>Terrence Malick's 'Song to Song' panned as "humiliating wreck of a movie" in early reviews
- boring plot, not much dialogue with lots of voiceover making cheesy observations about life
- overly long and complicated for the sake of being complicated
- visually stunning mess with lots of weird camera angles like extremely wide shots of awkward sex scenes
- same old same old modern Malick
- it has a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes
i-is terry f-finished?
>panned by reviewers... reviewers...
He should have called it a day after Badlands.
I dunno. It looks way more focused to me, narrative and setting wise.
It's gotten some near perfect reviews as well. But of course mainstream Hollywood is going to push back on what Malick has been doing with these more recent films (particularly the trilogy of TTW, KOC and now this which he shot in the same period). It's pleb detection in its purest form
That review describes all Malick movies. It only seems good when you have those same cliches applied to movies about god or nature.
Sounds like absolute pleb filter.
>you wont ever get paid money, lots of money, to kiss and nibble roons stocking feet to make her giggle
>tfw Sup Forumstant and loved Knight of Cups
Sounds excellent. Gib the movie already.
Why do critics hate Malick?
I don't know how they still don't understand what he's doing. Remember how Tree Of Life received very mixed reviews when it was first shown, and then a few years later it was rated the 7th best american movie of the 2000s and the 79s best american film ever made by BBC or something
Do Malicks films since Tree Of Life ever break even? Where does he get the money to keep shooting these?
sounds like every single other movie he ever made desu
Malick movies are all masturbatory aids for middle-class whites. It's about time people noticed.
i did not care for KoC at all. it just didn't have the same magic as his other films. i'm scared for this next one.
Because exactly 60% of critics are hacks.
It was better back then, but the internet age makes everything worse.
Yeah KoC was pretty weak
seriously. money laundering?
>visually stunning
All I needed to hear.
Malick forgets that film is a narrative medium.
No it isn't.
>voiceover
hahhahhahahaha what a dumbass
>Without sacrificing any of the breathless ecstasy of his urgent, fluid, seemingly borderless images (shot by Emmanuel Lubezki), Malick girds them with a framework of bruising entanglements and bitter realizations, family history and stifled dreams. His sense of wonder at the joy of music and the power of love is also a mournful vision of paradise lost.
WE ALREADY HAVE A THREAD, FAGGOTS
It never was, it isn't, and it never will be.
If you want narrative, read a book like a nerd.
Fuck off, plen
Pleb