The Criterion Collection

[bwdowiak]

If any great filmmaker could use a re-boot after two historic duds, it’d be Terrence Malick. I hope there is some kind of surprise angle that makes this a good film, but right now I don’t feel I need to see the film to say that Ryan Gosling, Natalie Portman, and Benicio del Toro might be miscast as your everyman music scene hipsters. I’d hope to care about these “intersecting lives,” but if all you expect going into this film is for “Malick to be Malick,” then I guess you’ll get what you’re looking for - pretty people walking around looking lost or deep in thought with little to no dialogue. That’ll definitely be better with Portman and Gosling.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by SkyAntoine

I didn't realize all the roles that had been cut in his films until I read this article...
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli...acted-20130410

Yep What's interesting is that, with only a few exceptions, no one really cares. They all go in knowing the score, and just want to see how it turns out.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

If any great filmmaker could use a re-boot after two historic duds, it’d be Terrence Malick. I hope there is some kind of surprise angle that makes this a good film, but right now I don’t feel I need to see the film to say that Ryan Gosling, Natalie Portman, and Benicio del Toro might be miscast as your everyman music scene hipsters. I’d hope to care about these “intersecting lives,” but if all you expect going into this film is for “Malick to be Malick,” then I guess you’ll get what you’re looking for - pretty people walking around looking lost or deep in thought with little to no dialogue. That’ll definitely be better with Portman and Gosling.

See, I liked both To The Wonder and really liked Knight of Cups.

If Weightless is anything like KoC -- which I think it may end up being -- I'll be all over it.

[Polaroid]

All I care about atm is Voyage of Time

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

All I care about atm is Voyage of Time

I'm almost more interested in the critical (and I use that term loosely, since these days apparently EVERYONE is a "critic") response than I am in VoT itself.

OK, not really. But I can't wait to see what the "critics" say about it.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I'm almost more interested in the critical (and I use that term loosely, since these days apparently EVERYONE is a "critic") response than I am in VoT itself.

OK, not really. But I can't wait to see what the "critics" say about it.

It will be a contest, who can flame and give the worst review - like normal :P

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by polaroid

it will be a contest, who can flame and give the worst review - like normal

worst. Movie. Ever.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by SkyAntoine

I didn't realize all the roles that had been cut in his films until I read this article...
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli...acted-20130410

I've never seen a Malick film, and after reading this I'm not exactly inclined to start. Unless of course I'm missing the obvious, and he really is a genius who can cobble together masterpieces in the editing room.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Reddington

I've never seen a Malick film, and after reading this I'm not exactly inclined to start. Unless of course I'm missing the obvious, and he really is a genius who can cobble together masterpieces in the editing room.

With Terry, it all depends on what a viewer is looking for in a film.

[Namuhana]

Originally Posted by Reddington

I've never seen a Malick film, and after reading this I'm not exactly inclined to start. Unless of course I'm missing the obvious, and he really is a genius who can cobble together masterpieces in the editing room.

Originally Posted by AaronJ

With Terry, it all depends on what a viewer is looking for in a film.

Malick's films are very hit or miss with me. I've seen four of his films: Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life, and To the Wonder. Out of the four, I really only enjoyed The Thin Red Line. While they're all beautiful to look at, I've felt a disconnect with the majority of them.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

With Terry, it all depends on what a viewer is looking for in a film.

"Terry?"

Oh, boy.

[Vinyl]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

"Terry?"

Oh, boy.

Maybe he goes by Terry with his friends. 😉

[ShellOilJunior]

Some people just don't like Malick's films. I have a buddy that probably owns a couple hundred Criterions (Blu-ray and the older format) and he dislikes every Malick film. I ask him why he doesn't like them and he'll say they're pretentious. When I ask what is pretentious about a given film he has no reply.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Some people just don't like Malick's films. I have a buddy that probably owns a couple hundred Criterions (Blu-ray and the older format) and he dislikes every Malick film. I ask him why he doesn't like them and he'll say they're pretentious. When I ask what is pretentious about a given film he has no reply.

well, I think two of them are great.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

"Terry?"

Oh, boy.

Originally Posted by Vinyl

Maybe he goes by Terry with his friends. 😉

The only reason I sometimes refer to him that way is because when you read interview after interview after interview after ... eventually it sort of gets ingrained.

It's like I call Miguel Cabrera "Miggy." Not because I know the guy -- though I did almost walk right into him coming out of a restaurant once; damn, is he is huge! -- but because that's how everyone refers to him.

So, when I yell at the TV, as I'm doing at this moment, it's "Come on Miggy!"

[jw007]

Random question:

Who was/is more elusive with the media (as in giving public interviews, making public appearances, etc.)? Kubrick or Malick?

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by jw007

Random question:

Who was/is more elusive with the media (as in giving public interviews, making public appearances, etc.)? Kubrick or Malick?

Off the top of my head? I'd have to say Kubrick. But even though Malick does interact occasionally, it's not exactly like he's Martin Scorsese, either.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Reddington

I've never seen a Malick film, and after reading this I'm not exactly inclined to start. Unless of course I'm missing the obvious, and he really is a genius who can cobble together masterpieces in the editing room.

Wait, so you read an article and decided NOT to even give a oft-revered filmmaker a chance? You are, of course, missing the obvious.

And boo hoo, the actors feel bad. They got paid, though.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Wait, so you read an article and decided NOT to even give a oft-revered filmmaker a chance? You are, of course, missing the obvious.

And boo hoo, the actors feel bad. They got paid, though.

I read the article and based on some of the actors comments it does give the impression that his movies could be much improved at the least if handled differently.

I have seen all and while I like his work have to agree with the sentiment based on the ones I don't like (his latest works), but then, if handled differently there wouldn't exist the Malick style in the first place which makes the ones I like good, so I guess it will always be a trade-off, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

[pro-bassoonist]

Clouds of Sils Maria Blu-ray REVIEW





Pro-B

[Sifox211]

Originally Posted by Namuhana

Malick's films are very hit or miss with me. I've seen four of his films: Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life, and To the Wonder. Out of the four, I really only enjoyed The Thin Red Line. While they're all beautiful to look at, I've felt a disconnect with the majority of them.

I've seen Days of Heaven (on BD) and the last three of his films in the cinema. I loved TToL (even more so when I saw it a second time on BD) and very much enjoyed TTW but since seeing Knight of Cups last night at the cinema I am very much on the fence about it. It is stunningly beautiful to look at but is far too repetitious and goes on for too long. It is almost like a parody of a Malick film. Someone wrote above about "beautiful people wandering about being soulful" and that seemingly is all it has - I don't demand a beginning, middle and an end in a movie but to me this just seemed to be totally static. It could've been 30 minutes long and said as much.

My wife hated it so much she said it was the first film she has seen that actually makes her angry