30 replies to this topic

[brvheart]

TrailerStuff:http://www.dailymail...conference.htmlhttp://hosted.ap.org...-05-16-07-29-38http://ca.news.yahoo...-122022737.htmlAny thoughts?

[Mercury69]

Thoughts:Terrence Malick is overratedBrad Pitt is pretty cool

[frautotenkinder]

I saw it last night at the DGAI liked the movie--it's a big art movie. There is some linear story, but there's long stretches of silence, or just atmospheric sounds (not as weird as it sounds, you hear the sounds of nature--lots of outdoor shots). I know a lot of the reviews have been talking about the spirituality, and God's in the house. I don't think Jesus is there. This is coming from a non-believer, though, so take that for what it's worth.If you're thinking at all about seeing this movie, go out of your way to see it digitally projected, with gorgeous sound, and as respecful an audience as possible. (ie no cellphones)

[ajs510]

Mercury69, on Monday, May 16th, 2011, 1:18 PM, said:

Terrence Malick is overrated

I got caught up in the Terrence Malick hype when Thin Red Line came out, was all excited to see it thinking that it would be the Pacific Theater's answer to Saving Private Ryan and wow, was I ever disappointed. It just pretty much sucked ass. Very overrated. The Cinematography was pretty amazing though, props to John Toll.

[BigDMcGee]

you guys are out of your mind. Thin Red line is one of the must beautiful movies I've ever seen, and Mallack is amazing. A truly original filmmaker. I'm very much looking forward to this.

[brvheart]

BigDMcGee, on Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 7:01 PM, said:

you guys are out of your mind. Thin Red line is one of the must beautiful movies I've ever seen, and Mallack is amazing. A truly original filmmaker. I'm very much looking forward to this.

agreed

[Mercury69]

I'm not trying to be argumentative here and I suppose I am glad someone is getting something from his films, but...Cinematic beauty is one thing. Telling a cohesive story along with it actually helps. Combine them and you get a real movie, otherwise it's just images, which have merit. But, giving Malick a small benefit of the doubt, I think it's pretty clear he has pretty grand ambition and lots of talent but an inability to put it all together. He needs a muse,perhaps, who can help him put it all together, if only for one film.

[BigDMcGee]

Mercury69, on Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 1:33 PM, said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative here and I suppose I am glad someone is getting something from his films, but...Cinematic beauty is one thing. Telling a cohesive story along with it actually helps. Combine them and you get a real movie, otherwise it's just images, which have merit. But, giving Malick a small benefit of the doubt, I think it's pretty clear he has pretty grand ambition and lots of talent but an inability to put it all together. He needs a muse,perhaps, who can help him put it all together, if only for one film.

The point of his films, isn't to make a typical, cohesive story. I described him to a friend of mine, as being an impressionistic film maker. Not a traditional way to make a film, or tell a story, but I think it is a beautiful and unique way to tell me one, and frankly, it would break my heart to see him "find a muse and put it all together" and become like every other film maker. I can totally understand how people are put off by his films. They are paced slowly, and have a.. meditative quality that is pretty much at odds with the modern film goer's taste. But I really love them. Days of Heaven is one of the must beautiful movies I've ever seen, not just the way it was shot, but the way it expressed emotion, the truth it told. I saw the thin red line in the theatre when it came up, and it blew me away. I had never seen anything like it, and other that Mallick's other work, I still haven't. I think Saving private ryan, which came out at the same time, is a better War movie. I think the first 40 minutes of it, particularly, is some of the most powerful film making ever made. but the thin red line wasn't really a war movie. It was a movie about live, the human condition, about love and isolation, about the meaning of life ( or lack there of) It was much more than a war movie, and I really, really love it. It was a very powerful film. I just think if you go into mallick's movies, with certain expectations of what a film should and shouldn't be, you're going to be disappointed, and think he's a limited director. But I don't think that's because he's untalented, but rather because I think he's such a singular artist. I think many great modern directors, even one's with an original voice, are so informed by the movies that come with them, that their own movies fall into that influence.. you can see the inspirations and influences that PTA, QT, the coens, Scorsese come from. But with a film maker like Mallick.. I literally have no idea what or who he is influenced by. To paraphrase the great Clifford Smith You could call Mallick the old dirty bastard, because there is not father to his style. It may not be your cup of tea, but I don't think he's overrated. Quite the opposite. He's really only rated highly by hard core film buffs and critics, commercially he's basically unknown. Even in forums, when people list off their favorite directors, his name seldom comes up. I'm guilty of that myself. but he's truly a unique artist, and I'm grateful for any movie he makes, no matter how infrequent. He's absolutely a director I will see any movie he makes, no questions asked. The less I know about this movie, the better.

[Mercury69]

That's a great post, BigD, and I'll re-read it more carefully later. Lots of good points, esp about the "expectations". I think I can admit to having preferences to certain kinds of films and have difficulty consuming the more existential palettes that some directors put forth. Is it possible Malick was influenced by some of the Kurosawa films? Maybe some Bergman? There's no questioning his individuality, though, that's for sure.

[BigDMcGee]

Mercury69, on Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 3:07 PM, said:

Is it possible Malick was influenced by some of the Kurosawa films? Maybe some Bergman? There's no questioning his individuality, though, that's for sure.

Thematically, perhaps, but not stylistically.

[Skeleton Jelly]

I doubt I'll see this movie. Doesn't Pirates of the Caribbean 4 come out this Friday? I only have so much money for movies.

[frautotenkinder]

For me, I've been trying to stretch what I appreciate in story telling. I read more literature (when I was younger) and saw fairly popular movies and television--with a strong sprinkling of the John Waters catalog. As I've gotten older, I'm viewing more and more arty movies, and most of my pleasure reading is lighter, and easily consumed. The movies that feel the most profound to me, I usually need to see a couple of times, and I like to space my viewings. I've seen Fast & the Furious Tokyo Drift probably 25+ times to greater hilarity--but my repeat viewings over the years of Grizzly Man is what convinced me that Herzog will put something on the screen that will be thoughtful.So, I try to think about what I'm watching, I try to think about what I'm seeing on this big screen that is outside of what can be told on a piece of paper. That's when I try and notice visual symbolism and storytelling

Spoiler

like water, and cleansing in this movie

and cinematic beauty that seems to be filmed just for the sake of its own image--like most of Michael Bay's lingering shots on exploding glass.I'm generally not comfortable with saying someone established is overrated. It feels too much like going into a museum, and deciding that Rothko is stupid, and can be easily created by any jackhole on the street. Number one, no, it can't. Number two, if you really can make create art like that you should. And number three, the opinion isn't just that Rothko is stupid--it's that all the museums around the world who have abstract impressionism--and all the curators and collectors who have made this their life's work--that this tourist's uninformed opinion is somehow superior. So they walk around the museum, in their stretchy pants and crocs, and puff up with selfimportance, never dreaming that the jackhole is them. That a intro to art history class might show them why really smart people honor certain forms of art.

[brvheart]

I really wish that SJ's post would have been right after Frau's, but it was still wonderful. Also, nice work Frau. I love the opinions, keep them coming. (also bring them into the sick thread)

[Skeleton Jelly]

brvheart, on Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 1:46 PM, said:

I love the opinions, keep them coming. (also bring them into the sick thread)

Current topic of discussion requiring opinions: which animal would give the best blowjob?

[Mercury69]

Skeleton Jelly, on Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 5:10 PM, said:

Current topic of discussion requiring opinions: which animal would give the best blowjob?

Aardvark/Anteater? Def not a moray eel or anything that has reverse hooks for teeth.And in Frautenkinder's post, the proximity of "sprinkle" and "John Waters" made me smile...

[Skeleton Jelly]

Mercury69, on Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 2:14 PM, said:

Aardvark/Anteater?

Ooh, that's a good one.

[BigDMcGee]

sea cucumber. it's the fleshlight of the sea

[bigkg]

"The Tree of Life" wins Palme d'Or at Cannes

[BigDMcGee]

bigkg, on Sunday, May 22nd, 2011, 2:05 PM, said:

"The Tree of Life" wins Palme d'Or at Cannes

Huh.. I heard it got mixed reviews there. Probably just terrible american reviewers.

[Voldemort]

BigDMcGee, on Sunday, May 22nd, 2011, 3:13 PM, said:

Huh.. I heard it got mixed reviews there. Probably just terrible american reviewers.

Same, heard it was panned by most.