John-Locke wrote:Damn you Zombie, I love Malick as much as you but I also loved Kong, it's a mainstream way of exploring similar themes to The New World, I have to say I find your contant Kong bashing disconserting and confusing to be honest, especially when you mention it in the same breath as Underworld:Evolution, okay Kong was flawed but it doesn't deserve the malice you constantly jump at the opportunity to spew forth in my opinion.
ZombieZoneSolutions wrote:Most people need to be held by the hand and led to easy conclusions; if the narrative becomes too oblique, the average viewer gets frightened and confused...
burlivesleftnut wrote:ZombieZoneSolutions wrote:Most people need to be held by the hand and led to easy conclusions; if the narrative becomes too oblique, the average viewer gets frightened and confused...
HAHAHA. First, don't bait people by basically calling them simple minded because they don't agree with you, and second, I hated Thin Red Line precisely because it was too obvious. So give people a break.
burlivesleftnut wrote:I don't mind arguing... I just don't like the "you didn't get it" defense.
John-Locke wrote:We'll if some people get it and others don't then what is it?
I think for a small percentage of people it's just not their cup of tea despite the possibilty of them getting it but I honestly believe that the majority of the film going public just don't read films in the right way to "get" Malicks films, they are too deep rooted in having most things pointed out for them and being taken on a ride that anything past figuring out a twist is missed by them in a film, nuances and underlying themes that inspire deep thought just do not interest them in the slightest, it's a personality thing and a conscious choice by those that do "get" them, not a way to measure intelligence.
Having problems with acting or narrative is another thing entirely.
John-Locke wrote:I wonder if you were to do a study of people affected emotionally by Malicks films if you would find that we are more prone to being affected by our external environment, like geometric pressures, full moons, winter blues etc, like we are Hobbit's more in touch with nature and our surroundings etc???
Adam Balm wrote:Malick is brilliant.
You know why?
He understands the importance of shots of sunbeams falling through the trees.
tylerfulltilt wrote:the new world is one of the movies i would take on a deserted island with me.
the final part of that movie where pocahontas finally meets john rolfe is simplu heartbreaking. I've seen it 4-5 times now and it never fails to make feel the exact same thing I felt when I saw it the first time.
Tyrone_Shoelaces wrote:Days of Heaven gets the Criterion treatment on October 23.
"New, restored high-definition digital transfer, supervised and approved by director Terrence Malick, editor Billy Weber, and camera operator John Bailey"
Fried Gold wrote:There's something strange about this. Coming Soon has a list of films which "the studios are giving priority starts in order to beat the WGA strike". Then we get casting rumours.
Terence Malick is a man who didn't make a film for twenty years, and even then waits another 7 or so to make another. Clearly not in any rush...
I just wonder who managed to get him to fast-track this?
Pacino86845 wrote:Hopefully my future grandchildren will get to see this...
stereosforgeeks wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:Hopefully my future grandchildren will get to see this...
You should just pop one out already. Let's get this ball rolling!
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:stereosforgeeks wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:Hopefully my future grandchildren will get to see this...
You should just pop one out already. Let's get this ball rolling!
much like testicular torsion, "ball rolling" is not conducive for procreation...
stereosforgeeks wrote:
I'm just happy we are getting another movie so soon!
HollywoodBabylon wrote:stereosforgee ks wrote:
I'm just happy we are getting another movie so soon!
Ditto.
Though to be honest I think I would've prefered Ledger in a Malick film rather than Pitt (that is, if it transpires that way).
HollywoodBabylon wrote:Thanks for some really interesting posts.
I think it is extremely telling that Malick himself has withdrew 'The New World' from cinemas to (apparently) re-edit and cut. That says an awful lot. My own feeling is that, like 'The Thin Red Line', the narrative structure - albeit deliberately diffusive and elliptical - fails to match or cohere with the visual 'message'. Of course, they don't necessarily have to cohere. A narrative can tell you one thing whilst the visual another. That's why 'Badlands' and 'Days Of Heaven' worked so brilliantly for me and his last two projects patently didn't. Sometimes, pretty pictures aren't enough to sustain a lengthy movie.
(Kubrick's snore-fest 'Barry Lyndon' is another example).
I agree that Malick is a geniune mainstream auteur (and a comfortably indulged one, like Kubrick); but his recent two movies suggest to me he is an auteur wanting to say something profound but not being able to do so literally. ie through pictures AND words (no matter if those words are far and few between). I still maintain that his screenplays for 'The New World' and (to a lesser degree) 'The Thin Red Line' are half-formed, messy and add up to nothing more than a psuedo-philosophing that borders, at times, on laughable. Unlike 'Badlands' or 'Days Of Heaven' I find no beauty or poetry in them. Only a half-formed intellectual exercise in wordplay.
That said, it's great to hear the opposite view(s) and I do agree with most of you that Malick is a distinct voice in mainstream US cinema. But in all honesty, is he currently deserving of the reputation he has?
In my eyes, the jury is still out. Verdict not yet in.
cinemabuff wrote:HollywoodBabylon wrote: Thanks for some really interesting posts.
I think it is extremely telling that Malick himself has withdrew 'The New World' from cinemas to (apparently) re-edit and cut. That says an awful lot. My own feeling is that, like 'The Thin Red Line', the narrative structure - albeit deliberately diffusive and elliptical - fails to match or cohere with the visual 'message'. Of course, they don't necessarily have to cohere. A narrative can tell you one thing whilst the visual another. That's why 'Badlands' and 'Days Of Heaven' worked so brilliantly for me and his last two projects patently didn't. Sometimes, pretty pictures aren't enough to sustain a lengthy movie.
(Kubrick's snore-fest 'Barry Lyndon' is another example).
I agree that Malick is a geniune mainstream auteur (and a comfortably indulged one, like Kubrick); but his recent two movies suggest to me he is an auteur wanting to say something profound but not being able to do so literally. ie through pictures AND words (no matter if those words are far and few between). I still maintain that his screenplays for 'The New World' and (to a lesser degree) 'The Thin Red Line' are half-formed, messy and add up to nothing more than a psuedo-philosophing that borders, at times, on laughable. Unlike 'Badlands' or 'Days Of Heaven' I find no beauty or poetry in them. Only a half-formed intellectual exercise in wordplay.
That said, it's great to hear the opposite view(s) and I do agree with most of you that Malick is a distinct voice in mainstream US cinema. But in all honesty, is he currently deserving of the reputation he has?
In my eyes, the jury is still out. Verdict not yet in.
Barry Lyndon is a masterpiece.
As is everything Malick has made.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests