>starts with reading from the Pilgrims Progress >narrator

>has references to classical stuff
>therefour its good
nice logic u got there tbqhywf

>>64716911
This movie is a filter for plebs. Take it as such.

Malick's greatest kino

>>64717054
Be nice to the pseuds

>>64717054
He did not imply that connection

>>64716911
Tarkovsky used the better Verdi song in Nostalghia tbqf.

>>64717054
It just adds an extra layer of depth. The plebs won't understand what's going on, but I will.

>>64716911
You will never get laid as long as you remain that pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, virgin.

is this even any good?
is it worth watching?

>>64716911

Beautiful score/soundtrack, integral part of the film.

Wandering the city to "Exodus" now feels transcendent.

I want to rewatch it, but am gonna wait to support in in theaters.

>>64717870

Yes, it's brilliant. So yes, it's worth watching. If you have to ask though, it might not be your cup of tea, and that's ok.

>>64717811
>You will never get laid as long as you remain that pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, virgin.

Stop talking to yourself anon.

Has pseudo-intellectual become a buzzword?

>>64717870
It's some deep shit. Prepare to pay attention.

Definitely worth a watch though.

>>64718017
What do you know about me? Nothing. What do I know about you? You're a pretentious tool. Typical Malickfag who watched under 20 films in his life.

>>64717970
>>64718092
thanks, I typically like malick

would this be more like the tree of life or to the wonder (I prefer the latter desu)

>>64718065
No you're just insecure like all Malick fans

>>64718280
It's like a mix.

Styled after To The Wonder, but it's much more spiritual.

File: 1981902_754743557939427_6066363747022400234_n.jpg (38KB, 400x402px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x402px

>>64717277
>kino
>clearly cinema

>>64718280

Very similar to To the Wonder which I also love. While TTW's focus is love, relationships, this film focuses on losing oneself in the pomp and circumstance of Hollywood. Also deeply spiritual, a modern polemic or sermon.

>>64718395

You and your stupid reaction image. Give it a rest. Le angry statue man is corny as shit.

>>64718274
Whenever you’re feeling miserable, it’s always worth bearing in mind that some people are less fortunate than you are. Take, for example, Rick (Christian Bale), the angst-ridden screenwriter at the centre of Terrence Malick’s latest cinematic reverie, Knight of Cups. “I spent 30 years of my life not living it, but ruining it for myself,” he broods. “Where did I go wrong? I can’t remember the man I wanted to be.”

And it’s no wonder he’s so gloomy. The poor soul is handsome and healthy, and he is being paid a fortune to write screenplays for Hollywood’s top comedian. If that weren’t nightmarish enough, his writing commitments don’t entail any actual work, so he has to pass the time by strolling along the beach in his Armani outfit, usually in the company of his latest eye-meltingly gorgeous girlfriend. And it gets worse. Sometimes he’s forced to attend star-studded house parties, or to stand in the desert and gaze at the sunrise. He is even chased around boutique hotel rooms by models in skimpy lingerie. Where did he go wrong indeed?

All right, so Rick’s trials and tribulations may not sound especially punishing, but Malick wants us to take his chiselled hero’s existential crisis very seriously. Like his last two films, The Tree of Life and To the Wonder, Knight of Cups is an experimental, impressionistic collage which replaces most of its dialogue with fragmentary narration, and which abandons linear plotting in favour of woozy, elliptical montages punctuated by cryptic chapter headings. It presents itself as being more spiritual and profound than a conventional movie – and for the first few disorientating minutes, the viewer can go along with its own assessment. Soon, though, it’s plain that when Malick’s idiosyncratic methods are applied to an over-privileged California playboy, they don’t result in inspirational art.

>>64718431
>>64718341
awesome I'll have to check it out, thanks

>>64718274
>Knight of Cups continues his trend of shedding extraneous plot and narrative to focus on emotions

Are you fucking retarded? There is so much packed into this film. Literally every scene deserves to be paused and analysed for 20 minutes. The music ques, the visual symbolism in each action of the characters, the layout of the story are all there to convey a message.

>in this case the quest for enlightenment and the paradox of beauty

It's a simple allegory about the ideals of Bunyan outlined in Pilgrims progress.

>The sermon in the movie says that our now imperfect soul gets a taste of the higher existence it once knew whenever it is confronted with beauty

No, that is absolutely not it. I honestly don't get people like you who think that they can understand Malick without having read The Bible and Aristotle. The film can be easily understood with some basic study Christian Theology. You take a completely Atheistic approach and butcher his entire message. Malick would weep if he read this nonsense.

>>64718542
A hollow message, by a hollow white rich man with woe-is-me existential musings. Just because you think your message is good doesn't mean you can actually deliver it in a way that is convincing.

Not surprised that people on this board do not like this film. It's obvious with the amount of Star Wars threads regarding it as a masterpiece. It shows that /tv/ is stunned in emotional development and spiritual things.

>>64718742
HURRR WHITE RICH HANDSOME PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS AND GET BORED TOO

Great, but don't pretend your films are anything more than masturbatory trash then.

>>64718895
of but now

>>64718895
Calm down, you fucking autist

>>64718895
>masturbatory

cuute

>>64718695
Is this somehow supposed to prove me wrong?

My point still stands. You don't know what you are talking about.

File: 123546547648.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>he doesn't have a strong knowledge of The Bible
>he hasn't read Aristotle
>he hasn't read Aquinas
>he hasn't read Augustine
>he hasn't read Pilgrims Progress
>he actually thinks he can understand this movie

>A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Proverbs 18:2

>>64719090
>he posts pictures of frogs on a cantonese wood carvings board
>he sums up his thoughts through meme arrows
>he thinks his opinion is worth anything

>>64719154
what is board culture?

>>64719080
This is a valiant effort, but you cannot grasp the meaning of the film without having read certain parts of Pilgrims Progress.

Read about Vanity Fair and the puritan movement. You will then see

I can't believe he used Major Briggs' speech from Twin Peaks - fit perfectly though

>>64718123
There's nothing pretentious about Knight of Cups, you're just angry you turned out to be such a miserable failure in life.

>>64720253
At least I have better taste in films, you filthy pleb.

>>64720319
Whats pleb about anything in Knight of Cups exactly?

>>64720422
>What's pleb about Malick films exactly
You're a lost cause, keep posting trash in a vain attempt to impress other uneducated plebs like you

>>64720538
Yeah I knew you had nothing bad to truly say about it, who would? its the best film of the year, and you're too pleb yourself to appreciate it. sad

>knight of cucks
>6.1 on imdb
literally one of the worst films of the year

>>64719754
When does that scene play?

>>64720762
>imdb score
>meaning anything

of course critics and mainstream audience will ridicule it because they're absorbed into the machine

i just watched my first malick film last night.
to the wonder.
5/10

>>64720855
>I-I'm so much s-smarter than the c-critics
okay whatever

>>64718695
Do you think Malick believes this horseshit literally? That Episcopalian velociraptor makes me think yes.

>>64720960
>I-I'm so much s-smarter than the c-critics
not smarter but i can appreciate esoteric filmmaking that went over their heads

>>64719411
>wow a film with dual narratives and subtext, ive never seen that before knight of cups!
off yourself

>>64721091
If you can even begin to defend your position or why something is good and hide behind the "it just went over your head XD" argument, you should just jump off a bridge and never clutter post here again

>>64720960
Critics generally aren't particularly intelligent. Especially pop culture critics. Journalism school trains you to adopt the middle mind, the "popular" view that's mostly handed down from the managerial level of our civilization. And most of our cultural products and attitudes are unthinking to begin with. There's not much thought going on among our critics, and like most jobs, it's more about who you know and how well you can bullshit than what you know.

>>64721318
its has judeo christian subtext but is structured around the tarot card mythology, not that hard to figure out

Since crafting a potently polarising masterpiece with 2011's The Tree Of Life, Malick has become a man on a mission. A mission to stuff a movie so full of coded self-indulgence it seems like a perverse joke that has misplaced its own punchline.


The result is ludicrous self-parody - somewhere between a Calvin Klein aftershave advertisement and a coffee-table book about the modernist mansions of the rich and famous.

File: giphyb.gif (308KB, 255x235px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 255x235px

SIMILITUDE OF A MEME

>>64722218

How long did it take you to brew that in your ass?

Did Malick plagiarize Miley Cyrus? This film seems very similar to her song "The Climb"

>>64716911
any other allusions to literature?