Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Terrence Malick's THE TREE OF LIFE To Go IMAX? With Dinosaurs?

Beaks here...

It appears that our friends at Empire have hidden a TREE OF LIFE scoop in their latest issue (it's the one with McTERMINATOR on the cover). The tantalizing tidbit is buried in a piece about the future of visual f/x, and it was passed along to Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeffrey Wells. The Empire article is not currently online, but it is 100% legit. Here's the comment from Oscar-winning visual f/x supervisor Mike Fink (THE GOLDEN COMPASS, X2, CONTACT) that's sending some of us into a tizzy:
"We're just starting work on a project for Terrence Malick, animating dinosaurs. The film is The Tree of Life, starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. It'll be showing in IMAX - so the dinosaurs will actually be life size - and the shots of the creatures will be long and lingering."
Until now, it sounded like THE TREE OF LIFE was going to be a small, character-based drama about a man (Brad Pitt) coming to terms with a difficult childhood (check out the official plot summary on the film's Wikipedia page). But Hollywood Elsewhere commenter "TheJeff" couldn't help but notice that the presence of dinosaurs recalled a previously scuttled Malick epic known as Q. According to this 1995 Los Angeles Magazine article by Joe Gillis, former Gulf & Western honcho Charlie Bluhdorn basically commissioned Q in 1978 when, after being wowed by DAYS OF HEAVEN, he blindly committed $1 million to Malick's next project. Malick responded by getting lost in a "mulitcharacter drama set in the Middle East during World War I, with a prologue set in prehistoric times." Within a year's time, Malick had junked the Middle East setting and trained his focus on the prehistoric element. Here's what might've been:
"Imagine this surrealistic reptilian world," says Richard Taylor, a special-effects consultant Malick hired. "There is this creature, a Minotaur, sleeping in the water, and he dreams about the evolution of the universe, seeing the earth change from a sea of magma to the earliest vegetation, to the dinosaurs, and then to man. It would be this metaphorical story that moves you through time."
Now, THE TREE OF LIFE mostly takes place in the American Midwest of the 1950s (i.e. Malick's formative years), so it's obviously not a complete resurrection of Q. But the presence of the prehistoric (and IMAX-sized dinosaurs) makes it sound like Malick is scratching the same itch that flummoxed Paramount executives - and the filmmaker himself - thirty years ago. That's very cool. Throw in Emmanuel Lubezki as DP and Jack Fisk as the production designer, and THE TREE OF LIFE is unquestionably my most anticipated movie of 2009. Sorry, AVATAR. Speaking of which, I hope Summit Entertainment isn't holding THE TREE OF LIFE as a year-end release. If so, they'll lose every IMAX screen to AVATAR, guaranteed. There's been talk of the Malick's film being ready for Cannes*, but if Fink was just starting to work on the dinosaurs a month or so ago, a May premiere would seem to be out of the question. Not that I want Malick to rush. Not that he would ever rush. BTW, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the scrapped Q featured a minotaur and that the current plot summary for THE TREE OF LIFE contains the following: "The world, once a thing of glory, becomes a labyrinth."

*Forget it. The film is still shooting in Austin.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 2, 2009, 2:03 a.m. CST

    SO glad Malick's not waiting a decade per film anymore.

    by flickchick85

    This should be amazing.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:15 a.m. CST

    Fuck yeah

    by TheMandrakeRoot

    Having a major soft spot for both Malick and dinosaurs on the big screen, this has quickly risen to the top of my "can't fucking wait" list. Very cool news.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:15 a.m. CST


    by The Marquis de Side 3

    Terrence Malick is an awesome director. "Thin Red Line", "The New World"... but I cannot wait for this film!

  • March 2, 2009, 2:18 a.m. CST

    Not too excited

    by DrunkyMcLush

    hated The New World.... but I'm keeping an open mind and will see this one...

  • March 2, 2009, 2:20 a.m. CST

    Wow, throw in a dinosaur and Avatar's toast?

    by Aloy

    Fickle much?

  • March 2, 2009, 2:21 a.m. CST

    Malick... and DINOSAURS?!

    by Justafan_uk

    Holy shit... this is actually giving me goosepimples as I write this!

  • March 2, 2009, 2:23 a.m. CST

    No, Aloy

    by mrbeaks

    Just remind me there's a new Malick movie opening. That'll do.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:25 a.m. CST

    Sounds cool but...

    by Zeotron

    New World was a snoozer, hope this is an improvement.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:33 a.m. CST

    His last two flicks...

    by Ravetin

    ...can bite my ass. But Malick + Dinosaurs + IMAX = what the fuck? Pitt and Penn will probably end up being edited out of it.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:39 a.m. CST


    by lockesbrokenleg

    Then there's the running and screaming.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:44 a.m. CST

    "Long and lingering"

    by BurnHollywood

    You losers can go see AVATAR...I'll be gettin' my eyeballs fucked by a T-Rex. Oh, yeah-h-h-h-h!!!

  • March 2, 2009, 2:50 a.m. CST

    I would kill to read the 250 page draft of Q.

    by reni

  • March 2, 2009, 2:52 a.m. CST


    by Knuckleduster

    I absolutely agree: Most anticipated movie of the year (most likely to be released next year). I adore Malick. The New World is, in my opinion, the best American film of this decade (well, along with There Will Be Blood, The Fountain, The Assassination of Jesse James and Zodiac). <p> Hope he shot the whole thing on 65mm. Bits of The New World were, but it's so damn expensive these days. I think the last film to be shot entirely on Imax stock was Branagh's Hamlet. Luckily, the budget on this one seems rather huge. Malick and CGI? This should be interesting. Great cast.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:54 a.m. CST

    Apatow Productions OFFICIALLY in charge of GHOSTBUSTERS 3

    by Mike_D

  • March 2, 2009, 2:57 a.m. CST

    "I can take anything you dish out. I'm twice the man you are."

    by BadMrWonka

    "In this world...a man, nothing. And there ain't no world but this one."<p>long live Malick!

  • March 2, 2009, 3:15 a.m. CST

    Terrence Malick for Shadow Of the Colossus!

    by DerLanghaarige

    I said it before and will say it again! Could you imagine that? This would be the most unusual Video Game movie ever!

  • March 2, 2009, 3:20 a.m. CST

    2001 hopes?

    by spudwas

    I'm sure when Stanley Kubrick was in production on "2001: A Space Odyssey" he probably said to himself "I'm making the movie I want, and if everybody hates this movie....fuck'em. I hope this is exactly what is happening with the "Tree of Life" and Malick, Saying to himself the same statement. Hopefully, the same happy ending as "2001: A Space Odyssey." Go Terry!

  • March 2, 2009, 3:44 a.m. CST

    How is this more exciting than James Camerons AVATAR?

    by Power_Girl

    Please explain?

  • March 2, 2009, 3:59 a.m. CST

    I have this issue of Empire in front of my face

    by Conqueror Worm

    I'll give it a good read and message back, but im sure it says the interview is from late last year, how long does it take to render a dinosaur?

  • March 2, 2009, 4:19 a.m. CST

    avatar..i'll tell you how..

    by spudwas

    We've been reading, hearing and discussing this movie for years. Can it be possible that some of us can already be bored of "Avatar" already? I am, and the damn movie hasn't even been made yet!

  • March 2, 2009, 4:24 a.m. CST

    Wow. Days of Heaven and a Million dollars in 1978

    by most excellent ninja

    fuck. i wish people did that shit now. Days of Heaven is one of my favorite films.

  • March 2, 2009, 4:29 a.m. CST

    Knuckleduster wow you are lost

    by most excellent ninja

    "Hope he shot the whole thing on 65mm. Bits of The New World were, but it's so damn expensive these days. I think the last film to be shot entirely on Imax stock was Branagh's Hamlet" Hamlet was shot on 65/70mm, the only feature films to have Imax stock are The Dark Knight and Transformers 2.

  • March 2, 2009, 4:38 a.m. CST

    people don't appreciate Malick's return to film making

    by zapano

    it is utterly fantastic that the guy is back making films at a decent rate and people don't seem to appreciate this enough. his films are on a whole other level, eevn the New World

  • March 2, 2009, 4:47 a.m. CST

    This just screams "expensive flop"

    by MaxCalifornia.

    This is just too strange a combination of elements, its like putting chewing gum on pizza. How will the ads work, exactly? Hey kids, dinosaurs! Er, and also a moody three hour meditation on the meaning of life with Sean Penn, coming soon to IMAX!

  • March 2, 2009, 4:50 a.m. CST

    Malick is over rated

    by D o o d

    and his films are boring!

  • March 2, 2009, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Are we only allowed to be excited about one flick per year?

    by Droid

    The prospect of this, Where The Wild Things Are and Avatar at the end of the year are the only things that will get me through the turgid summer that's rapidly approaching.

  • March 2, 2009, 5:20 a.m. CST

    Malick must be the single most overrated director in history...

    by The Grug

    True story.

  • March 2, 2009, 6:01 a.m. CST

    The Grug, this honor might belong to...

    by DerLanghaarige

    ...Quentin Tarantino. I mean, even if you hate Malick's style of filmmaking you gotta admit that it's pretty unique and that he has a great eye for visuals. Unlike Tarantino, who is for any reason still celebrated as the re-inventor saviour of modern cinema although he only copies what he saw in his private movie collection.

  • March 2, 2009, 6:18 a.m. CST


    by Knuckleduster

    By Imax stock I meant 65/70mm. Are they two different things?

  • March 2, 2009, 6:45 a.m. CST

    D o o d and The Grug

    by BadMrWonka

    here's how I know that Terrence Malick is great. the only people talking shit about him in this talkback are named Dood and Grug...<p>see how that works?

  • March 2, 2009, 7:09 a.m. CST

    TM is fine...

    by Doc_Hudson

    I just have a pref for his older films.Modern film making seems to dilute his visions.... I guess newer movies look too slick for his style is what I mean. Since everything is digital now,...everything on screen is supposed to be there,...there are no more happy accidents anymore.

  • March 2, 2009, 7:51 a.m. CST

    Dinosaurs + IMAX =

    by Get_Me_An_18-Man_Fire_Team_In_12_Hours


  • March 2, 2009, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Right there with you, Beaks.

    by Elston Gunn

    Agreed 100 percent. Also, Alexandre Desplat is apparently doing the score.

  • March 2, 2009, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Sounds weird. The New World is in my top 10.

    by dr sauch

    The movie is entirely told through emotion. Unreal film.

  • March 2, 2009, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Not on topic

    by GetEveryone

    I watched Atonement yesterday, for the second time, and it really is a stunning film. Everyone performs incredibly well, it looks stunning, and was shot beatifully. The Dunkirk tracking shot really is amazing. Acutally, in some ways it reminded me of the thin red line (albeit less bloated), so perhaps this is on topic.

  • March 2, 2009, 8:33 a.m. CST

    No, James Cameron Is The Single Most Overrated Director In Histo

    by LaserPants

    Malick actually is one of the greatest directors of all times. Verily, Kubrick is the undisputed master of all film -- the greatest director of ALL TIME -- but Malick is up there in the top 5.

  • March 2, 2009, 8:56 a.m. CST

    I agree, Malick is over-rated...

    by Fah-Cue

    Only those that "act" like film-elitist "love" him. His films are 7/8ths too long -- with no real cinematographic style or interesting story/dialogue. "New World" was mostly shots of people walking away from camera or the camera walking behind people. (How do you make a film the covers a difficult love story and violent times so boring??? "Last of the Mohicans" was capable of doing it.) The same can be said about "Thin Red Line" -- a story about a violent time in mankind made insipid by hearing "poetry" in the minds of the soldiers. I didn't expect "Saving Private Ryan"... but at least give us something interesting to unfold (Kubrick did it with "Full Metal Jacket". There was a fantastic story and incredible symbolism and artistic flair in that one.) Malick is the worst at heavy-handedness. He couldn't clip Kubrick's dead toe-nails and couldn't wipe Aronfsky's, Fincher's, or Michael Mann's asses. He could wash Spielberg's balls, though. And give Lucas a rim-job.

  • March 2, 2009, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Fah-Cue, your name is telling

    by dr sauch

    Only a guy with the name of the paddle Ben Affleck's character uses in "Dazed and Confused" could be such a retard. Sorry that there weren't enough explosions for you in TRL or The New World. Maybe you should just skip this one and rent Independence Day. Welcom to eaurff.

  • March 2, 2009, 9:15 a.m. CST

    It's time for some new Dinosaurs

    by zinc_chameleon

    Seeing as how the Silicon Graphics systems would hardly run today's cellphones. There is enough open-source software and cheap hardware around for an indie to create new, interesting mo-cap dinosaurs complete with character development. Maybe Mallick should think Saturday-morning cartoons instead.

  • March 2, 2009, 9:22 a.m. CST

    A dinosaur considers the Universe

    by YackBacker

    I'll pay to see that shit.

  • March 2, 2009, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Dr Sauch, am I not allowed an opinion...

    by Fah-Cue

    ... that differs from yours, you monkey-taint-licking moron? Who said my preference to movies were the type you inferred? Learn to read. Malick is ass. Not Alba-ass or Biel-ass. He's your momma's giantic, stanky, encrusted ass.

  • March 2, 2009, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

    by Knuckleduster

    But saying that Malick has "no real cinematographic style" is just wrong.

  • March 2, 2009, 10:39 a.m. CST


    by most excellent ninja

    yes, they are different. because you can't use imax for a 70 mm camera, but you can use 70mm film for an imax camera. so Imax stock for hamlet is comepletely wrong. i think Imax is an expanded 70mm film frame turned sideways filmed on imax cameras.

  • March 2, 2009, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Malick and My Balls: A History

    by j_difool

    badlands rocks. days of heaven is to badlands what casino is to goodfellas. and from there on, malick began sucking my balls. this will be Malick's The Fountain. and to win back some credibility afterwards, he will end up remaking The Wrestler and The Champ. Q: why does everyone eventually try to pull a Kubrick? Q: why doesn't the internet have better writers? Devin over at CHUD is calling Zack Snyder an auteur. Save us print media !

  • March 2, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Malick = Best filmmaker working.

    by HoboCode

  • March 2, 2009, 10:52 a.m. CST

    For people that hated The New World...

    by HoboCode

    I suggest renting the new extended version just released, sitting back, and ejaculating.

  • March 2, 2009, 10:53 a.m. CST

    I read about this last night and I am freaking out!!!

    by a goonie

    Malick and dinosaurs! It seems too good to be true! Better yet, IMAX-sized dinosaurs?!? Holy shit!!! I love Malick's approach to filmmaking and so Tree of Life was already intriguing as is (especially with Lubezki as DP), but the idea of adding dinosaurs into the mix?!? Incredible!!!<br><br>I am a huge and crazy dinosaur fan and have loved those creatures since I was a wee little kid. Any chance I have to see dinosaurs on the big screen is a magical experience for me, but Malick-directed dinosaurs?! I can't wait.

  • March 2, 2009, 10:54 a.m. CST

    ...and the shots of the creatures will be long and lingering.

    by jimmy rabbitte

    That just about covers Terence Malick. His films look great visually; but I'm sorry to say that The New World didn't really do anything for me. Hopefully this new project is closer in quality to The Thin Red Line.

  • March 2, 2009, 11:07 a.m. CST


    by Knuckleduster

    Nice one. Thanks.

  • March 2, 2009, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Been shooting for years now

    by ufoclub1977

    This project has been shooting for years now, not only have a few of my friends been extras in the period piece stuff shot in Texas, but they also shot footage of Sean Penn at the Museum of Science here in Houston, with an animation I worked on (for the museum, not Malick) in the background that shows the formation of the Earth and has dinosaurs.

  • March 2, 2009, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Avatar > Malick Dinosaurs

    by yomomma

    I thought this was a genre website? Why should I be more excited about a movie from the guy that did A Thin Red Line and New World, both slow historical epics, over the guy who brought us Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, True Lies. I would watch Titanic over The New World, at least The Titanic is exciting at times.

  • March 2, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST

    The New World, a sleep aid for insomniacs!

    by yomomma

    I've watched this movie twice, and didn't make it through without falling asleep either time, which is very rare for me.

  • March 2, 2009, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Respect Beaks. Lets talk about a real filmmaker for a change.


    Someone said they thought this was a genre website, which means we all have to join in and lap the milk off Cameron's testicles meanwhile dismissing the fact that he can't direct a real human moment to save his Mother's lost soul, but he sure can shoot some pretty CG, 3D, and all things blue toned. Fuck that shit. Cameron is a hack. Technology is his crutch. Terrence Mallick is a fucking God. He would have been a respected filmmaker in any era.

  • March 2, 2009, 12:51 p.m. CST


    by SpawnofAchilles

    it's a movie site dickbag, not a genre site, it AICN celebrates all good and cool movies, not just the ones that go boom real good.

  • March 2, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Bale's sake man,

    by SpawnofAchilles

    you're amateur

  • March 2, 2009, 1:07 p.m. CST

    I want to see "Avatar", but.............

    by Evangelion217

    This could be the film of 2009. I much rather sit through a three hour Malick experience, in an IMAX theater, then sit through a James Cameron action flick. But that's just me. :)

  • March 2, 2009, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Any word on a Director's Cut of Thin Red Line?

    by jrb

    It's one of my favorite films. I know some people can't stand it. I don't care. It's exquisitely beautiful.<BR><BR>Mallick shot tons of stuff that never made it into the theatrical release (John C. Reiley's storyline, for example). I'd love to see another hour or two that delves into some of the characters who had so little screen time in the original release. Anybody know anything about a possible extended cut?

  • March 2, 2009, 1:12 p.m. CST

    And to the ADD children............

    by Evangelion217

    "The New World" is a fucking masterpiece. Suck it bitches! :)

  • March 2, 2009, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Dinosaurs > Avatar

    by TheMarineBiologist

    You know it is true...

  • March 2, 2009, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Malick is great but...

    by iwasredempted

    i do think his recent movies are too tedious for regular popcorn moviegoers. badlands, in my opinion, gives him a freepass on anything he does. And i'm always interested in future projects from him. badlands was fucking brilliant.

  • March 2, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Days of Heaven

    by ericthebeef

    Days of Heaven may just be the most beautifully filmed movie ever. Glad to hear Mallick is doing another masterwork.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Malick is great...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...but I don't think he's really hit a knockout since his return. Having said that, the subject of this new flick sounds pretty far out and might just be the strangely perfect match for his style and sensibilities.<P>If anyone can film a dinosaur staring at a blossoming flower for 5 minutes and make it seem cool, Malick can.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Character drama in IMAX?

    by TheRevengeofLeeVanCleef

    I don't want to see a five-story tall close-up of Pitt or Penn. But if either of those actors were to play stereotypical grunting cavemen, I'm on board.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Dickblood, I grow weary...

    by TurdontheRun

    If you lack the intelligence to appreciate Cameron, you certainly lack the intelligence to appreciate're the guy that claimed trainwrecks like AI were great films, after all. Kindly fuck off!<P>Not that Malick gets a free ride, though. Badlands/Days Of Heaven=great. Thin Red Line/ New World=slow, pretentious and boring, full of obvious metaphor and pondering poetics. He's alright, though not up there with that other famous recluse, Stanley K. Oh, but wait, Dickblood, Kubrick's only good film was Spartacus, right?<p>P.S. Giant Manticore (from Avatar) > Dinosaurs.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST

    wahhhhh!!!! Me no unnerstand.......

    by archer1949

    there R no splosions! He sux! Terrence Malick is one of the last truly cinematic filmakers left. Most other directors (even the good ones) nowadays are either technocrats or glorified theater directors with no real concern about telling story through visuals. I have nothing against the former two types. Those other guys can make good movies as well. But Malick is dying breed. He is up there with Fritz Lang, Hitchcock, Orson Welles, David Lean, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Leone and (maybe) Spielberg, who grasps that Film is VISUAL and film stories should be told as such. If modern audiences have been so deadened by screamingly obvious, tell-me-what-to-think mind numbing swill, that's there lookout. And anyone who puts Aronofski above Malick is automatically an idiot. The only thing he is done that wasn't a pretentious wankfest was The Wrestler, which is the only one that (surprise, surprise!) he had nothing to do with the screenplay.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:15 p.m. CST

    The character work in THE NEW WORLD was excellent

    by YackBacker

    I enjoyed the entire feel of that movie as well- excellent stuff.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:36 p.m. CST

    I don't see how you can like Malick...

    by HoboCode

    but have such disdain for Aronofsky. To me they are cut from the same cloth.

  • March 2, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Hope the title changes from Tree of Life

    by TheRevengeofLeeVanCleef

    Sounds like some Disney animated shit or something.

  • March 2, 2009, 3:03 p.m. CST


    by BrightEyes

    is the greatest living filmmaker today. With the exception of the New World which was still brilliant but not the perfect miracle movies that are Badlands, Days of Heaven, and the Thin Red Line.

  • March 2, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Terrence Malick = GOD!

    by TheWaqman

    His movies are fucking brilliant. I hope Sean Penn's role in this film isn't too small, he's a great actor. But this project is shaping up to be extremely ambitious, he's been working on it for ages.

  • March 2, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Hey Dickblood...

    by TheWaqman

    I'll take a new Cameron movie any year over the piece of shit summer season we're getting this year. Please don't tell me you are actually looking forward to any of the movies out this summer. It's looking embarrassing right now. But seriously who the fuck brought Avatar into this discussion?

  • March 2, 2009, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Haha Spartacus Kubrick's best movie?....

    by TheWaqman

    fuck me you really are retarded. I don't understand you sometimes. Go wank off to Bale.

  • March 2, 2009, 3:57 p.m. CST


    by yomomma

    So we are going to start spending time on movies that snore real good? What is up with the Cameron hate? The Terminator and Aliens are 2 of the greatest sci-fi action flicks of all time, Titanic had plenty of human emotion and is the top grossing movie of all time. Pardon me for enjoying action flicks. What, Cameron is now beneath you basement dwelling geek-chud fucks? We must only like overrated directors who can't pace a movie properly? OOoo it's artistic! What if I actually like ENJOYING a movie for entertainment sake, not just so I can brag to my friends about how highbrow my tastes are while belittling some of the coolest movies ever made. Malick's (all of 3!) movies are pretty, but also very un-entertaining and nearly un-watchable in my opinion. Kubrick and Aranofsky are 2 of my favorite filmakers, so don't start assumptions about my film tastes, you faux-snooty prick.

  • March 2, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Wernor Herzog > Malick

    by yomomma

    He's also a great cinematic filmmaker. His movies are also properly paced so as not to put his audince to sleep after staring at Colin Farrell's ass walking away from the Camera for 3 hours (maybe that's why you guys like that movie so much?). And I don't see you idiots getting all wet every time Herzog releases a movie.

  • March 2, 2009, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Rescue Dawn was a massive let down.


    Jesus Christ what a forgettable piece of shit.

  • March 2, 2009, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Herzog's Bad Lieutenant will fucking own you.


  • March 2, 2009, 4:18 p.m. CST

    And Aronofsky doesn't deserve to suck Malick's balls.


    The thing is Malick is boring....but good boring. Like Dances With Wolves. His films are calming and tranquil. <p>Aronofsky is loud, in your face, yet....still boring. And not in a good way.

  • March 2, 2009, 4:18 p.m. CST

    I'm with you, YoMomma...

    by Fah-Cue

    I critiqued the way-overated Malick and was thrown into the "only loves 'splosions in movies" category. I love Kubrick, Wells, Lean, Mann, early Scorsese, Fellini, Kurosawa, Aronofsky, etc... but these assholes seem content with taking our opinions against Malick and debasing us instead. No one comes near Kubrick as the greatest filmmaker who ever lived, especially that hack Malick. I'd rather watch a "Tide" commercial in a 3-hour loop than sit through his diarrhea again.

  • March 2, 2009, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Could be the worlds first boring dino flick!

    by alienindisguise

    yeah the premise isn't working for me as the dinos just seem to be thrown in to give it some kind of blockbuster cred

  • March 2, 2009, 4:31 p.m. CST

    wagman summer...

    by spudwas

    Maybe it's just me, but I'm looking forward to seeing "Public Enemies" and "Inglorious Basterds."

  • March 2, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST

    I'm excited...

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    ...Even though all these descriptions seem to make no fucking sense. Malick is one film maker destined for Imax.

  • March 2, 2009, 4:43 p.m. CST

    I actually have loved all of Malicks flicks in ascending...

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    ...Order. Badlands was okay. Days Of Heaven was good. Thin Red Line was very good. New World was perfect. And fuck me, how anyone could compare it to an annoying melodrama like Mohicans is beyond me.

  • March 2, 2009, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Rescue Dawn was shite....

    by TheWaqman

    Bale's acting was bland as hell. But at least Davies and Zahn made up for it. Also Herzog's stupid ass forgot to research and made Davies' character a total dickhead...when he orchestrated the escape in the first place. Fuck Dieter, he didn't do shit.

  • March 2, 2009, 6:41 p.m. CST

    I agree. Zahn would have better better in the lead role.


  • March 2, 2009, 6:57 p.m. CST


    by yomomma

    Yeah, Public Enemies is 25x as exciting to me than another malick snoozefest, even one with dinosaurs. I am no longer 10 years old, where dinosaurs obsess me.

  • March 2, 2009, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Public Enemies is out on summer????

    by TheWaqman

    I thought they were making it for Fall. Looks like a rose will grow out of the pile of shit then. Depp looks like he's taking some fuckin names in that one. Positively badass.

  • March 2, 2009, 7:07 p.m. CST

    New World = masterpiece

    by TheWaqman

  • March 2, 2009, 7:45 p.m. CST

    After the Fall

    by Octaveaeon

    “Then it seemed like falling into a labyrinth: we thought we were at the finish, but our way bent round and we found ourselves as it were back at the beginning, and just as far from that which we were seeking at first.”

  • March 2, 2009, 8:14 p.m. CST

    so now we have a new list of Malick-haters:

    by BadMrWonka

    D o o d<br> The Grug<br> Fah Cue<p> anyone else want to jump onto this list of brainiacs?<p>the best was the assertion that Malick has "no cinematographic style".<p>also, Michael Bay doesn't have enough explosions, water is dry, and Fah Cue doesn't need attention.

  • March 2, 2009, 11:01 p.m. CST


    by SpawnofAchilles

    you address your post to me but I didn't say anything about Cameron, I like action movies including Aliens, The Abyss and Terminator. I called you out because you said this was a genre website, and it's not, it's a film website. I'm looking forward to Avatar and Cameron's return to Sci-Fi. You find Malick's films boring, I would call them meditative, interesting and unique amidst rehashed formulaic studio garbage, his work is very refreshing. If you don't like his stuff go on the T4 TB or something. And faux snooty? What does that even mean? Fake snooty? Pull it together man...

  • March 3, 2009, 2:57 a.m. CST

    No, JP 2 was the worlds first boring dino flick

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • March 3, 2009, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Am I allowed to love Malick, Kubrick, Herzog, Aronofsky and Came

    by Knuckleduster

    Because I do.

  • March 3, 2009, 5:07 a.m. CST

    Came = Cameron.

    by Knuckleduster


  • March 3, 2009, 8:07 a.m. CST

    I Love Malick and Explosions

    by Coma Baby

    I'm not a Cameron fan, but I don't see why someone couldn't enjoy both. I think one of the main problems is expectation. Malick films are a sort of weird hybrid between conventional narrative movies and certain art films (say brakhage movies) that are based solely on images and ideas. More like a poem than a story. In a conventional narrative movie, you don't really have to think much - everything is shown, and maybe a few details are left out to get your detective gears turning, but basically, it's all about the story and the story is right there. You just have to sit back and enjoy it, and maybe wonder once in a while why who's doing what. Those are most of the movies I see and they can be fun, thoughtful, and moving. Movies are capable of much more than story and character, though, and Malick's interested in giving you another expererience. Especially in Malick's last two movies, you're really not given much to latch on to - images and open-ended ideas are given just as much weight, if not more weight, as the story they're hung on. I totally understand - Malick's movies are slow and require a lot of trust and some people just don't want to give themselves up for a couple hours. But if you go in expecting beautiful meditative images and interesting ideas to consider, you'll go away happy. There aren't that many people who make movies like that - Herzog is one - so, it's awesome to hear he's making another one.

  • March 3, 2009, noon CST

    Badwonka, you're an ass...

    by Fah-Cue

    And I mean that with all my heart. If you find slow, pandering, souless shots that are truly unmotivated and empty characterizations, then Malick is your man. That is his style, I guess... just as explosions and slo-mo shots of actors getting out of cars is Michael Bay's (and I HATE Michael Bay). Kubrick had done tons of slow, moving, methodical shots with great characterizations with interest far more than Malick. As I said earlier, only the "elitists" in here find value in Malick (and this point is proven in how you've attacked me and the others in here who don't care for Malick.) I wish your Dad humped an old shoe instead of your momma to make you.

  • March 3, 2009, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Days of Dino

    by wraith777

  • March 3, 2009, 5:50 p.m. CST

    Malick will find a way to make dinosaurs boring..

    by HaterofCrap

    he and peter jackson should get together...give each other tips on how to fuck them up.

  • March 3, 2009, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Wait a minute, now...

    by Fah-Cue

    Peter Jackson is the shit. Malick, however, is shit. Jackson also made dinosaurs great ("King Kong").

  • March 3, 2009, 10:27 p.m. CST


    by Projectedlight

    I don't think you 'get' Malick. You keep saying things like 'he lacks characterizations'. Malick is not trying to show good characterization or 'something interesting unfolding'. He's trying to craft poetry through visuals and rhythms. What you are saying is like criticizing Fellini for not making enough films with explosions. Also, how is Malick 'pandering'? He was doing his thing way before it was popular with anyone to do so, and even now the majority of moviegoers hate the style that he presents. He's the very opposite of pandering: a complete original who does whatever he wants, regardless of whether the studios or the producers will like it or if it will make money. Soulless? To me his work is full of soul, since the shots he crafts hold deep meaning in them and the way they are linked is pure poetry. Michael Bay, by contrast, makes slick, banally attractive shots that are all surfaces. I'm not saying that you would enjoy Malick if you approached his work differently. Obviously he's not everybody's thing. You don't like him. But I think you're not taking Malick on his own terms. You're judging his work by criteria he goes out of his way to avoid. And no, we're not pretending to like Malick to look sophisticated. Some people genuinely hold a different opinion to you.

  • March 4, 2009, 4:52 a.m. CST

    The Seventh Seal didn't have enough car chases.

    by Knuckleduster

    Damn you, Bergman and your elitist fanbase! Oh no, wait... Movies are forgiven for being slow when they're old, right?

  • March 9, 2009, 8:05 a.m. CST

    This talkback is bizarre

    by Kobaal

    I'm not sure how someone can like Malick but not Aronofski. Anyway, I am looking forward to Star Trek, T4, Public Enemies, Avatar and now Tree of Life this year (fuck Transformers though). Does this mean everyone hates me? <p> Oh, and The New World and The Fountain are both masterpieces.