Cool News
Behold Christopher Nolan & David Fincher bow before the greatness of Malick's TREE OF LIFE!!!
Hey folks, Harry here... got a busy film day - a pair of summer blockbusters and a big FANTASTIC FEST meeting, but before I leave the house, I had to share this. It's one thing to hear film critics worshipping a filmmaker that is known for being brilliant, but difficult for mass consumption, but when you have two filmmakers like David Fincher and Christopher Nolan. These two have a very obvious understanding of film on an incredibly powerful & commercial level. Now, they've sat down and given their thoughts on what it is that Malick does that no other filmmaker can quite emulate. It's really quite a sweet expression of love for another filmmaker that I genuinely wish other filmmakers would open themselves up to discuss and reflect upon the great contemporaries as they make difficult films to sell.
TREE OF LIFE is great filmmaking. A film that bores its way into your brain and in the month or so since seeing it, I have to say - I reflect upon the film often with friends. Can't say that about much of anything else this year. Though in a completely different way, I am going there with Woody's MIDNIGHT IN PARIS. Anyway, here's David and Chris... Enjoy...
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
Very nice though
-
I really can't wait for this film. I was in awe from the first time I saw the trailer.
-
and his films are about as close to cinematic poetry as you'll ever get.
-
He won't do interviews, but he can get others that aren't connected to his film at all to do it for him!
-
Can't wait. Although I've heard some people claim it's quite religous. A little apprehensive about that. Although it has dinosaurs and Hubble galaxy clusters. How religous can it be?
-
The key word there is bore. Malick...a cure for insomnia.
-
Part of me wants to stay spoiler-free, but the rest of me really wants to see the titular Tree first!
-
June 16, 2011, 10:37 a.m. CST
They could have made Substitute V with The Coke&Whore budget for this movie!
by SmokieGeezer
Bring back Treat Williams as Karl Thommason.
-
Looks like a work of art. One thing about Malick - dude makes great looking films. Color me interested in seeing this one.
-
June 16, 2011, 10:40 a.m. CST
Disappointingly no aliens, lanterns or hammers...I won't be seeing this
by marineboy
*psyche*
-
Get us your GREEN LANTERN review, stat!
-
I feel like this statement is redundant when used to talk about movies. The rest of this was really cool though, regardless of my lack of excitement for this flick.
-
This is exactly how I feel about Malick. His movies always have an emotional impact on me and his visual sense and style are jaw-dropping. I just wish Warner Bros would give us Badlands on blu ray so I can revisit all his films in HD
-
At least, I hope it isn't.
-
Most importantly it's unique. Also, I thought The New World was very good but this is the type of film I like to see from Malick - much more experimental, arty. If you don't like his movies really - do not bother with this. Also: It is not religious.
-
2:26 of scenes and of people gushing, yet not one solitary clue about what the heck it's ABOUT. Some of us do care about the PLOT of the film and it's kinda hard to decide when there's NO MENTION. Hello?
-
June 16, 2011, 11:41 a.m. CST
Malicks films arent for everyone. We all need a yardstick to judge people by.
by SydBarretsMyDad
Not liking Malicks films is mine. Who wants a drooling idiot sitting next to you while you try and watch something interesting. Its ok. They still have 2 1/2 men.
-
Getting a wide release and everything. I'm pretty shocked. I mean we get the big tentpoles, but I've been totally unable to see comedies and a lot of other indie flicks until they come out on DVD or whatnot. Though 'Super' is playing here at the Taipei Film Festival, and so is Submarine, but of course it's already sold out :(
-
trash the movie even if it was the most atrocious film ever made. When it comes to such talented big name creators who have been immortalized in the cinematic history and are widely respected by the critics and the cinephil audience,you simply cant afford to say negative words about their new film in the fear that you might be seen by the public as some kind of a pretentious prick artist who thinks he is more talented and makes better movies than the mentioned big name creator. Not that Nolan and Fincher dont express their real opinion about Malick's new film,i am pretty sure it kicks ass in all the leves.
-
June 16, 2011, 11:57 a.m. CST
It's the middle of 2011 and David Fincher still has a goatee.
by SnootyBoots
Does he wear baseball hats backwards, too?
-
David Fincher can wear Zubaz and snap bracelets for all CHOPPAH cares. Show some fucking respect. CHOPPED.
-
I don't see how this guy is brilliant but must speak to a lot of people somehow.
-
June 16, 2011, 12:22 p.m. CST
Stately, plump Harold Knowles came from the basement, bearing a jar of Vaseline on which a sock and a Sears catalogue lay crossed.
by THE_CHOPPAH
HAPPY BLOOMSDAY!!!
-
I love the way every movie the man makes looks but why does is always have to be glazed with depression? I think he's benefiting from what is implied by the aesthetic. His movies look amazing but the content I would say at this point is his major and crippling flaw. Both Fincher and Nolan also make incredible looking movies but they have the good sense to know how to make it all accessible and thus entertaining. <P> Its the opposite effect of Michael Bay with most viewers: they go to a Michael Bay movie hoping to hate it and will never admit they enjoyed it and will of course see the sequel whereas Terence Malick movies people go to see hoping to love them so they can rest assured they are in fact as smart as they hoped they were. Nobody admits they were bored to shit until they get online. <P> Somebody should just challenge him to make something that rakes in money. Sort of like the guy who sells a picture of a square for 10 million and you wonder if he could even sketch out Pikachu to save his life. I like to know this artistic vision is purposeful and holds significance and meaning beyond what I'm able to ascertain. To prove that though its necessary to validate that the approach is indeed a choice with reasoning. <P> To make it simple: I am confident Justin Lin could not shoot Tree of Life. But could Malick shoot Fast 5? If the answer is no to both then why are we sucking on the brainpenis of one and shitting on the other? They're both film makers with consistent vision and to be honest I had a better time watching Fast 5 than I did Tree of Life. If one makes movies to entertain and the other does it to be an artist without reason then both are completely even in terms of talent and accomplishment.
-
June 16, 2011, 1 p.m. CST
Seen it. It's pretentious self indulgent film making at it's finest. These directors yak about all the things directors yak about, mainstream audiences aren't interested in vanity projects or art house movies. They pay their money & want to be entertained
by Arkhaminmate001
-
well then count me out of the mainstream, then. because i am interested. and what people find entertaining is entirely subjective. I loved The New World, so I go into this with optimistic anticipation.
-
is really pushing me away from ever wanting to watch it
-
Mainstream audiences can go see mainstream movies with mainstream sensibilities. This isn't a mainstream film and it's not for the mainstream audience. It's for an audience who wants more than simple entertainment (a goal which most mainstream movies fail to accomplish anyway).
-
The film is basically the existential crisis of Sean Penn's character as reflects on his parents' differing & conflicting perceptions of the world and God within the context of his adult knowledge of the expansion of the Universe, and the evolution of life on Earth. Tree Of Life is extremely detailed in its portrayal of universal experiences the importance of which we tend to forget, such as the gradual loss of innocence every child goes through when they begin to realize the fallibility of their parents and that the world does not operate perfectly, with complete justice or in equal fairness.
-
But I am on the fence about Malick. The first time I watched Thin Red Line, I really didn't like it at all. But upon a second viewing and each subsequent viewing I really love it. I hated The New World the first time I watched it. I tried watching the Director's Cut to see if it was better and still hated it. Too disjointed for me. No story just randomly showing us bits of scenes with no context. Days of Heaven and Badlands were a little before my time, but need to go back and watch.
-
Actually, this is probably the least pretentious film I've ever seen. It's all about coming to terms with the humility imposed on us by the existentially shocking enormity of the Universe and the cruel indifference of natural selection and a planet prone to extinction level events.
-
you don't hear us gassing on about it
-
...This guy was a few months ago. But after watching several of his movies Im hooked. My question is how does he shoot such beautiful visuals?
-
June 16, 2011, 1:59 p.m. CST
Christopher Nolan is possibly the most exciting director in the world right now
by HelmetBoy
Like Fincher, he really knows exactly what he wants from a film and manages to translate that perfectly to his audience. Since Momento he's just got better and better. I love the fact that his brother writes a lot of the scripts too.
-
The expression "it's not a movie for everybody" aplies to a fault to this movie. It's not a movie for everybody. there will be hardcore movie geeks who will come out of this movie moaning and bitching and completly pissed off by it, and they wouldn't be the most idiots either. There will be a lot of intelligent hardcore movie geeks who will absolutly hate this movie. And there will be others who will love it and claim it a masterpiece. I'm a bit of the later group. Not yet wuse if i should call it a masterpiece, but it certainly is an unique movie. It will befuddle even those who liked it, like myself. not that i think i didn't got it. I think i got exactly what Mallick wanted to say wuith the movie. The message itself is not complex. It's profound but not complex. In many wys, the movie is pretty in your face about what's about. The difficult part of the movie is how it's presented. The movie is gorgeaus to look at. The trailer is a good indication, but it doesn't even show the best parts. The shots from nature or even from civilization are amazing. The other big suprise is that the mvoei is actually very fast edited. Rarely a shot last more then 3 to 5 seconds. However, the pacing is slower then usual. This mix of very fast editing but slow pacing will clash to most people. It's the main reason,i beleive, for the befuddling reaction many have, unsuspected to them. The befuddling that peopler will be aware is due to the part when dinosurs and the emergence of the universe shows up. but let me tell you this, special Effects Of Awesome barely describes the magnificence of what's on display. This movie has the best special effects of the year. Maybe even of the last decade. It's... undescritable. And it's basically just showing the start of galaxies, stars, planets, and the interior of cells, the human cell that eventually makes a baby. Seeing is believing. The astronomical stuff shown in the movie, both at themiddle point and at the ending, i immedialty understood what was about, since i'm a bit og a astronmy mgeek. The movie never bothers to tell you what's showing, you weithe rknow it or you go for the ride. The movie makes no concessions. Fro example, you only know the mvie is set in Waco Texas because you cna clue in by the accents or when the name of the city is shown obliquely from the name of a company in a truck. nothing is said outright. There is a narrative, but it's not linear. And evne in i's non-linear there's no aparent string of seqeunces. If anything, the ebst way to describe the movie is like a collection of moments, the present day stuff being like imrpssions form a day in life when one is at his job bout our mind is on other matters. The stuff fromthe past are like representations of bits of memories from long years past, and impressions of other people's life from hearsay. Much could be said about the movie. Or very little. It's a move to experience, but there's also food for thoughs. There will be intelligent people who will hate it. and there will be people who will love it. somehave called it the 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY of this generation. It's not a very good comparison, but i can understand why some would say that. Tonaly, it might be the best comparable movie out there, though it's also quite very different.
-
June 16, 2011, 2:03 p.m. CST
Two smart directors known to direct intelligent moviesd were chosen to coment about Malick's latest movie.
by AsimovLives
The reason they didn't asked for directors like JJ Abrams to do a coment is quite telling. Only intelligent directors can aply.
-
i really want to see it , but i have to prepare myself mentally for no traditional plot. its like going to a museum, one has to be in the art mode and not the passive entertainment mode.
-
June 16, 2011, 2:10 p.m. CST
akkosa,some even say the movie has no plot. Which is not entirely wrong.
by AsimovLives
-
just aim the camera at bright light sources...ALOT! and bang, instant arty farty cinema that some will deem legendary.
-
The Tree of Backlighting!
-
And alienindisguise, Terrence Malick is the real deal. He's not an artsy-farty director, he's actually really an artist of themedium. you migth not like his movies, and that's fair enough. Nobody is forced to like them. But to dismiss him out of hand and just go for the easy artsy-farty accusation is just wrong. You do not haveto likehis movies, but that doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. Give the man the merit he has.
-
June 16, 2011, 2:37 p.m. CST
and whatever lesn flares ther eisin TREE OF LIFE, it's from actual ligth sources, like the sun.
by AsimovLives
Instead of the CGI created flares by Abrams. There's a differnce in that.
-
You have to like Mallick's style. It's going to be boring to some. The new world was transcendental. The opening of the film was the most beautiful five minutes of any film I have ever seen. The ending is also brilliant. If you are the type of individual who is turned on by visual aesthetics, you'll likely like his work. He uses images and music to tell his story, rather than dialogue. If the images do not invoke a feeling within you...a sense that there is beauty in everything...and doesn't warm you heart, Mallick will appear as stream of pretty images lacking coherence.
-
June 16, 2011, 2:42 p.m. CST
You do not haveto likehis movies, but that doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it
by spidercoz
thou wouldst do well to heed thine own words irony, thy name is asimovlives
-
I agree completely with AsimovLives that the "formation of the universe/dinosaurs" sequence is magnificent. Trumbull is a god. I'd also add that I think one of the most affecting moments in the film involves the dinosaurs. Says so much about the themes of the movie. The more I think about this film, the more I like it. Again, Sean Penn's story? Not needed, for me. Otherwise, awesome.
-
June 16, 2011, 2:59 p.m. CST
Malick is probably the only current living filmmaker...
by Billy_D_Williams
who truly understands how to use cinema the way it was designed to be used...movies today tend to rely on very strict rules and specific guidlines to tell a story, mostly through dialogue and plot (which is pretty lazy IMO)...Malick comes at it from the opposite end of the spectrum, and he tends to start with the visuals and allows them to tell the story first and foremost, using dialogue and voice over sparingly, mostly to accentuate the narrative, not drive it...ever since I saw Days Of Heaven years ago I knew Malicks was pretty much the greatest living FILMMAKER, he really understands it more than anyone else.
-
I always heed my words. And since then this has anything to do with the pudrid shit made by Abrams? Abrams is not a talented filmmaker, so why does my words have any relevancy to him? Or do you think that JJ abrams stands in the same heights of Malick? You cannot be that daft!
-
Watched it recently. The first hour is still really good. But I had forgotten how much it descends into a big-budget A-Team episode by the end...rather dull extended shootouts with clunky editing. I guess that marked the moment where Sean Penn's destiny lay in movies that were more about action than the sublime, for much of the next decade. I was so hopeful when Megamind came out that it heralded the return of both Pitt and Ferrell as genuinely comedic guys. But it was a false dawn for both.
-
You really have to be a fan of the director. Oh what the hell, this movie will just plain stink! The costume looks horrible, too many liberties were taken with the characters and the plot will lurch forward badly. Here's how it will probably go down: It will basically start out with a few minutes in one place, a few minutes in another, a few more elsewhere, etc. You get the idea, and then all these separate incidents gradually and slowly lead to one single plot. MST3K's Pod People was easier to follow! Maybe a few good things about this: Sean Penn looks enough like Brad Pitt's kid should, but will be hampered by the lousy script and implausible plot. The culture shock he has returning home after too many years might be done fairly well, and the Hubble/God description reminds me of a cross between Freddie Kruger and Jason Voorhees. This movie could have been so much better set entirely in WW2 with the opening scene of Hitler screaming at his generals, "I could make that bellboy a better leader than any of you !" That is from the mythos of the genre. After the opening credits, we should see the process of Pitt/Penn becoming the hero who goes on to fight the religious undertones, what through most of the movie should be spoken of and referred to, but not seen. This movie will need that sort of impact, the indication of the sort of evil the Nazis represented, but as it is, it sounds like one big car wreck.
-
thank God for that.
-
You instantly jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. You have issue with him, I don't care. I just want to see you stop being an asshole to people who like movies you don't. It shows an unmitigated lack of class, and when you then turn around and say things like "You do not haveto likehis movies, but that doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it" you appear to be a galling hypocrite.
-
in BIZARRO WORLD
-
Its just Asi's MO. If you disagree with him, he instantly labels you a supporter of Abrams and/or Michael Bay. He has a very narrow, b&w narrative that he forces everything to fit into.
-
Is Zoolander. Just throwing that out there.
-
Thanks for the warning. Lived through it once, not keen on spending good money to see someone else go through it, thanks.
-
thing is he seems like a reasonably intelligent and thoughtful person in any other circumstance, he just can't seem to see in himself what he's so quick to pounce on in others
-
The term "visual filmmaker" is so loosely and often applied, but Terrence Malick truly is a "visual filmmaker." And I say that because he relies on the visual progressions, first and foremost, to tell his stories. Dialog, set pieces and actors all take a back seat. "Days of Heaven" is a perfect example... its a film that, at its core, is pretty simple: its a love triangle story that could come straight out of any given classic literature. But instead of explaining every single beat of the character emotions and plot developments in the love triangle, Malick does it solely with his visuals(as well as a very unique, often-metaphorical 3rd party narrator). And the results are stunning. Its one of the most beautifully shot movies EVER, but its also one of the most beautiful love stories ever, and Malick does it all while only using about 3% of the movie on spoken dialog. If you want to know whether or not you'll like Terrence Malick's body of work, just watch "Days of Heaven." For whatever reason Terrence Malick seems to be at the epicenter or perceived elitism in film fans, and I don't really get it. As Billy_d said, Malick really isn't some sort of over-complicated, self-fulfilling elitist auteur... he's the opposite. He's an old-fashioned director that strips an inherently visual medium down to its basics and delivers his stories in a way that harkens the heyday of silent films. I think another large reason for Malick's pariah status is the 20 years between "Days of Heaven" and "The Thin Red Line." When you have a guy deliver two stunning films out of the gate, and then disappear to France to teach class for 20 years, it brings a certain mythical status to him. And that status has produced an entirely divided fanbase(it seems you either LOVE Malick or HATE Malick), that I don't think he'll ever be able to shake. Alas, "Tree of Life" doesn't hit my neck of the woods until sometime in Mid-July. I'll be seeing it in theaters, certainly, and it will be the first Malick film that I've had the pleasure of seeing on the big screen.
-
You didn't need to, i know perfectly well what we were talking about, as anybody would who knows me in here.
-
I'm the least narrow minded person about moveis in here. I limit my detesting to just bad movies. You have issues with THE DARK KNIVGHT because it doesn't exactly fit with the exact image you have of Batman in your head. And others are even much worst.
-
June 16, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST
continentalop, and Malick's second favorite movie is DUMB AND DUMBER. So?
by AsimovLives
See? I can invent stuff up too.
-
I was certainly intresting. The beginning of the universe scenes, were great. It was like 2001.
-
June 16, 2011, 4:48 p.m. CST
fine asi, just completely disregard the point I'm trying to get across to you
by spidercoz
Do you even read anything past the subject line?
-
Yeah, and like Ol' Queen Victoria, i was not amused. But we can be cool again. I have no hard feelings toward you, just your words, which i believe were poorly chosen.
-
June 16, 2011, 5 p.m. CST
the_choppah, i can't predict how you will react to TREE OF LIFE.
by AsimovLives
I really can't. I think this is a movie which the reactions from the people who watch it will be unpredictable, even for themselves. I have first person experience of that. People who we think will hate this movie will liekit,a dn people who we are certain will lvoe it will hate it, or dismiss it as mere artsy wankery. Nothing is for certain about this movie. Everybody will praise the special effects, though.
-
I'd like us all to be civil, that won't happen of course, but we don't have to go out of our way to ensure it won't. Just ease up on the ad hominem is all I ask.
-
I saw some nods to 2001. Remember that shot showung Jupiter and it's moons? Remind me of the scene that showed the monolith before the stargate sequence. I'm certain it's not the only nod to 2001 in it. Funny enough, the trailer of TREE OF LIFE is actually very accurate to what the movie is. Including the editing style throughout he whole movie.
-
Harry Enfields 'Tim - Nice but dim' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJd842n0dhQ&feature=related
-
What ad homine attacks? On Abrams? I can respect any talkbacker in here, as i think i do own anybody that much. But on a bad filmmaker? Never!
-
June 16, 2011, 5:09 p.m. CST
anyway, the point is, TREE OF LIFE is not for everybody. and that might be an understatement there
by AsimovLives
But to dismiss the talent of Terence Malick is just... wrong to say the least. One doesn't ned to like this movie, or his movies, for wwhateve reason (a preference for faster paced mvoies, or example), to understand that he's a filmmaker of rare quality. His name itself is used to describe a certain style and way of filmmaking. How many other filmmakers have achieved such? Malick is an artist, and a damn good one at that.
-
Mallick appearently goes around quoting it. Ben Stiller supposedly even record a birthday card video for Malick as Zoolander.
-
Oh yeah, it's you Asi. You're the litmus test. I mean, otherwise we would have to discuss and debate and come to the conclusion ourselves. And you don't even begin to understand my opinion on TDK so spare me your attempts to explain what my "problems" with it are.
-
But no doubt he hires a mean cinematographer! Heck, even Spielberg's lesser films ("War of the Worlds" for example) tell a story better with visuals/dialog better than Malick's Hallmark card voice-over (first 10 minutes of War you already understand the back story of Cruise's relationship with his children and ex-wife.) No voice-over, no ponderous shots of wheat blowing in the wind. If I want a challenging, emotional cinematic experience, I'll keep waiting for Charlie Kaufman's next directorial feature...
-
June 16, 2011, 5:39 p.m. CST
But Malick doesn't need to tell a story like Spielberg
by david starling
The New World was a film that reached a point, and made you sit through every uncomfortable, ponderous turn until you reached that point, then left you gobsmacked. Just one example (and trust me, I had to pick a hard one!!) but of Malick's work, it strikes me that he doesn't want to be conventional in any sense. He's a breed apart from Spielberg, and he's an equal to Kubrick dare I say it. I look forward to the Tree of Life; and I hope I'll be blown away. I'm sure I will.
-
June 16, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST
It looks like an upscale car commercial with Brad Pitt in it.
by Margot Tenenbaum
That's my dumbass reaction.
-
June 16, 2011, 5:50 p.m. CST
Pretentious piece of shit, for losers who like to feel smart
by Nabster
The truth is, some of Maliks films work well on the big screen. The photography is ALWAYS beautiful, and this buttresses all his weaknesses. But if you watch any of his films at home, where the beautiful photography loses most of it's impact, his movies are quickly exposed as insufferable pieces of horse shit.
-
...disguised as a moron.
-
June 16, 2011, 5:51 p.m. CST
by continentalop: " And who is the judge or good or bad movies here? "
by AsimovLives
Stop with that. It's bullshit talk, and you know it. You are not making the point you think you are.
-
...shut your piehole, artless fool!
-
June 16, 2011, 5:53 p.m. CST
" Malick = total failure as a visual storyteller " I never see a more wrong thing about Malick then that.
by AsimovLives
As for the "he just hired a good cinematographer" argument, that's what all good directors do. What a non-argument that is.
-
The flip-side of that coin is that you migth need to be smart to feel for a Malick movie. How you like them apples?
-
Holy fuck. What an amazing example of, yes, visual fucking storytelling. The combat scenes that make up most of the movie's midsection are better than anything of their kind other than the opening sequence of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and Kubrick's war films. That's right. Terrence Malick is a better action director than anyone in Hollywood who purports to be one. And Malick doesn't set out to make action films. CHOPPED.
-
June 16, 2011, 6 p.m. CST
it would be funny if they were honest and were like "what was that boring horseshit?"
by HaterofCrap
malick... fucking lightweight.
-
Keep abusing JJ and Co (TM) at every opportunity. It's your calling and I can respect that. Plus, it's hilarious. But don't shit on people who honestly like (some of) his work, it's all a matter of taste and everyone's is different, for better or worse.
-
Pretentious hacks for pretentious people.
-
is one to be admired. The first time I watched it I was very distracted by the cameos that kept popping into the movie every 5 minutes and by the seemingly confusing voiceovers, but as I've viewed it more over the years--it's pretty damned stunning.
-
June 16, 2011, 8:15 p.m. CST
Not even a recommendation from the God Nolan will convince me to sit through another Malick film.
by Stuntcock Mike
-
June 16, 2011, 8:16 p.m. CST
In reality they cut to FIncher and he was asleep with a little drool hanging out the side of his mouth.
by Stuntcock Mike
-
I was blown away by the cinematography, as well as the fantastic acting, but the movie just didn't successfully communicate any of its ideas to me. Was the failure on my part or on the part of the movie? I can't really say. It's probably my second to least favorite movie of the year (after Sucker Punch), but that doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't recommend it. I am no slave to linear storytelling, and I have really loved some films that border on abstract (loved The Fountain), but I just don't get what Malick was going for here. Maybe I haven't seen enough of his previous films to appreciate it. Maybe I need to be a parent, or be religious, or have an estranged father. I don't feel like it's Malick's fault I disliked his movie. I'm glad he made it, but watching it felt like seeing somebody else's private session with their therapist, with both of them talking in a language you don't quite understand.
-
June 16, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST
'Pretentious hacks for pretentious people. ' Fuck OFF...Von Trier is not a piss stain on the other two
by quantize
you show you dont actually know pretense (ie purely 'for effect') from actual content.. you dumb shithead
-
Keep sucking the dicks of your pretentious heroes.
-
June 16, 2011, 9:20 p.m. CST
Asimovlives — Would you amend your critique of Malick to "Greatest living visualist"?
by blakindigo
Even though 'visualist' isn't really a word. More of a neologism, I think.
-
go fuck yourself you dribbling fucking moron.. yeh you read it dickhead
-
June 16, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST
Von Trier doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Lynch and Malick.
by D Ropaela
Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
-
June 16, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST
Sorry folks, TOL was not that good. I wish it were. It wasn't.
by Jerry Piper
It had great ideas but it was not well put together, did not seem to realize it's potential and the ending was ripped right from the finale of Lost.
-
Are you out of your fucking mind? Dislike the movie all you want but that is a ridiculous assertion. And if you think the ending was like the ending of Lost, you don't understand what you watched.
-
June 16, 2011, 10:15 p.m. CST
Can anyone explain Harry's second sentence in the "article"?
by onezeroone
"It's one thing to hear film critics worshipping a filmmaker that is known for being brilliant, but difficult for mass consumption, but when you have two filmmakers like David Fincher and Christopher Nolan."<p> Can ANYONE explain what he is trying to say here, to me it seems he left the sentence half finished.
-
Singh would be more revered as one of the top current visual stylists if he could get more than one movie per 6 years out.
-
June 16, 2011, 11:49 p.m. CST
Royston Lodge...Lens Flares?? You have no friggin' idea what you are talking about
by tritium
Arguably, some of the greatest images captured on film are from Malick's "Days of Heaven". It is kind of hard to get a lens flare when the vast majority of the film is shot (purposely so) after the sun has just set on the horizon. It is called the "golden hour" for good reason. Why don't you do yourself a favor, educate yourself, and watch "Days of Heaven" and try to count the number of lens flares. Come to think of it, I can't remember any overt lens flares in "Badlands", "The Thin Red Line", or even "The New World". And as far as I am concerned, it doesn't count when the cinematographer specifically is pointing the camera directly overhead to catch the dappling effect of sunlight (and the "heavenly beams") as they filter through a forest canopy. IMHO, that is NOT an intentional, and lens flare (a la JJ Abrams or Michael Bay), but a natural side-effect of catching sunlight as it pierces through a natural filter (foliage). Moreover, it is especially metaphoric in "The Thin Red Line", as it symbolizes nature struggling against itself. In this case, the sunlight is trying to break through the dense jungle, and is partly "strangled" by the riotous and chaotic growth of vines, branches and leaves that symbolize the smothering of light...or in the words of Private Train, "why does nature vie with itself". You know folks, Malick's films are NOT that hard to understand...you just have to open you mind and look at deeper meanings. I realize that this is harder to do in this day in age when almost every commercial film holds your hand and SPOON FEEDS you it's "message". But if you give Malick's films a chance to speak to your heartm mind AND soul, then I assure you that you are in for an enriching and "spiritualy" motivating experience. And although I must disclose I speak from a Roman Catholic perspective, I believe Malick's films "spiritual" nature are general enough to apply universally to all the Great Religions. And one final note, a previous poster commented that they were concerned with the perceived "spirtuality" or "religious" nature of The Tree of Life. I am a scientist, but also a person of Faith, and I find no conflict whatsoever between my belief in modern Science and my Catholic Faith. In fact, I find them wonderfully complementary. Even if one was agnostic (or even a dedicated atheisist), Malick's films are open for interpretation, and IMHO absolutely no one should be "threatened" or scared off by any spiritual sub-text that may or may not be intended by the Director.
-
hacks abound!
-
and it was just ok. its beautifully shot and there's moments of pure greatness but then there are moments where it just pulls me out of it. it wasn't terrible, it wasn't great, but still worth checking out.
-
Endorsements from other directors is a good start, since TREE OF LIFE wasn't intended to be commercially accessible (except for maybe Christians seeking 'a message'). It's a very conflicting, and aggravating, to see a film that beautiful looking and sounding which aims for non-linear impressionism and ends with a deflated narrative. I understand why Fincher and Nolan are talking up the imagery and immersion aspects.
-
...you're an idiot.
-
...Fincher & Noland? Hacks? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You don't know cinema, son.
-
a pretty film, but overlong and pretentious, and I utterly despised the tone poems... will I hate this?
-
It's the truth. Nothing they have ever done or will ever do will touch any of the classic of the past. It's all gimmicks.
-
I think that everything you didn't liked about THE NEW WORLD will be amplified in A TREE OF LIFE. In the end, it's your call. Who knows, you might suprise yourself and like it better then THE NEW WORLD. I don't even dare predict what anybody's reaction to this movie will be. People who love David Lynch movies migth hate this. And a guy who had nothing but a dietry of Michel Bay movies might watch it and get a revelation and turn complely off from the Bay movies and became a full on cinephile for art movies. I just really don't know how people will react to this movie. I don't even dare predict that.
-
June 18, 2011, 6:02 a.m. CST
chien_sale , yes, because Nolanand Fincher are too busy making the classics of today.
by AsimovLives
-
June 18, 2011, 6:03 a.m. CST
Fincher and Nolan make maisntream movies, but by no means they are hacks. Calling them that justmeans you know nothing of the definition of the word.
by AsimovLives
-
Thanks, that response actually has me intrigued about the film. I will check it out.
-
They make the movies they want to make, and most of those movies happen to appeal to mainstream. Nolan made the Batman movies that audiences didn't know they'd always wanted. Hence their success.
Top Talkbacks
- Has STAR WARS EPISODE VII Landed Its First Non-OT Cast Member? -- 325 total posts 27 posts
- Steven Seagal might be joining THE EXPENDABLES 3!! -- 180 total posts 27 posts
- Harry dives into STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS' spoilers to reveal the truth behind the blockbuster we're seeing! -- 1121 total posts 20 posts
- John Ary's Video Review Of The New CAPTAIN AMERICA (1990) Blu-ray!! -- 184 total posts 12 posts
- Very Funny Red-Band Trailer Makes A Profanely Convincing Case For THE KINGS OF SUMMER! -- 25 total posts 7 posts
- Trailer For Alejandro Jodorowsky's THE DANCE OF REALITY Is Filled With Hauntingly Surreal Imagery! -- 35 total posts 6 posts
- NBC To Launch This July 13-Episode Scripted Series SIBERIA, About Strange 21st Century Happenings At The Site Of The 1908 Tunguska Meteor!! -- 35 total posts 5 posts
- ‘Darkness Will Devour Them All!!’ Sunday Brings Antepenultimate GAME OF THRONES For HBO!! -- 308 total posts 4 posts
- Sean Penn In Talks To Join Increasingly Awesome Cast Of Paul Thomas Anderson's INHERENT VICE! -- 16 total posts 4 posts
- First trailer for A CHRISTMAS TALE director Arnaud Desplechin's next film, JIMMY P. starring Benicio Del Toro!!! -- 12 total posts 4 posts