This is the most self-important horseshit I've ever sat through in my life. Malik burned me once already with "The Tree of Life." Never again.
To his credit, he captures beauty well and has an eye for striking imagery, but he thinks that makes him the American Bergman. It doesn't.
If I had to sit through just one more scene of a deserted beach with characters staring off into the middle distance while huskily murmured narration said something only teenagers would find profound, I think I might have actually put my foot through my T.V.
What in the actual fuck do people see in this guy?
Why the fuck do you care if Malick makes a good movie lol? It's a fucking joke, get on with your life.
Matthew Myers
>but he thinks that makes him the American Bergman how do you know what he thinks guy just makes movies that he likes, you choose to watch them and then be an autist about it
Noah Taylor
the only thing amerifats have to cling to as an example of cinema
Jose Sanders
OP is not capable of breaking his conditioning
Parker Perez
I know what he thinks because it's written all over what he creates.
Samuel Rogers
Rightfully so, and mallick will be remembered because of it. While shit eating neckbearded turbo autists like yourself will die alone and be forgotten,
Jacob White
OK, spell it out for me. What's the profundity that my "conditioning" is preventing me from experiencing?
It's aesthetically beautiful, but it's ultimately empty and repetitive and he massively over-employs the beach and water motifs. You reach a point where you can almost sense the next one coming. Like clockwork.
Henry Long
The narration is really absurd and distasteful. Something I'd imagine Nolan doing if he made an "art"film.
Landon Perez
>didn't like Tree of Life Moving on, not worth my time
should've watched Voyage of Time instead. Purely great visuals without all the pretentiousness of abstract bullshit dialogue with a cryptic plot
Josiah Watson
Thanks. I'll check it out.
Cameron Taylor
>bullshit dialogue with a cryptic plot But thats stupid thinking the story was pretty straight forward. The prince is our main protagonist and the narrative just talking about his life.
Cameron Lewis
is there actually a comparison between bergman and malick
Landon Hall
my description is one that I would use in general for most all of malick's work. It's not hard to follow plotwise yes, because there isn't much of one whether it's straightforward or not. The problem is the pretentious wishy washy nothingness that is "just talking about his life" and the equivalent nothingness that takes place in most of his films
Dylan Davis
Yeah, after I saw To the Wonder, I thought he couldn't get any more over-the-top with the self-reflection and ontological pontificating... then I saw this piece of shit.
I thought Tree of Life was a masterpiece, and that it walked the line between pretentious ruminations and thoughtful poetry really nicely, but his last 2 films are absolute self-parody. It just seems like a clear case of the Creative Well running dry.
Adrian Fisher
>ITT: >OP and Mallick-Haters who have self esteem and confidence isssues and hence denounce absolute 10/10 movies
Jaxson Walker
I'm OP. I found it visually interesting, but the voice-overs say literally nothing of substance. They don't inform the plot(such as it is) or the characters in anything more than the most tangential of fashions.
It comes across as someone saying dumb esoteric things that they think are somehow profound and I learned at a very visceral level what it feels like to have my intelligence insulted.
If I'm somehow missing something that will transform this into a masterpiece, please feel free to point it out. I already asked once in . Notice how it went without a single reply? Yeah, I noticed that, too.
Put up or shut up.
Blake Rogers
This is actually his best film. The only ones who are navel-gazing are the people who are quick to dismiss it and hide behind the word "self-parody" instead of making any kind attempt to understand how an artist arrives to a point where a film like this is even possible.
Adrian Jackson
I'm kinda divided about this. On one side I really liked some of the exposed thoughts, unironically really made me think (mostly because I broke up recently and the movie made think about my past relationships). On the other side it's a movie that clearly smells its own farts. Just saying, cut the scenes where someone walks aimlessly, and half the movie disappears. You can do a drinking game. Drink two shots if said wandering is done with bare feet. You will fucking die. Also, I don't think it was even that beautiful to look at. Tree of Life was a lot more impressive.
tl;dr: interesting "dialogues" but feels "pointless"
Nathaniel King
>hide behind the word self-parody What do you expect, a fucking essay? I think I stated my case pretty clearly.
Evan Perry
It;s just an experience. in the end, the plot does not matter as much as the feelings do. The scenes and the images are not for you , they are form the pov of the character. you neeed ot evaluate the character based on the feelings that you think are supposed to elicit due to the cinematography and then piece otgether faint lines of the plot to weave a weak plot that shows the journey of the man from a life of booze, sex and drugs to one where he realizes he let his father down and that he needed to do something good iwth his life.
Caleb Anderson
This is the most self-important horseshit I've ever sat through in my life. Synder burned me once already with "Man of Steel." Never again.
To his credit, he captures beauty well and has an eye for striking imagery, but he thinks that makes him the American Bergman. It doesn't.
If I had to sit through just one more scene of a destroyed city with characters staring off into the middle distance while huskily murmured narration said something only teenagers would find profound, I think I might have actually put my foot through my T.V.
What in the actual fuck do people see in this guy?
Wyatt King
>It;s just an experience. in the end, the plot does not matter as much as the feelings do a thousand times this malick in a nutshell
Ayden Roberts
More like knight of cucks lmao
Dylan Bennett
Make one with Chloe please
Robert Smith
OP here.
I can appreciate that. I just don't feel at all challenged or find much about it that's particularly compelling. I liken it to experimental jazz in that it occasionally strikes a chord within me, but for the most part it comes off as technically proficient without much to speak of in way of a heart or a center.
For me, that makes it a waste of my time. I wasn't moved or changed by it in any significant way. Let's just say he's not for everybody.
Owen Perez
>missing something that will transform this into a masterpiece it's not so simple, pleb
Carter Sanders
I think you'll find it a far easier task to assert your unwarranted sense of artistic and intellectual superiority if you expand your vocabulary a bit and brush up your rhetorical skills. As it is, I find your lack of eloquence telling, and disturbing.
Wouldn't want to risk coming off like a pleb with delusions of grandeur.
Austin Adams
nice try me
Jayden Bell
It took you six whole minutes to shoop something that simple?
Bonus points for calling samefag on yourself, though, I suppose.
Ethan Cruz
:(
Lincoln Carter
Aren't we talking about a movie? God Sup Forums is shit
John Parker
>Hiding behind a thesaurus to make a point because they're too dumb or lazy to actually counter a point thoroughly. >Thinks calling someone with differing opinion stupid will convince said person that he's stupid.
Oh tell me more, enlightened one.
No problem with you liking Malick and feeling like you need to defend your own taste in art but try harder.
Justin Morgan
shit flick lol
Jack Ramirez
>OP didn't get it
I wish shit taste in cinema was a bannable offense.
Michael Reed
You seem quite upset because you didn't get the movie. Go back to Transformers, Malik is clearly 2deep4u.
David Roberts
>OP is actually expecting someone to provide him with analysis of a Malik movie on Sup Forums
wew lad
Blake Harris
Go watch Sans Soleil or the Qatsi series and you realize Malick is an amateur at this. He is way into style over substance.
I used to not really enjoy this type of film then I watched Sans Soleil and got hypnotized, the film took me into a meditative state I never really experienced.
Evan Evans
>Perhaps no film in the history of cinema follows the movement of memory as faithfully, as passionately, or as profoundly as Terrence Malick’s new film, “Knight of Cups.” It’s an instant classic in several genres—the confessional, the inside-Hollywood story, the Dantesque midlife-crisis drama, the religious quest, the romantic struggle, the sexual reverie, the family melodrama—because the protagonist’s life, like most people’s lives, involves intertwined strains of activity that don’t just overlap but are inseparable from each other. The movie runs less than two hours and its focus is intimate, but its span seems enormous—not least because Malick has made a character who’s something of an alter ego, and he endows that character with an artistic identity and imagination as vast and as vital as his own.
>As such, “Knight of Cups” is one of the great recent bursts of cinematic artistry, a carnival of images and sounds that have a sensual beauty, of light and movement, of gesture and inflection, rarely matched in any movie that isn’t Malick’s own. Here, he—and his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki—surpass themselves. Where “The Tree of Life” is filled with memories, is even about memory, “Knight of Cups” is close to a first-person act of remembering, and the ecstatic power of its images and sounds is a virtual manifesto, and confession, of the cinematic mind at work. It’s a mighty act of self-portraiture in dramatic action and in directorial creation. And because “Knight of Cups” is about the world of movie-making itself and is set mainly in and around Hollywood, it’s also a vision of the modern world, the world of inescapable images and of their dubious demiurges, of whom the movie’s protagonist, a screenwriter named Rick (played by Christian Bale), is one.
Parker Cooper
Thats the point, through a redundancy of these beautiful scenes we become burned out by them. Its a window into the protagonist who is essentially dead inside. Its a critique of the vapid lifestyle los angeles depicted mostly throgh lubezkis cinematography. how stupid you must be to have missed this
Levi Barnes
Have you seen his first two movies? I got the feeling that Malik started to make more personal movies as time went on. Badlands and Days of Heaven was a lot less existential than his three most recent movies. Badlands was kind of a like a dark and twisted Prince Charming and the rescued princess tale set in the American Midwest and it was structured as a road trip movie.
I'm not too sure what to make of Days of Heaven as I didn't live it as much as the others. It's also set in the American Midwest but it's more of a traditional melodrama I think.
Joseph Russell
>less existential than his three most recent movies It started with thin red line.
Henry Adams
I'd argue The Tree of Life is when he became very personal. The Thin Red Line had those elements, but it was mostly war related
Jonathan Smith
>implying Malick wasn't present at Jamestown in the early 1600s You have much to learn
John Powell
>its a "everyone discounts to the wonder while alternately praising or bashing tree of life and knight of cups" episode
every time
Cooper Ramirez
But I love To the Wonder
Ryan Hernandez
You can see starting from the Tree of Life to Knight of Cups as a trilogy of autobiography and self reflection on Malick's life.
In The Tree of Life we have a story surrounding the death of a brother, in which Malick also unfortunately lost his younger brother. The film focuses on Malick's childhood, it's about memories and greif, healing and moving on with life.
To the Wonder focuses on religion (Malick is known as the 'Christian director'), marriage and a distraught relationship in the backdrops of urban America and Paris. Similar to Malick and his wife during the time he went haywire between Days of Heaven and his return to Hollywood with Thin Red Line. He was also living in Paris back then.
It ends with Knight of Cups, a screenwriter lost in existential decay. The story is in the title and the first sentences of the film: "Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep." The film is about leaving this existentialism and waking up, finding the light. In this he goes through past relationships (breakups) which despite their love and later heartache, have made him stronger, wiser, bringing him closer to eventual freedom. You can see Knight of Cups as Malick's relationship with Hollywood , his career as a filmmaker and his reputation.
Terrance Malick is one of the most beautiful and marvelous directors contemporary film has ever had, it's a shame some people fail to see the greatness in his work. I hope i've helped some people understand and have a new outlook on his films, read into the man himself to get a greater understanding.
Ryder Long
fuck off reddit
Lincoln White
The church aspect just put me off, I just kept on waiting for the father to smoke a joint. he didn't look like a father at all, more like a drug dealer.
Owen Ross
>tfw you didn't "get" tree of life some story about some kid and his family, interspersed with space and nature scenes, and then an ending where he's on some beach or something
