God tier

>god tier
Badlands
Days of Heaven
The Thin Red Line
The Tree of Life
Voyage of Time

>V/O gimmicky shit, look how weird i move the camera lol tier
The New World
To The Wonder
Knight of Cups
Song to Song

I second that

>>V/O gimmicky shit, look how weird i move the camera lol tier
>Tree of Life isn't exactly this

>camera movement scares the pleb
go back to watching shit cinema faggot

embarrassing

Agreed. OP tree of life is in the wrong list.

because in Tree of Life works

Why did he go from making a masterpiece once a decade or so to pumping out perfume ads every other weekend.

>it just werks

To alienate the plebs

>The New World
Disagree. The extended version is fantastic.

Have you felt the Wonder yet, Sup Forums?

no i stay in my room all day and night, posting on Sup Forums

>>V/O gimmicky shit, look how weird i move the camera lol tier
>The New World
>To The Wonder
>Knight of Cups
>Song to Song

If you truly feel this way, unironically, you are not actually a fan of Terrence Malick and could not begin the comprehend the "le god tier" films.
You are a memer, steeped in hyperbole.

It's the same imagery in all of his newer films. He needs to calm down, stop these rushed productions, and go back to his roots i.e. Badlands and Days of Heaven - make an actual worthwhile film again. Although Song to Song resonated, but it's still not comparable to his first two masterpieces. Really, what happened during his break that caused him to rush so and feel the need to "experiment"? Is it because he's realizing his age?

Lowest IQ post of the day.

>unable to address a single point of my post
>spouts a fallacy instead
Not an argument. The imagery from my screenshot is literally identical to that of the webm.
>live from song to song
Good job, Malick. Brilliant.

>who am I?
Terrence, this time you've outdone yourself, truly. Very thought provoking. I mean, it's not like these are the exact same sentiments shared by multiple characters in any of your previous films.

a question can have multiple answers, you know

The New World wasn't only the best film from the past 20 years, it was the best film from the past 200,000 years

>I'm too cool for one of humanity's most important questions, lmao where's my fidget spinner?

Is this the only picture there is of this faggot

oh shit forgot i had a bdrip of voyage of time to watch

gonna download Song to Song too

malick is fucking based

2deep4u faggots

>*makes yet another film about people experiencing general day to day emotions and struggles and coming to terms with themselves*
Ok, Malick, but what about the stuff that matters? The physics, the maths, the science - all the stuff that holds up modern society, which fosters technology like the digital camera you shoot on, all of which are far more important than the trivial chemical reactions which occur in a no-name character's brain?

Embryo, shut the fuck up.

Absolutely, though I've always been sad that TTW feels like a bit of a misstep to me. The people that like it really love it, and I know the feeling of loving a Malick film, so I know what I'm missing out on. But something about it just feels rushed. Not just the pacing of the movie but whereas with every single other one of his films, where each cut and the way each scene blends into the next feels so purposeful and effective, with TTW the flow just wasn't there for me, it felt less realized and exact.
>why would a director feel the need to experiment?
Gee I dunno, probably because they're trying to push the boundaries of the medium, trying to express themselves in the most true and honest way. I'm sorry Malick doesn't work for you, that doesn't make you a pleb, but was does is your inability to understand the merit of what he has been doing. These films are extremely worthwhile both in terms of cinema as art, and expression of the human experience
Thanks for posting that still, now I really want to watch Song to Song again.

>can't even form an argument much less defend malick
You're the "embryo" since apparently you can't speak.

>Ok, Malick, but what about the stuff that matters? The physics, the maths, the science - all the stuff that holds up modern society, which fosters technology like the digital camera you shoot on, all of which are far more important than the trivial chemical reactions which occur in a no-name character's brain?

>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.

>le lynch
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Don't even bother posting your top 10 now faggot, it's worthless, you're an embryo.

>Given that the vast majority of the film was set (and shot) in the Oklahoma town in which the director was raised, it is intriguing to learn that this southern state was also the primary historical location of the Nanissáanah, the Native American ‘ghost dance’ of the 1890s. Created by a Nevadan Paiute named Wovoka in 1888, each ritual performance of the Nanissáanah lasted for four whole days, during which (according to the Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture):
“the dancer would be transported to the afterworld where departed relatives were seen living the old, happy life of the prereservation era, when bison abounded”.

>Wovoka's extended conjuration ritual, summoning the ghosts of the dead and opening liminal pathways to the bison-rich pre-Columbian age, was soon seen by the US government as an act of political resistance, ultimately leading to the infamous Wounded Knee Massacre of December 29th 1890. Following the slaughter, a US soldier proudly noted that his regiment had “Sent 200 Indians to that Heaven which the ghost dancer enjoys. This checked the Indian noise, and Gen. Miles with staff Returned to Illinois.” The act of attempted genocide was approvingly reported by the young L. Frank Baum (later to gain fame for creating the escapist frontier of Oz), who saw the massacre of the ghost-dancers as a step forward in the ongoing drive to “wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth”.

>These historical crimes form the darkest substrata of the poisoned soil in Malick’s film, and the ceaseless acts of dancing (that so irritated Joe Neumaier) seem to be part of the director’s ongoing effort to forge his own path back to the “prereservation era, when bison abounded”, locating an alternative historical track. In his sixth film Malick is again seeking what Thomas Pynchon has called “the fork in the road America never took, the singular point she jumped the wrong way from..."

not a fallacy, he was just describing your post, at the imagery literally wasn't identical senpai
ttw is his best dwi

>To the Wonder resembles another chapter out of Malick’s life. The male lead (Ben Affleck), named Neil, is an American man who, while in Paris, falls in love with a French woman (Olga Kurylenko) named Marina, the mother of a young daughter (Tatiana Chiline). When the three move to America, Marina has a hard time adjusting. The two grow apart, and in voice-over Marina says something like (I’m paraphrasing, the line is not in my notes), “Where does he go?” All of these details parallel what we know about Malick’s second marriage:

>"One day in 1980 or 1981, Malick’s landlord introduced him to Michèle, a tall, thirtysomething blonde Parisienne who lived in the same building. She had a young daughter, Alexandra. … In a year or two, the trio moved to Austin, Texas. … Michèle did her best to adapt to Austin. … But she was out of her element. … Malick would often just leave, for hours, days, or weeks. She never knew where he went, and it made her crazy."

>Eventually Marina returns to Paris, just as Michèle did. While she’s away, Neil takes up with a woman he knew in his youth (Rachel McAdams). At this point in Malick’s life, he married his high school sweetheart, Alexandra “Ecky” Wallace, to whom he’s apparently still married.

This guy is the definition of "pretentiousness". Schlock masquerading as 3deep4u shit.

He's a hack and I consider anyone who's enjoyed a single one of his films to be a lichen scraping troglodytian rube.

This is the only Malick film I haven't seen. Idk why I haven't yet, I'm sure ill like its it just has never really grabbed my attention I guess. I'm assuming you watched the directors cut?
To be fair, Inland Empire is as good and important as late Malick. For some reason Ive always felt like it and Knight of Cups are extremely similar in effectiveness but on entirely opposite ends of the stylistic spectrum

it's not deep in the slightest, all his movies are very simple and easy to understand, you just have a low IQ

Malick is as sincere as it gets. His films are not deep (besides Knight of Cups, desu I think one has an extra layer of depth that most of his films don't have) nor do they pretend to be. They're just unconventional, but they try their best to be honest and to move the viewer

I agree, but as you can see from this thread they are engineered to appear to have deep and profound meaning and brainlets lick it up like shit in front of a swine's mouth

>the human experience
"The human experience" is worthless. Malick relies on emotional pandering and string-tugging. His past few films are nothing but exploitation, like a slasher film, but artsy. That's why I love Badlands so much: it's truly American and stands on its own even without the context of "the human experience".

When you're an idiot, and you present a sincere belief you have as though it is beautiful and axiomatic, the result is pretentiousness.

Explain his films. Any film, explain it in your own words. Because what's clear from Malick threads on Sup Forums is that there is very little actual discussion pertaining to his films to be found, rather just shitflinging and other baseless, worthless low-effort spew. So back up your statement and show some coherent discourse.

Surely this is bait. You don't actually think someone would invest their time, money, and soul into making films made simply to impress idiots do you? They don't appear to have anything they don't have. If you want examples of that, go watch Prisoners or some other Villeneuve or something. Malick is honest and makes films that he thinks are moving and emotional, regardless of how others will perceive it. Thats true artistic integrity
What I was saying above ties in here too. Malick doesn't pander or exploit; if thats what he wanted to do, why would his style be so unconventional and alienating? The human experience is only worthless if you think it is. Objectively its all we have, its endlessly beautiful. And I don't understand you last point. Something being American means its needs the context of America. Something needing the context of the human experience means it practically needs no context at all since that's literally what were all experiencing

Why do you think its ended up that way? Malick haters come in and won't concede that theres any merit at all to what he's doing. Its impossible to discuss with that. So Malick defenders have just resorted to low effort attacks, which is definitely just as bad. But obviously you weren't there for Knight of Cups threads a year ago; there was endless discussion about it. And throughout this thread I've been trying my best to flesh out my thoughts. But low effort hate gets low effort defense

>Malick haters come in and won't concede that theres any merit at all to what he's doing
Because he's a hack

Lubezki is a shitty meme cinematographer and a big part of the reason why nu-Malick films are terrible.

No because you're a closed minded pleb. respond to this

I already did,

But his belief is beautiful. To me and others at least. And I guess thats where we diverge and kind of the end of any discussion. But in my opinion, even if you disagree with his belief, sincerity in itself is beautiful. That's not pretentiousness, he's not pretending anything, he's doing what he honestly finds beautiful and true. And of course you're allowed to disagree, but I don't see how someone can't even admit the merit of sincerity and originality, much less experimentation.

Sincerity is just pitiable from the mind of a moron.

where da fucc can i get a voyage of time torrent bros?

>Malick doesn't pander or exploit
An auteur need not have explicit intention to be pandering and exploitative. Nor is this necessarily a bad thing; Tarkovsky, for example, is pandering.
>The human experience is only worthless if you think it is
And I do think so. Anything emotional is inherently baseless, unfounded, and glorified by the individual. One does not require cognitive thought nor any semblance of rational to experience any sort of emotional response. On their own, emotions are worthless - they give way to common blanket statements such as "It's fun", "I liked it", "boring, etc.
>Objectively its all we have
Wrong. Reality exists outside of emotions - the concrete and palpable is what we really have whether we realize it or not.
>being American means its needs the context
>the context of the human experience means it practically needs no context at all
Exactly. To be "American" is to be authentic, and to be authentic is to have substance. Emotions have no substance on their own, nor does the "human experience", yet that is largely what Malick offers. What is, say, Song to Song without the constant barrage of emotional exposition? It's nothing, maybe a music video. Which makes Tarkovsky relevant once again, as he's famous for not believing in symbolism and deep metaphors, rather attempting to invoke emotion in his audience. The difference from neo-Malick is Tarkovsky relied on more than just the human condition. His films contain something as simple as a rain shower, which invoke the feel of nature, and don't rely on any "human experience" to do so. You don't have to constantly question yourself, the characters, the film, nor the auteur's intentions. That's what I experience in Knight of Cups and Song to Song - just a constant emotional barrage of me asking if I should relate or simply just experience. Someone like Tarkovsky makes it easy, despite arguably having just as an "unconventional and alienating" style. Malick only works for himself.

>Anything emotional is inherently baseless, unfounded, and glorified by the individual. One does not require cognitive thought nor any semblance of rational to experience any sort of emotional response.
Okay I can agree with this

>His films contain something as simple as a rain shower, which invoke the feel of nature, and don't rely on any "human experience" to do so
I agree with this too and enjoy tarkovsky's films. However, while their styles are entirely different, I don't think that Malick strays from this concept. When I watch Knight of Cups, I do simply just experience. Not only what Malick films, but how he films it, evokes nature. It evokes memory and existence in my opinion. Which can bring up specific emotions, but you're right, that is glorified by the individual. The film itself evokes things much broader and less confining, such as said nature or simply experiencing. Now, yes Malick does have voice overs and exposition. And I didn't really realize until now that I kind of ignore all of it. Because I agree, something so contextual as the human experience or specific emotions can drag down the purity of the art. I feel this way very strongly about (classical) music. Aside from purposefully programatic music, I really hate trying to tie physical or humanly things to the transcendence that is the pure music.

So I guess all this leads me to say, I know where you're coming from, and for a lot of it I agree. And if Malick's films were only that emotional exposition and questions they wouldn't work for me either. But when you take them away I don't think you're left with just a music video. For me, with malick's films, the way the camera moves, the place each scene is cut at, and which comes after which, results in an absolutely transcendent experience. I don't feel bombarded at all, or constantly in thought. Now, to be honest, I'm speaking mainly about Knight of Cups. Song to Song, I actually specifically thought had both Malick's (cont)

he really bugs me as a reviewer most of the time, but knight of cups and to the wonder are both pure kino

Transcendent style and a really grounded narrative. And in my opinion, the two conflicted and kind of cancelled out. And I think that transcendent style was again lacking in TTW, so when stripped away of everything like you say, it was much more empty. However I will hold that with The Tree of Life and Knight of Cups, beyond the philosophy and human nature, there are two extremely powerful films that don't just rely on human condition but instead evoke much more abstract feelings. And I know you'll disagree, thats why were having this discussion. But I think we're on the same page about a lot of things, and for some reason I've been able to look past whatever may tie Malick's films down and see something that makes them timeless and context-less and moving on a very instinctual level. And in my opinion, the voiceovers, in the two films I like, do add. They add a little purpose to the characters, a little direction. And maybe they also fall into your category of emotional barrage, but I think overall Malick does much more than just that

VOYAGE OF TIME IS THE DEEPEST LMAO

fuck these visuals are great

i really enjoyed those threads btw, really insightful and made me appreciate malick even more thanks for contributing malickbro

guess it's more like wallpaper the movie

Haha no problem, I enjoyed them as well. Gotta keep this thread alive too because I really want to hear back from that other user (Tarkovsky user)

But Lubezki is the GOAT, though.

This. Malick has only gotten better since he started working with Lubezki

Tree of Life was his first use of that style and justified by the themes and narrative. Remember that the main character was recalling his childhood in spurts of recollection. The distorted memories and spiralling scenes were also shared by his mother and father. All three of them had a chance to narrate and speak to a God and universe that never answered save for in the beauty of the universe itself. Tree of Life is exceptional and works as a perfect unison between intent and execution. Everything he did afterwards was a pale imitation and as a result lessens the impact of ToL, which is unfortunate. That all said, I liked Knight of Cups.

Bump

He last few movies haven't been too great. I still can't believe he did that interview last year. It kind of ruined his mysterious nature.

You see the meme, not the man