How do you go from a masterpiece like The Tree of Life, to a literal piece of shit like this?

How do you go from a masterpiece like The Tree of Life, to a literal piece of shit like this?

To The Wonder was bad, but it wasn't downright shit. Will he continue to decline until he finally retires?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/_/search/filename/1461879929835.jpg/
youtube.com/watch?v=YH6dXpLbPhQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

> In 2004, during the filming of The New World, director Terrence Malick forced Plummer to climb a tall oak tree. The task was very difficult for Plummer, who was 74 at the time, and took three unsuccessful attempts before Malick was satisfied with his performance. This footage was not used in the final film.

Lmao wtf

>Will he continue to decline until he finally retires?

Shit like this is why Based Quentin has vowed to retire when he turns 60. Most directors, even really great ones, just don't know when to quit and literally turn into cinematic bedshitters in front of our eyes.

He was always a pretentious faggot.

>Based Quentin

>ITT: atheists

>ywn roam around the city of angels all day and find qts to mess around with

this should have been the whole movie desu

He's a dick

Knight of Cups continues Malick's recent trend of shedding extraneous plot and narrative to focus on emotions, thoughts and memories brought forward in his trademark fragmented visual and aural style. It, like his other films, is about age old universal themes, in this case the quest for enlightenment and the paradox of beauty. The sermon in the movie says that our now imperfect soul gets a taste of the higher existence it once knew whenever it is confronted with beauty, and so Rick immerses himself in all the beautiful sensual pleasures in the modern Babylon of LA. He is quite literally submerged all the time in ephemeral worldly pleasures, yet he still finds his life empty and devoid of any higher purpose and like his soul longing for transcendental gratification, he is always by the end again quite literally looking upwards to the heavens for a higher meaning. The movie is an impressionistic retelling of his search for God, the Wonder, nirvana, call it whatever - any metaphysical peak that will give his hollow life meaning. But at the end he realizes that the journey itself is the answer to his existential quest, not the means, and the nourishment for the shadow of perfection his anguished soul seeks.
Knight of Cups is not just any "story" movie, but a sweeping visual symphony of the search for spirituality in an increasingly materialist world.

You'll understand in time, my son.

On my second watch I would read about each card before proceeding to the next segment. Highly recommended.

malick always were a hack.

pocahontas, and a lesser measure tree of life, were inexplicable flukes.

TToL>TTRL>DoH>TNW>Badlands>KoC>TTW

Yes, yes, Pilgrims Progress. Oh so deep.

Everyone here reads it before they're 16. It's not a big deal.

There are two ways through life, the way of Nature and the way of Grace. You have to choose which one you'll follow.

Grace doesn't try to please itself. Accepts being slighted, forgotten, disliked. Accepts insults and injuries.

Nature only wants to please itself. Get others to please it too. Likes to lord it over them. To have its own way. It finds reasons to be unhappy when all the world is shining around it. And love is smiling through all things.

Badlands before TNW and we got a solid list here.

How old do you have to be to read Tale of the Western Exile?

This is actually saying something unlike KoC.

It ain't just 'bro like dude wow man cards dude wow SUNSET IN THE DESERT wow so decadent and meaningless wow he's not unfulfilled dude'. Christ this flick was boring as fuck.

>I want dialogue to tell me what a movie's message is

cringed desu

>cringed desu

I want actual intelligible dialogue, not just meaningless talk about nothing.

>I want characters to tell me everything, fuck thinking for myself

>Most of Adrien Brody's scenes were cut from the film without his consent and he wasn't aware of these changes until he saw the film at the premiere. Brody came to the premiere expecting to see himself as the lead character and was shocked when he saw that he was barely featured in the film.

>Adrien Brody, of course, is still in "The Thin Red Line," but his role was not the lead he expected, performed and read in the script and the book on which the script was based. Malick found his attention wandering from Brody's character in the edit and focusing instead on Jim Caviezel's, to the detriment of the former's screen time. We should remember that, significantly, this was Brody pre-"The Pianist" and it's clear he expected his role here to be his big break. In fact, he mentioned in a 2001 Independent interview (text here) that: "The pressure on that film was that I had to carry the movie with a cast of stars that I truly admired -- Nick Nolte and Sean Penn in particular. You hear horror stories about Sean Penn, that he can be a real bastard if he doesn't admire your work."

>But after a grueling 6-month shoot in "a filthy costume which they wouldn't wash," only disappointment awaited. Again a sense of betrayal comes through: "I was so focused and professional, I gave everything to it, and then to not receive everything...in terms of witnessing my own work. It was extremely unpleasant because I'd already begun the press for a film that I wasn't really in. Terry obviously changed the entire concept of the film. I had never experienced anything like that..." He went on to suggest that Malick's own status as a filmmaker may be rather inflated: "You know the expression 'Don't believe the hype'? Well, you shouldn't."

>see something good from ttol
>use it to complain about koc
>finding a reason to be unhappy when all the world is shining around it. And love is smiling through all things.

>if we show and tell nothing then it means it's a deep movie!

It's the most boring Calvin Klein commercial I have ever seen.

...

This was way better than The Tree of Life. Malick's best since The Thin Red Line.

>It's the most boring Calvin Klein commercial I have ever seen.
See, you don't even have an original thought in your shitposts.

>all these contrarians

Why do you have to pretend to like things? Having actual opinions is an option you know.

>sure, you can have opinions!
>but don't disagree with Rotten Tomatoes

Doesn't mean it's not true.

Also it's not like you're posting these great original posts.

>you don't get it
>it's vague because it doesn't spell things out!
>it's 2 deep 4 u

etc.

>Also it's not like you're posting these great original posts.
I wrote this

>sure you can have opinions
>but never EVER agree with the common consensus

>you can have opinions but you must ALWAYS agree with consensus

>original

That copy pasta has been reposed a billion times, and it ain't even yours.

Are you unaware of what the word original means?

That's a shitty thing to do. I understand that maybe his vision changed, but to not even TELL Brody? What an asshole.

I wrote the original pasta. If you still don't understand the movie all you have to do is ask.

>I will repost the same thing again!

>irony

Terrence Malick is a hack

Why is it so boring and pointless?

Why is it so pretentious?

Why does nothing happen?

Why is the acting so bad?

What's the point all the unintelligible whispering?

We can start with these I guess.

>tfw malick threads are no longer filled with people posting their favorite music and moments from his films
>tfw they always dissolve into petty bickering and namecalling

>pretending to be retarded

Because his legacy is tarnished. He should have quit after TToL.

>Why is it so boring and pointless?
Those are your feelings. Many people found it honest and engaging.

>Why is it so pretentious?
What was so pretentious about it?

>Why does nothing happen?
What do you mean "nothing"? Rick went from being a carefree hedonist to re-evaluating his materialist lifestyle and finding some peace in accepting that life is a journey where meaning comes through the dynamic experiences of living and not from some concrete end goal.

>Why is the acting so bad?
Who are you thinking of specifically?

>What's the point all the unintelligible whispering?
I know this is not your first Malick film so I'm wondering why you take issue with this now. For starters, I take them as a stream-of-consciousness device to directly tell us the characters' pure, disjointed thoughts.

...

I really liked it, and I agree with all this. I felt it captured life in a way that most movies don't.

R.I.P. Plots
R.I.P. Character Development

I don't gain anything from abstact masturbationals.

How do you guys feel living in a world where Tarantino is the best we've got?

>reddit meme pic
People should attach pictures like this more often to let everyone know they're shitposting.

2deep4you

>Those are your feelings. Many people found it honest and engaging.
Yeah and plenty of people don't too. ad populum. try again.

>What was so pretentious about it?
What wasn't? That would be easier to list.

>What do you mean "nothing"? Rick went from being a carefree hedonist to re-evaluating his materialist lifestyle and finding some peace in accepting that life is a journey where meaning comes through the dynamic experiences of living and not from some concrete end goal.
I didn't really get that that is what happened. To me it looked like he teleported around a bit and then the film ended. Also he was in the desert for no reason. Oh, I guess there was a reason. m-muh piligrims progress

>Who are you thinking of specifically?
Literally everyone was very awkward. I think it's because the camera was like 2 centimeters from their face the whole time.

>I know this is not your first Malick film so I'm wondering why you take issue with this now. For starters, I take them as a stream-of-consciousness device to directly tell us the characters' pure, disjointed thoughts.
Right. He should have uses subtitles then because I didn't understand anything.

Also another question. Why was it so boring?

You shittin' on reddit? Haha cool

You just don't get it user.

If it's boring then it's good. The more boring the better. That's how we judge movies in this thread.

>Yeah and plenty of people don't too. ad populum. try again.
What I was saying was that "boring" is a subjective opinion. Children will find Days of Heaven boring.

>What wasn't? That would be easier to list.
Avoiding the question just makes you look worse, not me.

> To me it looked like he teleported around a bit and then the film ended.
Isn't that what happens in most movies if you simplify the narrative that much?

>Also he was in the desert for no reason.
>Oh, I guess there was a reason. m-muh piligrims progress
Well there's one interpretation. This may be hard for you to comprehend (or do) but people sometimes go away from civilization to quiet their minds.

>Literally everyone was very awkward. I think it's because the camera was like 2 centimeters from their face the whole time.
Again, this isn't something new that Malick's done. Tree of Life utilized the exact same approach but apparently you think Brad Pitt drawling is good acting.

>Right. He should have uses subtitles then because I didn't understand anything.
Actually he used intertitles to give it structure. Wanting subtitles to explain a movie is a bit like criticizing paintings for not having speech bubbles.

>Also another question. Why was it so boring?
That's not another question. It's a question that I already answered.

I don't think there's too much use arguing with that guy. You're never going to convince him.

>archive.4plebs.org/_/search/filename/1461879929835.jpg/
>a fucking leaf
Every time

Talk shit get hit bitch is that what you want?

...

Like with everything around here, after the thousands of tourists- happily welcomed btw, by the powers-that-are - invaded since Star Wars and the latest blockbusters, even Malick thread, who were always relaxed and friendly are full of the lowest denominator of this shithole. Pure unadulterated cancerous people, it doesn't even matter the theme.
It seems people don't realize this enough; something like 70% of the current board are here only since December. The rape of the corpse is unending.

>What I was saying was that "boring" is a subjective opinion. Children will find Days of Heaven boring.
So things can't be boring, because it's just an opinion? Ok.

>Avoiding the question just makes you look worse, not me.
If I say something is pretentious you will then get into semantics and we will never progress.

>Well there's one interpretation. This may be hard for you to comprehend (or do) but people sometimes go away from civilization to quiet their minds.
People teleport around? Sweet. Didn't know that was a thing.

>Again, this isn't something new that Malick's done. Tree of Life utilized the exact same approach but apparently you think Brad Pitt drawling is good acting.
Brad does a damn fine job. Even Sean Penn plays his part very well. The scenes between Bale and his brother were fucking awful. The way they walk around with the camera all up in their faces was so ugly. Why don't they stop and have a conversation like normal people? Why the wide angle when it's this close to them? I was literally getting dizzy.

>Actually he used intertitles to give it structure. Wanting subtitles to explain a movie is a bit like criticizing paintings for not having speech bubbles.
Ah, the whispering was 2 deep 4 me. I get it now.

>That's not another question. It's a question that I already answered.
But you haven't. The Tree of Life wasn't as boring. It was engaging. The music and the camera work was top notch. All of that is out here. March of the Hebrew Slaves will always sound good, but it's literally the only good tune in this flick. The camera work is ugly as I've mentioned above. it produces this dizzying effect. It's just a combination of meaningless shots one after another. I felt nothing other than boredom afterwords.

Malick threads were always like this you fucking moron.

Haven't seen it yet, but a statement like that coming from a ToL fan makes me hope he stopped turned from going for visually over the top.

You're a pleb, just accept it and move onto the closest CW thread.

Who is Based Quentin?

How am I a pleb? Can you give me one reason?

I, for one, think you're incapable of forming a counter argument and memes are you can resort to.

Nice pic. Do you have more? Where can I find these?

I could give you a thousand reasons, but you'll just keep shitting the same opinion out of your mouth every time as you've been doing since the beginning of the thread.

What is this dance called?

>So things can't be boring, because it's just an opinion? Ok.
You have to add more than just repeating that it's boring. Or just drop this kind of empty criticism because it's about as constructive as calling it pretentious.

>If I say something is pretentious you will then get into semantics and we will never progress.
You seem to be an expert in predicting things but never actually saying anything of substance.

>People teleport around? Sweet. Didn't know that was a thing.
Tree of Life can also be reduced to Sean Penn teleporting around. Why was he at the beach at the end? Must be Star Trek!

>The way they walk around with the camera all up in their faces was so ugly. Why don't they stop and have a conversation like normal people? Why the wide angle when it's this close to them? I was literally getting dizzy.
I'm now convinced you have never seen a Malick film before because you seem to have happily accepted the exact same style in his previous films but for some reason don't like it in this film.

>Ah, the whispering was 2 deep 4 me. I get it now.
So you admit that you want an informative brochure with every work of art you experience?

>The camera work is ugly as I've mentioned above. it produces this dizzying effect.
Funny how you say it produced a dizzying effect in a movie about a man who gets caught up in the whirlwind of worldly pleasures.

Give me one then, mr thousand reasons.

based kermode

youtube.com/watch?v=YH6dXpLbPhQ

>Mark Commode

Kill yourself, redboy. Rewrite history in your gay site

the cuck-trot

He should have quit before making a film that includes Brat Pitt and CGI dinosaurs displaying empathy, if anything. I haven't seen TKoC but I hope it is a better film.

Is it wrong if i find Tarkovsky just a TAD overrated? I mean he's still really good, but, I don't think he's the end all.

>You have to add more than just repeating that it's boring. Or just drop this kind of empty criticism because it's about as constructive as calling it pretentious.
You are still yet to address it though. I'll give you a hand with it. What did you find interesting? What excited you about it?

>Tree of Life can also be reduced to Sean Penn teleporting around. Why was he at the beach at the end? Must be Star Trek!
Nope. The childhood scenes all came together. There was a story there; one that you didn't have to imagine. Even if you ignore the biblical allegory there is still a family drama at the center.

>I'm now convinced you have never seen a Malick film before because you seem to have happily accepted the exact same style in his previous films but for some reason don't like it in this film.
There are no shots like this in any of his films. The camera is always still, and it observes. It doesn't fly around like some sort of balloon with no logic, bumping into people faces.

>So you admit that you want an informative brochure with every work of art you experience?
Love this argument. If there is a point to a thing which happens it's being spelled out! The Tree of Life was very up front with its message. It's a good message, a universal message. The message is KoC is incredibly simple, but is clouded with all this useless baggage that doesn't need to be there. You will of course claim that it adds depth, but depth which clouds the main meaning of the film is not needed. Everything in The Tree of Life came together in the end. There was no pointless scene of two people awkward sliding around a room together while whispering about something meaningless.

>Funny how you say it produced a dizzying effect in a movie about a man who gets caught up in the whirlwind of worldly pleasures.
>it's supposed to be ugly
Be real here.

BTFO

Kermode has spoken.

This man is the epitome of style over substance

>Brad does a damn fine job
Stopped reading right there.

You've been here since December or something?

>The childhood scenes all came together. There was a story there; one that you didn't have to imagine.
Not even the guy you're having this talk with, but you can't be seriously telling me that there was much of a story there in ToL that 'you didn't have to imagine'. That movie featured dinosaurs at one point.

And on a related note, if you accuse TKoC of having a guy teleport, you also have to accept that TToL featured time travel.

>The Tree of Life was very up front with its message.
Bullshit. It was heavy on the imagery but it's message isn't even coherent, if you inspect it.

>The things happening in TTOL meant something and those in KoC don't.
They are depicting two different kinds of crisis. Just because you can't relate to one of them doesn't make it bad depiction.

That's not post-Bronson Refn.

>You are still yet to address it though. I'll give you a hand with it. What did you find interesting? What excited you about it?
The spiritual quest through the 3 tales of allegory: Bunyan, the pearl and the Tarot. The constant tension between Rick seeking a higher truth, some kind of abstract beauty but always being pulled down by earthly desires, something that we all have experienced or wondered about in our lives. The ending acknowledges this paradox as he begins a new journey which is a nuanced and interesting closure rather than a neat little happy ending like the heaven picnic party in Tree of Life.

>Even if you ignore the biblical allegory there is still a family drama at the center.
And even if you ignore The Pilgrim's Progress there is still a story about a restless man at the center of Knight of Cups.

>There are no shots like this in any of his films. The camera is always still, and it observes. It doesn't fly around like some sort of balloon with no logic, bumping into people faces.
Are you serious? Are you really suggesting that The Tree of Life has still cameras that don't fly about, don't focus on faces and don't make the characters appear larger than life?

>The message is KoC is incredibly simple, but is clouded with all this useless baggage that doesn't need to be there.
Like I said above I found that the message of Knight of Cups is actually more philosophically complex especially since it didn't have a concrete kind of ending like The Tree of Life. Just the priest's sermon about the soul and beauty can be a starting point for endless debate about aesthetics (the function of beauty) and metaphysics (Gnosticism etc.), not to mention the realization that Rick comes to of his life just a series of journeys rather than an end in of itself.

>>it's supposed to be ugly
>Be real here.
You can say shit about Knight of Cups all you want but you honestly can't call it ugly.

>he shits on something that drew me in immediately

Malick is the only sincere film maker in the game right now, also the only thing mainstream film has close to an intellectual. Those who disagree with Malick typically agree with the sincerity found in blockbusters; the sincerity Malick offers falls flat in their pessimistic worldview.

...

Nice, I'm inclined to agree, although I feel KoC will get better with rewatches. Also I hate seeing TTW last, I really do like it, but i prefer his other stuff as well

>the last film Ebert reviewed was a Malick film

Why are you sad? Ebert died a happy man.

I know

nice dubs, now post your ranking

Christ that's pretentious

That's because you've never experienced it :3

Being an awkward normie?

Happy I've never experienced it 2bh.