Saw TREE OF LIFE the other night at work and it really is amazing. Hypnotic, more like. I won't give anything about it away here, but yes it is long and there has already been talk in the news about Malick releasing it, then re-cutting it, then re-releasing it, etc. The main bulk of the film is about his childhood growing up in Texas (reels 3-7 out of 9!). The "creation" footage is outstanding, absolutely jawdropping, and does indeed feel like 2001 - a lot of the effects are practical and your eyes can see that, which makes it really fascinating to watch. I don't have a problem with the creation footage being connected to his boyhood, after all, most boys love dinosaurs, so that's how I looked at it. The story is framed around the death of his middle brother (in Korea?? We never know) and is a reflection on the circle of life, the evolution of life out of the mess of the Big Bang, but also about life itself (the strained relationship with his severe father, a stunning performance by Brad Pitt, just stunning), and the end of the Universe. I still haven't given anything away that hasn't already been said in the press. The film just has to be seen to be believed! One feels like a child again, seeing the world through young wide eyes. Yes, it is finished! I believe it releases in October but it may be a limited release. And yes again it's about 3 hours! There is talk of a cut down version, which Malick did for New World as well, but nothing confirmed.
Sept. 3, 2010, 2:28 p.m. CST
I have to see this now!!!
Sept. 3, 2010, 2:31 p.m. CST
I'm a dick
Sept. 3, 2010, 2:33 p.m. CST
Malick is a genius I even liked thin line
Sept. 3, 2010, 2:36 p.m. CST
sound's like it could be. I liked The Thin Red Line when I finally wathched it all. Is there any sneak shot's of the "creation" footage that the reviewer speak's of?
Sept. 3, 2010, 2:37 p.m. CST
Yeah i said it. That is an America that once existed that we will never see again. Cant wait for this one!
Sept. 3, 2010, 2:51 p.m. CST
PLANT! I'm excited for this movie, though. Malick is an artist.
Sept. 3, 2010, 2:53 p.m. CST
is coming out in a couple of weeks... Will be awesome! The cover art is great...
Sept. 3, 2010, 2:54 p.m. CST
Sept. 3, 2010, 3:17 p.m. CST
I have never seen a Malick movie that I liked. I consider them all to be overly ponderous, pretentious and deadly boring.
Sept. 3, 2010, 3:21 p.m. CST
New, restored high-definition digital transfer, supervised and approved by director Terrence Malick and cinematographer John Toll New audio commentary by cinematographer Toll, production designer Jack Fisk, and producer Grant Hill (sadly, no Malick, but not surprising) Interviews with several of the film’s actors, including Kirk Acevedo, Jim Caviezel, Thomas Jane, Elias Koteas, Dash Mihok, and Sean Penn; composer Hans Zimmer; editors Billy Weber, Leslie Jones, and Saar Klein; and writer James Jones’s daughter Kaylie Jones New interview with casting director Dianne Crittenden, featuring archival audition footage (the audition footage should be interesting) Fourteen minutes of outtakes from the film (this should be great, as so many scenes didn't make the final version) World War II newsreels from Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands Melanesian chants trailer PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by film critic David Sterritt and a 1963 reprint by James Jones
Sept. 3, 2010, 3:21 p.m. CST
are there any films that one could call oscar worthy?
Sept. 3, 2010, 3:49 p.m. CST
You can't get more awesome then that.
Sept. 3, 2010, 3:50 p.m. CST
Sucks to be you. Give up on movies and try knitting instead.
Sept. 3, 2010, 3:51 p.m. CST
by Le Vicious Fishus
It's a false dawn for  ‍‍‍‍<br>you  ‍‍‍&zwj</br>, Choppah.<BR><BR>I'll be there.
Sept. 3, 2010, 4:11 p.m. CST
by Le Vicious Fishus
How do I know I can trust you?
Sept. 3, 2010, 4:35 p.m. CST
...will be the best thing since THE_CHOPPAH chopped AsimovLives. Also, I know some people don't care for Malick's films, yet I've found all of them very watchable and interesting, and every one has improved with multiple viewings. I'm excited about the upcoming blu-ray release of The Thin Red Line. Chop away.
Sept. 3, 2010, 4:35 p.m. CST
by judge dredds fresh undies
I've still not seen The Thin Red Line.<br><br> Was not impressed by The New World. It was infuriating how EVERYONE whispered throughout the whole film. It was like a parody of a Malick film.
Sept. 3, 2010, 4:44 p.m. CST
in his review. <br> http://tiny.cc/swlkx <br> having said that Tree of Life sounds intriguing.
Sept. 3, 2010, 4:55 p.m. CST
... the way the plastic bag was profound in American Beauty
Sept. 3, 2010, 4:59 p.m. CST
malick is junk. they should have him do iron man 3. now that would be funny.
Sept. 3, 2010, 5:03 p.m. CST
Damnit. I hate when reviewers start talking about things without any context, assuming we'll know and understand. Bleh. Anyway, what little is here sounds like The Fountain mixed with Charlie Kaufman's planned opening for The Orchid Thief.
Sept. 3, 2010, 5:05 p.m. CST
What a missed opportunity!!! I'm so disappointed. No Billy Bob, no Viggo, no every other Hollywood actor.
Sept. 3, 2010, 5:20 p.m. CST
...I'm not sure I can honestly pay for one of his films.
Sept. 3, 2010, 5:21 p.m. CST
Sept. 3, 2010, 5:28 p.m. CST
by STICKY WHITE
Here's a pretty spoilery rundown of the script if you're interested. http://tinyurl.com/288emhf <p>And as far as THE THIN RED LINE footage, I read this supposed quote from a cameraman who worked on THE NEW WORLD named William Gray over in the IMDB message boards (which I take with a HUGE grain of salt): "We did talk about 'The Thin Red Line'. He said he had over 6 hours of edited story finished. What you saw in the theaters was what needed to be for the reps of a movie theater. I asked him if he thought of releasing the 6 as a DVD box set and I assured him that there would me a line of people just waiting to get their hands on it. He said that some things that you put so much of your life and heart into are best left alone for a few years."
Sept. 3, 2010, 5:39 p.m. CST
Fuck yes. I remember seeing that in the theater on the first night of its wide release, heading into it thinking, "There's no way this is going to be better than SAVING PRIVATE RYAN." <p>I was wrong, and I knew it right from the beginning. All these people shitting on Malick's poetic bent, okay, fine, it's not for you. But you're implying it's empty, just pretty pictures of shit blowing in the wind. Well, you're mistaken. What's wrong with being so cognizant of nature, particularly when the drama of human experience, particularly one of destruction, plays out in it?
Sept. 3, 2010, 5:44 p.m. CST
No offense, but that word is misused almost as often as "emo". Anyone who thought the "plastic bag in American Beauty" was profound or even meant to be needs to head back to community college.
Sept. 3, 2010, 5:59 p.m. CST
Talking about major film festivals. While the USA release was prior to the festival this is still ignorant. New World was in competition 2006.
Sept. 3, 2010, 6:05 p.m. CST
The movie was jaw droppingly awesome but no one knows why?
Sept. 3, 2010, 6:10 p.m. CST
by Skyway Moaters
... You guys hate "American Beauty" now? All you fanboys who've never come within 100 miles of making a film of your own? I'm in the wrong place...
Sept. 3, 2010, 6:54 p.m. CST
by The Dark Nolan
A new release of TTRL with all the original footage, 8 hours or not would be like seeing a whole new Malick film, can't believe they are gonna trash all that footage, maybe one day we'll get it. Can't wait for "The Tree of Life" though. However, I like not knowing much about it, more exciting that way me thinks. I've got a feeling it will make it out this year though. He's filming another film soon and that seems to be fully confirmed, so the other film must be done. Crossing my fingers.
Sept. 3, 2010, 7:22 p.m. CST
did he comment on or mention a single thing that you couldn't glean from other articles? not really. not saying he's a plant, for from it. I think it's just maybe some dude who was trying to get some attention on another board by claiming to have seen it. and then through the internet grapevine, it ends up here.<p>seriously, read it again with a skeptical eye. anything that proves he saw it? the claim about the reels is the only thing, and even that could be completely spurious, who knows?<p>I'm just saying. take anything about Malick screenings with an unusually large grain of salt.
Sept. 3, 2010, 7:37 p.m. CST
by D o o d
was DogShit, so I'm not all that hyped for this<p>However, with every new release, I will give it a viewing and decide then!
Sept. 3, 2010, 11:15 p.m. CST
and just because you claimed it to be D o o d I'm throwing in my extended cut bluray right now...film is tops
Sept. 3, 2010, 11:46 p.m. CST
I'm surprised there was no mention of Sean Penn's acting performance in the review. Because no offense to Brad Pitt, but Sean Penn can act circles around him. I'm not a Pitt-hater, it's just a fact.
Sept. 4, 2010, 12:13 a.m. CST
by andrew coleman
Tree of Life has got my ticket already. Malick is like Nolan in my book. He makes a movie and I'm seeing it no matter what. Malick's film are like art to me. Thanks for the update on the DVD release guys. I'm totally getting it.
Sept. 4, 2010, 1:21 a.m. CST
Knitting is too slow and boring. Like all of Malick's films. I will stick with less "poetic" and "profound" films than those directed by the "auteur" Terrance Malick. Thinking one artsy fartsy director's movies are crap does not make me not a movie fan, or not a "film" fan.
Sept. 4, 2010, 2:09 a.m. CST
I'm going OUT OF MY MIND for this movie.
Sept. 4, 2010, 3:28 a.m. CST
Your schtick is tired and unfunny. It's not catching on. Time to give it up.
Sept. 4, 2010, 7:39 a.m. CST
and his films are BORING! I dotn care how "lyrical" they are. Lyrical is arthosue speak for boring 3 hour yawnfest!
Sept. 4, 2010, 8:13 a.m. CST
of America. When you call a film boring, you're not saying anything about the movie, you're saying something about your attention span and your inability to articulate a worthwhile critique of a film. Go read.
Sept. 4, 2010, 9:26 a.m. CST
Sept. 4, 2010, 9:34 a.m. CST
Wow. Way to elevate Nolan WAY above and beyond his artistic capabilities. "Memento" aside, Nolan is sadly deficient in the craft of film-making. Malick's bowel movements have more artistic credibility than Nolan's movies. But to each his own, I guess. You want to fawn all over Nolan, fine. Go ahead. I don't agree with your assessment of him. But I agree with you that Malick has done some wonderful stuff and I am particularly fond of TTRL. Yes, I have already pre-ordered the Blu-ray Criterion discs.
Sept. 4, 2010, 9:35 a.m. CST
I am hoping for 2001 ASO greatness or perhaps Apocalypse Now greatness. <P> Malick has to be the best American filmaker working today. When you hear guys like Spielberg, Scorsese, Jarmusch or Guy Maddin referencing him, they talk about Malick with an-almost religious reverence.
Sept. 4, 2010, 10:19 a.m. CST
I left the theater feeling shell-shocked and drained. I went to the bar across the street and stared at my glass of beer for twenty minutes before taking a sip. All in all, a really good movie that I don't think I'll ever be able to sit through again.
Sept. 4, 2010, 11:19 a.m. CST
I love all the shitty trek at this point. I love cybok and uhura's un-thinkable dance. I love when Scott Bakula saved the entire multi-verse and all timelines. I love the boring characters that never developed on enterprise like chip or whatever his name was who they finally kill to try and squeeze something interesting out of em. Actually I don't love him. Oh and I hate original jar jar Wesley crusher. Just give me an all female crew of hot lesbians already. People would watch that show
Sept. 4, 2010, 12:15 p.m. CST
Sept. 4, 2010, 12:17 p.m. CST
Sept. 4, 2010, 12:21 p.m. CST
To put it more simply. And I really was excited for Avatar, plus Im a huge fan Mr. Cameron. But Avatar is the John Smith story told all over again, except with aliens and 3D. New World transports me far better in 2D. And yes, Thin Red Line is AMAZING.
Sept. 4, 2010, 12:38 p.m. CST
Avatar is a movie about a guy who hires this grunt to do a job for him. The grunt betrays him and so he has to get in a giant robot and jump out of his crashing attackship and deal some giant robot justice machete style. But before that unbelievable awesomeness we get to see him destroy this tree that's like as big as a mountain and just the roots of that tree giving way is probably the biggest explosion done for a movie. Fuck trees. Over-rated. We've evolved to live off gasoline fumes at this point -we don't need some stupid trees cluttering up our beautiful concrete
Sept. 4, 2010, 1:12 p.m. CST
Sounds like it. "Hyponotic" and "majestic" mean potential boredom, and Terry's known for deliberately slow pace, but different style because it's like watching the progress of gorgeous, adept painting and photography on film. Three hours sounds a big longish, and that butt-numbing length might hurt the box office due to word of mouth. Kubrick didn't give a shit what anyone thought when he did 2001, but he had the foresight to cut 20 minutes of extraneous footage after premiere. Let's hope Malick keeps rolling with more films, and if luck has it, he should be the best candidate to adapt CATCHER IN THE RYE. Whereas AVATAR is just a popcorn eyecandy movie, TREE OF LIFE should massage the brain with pleasant esthetics because it's one gigantic art movie. And Malick have the rare commanding power to make properly funded artful movies anytime due to his reputation established after DAYS OF HEAVEN, even though his slate of films generally don't do well at the box office...
Sept. 4, 2010, 1:25 p.m. CST
by D o o d
or anything movie like. What you can't say that it wasn't entertaining in some way.<p>The New World was just pure pretentious boredom. Now I'm not saying that Malick can't direct. I'm saying the film was BO-RING!
Sept. 4, 2010, 1:25 p.m. CST
by D o o d
Sorry minor error there!
Sept. 4, 2010, 1:33 p.m. CST
Sept. 4, 2010, 2:25 p.m. CST
During my formative teenage years, I was able to dive into the back catalog of pretty much every high profile director through my local video store's $0.50 VHS rentals. for a 15 year old, I actually got pretty well versed on everyone from the legendary to relatively obscure... yet, to this day, I've never seen a Terrence Malick movie. I know he only has a few, but it still pisses me off. the dude has made, what, five full-length features in a 37-year career? and yet he is one of the most talked-about directors among real film geeks. those type of resumes fascinate me. I'm probably most frustrated because I love World War 2 movies, so I should've seen "The Thin Red Line" by now. and I've always held an interest in the Starkweather murders, so I should've seen "Badlands" by now. I think NetFlix is about to get a Malick overdrive.
Sept. 4, 2010, 2:57 p.m. CST
just because someone tells you a director is great doesnt make it so. Malick should paint.His pictures are pretty, but they dont move. Staring off into the sunset or at waves of wheat isnt deep, its just jerking off. Even Kubrick, who was a much better director than Malick had some missteps(barry lyndon, eyes wide shut) they cant all be masterpieces. But even they were move interesting. Movies are meant to entertain primarily. Slow paced art house films dont entertain. Its not about intellect, its about content and talent and hyperbole in this case. if you enjoy Malick then goody for you. But, he certainly isnt everybodys cup of tea.
Sept. 4, 2010, 3:06 p.m. CST
fuck the haters.
Sept. 4, 2010, 3:15 p.m. CST
This intellectual posturing based on the output of one director is ridiculous. "What? You don't love the slow, mindnumbing boredom conjured up in the films of Terrance Malick? Why...you must be a knuckle dragging neanderthal!" Come on. Some of us think he's fricking boring. I enjoyed Howard's End. It's just a matter of taste, a difference of opinion.
Sept. 4, 2010, 3:17 p.m. CST
I dont know if a Fantastic Fest premiere carries quite the same weight as Cannes
Sept. 4, 2010, 3:30 p.m. CST
It's probably my favorite Kubrick film. Unlike Malick, Kubrick is telling a compelling story along with the deliberate pace and beautiful imagery. I watch it at least a few times a year. Still can't stay awake through a Malick film, though...
Sept. 4, 2010, 3:37 p.m. CST
Well its the emperors new clothes all over again. Just like most modern music. I cant stand it. Im told im a luddite but I dont care. Can you compare Lady Gaga and Usher to Led zepplin or Pink Floyd? its nopt that i dotn GET modern music, I just dotn like it. the melodies and lyrics are a joke, with rare exception. Movies are the same. THere are few directors that blow wind up my skirt. The guys who use to are either dead ( Hawks, Peckinpah, Kubrick) or have lost their edge, Speilberg, Carpenter, Tarentino. its really hard to get behind something these days that is of actual merit. I wont go to see a film just because somebody directed it. (escept maybe for Miyazaki) A lot of directors, Malick, Nolan, Zemeckis etc. dotn deserve a lot of the praise that they get. But, hype is a powerful weapon for those like to herd the sheepish masses.
Sept. 4, 2010, 3:40 p.m. CST
If you like Barry Lyndon and Ryan Oneal's painful attempt at acting, then go for it. I think Kubrick enjoyed getting bad actors (Oneal, Cruise, Kidman) under his control so he could fuck with them. He was a naughty boy.
Sept. 4, 2010, 3:42 p.m. CST
surpass Clockwork Orange, 2001 or Dr strangelove, or even paths of Glory, but there you go. hell even Spartacus was better.
Sept. 4, 2010, 4:07 p.m. CST
I saw someone mention Jarmusch earlier in this TB in reference to Malick, so I imdb'd him to refresh my memory of what he's done(love, love "Ghost Dog")... and, holy shit, that dude is fucking COOL looking. like, hilarious cool. he looks like Eli Roth if Eli Roth put his finger in an electrical socket. okay, sorry for seriously lowering the intellectual level of the TB, but I couldn't help it.
Sept. 4, 2010, 4:10 p.m. CST
My problem isn't so much with people who don't like Malick. Rather, there are certain words that get my blood boiling (and I may have overreacted just a bit...maybe). These words include "boring" and "pretentious," among others. To me they're lazy critiques for people who don't have anything interesting to say about a film the don't like. <p> As far as Barry Lyndon goes, I've always had mixed feelings about that film. On the one hand it's gorgeous to look at, but on the other hand I've always felt awfully cold about any of the characters in the movie. It's a triumph of form over character, which was always a line Kubrick skirted in his films. Sometimes his obsessive nature killed the performances in certain movies.
Sept. 4, 2010, 4:21 p.m. CST
you hit the nail on the head with your last line, rbatty. It really is up there as one of Kubrick's prettiest films to look at(John Alcott's photography of the interiors, in particular, is breathtaking)... but for all the depth and warmth that the visuals give you, the performances feel completely and utterly sterile. its a fascinating movie to watch, just to see Kubrick's obsessive nature working its way into a strict period piece, but ultimately I dismiss it as not much more than that.
Sept. 4, 2010, 5:35 p.m. CST
Well, I do find Malicks films a bit boring. I appreciate his visual elan,but sometimes I just wish things would start rolling! Barry Lyndon is nice to look at and the score is great, but just doesnt work for me. I hate ryan Oneal is almost anything and often wonder what the hell Kubrick was thinking when he cast him. But there are worst period pieces. Like Sofia Coppolla's vapid marie Antoinette. Kristen Dunst is about as bad an actress as you can get. and the put her in a period piece is even more laughable. JAson schwartzman as King Louis? Jesus! Where do these people come up with this shit? How about John Wayne as genghis khan? ooops that was already done. LOL
Sept. 4, 2010, 5:59 p.m. CST
I heard/read something about his brother being a struggling musician studying in Europe who eventually committed suicide. Something about broken hands? And Malick feeling very guilty about his brother's death? Geez, I really can't remember. Could be talking out of my ass. <p> Anyway, I still don't understand how anyone can call his films slow. He told more story and went throught more plot in The New World than most filmmakers could handle in an entire six-part mini-series. Every single scene conveys so much about the characters and the world they inhabit. I find his films quite dense, but very subtle. Maybe that's what annoys some viewers. He's not "in your face", like most filmmakers tend to be. Let's face it, subtext is very rare in cinema these days.
Sept. 4, 2010, 6:10 p.m. CST
you'd miss the point in a room full of big pointy things (irony is far more misused than notions, and their application, of profundity – at least the latter is subjective)... as for community college - 80% of students who attend such places do so for a lack of the readies needed for universities – tis’ g.p.a that counts. malik has never left film school - adaptation of the western canon has propelled his entire filmography - judging from both your tone & vocab, it's perhaps fair to say that you haven't read much of it - the fact is, if you find malik profound & 'poetic', you exist in a culturally poor environ - hated avatar, but there's more honesty in that 'dances with blue wolves in space' mess than there is in anything malik had made.
Sept. 4, 2010, 7:43 p.m. CST
I may have to get old and die, but at least I don't have to waste any of my finite days on this Earth viewing any of his boring, pretentious, absurd crap.
Sept. 4, 2010, 7:46 p.m. CST
Which is more than can be said for THIN RED LINE. For me, the moment of decision for ALL of Malick's work is the Nick Nolte internal monologue voiceover near the beginning of THIN RED LINE. That made me say, "This guy is a douche who thinks he has profound insight into life and the human condition, but really he's just a douche" and I will never come back from that. I can't watch a single frame of his work without thinking, "Fuck you, douche."
Sept. 4, 2010, 7:49 p.m. CST
incredible movie. the other ones, in my opinion, you have to have a certain taste for films. they can be rather tedious if your not in the mood.
Sept. 4, 2010, 7:51 p.m. CST
No, it's not. I'm quite sure I'm better read than anyone else at this site. I just have contempt for people who contrive meaningless word salads and maudlin nonsense in order to dupe losers into thinking they're "sensitive" and "profound". Anyone who would compare this dope to Kubrick for even two seconds has absolutely no idea what either guy was about. What the FUCK is the similarity? The way Barry Lyndon was LIT? Kubrick was a master craftsman with an unmatched ability to match STORY to THEME, and Malick makes up idiotic word salads like a third-rate poseur douchebag at a poetry slam. Except he does it with a camera. You know that scene in Animal House where John Belushi smashes the hippie folk singing poseur's guitar? I wish someone would do that to Malick's camera, because Malick IS THAT GUY.
Sept. 4, 2010, 8:11 p.m. CST
i personally think malick is incredibly talented, but his most recent films did come off like they didn't have much of a plot. i give him a free pass for badlands sorta like i give david lynch a free pass for blue velvet, eraserhead and elephant man. lynch's later movies also meander and almost seem like plot less self indulgent messes. that doesn't make him less of a genius.
Sept. 4, 2010, 9:47 p.m. CST
The ignorance in some of these statements makes me laugh. Ah, such feeble, childish thoughts expressed poorly. They stink of secret pain and pretense and emotional wounds that will never heal.
Sept. 4, 2010, 10:14 p.m. CST
Sept. 5, 2010, 2:52 a.m. CST
overinflated opinion of yourself. " I'm quite sure I'm better read than anyone else at this site." And just how the fuck can you know that oh 'omnicient' one? How in the name of God's holy trousers do you and your ego fit in the same room? You're as bad as CHOPPA, for pity's sake, and that's a thorougly revolting idea to comtemplate. <p> Piss off you git.
Sept. 5, 2010, 5:34 a.m. CST
I saw it as all about buddhism - attachment and suffering. Incredible.
Sept. 5, 2010, 5:48 a.m. CST
dad. I am not sure he liked it. and he was in the us army for 5 years.
Sept. 5, 2010, 5:50 a.m. CST
I fully agree with you on Marie Antoinette. Again, it's a well shot film, but the acting/characterization is so awful that it absolutely destroys that film. Before seeing the film I thought the contemporary songs would be interesting, but even those didn't seem to have a purpose. What an absolute waste. It's killed my interest in Sophia Coppola as a filmmaker.
Sept. 5, 2010, 6:07 a.m. CST
Yes adding modern music was a dare and it works in some films, but not here. What a waste of Versailles! Id rather watch the 1938 version with Norma Shearer and Tyrone Power.
Sept. 5, 2010, 7:57 a.m. CST
That is madness. I respect GDT a lot, but this I hope is a bad rumor. I know James McAvoy was on th eshrot list. He would be a decent choice. but Cruise? fuck me that is bad news.
Sept. 5, 2010, 7:57 a.m. CST
That is madness. I respect GDT a lot, but this I hope is a bad rumor. I know James McAvoy was on th eshrot list. He would be a decent choice. but Cruise? fuck me that is bad news.
Sept. 5, 2010, 7:59 a.m. CST
NO Tom Cruise in a HPL film. This must not stand!
Sept. 5, 2010, 8:37 a.m. CST
by Sir Nigel Lengthington-Smythe
Malick is a boring, overrated twat.
Sept. 5, 2010, 11:07 a.m. CST
... where people actually discuss films and not vomit insults all the time? Not trying to be funny here; I'm as guilty as anyone of falling for the troll trap. But seriously, is there a site where mature film buffs intelligently debate cinema? I'd love to know.
Sept. 5, 2010, 11:40 a.m. CST
and a stunning performance out of brat pitt? yeah fuckin right.
Sept. 5, 2010, 12:12 p.m. CST
there is some good debate here. oh sure there is some animosity at times, but there is also some lively banter and often some breaking news.
Sept. 5, 2010, 1:43 p.m. CST
+1 on johnnyrandom's comment Malick makes films for thinking adults. That's not to say you have to always like his stuff, but you do have to appreciate the craftsmanship.
Sept. 5, 2010, 1:45 p.m. CST
Head over to mubi.com
Sept. 5, 2010, 3:39 p.m. CST
I was not the one to bring up fucking library sizes here. You might want to look farther up the thread for the person asserting that no one who finds Malick boring can possibly ever have read a book. You know what books I haven't read? Any poetry written after Eliot. Yeah, including Ginsburg. Why haven't I read any poetry after Eliot? Because of fucking poets. The most contemptible people on the fucking planet. Invariably it's some asshole with absolutely no insight into anything at all, and no capacity for any activity other than wasting my fucking time and annoying me with their very being, who wants me to look at their slim volume of verse inspired by Jim Morrison or by their own abuse survivorship. No thanks. And Malick is one of those people who somehow learned how to point a camera. Hypnotic might not always mean boring, but in Malick's sense it always means affected, maudlin, warmed-over transcendentalist smack. He missed his calling - he should have run a yoga studio in a California minimall, right between a tanning salon and a fucking Quiznos.
Sept. 5, 2010, 3:40 p.m. CST
I was not the one to bring up fucking library sizes here. You might want to look farther up the thread for the person asserting that no one who finds Malick boring can possibly ever have read a book. You know what books I haven't read? Any poetry written after Eliot. Yeah, including Ginsberg. Why haven't I read any poetry after Eliot? Because of fucking poets. The most contemptible people on the fucking planet. Invariably it's some asshole with absolutely no insight into anything at all, and no capacity for any activity other than wasting my fucking time and annoying me with their very being, who wants me to look at their slim volume of verse inspired by Jim Morrison or by their own abuse survivorship. No thanks. And Malick is one of those people who somehow learned how to point a camera. Hypnotic might not always mean boring, but in Malick's sense it always means affected, maudlin, warmed-over transcendentalist smack. He missed his calling - he should have run a yoga studio in a California minimall, right between a tanning salon and a fucking Quiznos.
Sept. 5, 2010, 3:42 p.m. CST
I should post it 100 times in a row. Making you Malick fans read the same post 100 times in a row might begin to subject you to the level of boredom Malick subjects the rest of us to.
Sept. 5, 2010, 4:09 p.m. CST
You cna take out the inverted commas from profoudn and peotic, because there's no irony about that when calling that to a Malick movie. They are the real deal. If you can't appreciate that, then there's always alternatives, like the movies of Mickey Bay or Jar Jar Abrams.
Sept. 5, 2010, 4:13 p.m. CST
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? It emans absolutly nothing at all! What does chopped mean? To out-retard anybody else? Well, if so, then The_Choppah sure does that, to everybody. THE_CHOPPAH should change his nick to THE_RETARD_TROOL. Longer but much more appropos.
Sept. 5, 2010, 8:38 p.m. CST
I was using it as a shield from the light of the screen so I could take a nap. Got nudged once the credits rolled from a friend and I guess I was still so out of it I set my hat on my lap and forgot about it when I got up to leave. Still haven't seen all of Thin Red Line. God, I miss that hat...
Sept. 5, 2010, 9:13 p.m. CST
Sept. 5, 2010, 10:14 p.m. CST
Exact same for me. Surprised I haven't seen a Malik film (to my knowledge). Even more shocked I haven't seen The Thin Red Line, as it's obviously a classic and something I SHOULD have seen already. Will put it high on the NetFlix que. Oh, and Tree of Life sounds intriguing, so I'll probably see it in the theater...
Also, to whoever recommended mubi.com I just checked it out and would like to thank you!
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:25 a.m. CST
Now, I've officially heard it all! And Malick is God, much in the same vein that Kubrick was God.
Sept. 6, 2010, 11:12 a.m. CST
<p>...lash out at what they can't understand and otherwise interrupts their drooling. That said, the voiceovers in THIN RED LINE are comically overwrought, but got better around the time of THE NEW WORLD. BTW -- speaking of lost THIN footage, whatever happened to Mickey Rourke's excised sniper scenes? Will those make i back int the Criterion set? Credit Malick for bringing Rourke into his film, against all his backers' wishes, a full decade before Mick's offical redemption.</p> <p>TREE sounds dope as hell. I will see it. Yes. I will. Any you AICN Austin-ites think you can wrangle an interview with the reclusive Mr. Malick?</p>
Sept. 6, 2010, 12:42 p.m. CST
not to hijack the talkback or anything..but in my humble opinion Zack Snyder took a big greasy Taco Bell dump on one of..or if not the greatest novel of all time with an ending..that left me foaming at the mouth like a rabies victim..so if anyone should have made watchmen ( with Jack Nicholson as the comedian) it should have been Malick
Sept. 6, 2010, 1:37 p.m. CST
You can tell, by the opinions about that movie, which are the people who really love cinema, and the fools who only watch movies to see shit explode. And that's those who like and admire BARRY LYNDON and those that can't.
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:38 p.m. CST
by D o o d
what it comes down to is that did you leave the cinema with a lasting effect that was pleasant. Whether it be the story, the visuals, the action etc. So whatever you guys go away with from a Malick movie, I can respect. However, what I can't accept is when people seem to rave on about him like he's some kind of amazing director that just does not make bad films.<p>Just because a movie doesn't make billions does not mean it is void of any substance, HOWEVER, this rule also applies the other way round.<p>I did not just dislike The New World by Malick but I hated it. It was close to 2.5 hours of boring pain. I'm not saying that he doesn't know where to put the camera or how to get performances out of his actors. What I'm saying is that when it's boring then all that doesn't matter.
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:40 p.m. CST
Must see this now.
Sept. 6, 2010, 4:57 p.m. CST
I liked it, especially the masturbatory "Ultimate Cut" with the pirate comic, death of Hollis, etc. The problem is that I ultimately liked it because my sentiment was, "well, in other hands, that could've been a lot worse." Thats not exactly a glowing endorsement at the end of the day. I think its such a hard piece of material to adapt... the graphic novel is so dense, and so re-readable, that I think every person who ever picked up the graphic novel has had a different take on it. Hence, it had to be nearly impossible to adapt. Snyder's solution was to adapt it in the most visually literal form... it is practically frame-for-frame like the book--especially the Ultimate Cut--and just overflowing with visual nods to fans of the book. And while thats pretty entertaining to watch, its a totally hollow experience compared to the book.
Sept. 7, 2010, 8:13 a.m. CST
The last thing WATCHMEN needed was an art house director to change the whole damn comic. It would have been three hours of Dr. Manhattan on Mars doing endless narration on how everything is red and beautiful. I love Malick but no thanks. Snyder did an amazing job. I loved his Watchmen and the Ultimate Cut is a wet dream if your a fan of the comic.
Sept. 14, 2010, 4:44 p.m. CST
Seen it twice, about 10 years apart, and liked it even less the second time. I can handle slow-paced, meditative movies... in fact, I thought these moments were the movie's strength and the one aspect I enjoyed. What killed me was was a pussy coward the main dude was. By the time he caught his bullet at the end, I cheered. Soldiers like that get other soldiers killed. They should have left his ass in the brig, and saved me 3 hours of wanting to shoot him myself.