He went from a perfection to a hack

He went from a perfection to a hack.

What happened? Did the palme d'or get to him?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YH6dXpLbPhQ
youtube.com/watch?v=ti98WxZA1Ok
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nothing happened, he's just hiding his powerlevel while crafting his last masterpiece

What happened was, Mallick got overrated because of Nestor Almendros's cinematography and his twenty-year silence. He was always a fairly unreflective guy with a small range of interests (yes, you can read Philosophy at college without being much of a thinker, just pick the right philosophers to specialize in). Once he started making films with some regularity again, the sameyness of his interests became apparent.

>what happened
His artistic vision didn't line up with your taste in film. He's still making exactly the films he means to, and they work for some people, and they don't for others

This board went from loving Malick to hating him.

What happened? Did the reddit and Rotten Tomatoes plebs get to it?

He started making bad movies.

>with a small range of interests
His main interests are:
Birdwatching
Heidegger
Green Day
Kierkegaard
Astronomy
Ben Stiller movies
Cowboy hats
Anthropology
Standing behind pillars when he thinks he sees someone that might recognize him
Persian literature
Beating up his producers when they insult his wife

Wouldn't exactly call these a small range of interests.

>Persian literature

no such thing

How?

by not even trying anymore?

I don't know. Ask Malick.

u saying what u son of basterd bitch

Where did you get the idea that he's not even trying anymore? His last feature film is based on Christian, Islamic and esoteric spiritual texts and concepts and was hailed by some critics as one of his best films.

So, discounting the jokes, that's six interests. One of which is a hobby. Not enough for the pantheon-level genius. Not enough to make up for the monotony of his aesthetics.

Yeah, and 9/10 critics though it was trash. Your point?

>monotony
Knight of Cups was different still from the rest of his films. You'd see that if you could look beyond the surface of montage style and similar camera movement

youtube.com/watch?v=YH6dXpLbPhQ

xD

It's not my fault Malick is infamously shy about his private life so all we can rely upon are the publicly known facts about him and hearsay. Hearsay describes him as a man with wide ranging interests in philosophy, literature, music and science. The rest of the evidence regarding his intelligence comes from his educational accomplishments which are clearly of the highest caliber. Morons don't get Rhodes scholarships to study philosophy at Oxford after graduating with highest honors from Harvard. Morons also don't get teaching positions at MIT.

9/10 critics say the latest Marvel movie is good. Your point?

>9/10 critics say the latest Marvel movie is good. Your point?

You made an appeal to authority argument, and then you undermine your own argument with this post. Tell why I should take anything you say seriously?

>You made an appeal to authority argument,
>some critics

>His last feature film is based on Christian, Islamic and esoteric spiritual texts and concepts and was hailed by some critics as one of his best films.
>was hailed by some critics as one of his best films.

>some critics
>same as 9/10 critics

I'm a 6 year old lurker and this is my first post ever. I believe he has the old age syndrome. His iq started dropping drastically to the point where he turned into a plant by now. Goodbye.

>I'm a 6 year old lurker
Cuck

Are you mixing up the posts that you made?

You made an appeal to authority argument with your post. I point out how wrong you are because The Knight of Cups was not a well received movie by the critics. Then you mock critics in general.

>9/10 critics say the latest Marvel movie is good. Your point?

So why did you make a post saying that "some critics" though the Knight of Cups was "one of his best films"?

Do you not see how you're undermining your own argument here?

Don't you think there are at least a few critics who still write actual good criticism? I was referring to those, which is why I said some, not the majority of film critics, as you implied with "9/10" (which is also wrong because apparently (The) Knight of Cups got polarizing reviews, not overwhelmingly negative ones) who have positive consensus on trash like Star Wars and Ghostbusters.

ur only 6 yrs old bro?

Right, what you're doing now is called confirmation bias. You're saying that only some critics still write good reviews, and these are the ones you agree with, yes?

No, I routinely disagree with critics like Armond White (it's impossible not to) and Richard Brody, the critics I was thinking of when I said "some critics", but I still enjoy them because I think they're one of the few film critics working today who actually have knowledge of cinema.

Why don't you make up your own opinions on movies?

yeah lots of people turn to shit when they get really old

40-50 ain't that bad but malick is fucking 72

>Armond White
>didn't like Tree of life
>liked To the wonder

Pretty patrician if you ask me tbqh

Why are you so averse to reading other, more knowledgeable people's opinions on things?

>Why are you so averse to reading other, more knowledgeable people's opinions on things?

But I'm not arguing with these people. I'm arguing with you.

Malick needs to man the fuck up and make a public appereance that piece of shit.

He pretends to be some kind of a Graffiti artist or what?!

My opinion is that (The) Knight of Cups was a great movie. It just so happens that I'm in agreement with White and Brody. And I remembered that Nick Pinkerton from Reverse Shot also gave it a positive review - I like to read his reviews as well.

He was always a hack. His only good movie was badlands.

Tree of life was one of the worst pieces of shit ive ever seen

...

>His only good movie was badlands.

>the majority of people on this board and critics/moviegoers in general STILL think to the wonder was a bad movie or at the very least a drop in form


weeeewwwwww lad

...

This YouTube kino: youtube.com/watch?v=ti98WxZA1Ok is legitimately superior to Malick's flicks

>film grass
>call it art

>His only good movie was badlands.

>disagree with critics like Armond White (it's impossible not to)

Sure if you're a moron incapable of reading.

>Sure if you're a moron incapable of reading.
I think you are, user.

Sure.

Yes.

Sure.

OK.