Malick has never made a bad mov-

Malick has never made a bad mov-

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YH6dXpLbPhQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise-en-scène
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

was it really worse than To The Wonder

Both masterpieces

yes, at least the final 20 minutes of To the Wonder was the sublime transcendent experience people expect from Malick (while the rest of the film was a bit of a slog, that bit is among my favorite passages in his work)

Malick is a fine filmmaker.

The problem is he is apparently senile and has been making pretty much the same film over and over again.

Tree of Life, To the Wonder, Knight of Cups. They're all the same syntactically and semantically, though thematically they only differ slightly. Compare them to his previous work lilke Badlands, The Thin Red Line, or The New World and it's obvious something has changed.

Malick has never made a good movie you mean.
no, not even one.

>Bergman, Goddard, the list goes on...

name one (1) "good" movie or anything ever produced, by humans or not.

Tree of Life is the film he always wanted to make, a passion project that took him 30 some-odd years to realize, and I think he wants to stay in the mode that he developed during that film. He just making the films he wants to make, audience be damned (not necessarily a good thing desu), and it's not like there isn't any progression in his late art. Each of these last three films have gotten more abstract and smaller, more intimate. Malick is distilling his unique individual style down to its basics..

pornography

That was probably the best answer you could give but it still doesn't qualify as something "good".

For it to be "good", it would have to do "good".

Nothing does "good" because "good" doesn't exist.

The end.

People dislike what they dont understand.

No shame in it kiddo.

I can appreciate why some people love Knight of Cups but I really haven't been able to connect with it. It's a big bummer because Malick is one of my favourite directors and I really liked To the Wonder. Knight is the only movie of his I don't like.

It's my favorite Malick, and it really seems like the epitome of his late style of filmmaking, like his most fully realized film. It's totally transcendent and I describe it as "tangible"; like, I feel like I can almost reach out and touch the film. It's as gorgeous as any of his movies and emotional as well. Obviously his style doesn't fit many people preferences, but Knight of Cups is practically flawless in everything it tries to do. To The Wonder felt a little bit like a misstep to me, but every single camera movement and cut in KoC feels totally in control and purposeful. It's also the only Malick film I'd call """deep""". The symbolism in his films is always straight forward as that's not really what his movies are about (ie the kid swimming up from the house in ToL represents birth). However with KoC, suddenly the visual symbols aren't so much representations of physical actions as they are broader themes. Water seems to represent hedonism and there are visual patterns of ascension. Again, the point of the movie isn't dude symbolism lmao, but it adds layers, more to digest and hint at the meaning of the film.

fpwp

plebs dont get the last few malick movies because they function with the same logic and level as music and lyric poetry

>t. delluded guy who got trips

Literally the biggest waste of 2 hours in my entire life and without a doubt the worst film I saw in 2016
And that list includes The Do-Over, Dirty Grandpa 2 and Zoolander 2
Knight of Cups was somehow worse than all of them. Everyone involved in this mess should be ashamed

trips of lies

Don't you just love that the people who like it make an effort to explain why while the people who hated it just call it garbage? It's fine if Malick doesn't work for you, and you can articulate that, but when you don't even concede it's merits or throw out word like pretentious, you really just make it look like you have terrible taste, or just lack the intelligence to discuss film.

shut the fuck up you cuck

It's a great pleb filter desu senpai

Knight of Cups is one of the worst films ever made by professionals; it baffles the mind that anyone defends it. However, it’s telling that most defences of the film centre on assumptions that the critic hasn’t seen the film or is just cynical.
Well newsflash, several people saw the film and hated it, hence why reviewers trashed the film. You don’t have to be cynical to see through Malick’s latest masturbatory mundane tripe.
Maybe you enjoy listening to Bale whisper for 2 hours about nothing? I didn’t. He was 1-dimensional and spent the entire film acting apathetic or surprised. This isn’t good story-telling. Though I guess that when the story is this terrible, that can’t be helped. By the way, the story’s literally “I’m a writer and I’m unfulfilled”. I just saved you 2 hours of your life. Unfortunately I can never get that back.
I have to give props to the sfx editor. They did such a poor job that the music often drowns out Bale’s whispering. But it feels weird to praise someone for being so shit at their job that it cancels out a worse aspect of the film.
What about the cinematography? Surely the film looks good? It’s Malick afterall. I admit that the visuals are often nice. But they’re also uninspired and clearly the bare minimum required from Lubezki. There’s nothing here that we’ve not seen a million times before in The Tree of Life or The Revenant. Natural lighting and wide-angle closeups only go so far.
“But its allusions to The Pilgrim’s Progress mean it’s deep!” No. Films must be able to stand on their own, 1st and foremost. Having references to (and direct quotes from) an allegory from middle-ages doesn’t make a film good.
The film’s philosophy? There’s some self-affirming Christianity in there with no evidence of other opinions considered, no new insights into the topic, nothing of any philosophical merit,at all. If the film were a first-year undergrad essay, it’d be lucky to get more than 50%.

>This isn’t good story-telling
stopped reading right there

Malick isn't interested in story, not ever really, and especially not with his newer films

>it's supposed to be shit
This is why no one takes Malick fanboys seriously

This and To the Wonder are axiomatic masterpieces.

Repent, plebelans.

>films must do this
>films must do that
I don't even like Malick that much, but that's fucking stupid to put limitations on an art form

then he shouldn't make movies

Considering the steps he took the sharpen his directing, improve his visual storytelling, mise-en-scene, honing his cinematography and everything, he isn't nowhere near senile.

all of his films except to the wonder are pretty good, the new world is underrated

>film is a narrative art

Not him, but what is this meme that Malick films don't have narrative? It is even more of a theme in Knight of Cups where the things you see form the narrative and these pieces form the grand narrative of the film, and it's these precies small narratives that are required to fill the grand narrative. Every scene and small story served a purpose or meaning.

We'll here's case in point that Malick's style doesn't work for you (although I'm pretty sure I've seen this critique before). The story is simple because it doesn't matter. Bale was one dimensional because the point of his character was that he was empty. If that doesn't work for you, then Bale was empty because the character didn't matter; he was a vessel for the film.
The cinematography was hardly bare bones. Just because there weren't any shots that made you say "howdedodat?" doesn't mean it failed. Surely your argument isn't that the film isn't beautiful. The sweeping camera and ferocious editing make a story that is entirely enveloping. Knight Of Cups brings up memories and made me feel pain or nostalgia for things that I never experienced. It was meticulously shot and edited to do so; whether it was effective for you personally or not is totally subjective. The merit of the film and its success is not. The movie aimed to bring up these emotions and sweep the viewer up, not to tell a riveting narrative or break any barriers of philosophy. There were allusions to the pilgrims progress, as well as visual cues of hedonism and the riches that leave a man empty still. The movie DOES stand on its own and all the layers simply add more to it to break down and digest. It's Malick's most realized and perfect film, and it's his most complex. It is by no means a bad film whether it moved you or not. I do appreciate the articulation of your feelings, and certainly if you need a driving narrative or strong characterization then you found this movie pointless. It really doesn't matter what films you liked or disliked in determining taste, it depends on your ability to articulte why and really find the source. Your comment that you can't understand anyone's love for it means you haven't really done this.

of course it is

youtube.com/watch?v=YH6dXpLbPhQ

Malick, dare I say it, BTFO?

>lack of focus on story=shit
>implying Malick's films don't have a story at all
It can be, and films that aim to portray a narrative should be judged as such. But as the other user said, don't limit art, it can do anything from study a character to bring out emotions. Neither of those require a strict narrative.

>Kermode

moar liek Commode, amirite

ad hominem

in my case, i couldn't connect much with To the Wonder. Knight of Cups hit very close to home with me as i've worked in the industry, recognized the areas where it was filmed, and have had similar life experiences. both films aren't really made for teens or even 20-somethings. not to say that demographic can't find them entertaining or even enlightening, but malick's films are told through a mature perspective. little wonder they're so disregarded by those of a certain age. let them grow on you. i'll return to To the Wonder in a few years to see if i can find some other perspective by which to enjoy it.

can't wait for Song to Song, as i worked in the music industry, too, and have been to SXSW plenty of times. hope the Val Kilmer sequence remains in the film.

>it made me feel things so it was good
Zootopia made me feel a hundred times more emotion than this shit. I guess that makes it a better film in your eyes?

It's a 6/10, by far his worst, but i wouldn't say it's bad

>Zootopia made me feel a hundred times more emotion than this shit. I guess that makes it a better film in your eyes?
for you

not necessarily for others, especially those where Knight of Cups made them feel a hundred times more emotion than Zootopia

>Zootopia made me feel a hundred times more emotion than this shit. I guess that makes it a better film in your eyes?
no, but i would remain forever suspect about your level of maturity.

I bet you are the person who reads classic works of literature and the only thing you have to say about them is 'I didn't like it because nothing happens'.

And you're basing this assumption off what?

>“But its allusions to The Pilgrim’s Progress mean it’s deep!”
Well fuck. Franny and Zooey is my favorite book. I've got to watch this shit now.

>Literally the biggest waste of 2 hours in my entire life
bro you are in Sup Forums, your entire life is a waste

so no one can ever say a film's bad because someone out there might've enjoyed it?
ridiculous and the sort of defence that only a malick fag would ever come up with
>no u

Yes that's called taste. You like zootopia, I like knight of Cups. As long as we each enjoy something, then that's what's movies are for

neophytes
plebeians

why do you think you can even begin to discuss the transcendental cinema of based Malick

you don't even have to IQ high enough to grasp them, let alone attack them

This is excellent, perhaps his best. Try again in a decade or so.

>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.

Anyone else here love TTW and KoC but doesn't like ToL?

>As long as we each enjoy something, then that's what's movies are for

For deriding Malick for not having the story be at the forefront of his movies.

that wasn't your argument

>Zootopia made me feel a hundred times more emotion than this shit. I guess that makes it a better film in your eyes?
i.e., since Zootopia is a more emotional film (subjective, btw) than Knight of Cups, then it must be the superior film

I love TTW and KOC absolutely and dislike ToL. It's amazing because everything I disliked in ToL is absent in the following films, which just affirms me that Malick knew where he was weak and where he was strong.

To the Wonder made me feel so amazing, positive. It's so beautiful tale of love, it's unrivaled.

Daily Reminder that this is the same guy who claims Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith are masterpieces

>opinion discarded

Check it out, the bottom of the poster tells you whether it's good or not.

p.s. I'M KINO

My man. I felt the same way after watching TTW, it's probably my favorite out of all his movies. And KoC, to me, felt like a remake of ToL, but improved in every possible aspect

So I don't enjoy literature because I didn't enjoy a movie; a movie which most people didn't enjoy. Quite the assumption you're making here.

>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
hmmmm interesting insight, i think i'll have to rewatch it again with this in mind

upon first viewing, i'm more in line with those who call it Malick's worst (though not a bad film in anyway). it just seemed too distant and impenetrable to me.

i adore to the wonder, am very ambivalent on knight of cups and fucking despise the tree of life

Hear hear, To the Wonder is my favorite too, closely followed by Knight of Cups and I consider them both far above his other works (and even among films I like they are easily in the top 1%).

The way Rick's journey is shown to us is so amazing and easy to get into in Knight of Cups. Each small segment compliments the whole

>the ecstatic power of its images and sounds
KoC definitely has amazing sound design, but it flies under the radar because not many have the option to play it out loud through good audio system.

I HURT MYSELF TODAY

Autists like you shouldnt try to understand cinema. It's ok for reviewers to have divergent opinions on films. Not every one has to align with yours.

What are some films that were panned in its day but are now considered all-time greats?

>Plebeians cannot into light.
Time to do some praying for the lost souls

TO SEE IF I STILL FEEL

so as long as someone is emotionally affected, the film is good? so filmmakers should just make films about the holocaust all year long, and we can't criticise them for that?
fucking idiot

WAKE ME UP

malick is a meme to be honest

#average

the rules of the game
blade runner
the thing

>m-muh Malick

>So I don't enjoy literature because I didn't enjoy a movie
No, it was the reasons you gave. One of your main critiques is that Malick does not emphasis the story, that he should, and that all film makers should. This is the exact same attitude that plebs often take in regards to literature, hence why I bet you do the same.

>And the deployment of beauties is more exploitative than anything else. The nameless, voiceless, topless women — whose lithe bodies at once symbolize Rick’s existential quest and distract him from it — might as well be premium-cable eye candy. Like Paolo Sorrentino’s “Youth,” “Knight of Cups” settles into a lukewarm bath of male self-pity, a condition perhaps more deserving of satire than sanctification. Rick mopes and mutters through an elegantly appointed malaise, wandering the desert in an Armani jacket and driving aimlessly in his midnight-blue vintage convertible. In the room, the women come and go. It’s all very poetic and rarely boring, except maybe to Rick himself. But it’s hard to trust his anguish and hard not to suspect that what is being solicited is not your empathy but your envy.

:(

I like it cause Armond liked it.

You don't know me buddy, stop replying.

OH NOOOOOOO

>that upper middle class aimless privilege feel

>They think Malick has ever made anything with such a low emotional coercion as pithy.
haha good god these interpretations are shit

you realize you're calling yourself an idiot, right? because all I did was restate your argument, idiot

So can the people praising this explain why they like this? I really don't get it. It was so insufferable. As someone who has no idea what Tarot Cards are and who has never read Pilgrims Progress I honestly didn't get it. Not asking you to explain the 2deep4u stuff. Just what you liked/disliked.

the bourgeois and their boredom

...

None of those things are essential in understanding the film.

>Why they like this.
It's absolutely marvelous visual storytelling and amazing attention to mise-en-scene that makes it such a treat. On top of that it looks stunning and sounds amazing.
What's there not to like

>mise-en-scene

What is this phrase?

>tfw imagined Jenna Fischer whispering this over images of her twirling on a beach with the sun low on the horizon, occasionally cutting back to dolly shot of a camera looking up into a forest's canopy or some domestic argument with some uncommunicative man that resolves itself with the man placing her hands on various parts of his face

>hated Badlands
>loved Thin Red Line
not sure if I need to download this

There's a difference between here and Bale's character.

1. Bale's not a woman
2. He didn't mope on twitter

Nice trips, fãm

>Mise-en-scène (French pronunciation: [mizɑ̃sɛn] "placing on stage") is an expression used to describe the design aspects of a theatre or film production, which essentially means "visual theme" or "telling a story"—both in visually artful ways through storyboarding, cinematography and stage design, and in poetically artful ways through direction. It is also commonly used to refer to multiple single scenes within the film to represent the film.

and, to be fair,
>Mise-en-scène has been called film criticism's "grand undefined term".

I personally take it to mean all the purely visual aspects of a film (including some acting elements like blocking and figure expression) that emphasizes its story and/or theme

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise-en-scène

I liked it better desu. Knight of Cups seemed very vaporwave like in some scenes.

i wasn't making a point, i just wanted to do a Malick parody (i love Malick btw)

but now that you mention it, just how does he take all these seemingly "arty" cliches and tropes and make them work successfully?

Thank you, did you learn this from shitposting on Sup Forums?

film classes as electives at uni

honestly, those aren't really a joke like Sup Forums makes them out to be most of the time (they often cherrypick or fail to realize you'll meet some idiots in any course you take). really interesting stuff and helps you better appreciate the art form.

No, it appeared in an essay I read years ago about Hitchcock

>being so stupid as to not realise that i was being facetious
>forgetting that you're the one who was trying to claim that the film was good despite its glaring flaws because it excited emotion in you
Malick fans confirmed idiots wanting to seem smart

while i'm aware this board is all inclusive, people not knowing what mise-en-scene is sort of tells you all you need to know about the level of analysis around these parts. not bullying anyone, but,come on, if you're not aware of the basics of film criticism, what validity does your opinion hold? it's like an astrophysicist unaware of the laws of thermodynamics.