The Criterion Collection

[Reddington]

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.

"Oft-revered" but also often excoriated; by those familiar with his films in forums such as this one, in objective reviews, etc.

As for the actors, it's up to them. For those who thought they had a lead or major supporting role but were cut, what a waste of their time. As for those who sign up in the knowledge their performance may be cut just to say they've worked with the "great" man - frankly, there's nothing more pretentious. But the thrust of the article - for me - was an implicit indictment of Malick's approach to his craft.

There are simply too many films to watch from universally acclaimed directors that I have to make a decision on my time somehow, right? And of course, I never said never.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

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.

Kubrick did a fair amount of interviews though, whereas Malick hasn't done any ever?

[SkyAntoine]

I watched a couple of films putting in a late one last night.

The Rose - I went in with low expectations and it fell about where I thought it would. The concert scenes were amazing and Bette can really belt it out. This would have been so much better IMO as a Joplin biopic. I never connected with a character I knew was loosely based on the iconic singer. It reminded me of Pure Country and may be sacrilege, but I prefer Dusty to Rose. 7/10

Contempt - At #21 on the Sight & Sound list and "masterpiece" thrown around describing this movie, I expected much more. I honestly can't even put this in my top 5 Godard films.
This satirical look at film and relationships fell flat with me due to the characters seemingly being uncommitted to the roles. IOW I thought it was rather boring. Perhaps this was JLG further poking at the audience which is usually a turn off with me in his films. Of his 60's films this seemed the most pretentious to me. A feat in itself I guess.
Definitely not a terrible film, but I'll take "Day for Night" and even "8 1/2" (more interesting, yet too artsy for my taste) over this film on film any day. 7/10

[malakaheso]

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.

I have the exact opposite opinion. To me famous actors in 'art films' tend to be distracting and merely add to the feeling that you are watching an expensive perfume commercial.

The only reason they are there is to secure funding. Their acting skills are not really being utilized at all.

[MifuneFan]

As rated by the BBFC, here are the runtimes for the new interviews on the Dr. Strangelove release



http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/dr-st...ed-value-video

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

I have the exact opposite opinion. To me famous actors in 'art films' tend to be distracting and merely add to the feeling that you are watching an expensive perfume commercial.

The only reason they are there is to secure funding. Their acting skills are not really being utilized at all.

Acting skills are not utilized in art films?

[ShellOilJunior]

Criterion.com sure does love zapping comments.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Acting skills are not utilized in art films?

Not in the types of films that Malick makes nowadays. i.e from Tree of Life onwards. It's a different form of acting, and Hollywood actors seem mostly out of place in that setting to me. They have trouble adapting to it.

[SkyAntoine]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Criterion.com sure does love zapping comments.

Are you trolling them?

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by SkyAntoine

Are you trolling them?

I suggested an upgrade of the Doinel set then someone said Criterion's priorities should be on films not on video yet. I countered it by saying the upgrades help pay for those films not yet on blu-ray.

Poof!

[SkyAntoine]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I suggested an upgrade of the Doinel set then someone said Criterion's priorities should be on films not on video yet. I countered it by saying the upgrades help pay for those films not yet on blu-ray.

Poof!

That's surprising. It must explain why their completely independent public approval poll is 105%.

[anthonyls]

Yep, whoever is running it is a bit of a Nazi. I ran into the same problem over there. If your comments are contrary to the moderator's opinion, he will delete your comments and threaten to ban you.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Not in the types of films that Malick makes nowadays. i.e from Tree of Life onwards. It's a different form of acting, and Hollywood actors seem mostly out of place in that setting to me. They have trouble adapting to it.

I wouldn't count Tree of Life, it has some great acting by the kids, Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt, not so much by Sean Penn though, that part is more like the next films.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by anthonyls

Yep, whoever is running it is a bit of a Nazi. I ran into the same problem over there. If your comments are contrary to the moderator's opinion, he will delete your comments and threaten to ban you.

I have found it weird, sometimes comments take ages to appear, and sometimes they appear instantly, also I have lost a few messages that don't have any kind of contrarian opinion, not sure if it is really a moderator or a problem with their system.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Sifox211

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

So, she never saw Matrix: Reloaded?

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Kubrick did a fair amount of interviews though, whereas Malick hasn't done any ever?

I don't know about a fair amount. But he's done some. Then again, he did more or less "vanish" (from the film world, anyways) for about two decades.

I don't think either of them were particually interested in dealing with the media.

[Polaroid]

I cant blame Malick for not wanting to do interviews.

He makes films for himself because he is passionate about life and cinema - he doesn't do it for money or the fame. Also, people are so cruel and have been pretty nasty about his films, so why would he waste time on people with such negativity when he is just sharing his life.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I cant blame Malick for not wanting to do interviews.

He makes films for himself because he is passionate about life and cinema - he doesn't do it for money or the fame. Also, people are so cruel and have been pretty nasty about his films, so why would he waste time on people with such negativity when he is just sharing his life.

Yeah, it would be so weird to be in the world to begin with, then add on being the sort of person that Malick seems to be ... surreal.

Honestly, I can't imagine being famous for an instant. I used to canvass door to door for Greenpeace, and that's as close to dealing with strangers as I ever want to get. The idea of standing there on a red carpet, on international television being asked god only knows what questions ... I'd completely freak out.

It's why, beyond the fact that I have no talent whatsoever, I could never be an actor. I just couldn't bring myself to it.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

I have the exact opposite opinion. To me famous actors in 'art films' tend to be distracting and merely add to the feeling that you are watching an expensive perfume commercial.

The only reason they are there is to secure funding. Their acting skills are not really being utilized at all.

how is that opposite of what I said?

the last sentence of my post was tongue in cheek.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I cant blame Malick for not wanting to do interviews.

He makes films for himself because he is passionate about life and cinema - he doesn't do it for money or the fame. Also, people are so cruel and have been pretty nasty about his films, so why would he waste time on people with such negativity when he is just sharing his life.

I disagree about the "fame" part.
I think every artist deep in his heart (even if he doesn't admit it) wants fame, or else, he would do his art for himself as you say and he would also enjoy it himself alone (or with a few friends at home. )
I don't think one day big studios knocked on the door of an unknown man and told him to make films.
Malick himself (and every Malick) pursued it. And whoever is in any art form business, knows you've got to pursue it very ardently to achieve something. Nothing is given for free.