the comments about dialog though. Malick's scripts have always contained some clunkers. I think some of my issues with the new films, especially Knight of Cups and Song to Song, the latter of which I liked, is that they just feel so small and inconsequential compared to his best stuff. I guess some people are perceiving this as some kind of an autobiographical trilogy, or at least in parts, but I find myself wondering why, if there's any truth to that notion, do these movies feel so navel gazing and small in scope. The use of Lubezki's huge frames, pregnant with meaning and significance, when applied to something as mundane as Bale wandering around talking about pussy, just feels silly and pretentious to me. regarding the voiceovers, Malick isn't shooting for profundity or sophistication. I think he just tries to get as close as possible to mimicking a character's internal monologue, his own actual thoughts in the context of whatever he's undergoing at that moment, while adding a slightly poetic/philosophical touch. It may occasionally come off as silly or pretentious but there's always a certain vulnerability and honesty to it that makes me look at it in a completely different light. |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 28, 2017 0:17:52 GMT
The use of Lubezki's huge frames, pregnant with meaning and significance, when applied to something as mundane as Bale wandering around talking about pussy, just feels silly and pretentious to me. Good point, there's a certain "why do that for something like that" feeling to Lubezki's work here. And lel at the pussy part. |
|
Narrative only makes films worse.
