More movies like this ? I have already seen all the Malick movies

More movies like this ? I have already seen all the Malick movies.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0MvV30AAgy4
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_of_faith
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Have you seen Cupple of Nights by Malence Terrick?

is that in theatres?

It was a DVD insert in last years Christmas issue of Smells&Sounds.

KoC is one of a kind. Check out the films of Piavoli. Also Inland Empire is like the stylistic and thematic antithesis of KoC but its the only other film I've seen that just like sweeps you up and seems almost tangible

Walkabout by Nicholas Roeg

Anything by Nolan really.

it only has a 42 on rotten tomatoes :/

It is one of one

>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. -Richard 'Based' Brody

Try Winter Light OP, please. It's one of my favourites.

>New Yorker

ok i will watch it tomorrow user

Do you have more of these?

Yeah seconding this, Reygadas is great
Brody is probably the best critic right now

where can i find a good copy of post tenebras lux

>Brody is probably the best critic right now
I stand by my greentext, and he's nothing compared to Kael. Also, he liked this film, so can't say much for his taste.

La grande bellezza

Knight of Cups is great and Kael isn't currently writing is she?

>>New Yorker

What is this supposed to mean, exactly?

La dolce vita

Knight of Cups is garbage and I'm just making comparison to what the New Yorker used to have as a reviewer. I have no idea what would make a good reviewer or the best one these days because I don't follow them, but I doubt it's him. Read his Rogue One review. He gets it right that it sucks, but it's otherwise an extraordinarily pretentious exercise in verbosity, rephrasing comment sentiments and complaints about the Star Wars films through pure thesaurus abuse, just to give the impression that he's way too smart for the material because of his sesquipedalian loquaciousness.

>pretentious
How ironic you poor sap.

That I have a low estimate of the New Yorker, it's articles, and it's contributors. It's little more than a high-class Huffington Post at this point.

>ironic
Maybe, but I think my opinion is justified by the actual review. I could try quoting from it, but just about every line justifies my opinion.

That's Silent Light nor Winter Light. WL is Bergman.

or maybe he has a vocabulary above a high schooler?

You have no idea what you're talking about, as evidenced throughout this thread. The HuffPo comparison is so off base, it's clear you truly don't keep up with the New Yorker in any way. They pay serious writers to travel the globe and deliver exemplary reporting and storytelling, the Huffington post rattles off blog posts and reposts. You're out of your league. Brody has more cinema knowledge in the piece of soup stuck in his beard than you'll accrue in your lifetime.

Or read some of his actual writings like his stuff on Godard and realize that he actually knows what he's talking about. His thoughts on Malick and de Palma are interesting too.

And Knight of Cups is absolutely impeccably made. Every single cut and camera movement is exactly right to create this raw, almost tangible aesthetic. It captures nostalgia the emotion of the moment more accurately than any other film. In my opinion of course, that style works for me. It may not for you but the film is hardly garbage

oh ok. i was confused as to what bergman had to do with malick

Oh I misread. I see similarities between Malick and Reygadas so my mind jumped the gun

I suppose they insert international stories from time to time, but I'm talking more about the stances they have on issues, how frequently they write worthless pieces based on these stances, distinguished only from what you would find on some left-wing rag by their verbosity and length.
>Brody has more cinema knowledge in the piece of soup stuck in his beard than you'll accrue in your lifetime.
Cute. Still, a better critic wouldn't have written such a ridiculously verbose review.

>Cute.
Again, how utterly ironic. You're full of shit mate.

It doesn't "work" for me because it takes the same sorry route of exploring visuals over offering a cohesive and meaningful story.

>The point of Knight of Cups, if there is one, is to show the bleak dead-end emptiness of life in Los Angeles, which isn’t hard to do—and has been done much better elsewhere. (For a vastly more memorable and corrosive view of Hollywood, see Frank Perry’s underrated film adaptation of Joan Didion’s Play it As it Lays.) The loopiness of all this twaddle makes you want to scream. You could cut an entire hour out of it and nobody would know the difference. At a decadent party around a Hollywood swimming pool where nobody seems to know anybody else, Antonio Banderas and Ryan O’Neal appear as themselves in unbilled cameos. All of the people who don’t know each other jump into the swimming pool with their clothes on. At least Quentin Tarantino would have shown us some skin.

>As the malaise sets in, you forget that these actors ever had any talent whatsoever. It’s easy to forget about Terrence Malick, too. Having lost all interest in his audience, he has launched a new career of excess based on surreal boredom, deliberately eschewing all concessions to logic, character motivation and linear narrative. There’s nothing to detain you here. Mr. Bale’s character is described as a “comedy writer,” but he’s as sterile and humorless as the Hollywood austerity that surrounds him. His own movie star charisma has been drained dry as a cactus in Death Valley, and as far as the immoral ennui of the film industry that he says is destroying him, there’s not a shred of profound insight in Knight of Cups within 100 miles of the Santa Monica Freeway.

Reygadas doesn't like Malick btw

youtube.com/watch?v=0MvV30AAgy4

ok can you guys stop derailing my thread.

>Rex Reed
You're doing great.

Ironic, because I am cute? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Well I thought the soliloquy near the end of WL had a similar philisophical intensity to KoC. I guess the directors aren't that similar.

So, your arguments are then entirely dependent on name-dropping and authority, as if I should find any in Brody?

>philosophical
Yeah, no. It was visual trite, nothing more. Window dressing, if you will for those that cant see passed pretty pictures, as it were.

wew lad

Not an argument,

...

>sorry route of exploring visuals over offering a cohesive and meaningful story
How is that a sorry route?? What the fuck man its cinema, a director has no obligation to emphasize or even have what fits your definition of a "meaningful story". Knight of Cups has a very meaningful story, but Malick has no interest in conveying it narratively. He has interest in exploring visuals and I have interest in watching that. In no way whatsoever is that a lesser or sorry route in a medium of art which is primarily distinguished by the fact that is has MOVING VISUALS

I meant more for KoC

There are movies with better visuals and better stories, meaning if I'm going to praise this movie just for accomplishing the part about visuals, it's unfair to movies that also have good stories.

...

This is nice, where's it from?

You're totally entitled to that opinion. However in my opinion there is hardly a film that better synthesizes the two. Its not just the visuals, I'm not just talking about "oh pretty pictures". Im talking about the way the whole thing moves, from the camera movement and editing style to the pacing and chronology. Its just incredibly effective in bringing up these emotions of longing and what I already mentioned in ways that so may other films do not. And that is what compliments the story.

....Knight of Cups. The film being discussed in the thread

I meant is it some promo image or from deviantart or somewhere else

Also I don't know how you could criticize Brody and post this. This reviewer entirely missed the point of the movie and what Malick is trying to do. He took it far too literally. At least QT would have shown some skin? Jesus Christ how awful.

But my thoughts on your critic vs my critic is negligible. Bring your own opinions to the table please

I dunno, i saved it from here around when the film came out i think. Along w/ this one.

I wonder what Song to Song is if To the Wonder is already that

Points or intentions are irrelevant. If what he points our are flaws, then he justified in saying the film is bad.

how long are each of these to read?

But what he sees as flaws are not flaws at all. "An hour could be cut out and no one would notice". I mean perhaps in the sense that you would be able to follow the story without any added confusion =, sure. But that's just stupid. Without that hour, the flow and hypnotic nature of the film would be entirely disturbed. Not to mention the visual themes and characterization contained there within

"At least QT would have showed some skin" What does this even mean? That the scene wasn't titillating enough? It wasn't supposed to be. This just shows the reviewer has no interest in absorbing a work of art to putting any effort into looking for the reason behind scenes. There was plenty of skin throughout the film anyways.

>Characters that are meant to represent the soulless boredom and futility of the Hollywood lifestyle are sterile.
Yes thats literally the point. inb4 "its supposed to be bad". No the film was not supposed to be boring. The characters however are struggling to find themselves, and their evolution or lack thereof throughout the film are key to the whole thing. Seems like the writer didn't even watch the whole thing, or, again, put no thought into asking why things were the way they were.

So maybe you disagree, but thats not pointing out flaws, thats revealing that you either have no interest or ability to put thought into what you're watching

Care to respond to ?

Care to respond to ?

You should read the Bible anyway. Job and Song of Songs are among some of the finest works of literature in human history, Deuteronomy is a bit tedious as a lot of it consists of conveying the law of YHWH to the Israelites.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_of_faith

is KoC actually entertaining?

I always approach Malick with extensive trepidation.

Its my second favorite film. It blew me away, and was an experience unlike any other. Maybe the only thing close to it would be parts of Enter The Void

Entertaining? Not really. Entrancing and emotional and beautiful sure. Although it is the kind of movie you can just get swept up by, you don't have to analyze everything (though its there to if you want, I think this is actually Malick's "deepest" film)

>Without that hour, the flow and hypnotic nature of the film would be entirely disturbed.
Again, other films have equally good flow while also adding narrative elements that justify keeping the audience's attention, and I praise those films over Mallick's self-indulgence.
>There was plenty of skin throughout the film anyways.
Wow, and you accuse the reviewer of missing the point, while you clearly missed his, which wasn't that there should have been skin, but that the scene itself was so pointless, it couldn't even give a reason for it existence through titillation.
>thats revealing that you either have no interest or ability to put thought into what you're watching
More like the director failed to recognize that if the final result is sterile characters and a movie with so much that adds little to the story, it's a movie that, however worthwhile it is to those who put some irrational value on "flow," or whatever, it's entirely lacking in the substantial elements that make any film good. If you're going to make asinine assumptions of what is the state of mind of people you disagree with, then it's not that I have "have no interest or ability to put thought into what you're watching," but when it's obvious what a film is about is worth so little, and it sacrifices so much that would be found in better movies to achieve this, then of course I'm not going to like it because the end result is so valueless.

>tfw Malick is working with an actual script on Radegund

A similar argument is used to defend another exercise in self-indulgence and pointless, Von Trier's Meloncholia, where, almost totally lacking in story and compelling characters, we're suppose to drop standards we have for all other films and try our hardest to feel as much as possible for them, forgetting that emoting and visuals without a story are a boring thing; that story is ultimately what has one scene logically follow into another and demands another until a fitting conclusion; that films, that focus on visuals, or flow, or emotion, or whatever, sacrifice the most important aspect for the less important ones, and that if those who prize unity and cohesiveness in art above all else as being the most valuable above all else somehow regard as trifles films that so heavily focus on secondary aspects, you can't blame them, or chalk up their lack of appreciation to lack of consideration. They get it, but don't value it, at least not more than it's worth.

Go read a fucking book then, film is for visuals

But the swimming pool scene wasn't pointless at all. And self-indulgent? If you mean by making the movie he wants to make and not adhering to what a movie goer may want he's being self indulgent, then all artist should be self indulgent.

I think our biggest disagreement though is this:
>some irrational value on "flow,"
We are watching movies for entirely different reasons man. Knight of Cups lacks no elements that "make any film good". It has, as I've said, a subtle and moving narrative, layers of visual storytelling literary allusions, and more important (to me) than all of that, an impeccable and effective style. Flow and the emotions it brings out and the state it puts the viewer in is the most important thing to me when watching a movie. If thats not what you're into, thats fine, and I'll stop assuming the mind state of people that disagree with me. But I don't understand how you can see it as valueless. It sacrifices nothing at all, it goes out of its way to be sincere and honest to Malick's vision
See above about self indulgence. If being honest is self indulgent then there's no problem with it. Malick isn't making films to stroke his ego, it would be extremely pretentious to assume he was.
>films, that focus on visuals, or flow, or emotion, or whatever, sacrifice the most important aspect for the less important ones
But there are no aspects that are less important. On a person to person basis sure. But I'm not going to shit on a movie for telling a story and not doing any visual exploration. Why would you shit on a movie for doing the opposite?
>if those who prize unity and cohesiveness in art above all else as being the most valuable above all else somehow regard as trifles films that so heavily focus on secondary aspects, you can't blame them, or chalk up their lack of appreciation to lack of consideration. They get it, but don't value it, at least not more than it's worth
Thats a fair point and I think were saying the same thing now

Also I'm curious as to the films you do like. Not in the sense that I'm going to say "oh lol well that explains it you just have shit taste" hopefully you can tell I'm much more interested in discussion than that.

For example, in addition to Malick, I really like the films of Franco Piavoli. Entirely visual storytelling and they're just incredibly meditative and emotional. I also like Welles who I would think is someone closer to what you're referring to when talking about directors that have as good of visuals but also tell a good story

Never seen the movie but this sums up the feeling I got just from watching the trailer.

upstream color
the untamed
under the skin

I love the trailer. Its a bit different from the movie but beautiful in its own right
Upstream Color is a good pick. Its even more fragmented than Malick, at least in a more jagged sense, but it has that same sweeping beauty

>But the swimming pool scene wasn't pointless at all.
It added nothing to the story and played out exactly how one would expect.
>If you mean by making the movie he wants to make and not adhering to what a movie goer may want he's being self indulgent, then all artist should be self indulgent.
I mean placing excessive value on something worth little, sacrificing what's actually valuable in the pursuit of it.
> Knight of Cups lacks no elements that "make any film good".
Except a coherent structure and narrative, a lack of pedantry, consistently presented characters, an earned mythological and spiritual resonance of everything. You really hyperbolize here, or just wanted to gainsay me, as there was literally no film that was good that didn't lack such elements.
>It sacrifices nothing at all
Except a coherent story.
> But I'm not going to shit on a movie for telling a story and not doing any visual exploration.
I don't think Kubrick is a particularly good storyteller, but far above better than Mallick, and I think his visuals are far more cerebral and timeless. Mallick sacrifices an immense amount to achieve his visual style, and he can't even surpass visually those who haven't made those sacrifices.

I mentioned Kubrick. Even he made sacrifices to the story of story he was wiling to tell to achieve his visuals feats, but not to this absurd extent, where it's as if nothing that's actually happening to the characters actually matter, and we're supposed to empathize with them. The idea of the notion of the destructive, soul destroying power of the movie business is as dreary and dated anyway, so it doesn't even get points for originality.

>It added nothing to the story
No but it added to the "feel and flow" of the movie
>sacrificing what's actually valuable
Which is what a coherent story? First of all, there is a very easy story to follow. A guy is a Hollywood writer. He parties and and indulges himself aimlessly and begins to feel the emptiness of it. So he ends up the way he does, which could be seen either as redemption or as resignation.

But again, you're failing to acknowledge my point: a coherent story is not necessary. To me at least. It is to you and thats valid, but a narrative is no more important to a film than any other aspect. A director can focus on and explore any avenue of the medium he wants and "sacrifice" the other ones because that's not what they're trying to do

>he can't even surpass visually those who haven't made those sacrifices
Are we talking about the same thing in terms of visuals? Again I don't mean the prettiness or complexity of shots, I mean the camera and the color and the editing and the mise en scene. In that sense he's hardly comparable to anyone because his style is so drastically different

I like Kubrick. 2001 and EWS are 10/10 for me. But you're treating "story" as the core of a film; acting like it has to be there and any venture away from it is a sacrifice. This is something I fundamentally disagree with. Nothing, narratively or visually or otherwise is being sacrificed by focussing on something else.

>No but it added to the "feel and flow" of the movie
Again, there are scnes in movies that accomplish which actually add thing to the story, which I respect much more than "feel and flow" for its own sake.
>First of all, there is a very easy story to follow.
So I should say, what's actually coherent is extremely shallow. That's more accurate.
>To me at least. It is to you and thats valid, but a narrative is no more important to a film than any other aspect.
I suppose not, but when other directors can achieve better visuals and more coherent stories, like Kubrick, I respect them and value their work much more. If there was any "feel and flow" Mallick could have achieved to make up for the lack of story, it was not accomplished here.

>n that sense he's hardly comparable to anyone because his style is so drastically different
I would compare him to better directors whose films have better visuals and stories.
>Nothing, narratively or visually or otherwise is being sacrificed by focussing on something else.
Fine. Kubrick could produce better visuals while not obsessively focusing on them so the story didn't become shallow or incoherent, (usually). I'm only treating venturing away from story for visuals as a sacrifice when the story becomes as bad as it is in this film without producing visuals good enough to justify doing so. This is theoretical, as the story itself and its themes were so trite that it was probably better to focus more on visuals, but the final product is what is it.

compulsory:
1. read heidegger
2. read the book of job
3. read the bible
recommended"
1. read neuroscience books specifically about memory cognition

then rewatch the movie

Okay I think I finally understand your position. You find that Knight of Cups is not solely a visual venture (which I would agree with), and the story and themes that go with it are trite and shallow. That makes sense. I feel somewhat similarly about his latest film Song to Song. It attempted to go even further visually but also had an even more prominent narrative, and while trite is not the word I would use, I would say each aspect got in each other's way a bit and what it did visually (flow and whatnot) was not effective enough to sell me on the story.

So where we disagree the content of the KoC. Yes the story is shallow, but on the surface any story is. Knight of Cups is rife with biblical allusion as well as that of tarot cards and Pilgrim's Progress; this to make no mention of Heidegger or Kierkegaard. I'm not as interested in the basic "Hollywood is empty" as I am in interpreting what the ocean/beach seems to represent spiritually, or watching how the interactions between Bale and each other character differs subtly at pivotal moments. So thank you for the earnest explanations and discussion. I do understand where you're coming from and hopefully you can see that there are many aspects of film from which both a director and viewer can approach and dig in to.

one of the worst "films" ive ever seen, fuck Malick, pretentious wannabe existential garbage

I guess I should have read Ozymandias and watched the entire Ring Cycle, (in the original German), so I could appreciate Alien: Covenant, right? Fuck off.

Could I get some recommendations on existential or philosophical films that aren't pretentious or garbage?

What's wrong with his post? Malick is a philosophical scholar, his films are full concepts developed by people like Heidegger. And its ridiculous if you think having knowledge of the Bible is too much to ask. His films can be appreciated at a purely surface level but its ignorant to think there is much more underneath to dig into if you know what he's working with. Unread fucking pleb

*isn't obviously

The point is, it's absurd that I'm going to change my opinion about his films just because I become acquainted with the works he's referencing. It's clearly just a pretentious way to shut people off who dislike a movie to assume they're not only ignorant of what's being referenced, but that because they are, their opinion is somehow invalid. If you really think a good response to the reasons why I don't like the film is to recommend that I read all those works, then you can fuck yourself to.

Well what are your reasons to dislike the film?

yes you will. go to your library and read heidegger's being and time in its entirety. if you can grasp at least 10% of it knight of cups will become your favorite film of all time.

Not sure if this is b8 or not. Either way, you lessen my opinion of the people who like his films.

Pretty much every criticism of the movie after that post where I quoted the review is by me.

>reading Heidegger without any grounding in philosophy
Stop giving people terrible advice

There's so much going on in Knight of Cups. Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Plotinus, Hermeticism, Thelema, Evola. It's not required reading nor did Malick intend them but as a filmmaker of his calibre of he's in touch with that universal dimension that all great art shares that he can't help but be in conversation with so many ideas and moods.

Pure kino, the most beautiful film I've ever seen.

Well if you think the film is shallow than being more familiar with philosophy would certainly change your mind about that. I don't think it would change your opinion on the film, yes that is absurd. But its not like there isn't a point behind the shitpost. It is a decent response and recommendation if you actually think the film lacks depth
Obviously its bait. If you let the posts on fucking Sup Forums influence your opinion on anything at all then its worthless anyways

i did it on purpose because the guy i was responding to is clueless of his own ignorance and retardation. reading the first paragraph will make him aware of just how dumb he is

Mr. Malick lives in Austin, and I have the pleasure of maintaining his pool. The man is a gentleman, and an honor to have as a client.

Malick definitely did intend a lot of it though. He's an incredibly smart and well read guy
I really want this to be true

RT is an amalgum of douchebags in the form of online critics. If you have a certain threshold of traffic, you're granted access. Never go there again.

Literal fucking shit.

I recommend a film where for 2 hours it's just a shot of a shit someone has taken. In this case the shit is "Knight of Cups" and the shittee is Malick the hack.

It's utterly true. He calls my cel whenever there are seasonal issues with his pool. Since he lives in heavily wooded Westlake, he has to deal with spring pollen and autumn leaf drop. I work very hard on his pool, and it means a lot to me.

Pure kino moments:

>"I say try it all."
>strip club scene
>5 second shot of the edm festival out of nowhere
>girl with her hands cupped around a candle in total darkness
>burial in the ost
>banderas' party
>las vegas pimp

>le epic blue lights is good cinematopgrahies!!
>kino
are you sure you're not a bladerunner 2049 fan?

nigger please