What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Terrence Malick Appreciation Thread (1 Viewer)

Saw it tonight, I honestly don't know what to say about it. Beautiful is absolutely the right word to describe it. Literally nothing happens in the film, but the individual shots are so beautiful that it doesn't even matter. There's a certain element of frustration when watching the movie as well, but there aren't many movies that have touched me this profoundly. When the movie ended, the entire theater just sat in silence for at least a minute.

 
'njherdfan said:
Saw it tonight, I honestly don't know what to say about it. Beautiful is absolutely the right word to describe it. Literally nothing happens in the film, but the individual shots are so beautiful that it doesn't even matter. There's a certain element of frustration when watching the movie as well, but there aren't many movies that have touched me this profoundly. When the movie ended, the entire theater just sat in silence for at least a minute.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Malick's The New World. I love how he lets shots linger. Like he's challenging the viewer to slow down and really meditate.
 
'David Dodds said:
I am looking forward to seeing this over the weekend.
Click to expand...
yeah, i think this weekend will be my best chance to see the movie. i'm pretty geeked up about seeing it on the big screen. i think seeing "new world" at home might have taken me out of the the malick experience a bit. having seen "thin red line" and "days of heaven" on the big screen influenced my opinion of the films.
 
Saw it and really liked it.

That said, it's not going to be for everyone. It's a bold and incredibly ambitious movie, but if you're not looking for much in terms of scope and you want a conventional narrative, just skip it.

I'm still not sure how many parts of it fit in. There's so much going on, and so little direction as to where everything fits, it's tough to assemble it all together after just one viewing.

 
'Good said:
Saw it and really liked it.That said, it's not going to be for everyone. It's a bold and incredibly ambitious movie, but if you're not looking for much in terms of scope and you want a conventional narrative, just skip it.I'm still not sure how many parts of it fit in. There's so much going on, and so little direction as to where everything fits, it's tough to assemble it all together after just one viewing.
Click to expand...
One critic said she didn't think she understood everything that was happening in the movie, but it made her think about the movie all day long.
 
I have seen all the previous Malick films and other than Badlands, I liked them all. I'll have to find out if Tree Of Life is playing anywhere yet in NJ.

 
Saw it today.

1. At least half of the folks in my theatre left aout 30-45 minutes into the film. The half that stayed beind I wish had gone with them but a once and for all "####" entited my wife and I to peace and quiet for the next 60 minutes of the film, only to have restless Seniors wanting the movie to end which it never was going to do. I think there might have been 2-3 couples left when the credits made it on screen.

2. Rger Ebert called it a masterpiece and I'm sure it will be in his top5 at the end of the year. I tend to agree although you have to accept it for what it is not what you wish it had been.

I don't want to spoil the film for anyone but this is pretty abstract so if you like films that hold your hand and make a big deal out of certain dialogue to tip you off when you are supposed to laugh and cry, this will be an abslute skip for you. You cannot compare this film to many others. It's different, pretty unique, has a little Kubrick in it as well.

I think it's a film that will leave some talking about it for many days after. It really doesn't have a defining moment IMO and the folks that make too much out of Brad Pitt are going to miss the point I think. It's not about a hard core abusng father because he really wasn't but he was mentally tough on the kids, many folks were back in that era. He was teaching his kids to toughen up because he knew the evils in the world and how challenging life could be. But I don't feel like Malick is trying to make you feel awful for this family; he's really just explaining pictures in his head. I was facinated for the entire film and I also feel there are different interpretations for different folks, none of them really right or wrong.

I would approach the film like you are going to an art museum over the idea you are going to go munch on popcorn and be entertained at the movies. Instead of trying to figure it out, just sit back and drink it in, then try and form an opinion after.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'urbanhack said:
'Ministry of Pain said:
Saw it today. 1. At least half of the folks in my theatre left aout 30-45 minutes into the film.
Click to expand...
i'm calling bull ####.
Click to expand...
I was in Aventura with the blue hairs at 10:00AM on Saturday...they were none too thrilled with Mr Malick. I wish the rest had gone with the first half as they couldn't hardly sit still in their seats, must have all had restless leg syndrome or something. I heard oe say to the other as they were leaving "I told ya we shoulda gone to that Woody Allen film instead"...
 
'Rohn Jambo said:
'jdoggydogg said:
Amazing movie. Loved it.
Click to expand...
That's all you have to say about it? How much did you see before you walked out?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm often reluctant to write lengthy, mellifluous reviews about movies like this since I've already been appointed the house movie snob....but briefly:

[*]I am not a religious guy, but I think this movie attempts to place humanity in the larger context when asking, "Why are we here?"

[*]It's one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen.

[*]Non-linear, experimental movies are appealing to me. In the wrong hands, they are boring and pretentious. But Malick is a master of visual contemplation.

Ultimately, I understand that every viewer has an agenda when seeing a film. Some people want mostly to be entertained, and I totally understand that need. Maybe it's simply a question of volume. I've seen so many films with rote plots and cliche writing, I thirst for something more in a movie. No, I wouldn't want all movies to be like Tree of Life. But I appreciate the variety.

 
I loved it. It is not a movie. It is a film. I can only describe it as being tossed around in a large wave. After it was over, gravity feels different.

 
'bananafish said:
I absolutely adored this movie but I was prepped to "not think too much" while viewing it. It is addressing some pretty big questions that do not lend themselves to Hollywood type answers, or even answers with words.I went with a buddy of mine and we agreed beforehand not to talk about the movie after it was over, to digest it from our own perspective first. He was weeping at the end while I was smiling. I am curious as to his opinion.Stunning, moving film. Someone said gravity felt different afterwards which sums it up better than I could.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
Finally got a babysitter so we could see this last night...

- Unbelievably moving visuals and acting in the Smithville House/Yard/Woods main setting. You see their faces a LOT, and the feelings/expressions/energy are always real, never seem put on to convey something or contrived. Pitt showed me acting chops I didn't know he had. Really beautiful and painful raw rivers of human experience/emotion, universal themes of existence, childhood... I could go on, but the point is, here is the crowning achievement of the film. It's not told in a typical plot-driven fashion, but it is totally coherent and I think even uninitiated audiences will be able to digest it and appreciate it.

- The "talking to God" device to stitch together everything and its injection of religious type questions works. Timing, delivery, writing all spot on.

- The rest of the material is where criticisms of pretension and especially "cleverly concealed self-absorption" are probably on point. I get it, Malick wants to show us the larger significance for the oldest son (him?) personally, and how it all fits in the Big Picture, but I think great films leave that to viewer - allow the relationship between the text and recipient of it to form organically instead of directing it. Let me decide what it means to me. Let me think about how this could have formed the oldest son's life in the future. All of that stuff was visually executed pretty much to perfection, and it never dragged or seemed superfluous, just lessened the impact of the movie and sometimes allowed your mind to wander... perhaps just the Smithville setting scenes would make a better film...

Regardless, it aims higher than most films ever aim and achieves some incredible things. In a perfect world, there are a lot more films addressing these kinds of themes. If you are at all intrigued by this film, go see it at the theatre to get full impact before its short run is over...

Next up: General Orders No. 9 - really excited for this...

 
I saw Tree of Life last night.

Overall it was good but not as great as it could have been or wanted to be.

It starts with loss -someone had died- then just as you're connecting with the (fractured) narrative, the director decides to play Spore for 30 minutes.

I understand why he did this (hint: read the opening quote from Job). The problem was it went on FOREVER. Half the screen time would have still been sufficient to get the meaning across and communicate the feeling he wanted to produce.

The rest of the movie was fantastic. I LOVED the way the story is fractured into emotionally significant memories with little or no dialogue. This worked and worked WELL.

But, again, the director got carried away with himself. When the credits first appeared someone in the seats half-shouted "FINALLY!" and I sort of agreed with him.

Still, it was definitely worth the ticket price, if anything for the gorgeous space visuals and the fat second two thirds of the film about the family.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My friend and I got some coffee and pie afterwards and discussed it. My take -

Loss makes you question existence, but like Job, loss is meaningless in the face of cosmic awareness. In Christian terms: loss tends to make people question God, and when he doesn't answer this produces anger, meanness, loss of faith in the things that matter. However, what matters most is not loss - loss is subjective and insignificant to both the universe and god- , but LOVE. How you share this small time allotted to you, how you care for others, the bonds you form, this is the beauty and gift of life, this, the movie informs us in the very beginning, is GRACE.

The remarkable part is how the writer/directer went about doing this. It's the movie's structure on a couple levels.

- First the family is devastated by the untimely loss of the middle child. They feel lonely, angry, and end up questioning God over and over. How could he allow this to happen?

- The cosmos sequence puts loss in God's perspective. He allowed it to happen because loss happens and in the face of all this universe, the loss of one person is insignificant.

- But the genius of this film is the sequence focusing on the family. Brad Pitt as the father becomes a God figure, showing compassion but also overly strict with hypocritical discipline. This drives the first born son away, to feeling a sense of LOSS. This creates a great deal of anger inside that festers until it begins spilling out in very nasty acts. He thinks his musically-inclined brother is more favored by his lost father, so he starts acting mean to him, even shooting him with a BB gun. He acts out on his pubescent hormones and invades another person's house and steals a woman's nightie. Then he suddenly realizes, "what have I become?" He embraces his brother. And soon after, when his father loses his job and has a confessional moment with him ("Sometimes I have been too hard on you. I am not proud of that.") the son regains his father (his father's love) and that's when the whole sequence ends. This is when the boy realized that loss is insignificant in the face of love. We return to Sean Penn in the future, who has been sitting in his office remembering all this.

- After I left the theater I realized just how much the director focused on images of love throughout the boy's story. The characters constantly embrace and kiss each other, even at the height of the father-son estrangement, Brad Pitt keeps hugging and kissing his son, even if he practically has to force him. The problem was always that it wasn't reciprocated by the boy (because of the father's harshness).

- The final scene on the beach was a little cheesy and pretentious and dare I say: unnecessary. It confirmed that the connections of love between us is the most important thing. Sean Penn (I believe) uses his memory to project a place where all the people he loved can meet. The family is there. His wife is there. There's a somewhat odd scene of his mother handing over possession of him to his wife. Hugs, tears, hugs, love, love, love. My friend said she thought he had died, that this was a LOST type of afterlife scene. Who knows. I really didn't care. The movie could have ended with Penn in the office after the family sequence. From there, fade to the eternal flame and hit the credits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice reviews, people.

'Sigmund Bloom said:
- The rest of the material is where criticisms of pretension and especially "cleverly concealed self-absorption" are probably on point.
Click to expand...
'dharmapunk said:
The final scene was a little cheesy and pretentious
Click to expand...
I hear this word used a lot to describe art, and I reject the premise unless I know the artist personally. You're ascribing a state of mind, but we don't know what goes on in Malick's head.
 
'jdoggydogg said:
Nice reviews, people.

'Sigmund Bloom said:
- The rest of the material is where criticisms of pretension and especially "cleverly concealed self-absorption" are probably on point.
Click to expand...
'dharmapunk said:
The final scene was a little cheesy and pretentious
Click to expand...
I hear this word used a lot to describe art, and I reject the premise unless I know the artist personally. You're ascribing a state of mind, but we don't know what goes on in Malick's head.
Click to expand...
No, I'm talking about the artwork itself. If a work of art can be self-conscious, it can also be pretentious.
 
'dharmapunk said:
'jdoggydogg said:
Nice reviews, people.

'Sigmund Bloom said:
- The rest of the material is where criticisms of pretension and especially "cleverly concealed self-absorption" are probably on point.
Click to expand...
'dharmapunk said:
The final scene was a little cheesy and pretentious
Click to expand...
I hear this word used a lot to describe art, and I reject the premise unless I know the artist personally. You're ascribing a state of mind, but we don't know what goes on in Malick's head.
Click to expand...
No, I'm talking about the artwork itself. If a work of art can be self-conscious, it can also be pretentious.
Click to expand...
It can be pretentious. But pretension is a personal quality I assume you can't verify in Malick. When you ascribe this word, you're telling me you know Malick's intentions - and I find it hard to believe that's the case.

 
I finally saw this last night and if I had been in a theater I would have left halfway into it. Not my type of movie at all. I can see where people can pretend they are artsy and like it. Its way too slow and way too pretentious. Malick tries way too hard to make us think about not only what is going on universally but on a minor scale with the family. The crappy whispering voice overs just got annoying after a while. Most directors and screenwriters will tell you that voice overs are cheap and a lazy way to advance the story.

There is an article somewhere that said he was working on like 3 movies and I have to think he somehow weaved all three into this one. A lot of random crap going on. Pitt was really good in it as was Penn but part of me feels the movie would have been better with a bunch of no names to kindof hammer the point home of random and obscure.

Oh well just not my type of movie.

Also I bet that for all the folks that really loved the movie that they will not invest the time into watching it again. There is no twist or finality of the movie it just goes on and on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'pantherclub said:
Also I bet that for all the folks that really loved the movie that they will not invest the time into watching it again. There is no twist or finality of the movie it just goes on and on.
Click to expand...
That's not really a mark against it. There are films like Apocalypse Now that I've seen 10 times and would gladly watch them again. Then again, there are movies like Downfall. I loved Downfall, and I list it as one of the best movies I've ever seen. But I have no interest in seeing it again.
 
i was given the criterion edition of the thin red line for christmas and i have to say it was a revelation, and forced me to reappraise malick. i saw it around when it first came out ('98?), but remembered almost nothing about it (except it was made after a 20 year hiatus removed from days of heaven, his second movie after badlands), and the little i remember of my reaction to it at that time, was that it didn't really stand out. i had later seen badlands on the recommendation of a film critic i respect, and was impressed (the signature nature shots and voice overs already a fully formed part of his style even in his debut). i saw days of heaven, but not sure if i saw the whole thing (maybe caught part of it on TV?), but didn't remember a lot of that either, though had a vague recollection that it had garnered a lot of critical acclaim for its cinematography (winning an oscar, in fact)... i had not, at the time of rewatching TRL, seen or even heard of new world or tree of life, though i saw both a few days later... i'll be watching days of heaven and badlands again within the next week or so (and may note my impressions then)...

criterion is my favorite collection, and i read the enclosed booklet of TRL early christmas morning. there was an incisive opening essay by somebody who's title was chairman of the national society of film critics... the second article was by james jones (who wrote the novel this movie was based on... his first novel, from here to eternity, won the national book award and was also made into a movie, winning frank sinatra an oscar and relaunching a singing/acting career that had been on the skids), about how nearly all war movies were fake (i think he may have had some praise for the classic all quiet on the western front shot in 1930)... jones was stationed in pearl harbor during the bombing (the setting of from here to eternity), and fought briefly on guadalacanal (the setting of TRL), the largest of the solomon islands, and strategically close to australia. the scene of a brutal six month campaign, it was i think the first instance where the US took back land from the japanese, involved the capture of an air field which strengthened our position on land, sea and air for a thousand miles in every direction, and was by some accounts, along with the victory at midway, one of the major turning points in the south pacific theater...

though i didn't start watching until about 4:30 AM, i was enthralled (especially the centerpiece battle that takes place on the hill) and couldn't turn it off (ten minutes shy of three hours?)... maybe this was a case of watching a movie years later and experiencing it differently because the VIEWER has changed... :) i thought it was one of the best war movies i've ever seen, maybe the best (i still think apocalypse now was brilliant, though perhaps more stylized)...

watched tree of life a few days later... i'll have to rewatch this, and since my take on TRL changed so drastically, that could happen again... my initial impression was that there were moments of brilliance and even genius in tree of life... perhaps because it reportedly had segments for a decade/s long project called Q about the origins of life interwoven through the ostensibly autobiographical coming of age in texas story arc (malick, who zealously guards his privacy like maybe no other director, may have had a demanding father, and lost a musically gifted brother to suicide), i found TRL overall to be a more satisfying cinematic experience as a WHOLE... that said, i think i would be missing the point to say tree of life suffers in the comparison with TRL by being less COHESIVE...

as a disclaimer, i would characterize myself as being comfortable with open ended movies where you aren't force fed what to think or feel (bloom alluded to this upthread)... i am really looking forward to experiencing days of heaven immersive criterion style, but am already expecting a TRL-style revelation/conversion experience... after not really previously according malick a high rank in my personal pantheon of living directors, i am starting to think he may be one of our greatest living directors (not quite prepared to put him up with kurosawa just yet)... i get that he is not for everybody... i do like a lot the languid pace and unfolding, the stunning interwoven imagery and the voice overs (which are NOT, imo, of the lazy writing plot advancement school, but more akin to a vital poetic partner in an overall audio-visual marriage of image, word and music)... one reason i like film so much, and that it may be the quintessential 20th/21st-century art form, is that it incorporates all the arts into its collective body of work... like music and unlike a painting, it unfolds in time and can allow one to witness development, but it contains these arts and many more (theater, architecture, acting, literature, etc)... in the hands of a master like malick, who brings to bear a formidable, eclectic and atypical film making tool kit, if you are prepared to let the images, words and sounds wash over you, a potent cinematic experience could be the reward...

i found his resume very interesting, arriving circuitously to film in general and directing specifically... he graduated summa cum laude from harvard in philosophy, was a rhodes scholar at oxford (though emerged without a doctorate), published a translation by the german philosopher heidegger, and later taught at MIT while freelancing as a jounalist.

he shot something like a million feet of film for TRL, and allows his films to take shape in post production... it took three editors a year and a half to finish (days of heaven may have been two years in post?)... part of the evolution of malick's vision of how TRL should ultimately take shape involved paring down the initially planned adrian brody's feature role to virtually nothing (mentioned upthread), and making (then) newcomer jim caviezel the focal point... personally, i found this to be an inspired choice... part of the process meant that actors such as john c. reilly and jared leto had diminished roles, john travolta and george clooney were relegated to cameo status, and gary oldman, mickey rourke, viggo mortensen and bill pullman filmed scenes that were cut from the finished work... many, many front line actors were interested in this project that didn't make it as far into the project as the above mentioned ones (malick evidently enjoys immense respect from the cinematic community/cognoscenti)...

i also thought it was interesting that composer hans zimmer (eight oscar nominations?) mentioned he and malick hit it off creatively and malick moved in with him something like a year BEFORE principal filming began, inspiring an audio-visual collaboration between director and composer that may be unprecedented in film history (?)... zimmer's score, BTW, imo, was great in its understated nature... in the beginning of the film (at least in its criterion incarnation), a message from malick recommends that the film is best viewed LOUD! :) i can attest that this can allow for a more immersive experience...

*

ebert's review of tree of life, where he surprisingly likened some aspects (the cosmic scope) to 2001... special effects wizard douglas trumbull, who worked with kubrick on 2001, was involved in this project...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110602/REVIEWS/110609998

the criterion essay on TRL (wish i could have found the war movies are fake article by source material novelist james jones)... HIGHLY recommended if you think you might be interested in this movie, or in rewatching it...

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1603-the-thin-red-line-this-side-of-paradise

a site i like for their blu ray reviews, high-def digest, called the TRL blu ray not just ONE OF the best, but the greatest high def transfer they ever reviewed and a new benchmark (at least, up to that point... dated 9-28-2010)... high praise, and they definitely don't say that about every new release that comes down the pike...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/3385/thethinredline.html

the review of days of heaven from the same site as immediately above...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2900/daysofheaven.html

**

i would love to see a "malick-ized" mash up of the kardashians complete with voice over... "where does this evil come from... how did we get so stupid?"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'pantherclub said:
I finally saw this last night and if I had been in a theater I would have left halfway into it. Not my type of movie at all. I can see where people can pretend they are artsy and like it. Its way too slow and way too pretentious. Oh well just not my type of movie.
Click to expand...
How about just leaving it at "not your type of movie". So tired of people claiming that others like films like this because they are pretending to be artsy.
 
'Bob Magaw said:
i was given the criterion edition of the thin red line for christmas and i have to say it was a revelation, and forced me to reappraise malick. i saw it around when it first came out ('98?), but remembered almost nothing about it (except it was made after a 20 year hiatus removed from days of heaven, his second movie after badlands), and the little i remember of my reaction to it at that time, was that it didn't really stand out. i had later seen badlands on the recommendation of a film critic i respect, and was impressed (the signature nature shots and voice overs already a fully formed part of his style even in his debut). i saw days of heaven, but not sure if i saw the whole thing (maybe caught part of it on TV?), but didn't remember a lot of that either, though had a vague recollection that it had garnered a lot of critical acclaim for its cinematography (winning an oscar, in fact)... i had not, at the time of rewatching TRL, seen or even heard of new world or tree of life, though i saw both a few days later... i'll be watching days of heaven and badlands again within the next week or so (and may note my impressions then)...criterion is my favorite collection, and i read the enclosed booklet of TRL early christmas morning. there was an incisive opening essay by somebody who's title was chairman of the national society of film critics... the second article was by james jones (who wrote the novel this movie was based on... his first novel, from here to eternity, won the national book award and was also made into a movie, winning frank sinatra an oscar and relaunching a singing/acting career that had been on the skids), about how nearly all war movies were fake (i think he may have had some praise for the classic all quiet on the western front shot in 1930)... jones was stationed in pearl harbor during the bombing (the setting of from here to eternity), and fought briefly on guadalacanal (the setting of TRL), the largest of the solomon islands, and strategically close to australia. the scene of a brutal six month campaign, it was i think the first instance where the US took back land from the japanese, involved the capture of an air field which strengthened our position on land, sea and air for a thousand miles in every direction, and was by some accounts, along with the victory at midway, one of the major turning points in the south pacific theater...though i didn't start watching until about 4:30 AM, i was enthralled (especially the centerpiece battle that takes place on the hill) and couldn't turn it off (ten minutes shy of three hours?)... maybe this was a case of watching a movie years later and experiencing it differently because the VIEWER has changed... :) i thought it was one of the best war movies i've ever seen, maybe the best (i still think apocalypse now was brilliant, though perhaps more stylized)...watched tree of life a few days later... i'll have to rewatch this, and since my take on TRL changed so drastically, that could happen again... my initial impression was that there were moments of brilliance and even genius in tree of life... perhaps because it reportedly had segments for a decade/s long project called Q about the origins of life interwoven through the ostensibly autobiographical coming of age in texas story arc (malick, who zealously guards his privacy like maybe no other director, may have had a demanding father, and lost a musically gifted brother to suicide), i found TRL overall to be a more satisfying cinematic experience as a WHOLE... that said, i think i would be missing the point to say tree of life suffers in the comparison with TRL by being less COHESIVE...as a disclaimer, i would characterize myself as being comfortable with open ended movies where you aren't force fed what to think or feel (bloom alluded to this upthread)... i am really looking forward to experiencing days of heaven immersive criterion style, but am already expecting a TRL-style revelation/conversion experience... after not really previously according malick a high rank in my personal pantheon of living directors, i am starting to think he may be one of our greatest living directors (not quite prepared to put him up with kurosawa just yet)... i get that he is not for everybody... i do like a lot the languid pace and unfolding, the stunning interwoven imagery and the voice overs (which are NOT, imo, of the lazy writing plot advancement school, but more akin to a vital poetic partner in an overall audio-visual marriage of image, word and music)... one reason i like film so much, and that it may be the quintessential 20th/21st-century art form, is that it incorporates all the arts into its collective body of work... like music and unlike a painting, it unfolds in time and can allow one to witness development, but it contains these arts and many more (theater, architecture, acting, literature, etc)... in the hands of a master like malick, who brings to bear a formidable, eclectic and atypical film making tool kit, if you are prepared to let the images, words and sounds wash over you, a potent cinematic experience could be the reward...i found his resume very interesting, arriving circuitously to film in general and directing specifically... he graduated summa cum laude from harvard in philosophy, was a rhodes scholar at oxford (though emerged without a doctorate), published a translation by the german philosopher heidegger, and later taught at MIT while freelancing as a jounalist.he shot something like a million feet of film for TRL, and allows his films to take shape in post production... it took three editors a year and a half to finish (days of heaven may have been two years in post?)... part of the evolution of malick's vision of how TRL should ultimately take shape involved paring down the initially planned adrian brody's feature role to virtually nothing (mentioned upthread), and making (then) newcomer jim caviezel the focal point... personally, i found this to be an inspired choice... part of the process meant that actors such as john c. reilly and jared leto had diminished roles, john travolta and george clooney were relegated to cameo status, and gary oldman, mickey rourke, viggo mortensen and bill pullman filmed scenes that were cut from the finished work... many, many front line actors were interested in this project that didn't make it as far into the project as the above mentioned ones (malick evidently enjoys immense respect from the cinematic community/cognoscenti)...i also thought it was interesting that composer hans zimmer (eight oscar nominations?) mentioned he and malick hit it off creatively and malick moved in with him something like a year BEFORE principal filming began, inspiring an audio-visual collaboration between director and composer that may be unprecedented in film history (?)... zimmer's score, BTW, imo, was great in its understated nature... in the beginning of the film (at least in its criterion incarnation), a message from malick recommends that the film is best viewed LOUD! :) i can attest that this can allow for a more immersive experience...*ebert's review of tree of life, where he surprisingly likened some aspects (the cosmic scope) to 2001... special effects wizard douglas trumbull, who worked with kubrick on 2001, was involved in this project... http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110602/REVIEWS/110609998the criterion essay on TRL (wish i could have found the war movies are fake article by source material novelist james jones)... HIGHLY recommended if you think you might be interested in this movie, or in rewatching it...http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1603-the-thin-red-line-this-side-of-paradisea site i like for their blu ray reviews, high-def digest, called the TRL blu ray not just ONE OF the best, but the greatest high def transfer they ever reviewed and a new benchmark (at least, up to that point... dated 9-28-2010)... high praise, and they definitely don't say that about every new release that comes down the pike... http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/3385/thethinredline.htmlthe review of days of heaven from the same site as immediately above...http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2900/daysofheaven.html**i would love to see a "malick-ized" mash up of the kardashians complete with voice over... "where does this evil come from... how did we get so stupid?"
Click to expand...
Thin Red Line is the last Malick film I need to watch. Thinking about watching this on one of my days off next week.
 
tree of life review by david sterritt (fast becoming my favorite film critic), he also wrote the opening essay in the TRL criterion edition cited above... not a puff piece, calls it flawed, but clearly he respects his body of work (i've seen him invoke the kubrick comparison before)..

http://www.davidsterritt.com/FQ.pdf

i liked this analysis of malick a lot, too, which is a chapter in a book... pre-tree of life, it looks at his first four movies chronologically by film sequence (badlands, days of heaven, TRL & new world) as well as by historical subject matter (new world, days of heaven, TRL and badlands)... maybe it is said here, or in another article/essay/review/critique i read, but clearly malick's films all involve a sense of loss... regarding these four, new world explores the loss of the native american's way of life (as experienced by john smith), days of heaven the simpler agrarian lifestyle to the industrial revolution, in TRL witt's eden-like co-existence with the solomon island's aboriginals due to the horrors of modern warfare, and martin sheen playing i think charles starkweather in badlands, losing his identity in a cultural wasteland of media created icons (a clear precursor and straightforward connection to oliver stone's natural born killers)...

http://www.davidsterritt.com/Malick-Mottram.pdf

approx. 20 minute malick doc (two parts), from a recent badlands release...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCQ-IWdAFp0&feature=related

a rare malick interview, circa '74 and badlands...

http://www.terrencemalick.org/2011/09/another-rare-terrence-malick-interview.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Witz
Alien Life?
Replies
5
Views
335
HellToupee
HellToupee
timschochet
Comic books and graphic novels discussion thread
Replies
23
Views
524
El Floppo
El Floppo
Paddington
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2
9 10 11
Replies
523
Views
8K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top